What would it take for coal fired power plants to meet the recently announced EPA standards? Is it a matter of technology or cost? If some new technology were developed could coal again be used for power generation?
bedellWhat would it take for coal fired power plants to meet the recently announced EPA standards? Is it a matter of technology or cost? If some new technology were developed could coal again be used for power generation?
Much of the technology exists, both for use of coal in electrical power generation and as conversion to syngas or synthesized liquid fuel. One problem is that much of the 'clean coal' technology is proprietary and closely-held in engineering detail. This (as with the SDI in the '80s) has meant a field day for coal opponents, who can confidently claim that 'clean coal' is hooey because there's no field evidence that it works.
The particular 'fun' with the new rules is that most clean-coal technologies involve some additional fuel consumption ... and the carbon from this factors into the new EPA numbers. Clean coal that does sequestration involves a very substantial 'overhead' - greater than 30%, and probably much more if the equivalent of 'well-to-wheel' cost for the actual sequestration is included. Sure, there is a nifty market in the growing fast-food industry for some of the recompressed and liquefied CO2 ... but probably not enough to keep up with even baseline generation increase that would involve coal firing.
There are two problems with coal. The first is the 'gist' of the new teeth in the EPA regs, the idea that CO2 is a 'named pollutant'. There's no getting around that heat-engine cycles that use coal as a fuel will have a substantial carbon 'footprint' compared to others (the poster-child 'other' example being catalytic direct steam, which produces something like 11 molecules of steam at typical 'engine' superheat level for each molecule of carbon in methanol fuel). If there are absolute restrictions on carbon emissions, then expect to see 'cheaper' natural gas dominate even baseline electrical generation going forward ... until, of course, the squeeze goes back on and prices of gas spike up again.
The second issue involves the 'other' cleanliness issues -- the variable ash issues, the trace elements (sulfur and mercury being two popular ones), etc. Some of the 'pollution' standards in use for these are ridiculously low in terms of actual contribution to meaningful pollution of 'the environment' - one might compare the arbitrary NOx standard in Tier 4 Final that was only a couple of tenths of a percent more stringent than EMD could achieve for the 710 without SCR. I'm not going to argue that in some cases it's fine to demand the equivalent of the old Naderite call for a "pH of ZERO" -- meant in the sense of zero pollutant and not ignorance of science -- just that I don't like the idea of using unfunded mandates or ridiculous technical achievement as a quiet way to manipulate markets.
An alternative if you need 'pure' carbon for sequestration might be SRC (where a solvent like n-methyl pyrrolidone extracts just the carbon, leaving the 'rest' behind, and then allows it to be precipitated in fine powder form similar to copier toner. GM successfully ran a couple of Eldorados on this type of fuel in the '70s (!) and, of course, the stuff is a useful chemical or physical feedstock in a number of respects.
Underground CO2 sequestration, of a sort, has been going on for years in the oil fields. CO2 separated out from natural gas processing, is injected back into oil field formations to enhance oil recovery (EOR). So far the only large (110MW) coal power plant CO2 sequestration project to come on line is in Canada. It also is used for EOR. Since oil fields are not always handy to a power plant, there have been other projects to test sequestration in other deep geologic formations, however, so far they have all been small test projects. The following is an MIT database of various catagories with lists of these projects:
https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/
I have been casually following the technical development of carbon-capture-and -storage technology for a few years and what I read seems to indicate that nobody;including the vast majority of engineers working in the power industry, really believe it's feasible both for technical and economic reasons.
Carbon-capture-and-reuse; in other words using Co2 removed from flue gas to manufacture synfuels and other chemicals as detailed by some other posters in this thread seems to have some promise..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Perhaps, much to the chagrin of the enviros, the future of coal will change after the 2016 election.
(Flame suit on.)
Norm
The use of coal for electric power generation has declined primarily because of 'free-market' economics. Natural gas is very plentiful and cheaper for end users.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
A coal powered facility in Holyoke, Ma recently shut down completely. No plans to convert it to gas. Most of the time it has been in standby mode. Only came on line when required.
Used low sulfur coal from China. Major pollution for the area, even though they tried to keep it clean. I bike by it quite often.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
North Dakota's Dakota Gasification Company, which makes artificial "natural" gas from lignite coal, has been sequestering the byproduct CO2 for years and sending it in a 200-mile pipeline to the oil fields of Saskatchewan. See dakotagas.com.
At some point, the newly-plentiful supply of natural gas (which is what makes the new regulation possible without reducing electrical supply below demand over the next several years) will again increase to the point where cleaning up emissions will become economically feasible. The coal isn't going anywhere in the meantime (although the infrastructure to transport it might).
Some of these posts are startling. What is "degrowth"? Also, if the 2016 election were to result in a huge rebirth in the coal industry, how on earth would the country benefit in the long term? Many of us have grandchildren, do we not? Do you want them living in that world...while you're no longer here to answer for it?
The pure and simple fact is that coal usage is way down and going lower because it is the worst possible source of energy. Many of us have rationalized fracking (although I bet almost none of us live in a county with large numbers of waste injection wells; but I do) and as worshippers at the altar of Capitalism we have to recognize that oil is not only at near-historic lows but is likely to stay that way for quite a while. The renewables industry is growing and unlikely to yield to more filthy carbon, so......What on earth is there to like about or defend about the dirtiest, most unhealthy source of energy in the world? On what possible grounds? That the railroad industry will take the consequent hit? That it's somehow a plot by envio-liberals/socialists/communists, etc to kill American industry? Rubbish!
The point is that the "war on coal" is, as a NYT columnist noted the other day, actually more like a going away or retirement party. The age of coal is quickly coming to an end no matter how much some will miss it.
So far I've just dwelt on coal's uneconomic costs and its costly filth (by the way, I bet none of us live in a coal heated house, nor miss it; guess why?). But I'd ask coal's apologists to consider what the coal industry has done to Appalachia over the past 150 years. How much money (there's Socialism! again) has had to be spent on health for everyone in coal country? Black lung and low age expectancy don't come cheap!
Then think about what coal has done to politics and the common weal in those states over the decades. How degraded is the public trust in government or industry?
Nope. Sorry. Can't wait to see the end of coal. It'll save money, save lives, save the environment, save people's faith that there can be another way to live. By the way, did you know the solar industry in American currently employs twice as many workers as the coal industy?
So long, coal.
Darn, nkp you are spot on. Their is no plot, natural gas is cleaner, easier to use, has no storage issues and burns clean. Unfortunately for the miners and the railroads their no rational or economic justification for coal.
So long coal
NKP guy Some of these posts are startling. What is "degrowth"? Also, if the 2016 election were to result in a huge rebirth in the coal industry, how on earth would the country benefit in the long term? Many of us have grandchildren, do we not? Do you want them living in that world...while you're no longer here to answer for it? The pure and simple fact is that coal usage is way down and going lower because it is the worst possible source of energy. Many of us have rationalized fracking (although I bet almost none of us live in a county with large numbers of waste injection wells; but I do) and as worshippers at the altar of Capitalism we have to recognize that oil is not only at near-historic lows but is likely to stay that way for quite a while. The renewables industry is growing and unlikely to yield to more filthy carbon, so......What on earth is there to like about or defend about the dirtiest, most unhealthy source of energy in the world? On what possible grounds? That the railroad industry will take the consequent hit? That it's somehow a plot by envio-liberals/socialists/communists, etc to kill American industry? Rubbish! The point is that the "war on coal" is, as a NYT columnist noted the other day, actually more like a going away or retirement party. The age of coal is quickly coming to an end no matter how much some will miss it. So far I've just dwelt on coal's uneconomic costs and its costly filth (by the way, I bet none of us live in a coal heated house, nor miss it; guess why?). But I'd ask coal's apologists to consider what the coal industry has done to Appalachia over the past 150 years. How much money (there's Socialism! again) has had to be spent on health for everyone in coal country? Black lung and low age expectancy don't come cheap! Then think about what coal has done to politics and the common weal in those states over the decades. How degraded is the public trust in government or industry? Nope. Sorry. Can't wait to see the end of coal. It'll save money, save lives, save the environment, save people's faith that there can be another way to live. By the way, did you know the solar industry in American currently employs twice as many workers as the coal industy? So long, coal.
You people are all dreaming ... and if you were to depend on "renewables" for heating, cooling, cooking and cleaning in your house, you would be crying for relief.
After 40 years of coal cleaning up with scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators and more, the main remaining "pollutant," carbon dioxide, happens to be the building block of life. You exhale it from your nostrils ("original sin," as George Will calls it).
This supposedly heinous gas makes up 400 parts per million of the atmosphere -- less than one-half of 1 percent. Of which man, working as dirtily as he can, accounts for no more than 3 percent.
Take a step back from "settled science" -- which is far from settled, except in the media effusions of non-scientists -- and think for yourselves for once.
Fred, you make sense. To look at a part of the anthropogenic warming that is taken as "settled science," we can look at not-much-now proclaimed idea that as the oceans warm they take on more carbon dioxide, and as they take more on, they become warmer. But, one little thing that I learned early in my college course of chemistry (4 years of it) is hat as a liquid warms and warms it holds less and less gas. Has the universe changed so much in the last fifty years that liquids now hold more gas as they warm? Truly settled science (knowledge) declares that liquids have not changed.
Johnny
The media and politicians of both parties do not give nearly enough attention to this issue, the repetition of silly propaganda statements by some notwithstanding. 97% of real scientists doing the research in that field agree that climate change is empirically true and that is is mostly anthropogenic and is a serious danger.
Boys, all I'm going to say is this. Coal's been pronounced dead or dying many times in the past, but it just seems to keep coming back, for various reasons.
Watch, wait and see.
dakotafred ... Take a step back from "settled science" -- which is far from settled, except in the media effusions of non-scientists -- and think for yourselves for once.
...
Not only is the science settled, but the politics is settled now also. The Senate voted 98 to 1, that climate change is real. They also got a filibuster-proof vote of 60, to say that humans contribute to climate change.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230316-senate-votes-98-1-that-climate-change-is-real
MidlandMike Not only is the science settled, but the politics is settled now also. The Senate voted 98 to 1, that climate change is real. They also got a filibuster-proof vote of 60, to say that humans contribute to climate change. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230316-senate-votes-98-1-that-climate-change-is-real
Well lets be honest here about the facts:
1. Climate Change is real and Climate change happens from time to time.
2. Man has a impact on the micro climate via his activities on planet Earth.
When I attended the University of Wisconsin in the 1980's neither of the above was in dispute and both were openly taught without controversy or political correctness in the weather courses there. I think most people agree on one and two above and perhaps the Senate was trying to set a baseline with it's vote.
The controversy is in the belief that "man is solely or primarily responsible for global warming and that man can control it or impact the macro climate dramatically via artificial controls or choices in energy sources"
The latter statement or position is where the controversy is as it has yet to be proven scientifically. So yes it is highly possible that Coal is comming back along with other carbon fuels in that it is still a small minority that believe in the last statement above...........regardless of the recent Senate vote, which was carefully worded to exclude the controversial parts of the above last statement that man is primarily to blame.
CMStPnPWell lets be honest here about the facts: 1. Climate Change is real and Climate change happens from time to time. 2. Man has a impact on the micro climate via his activities on planet Earth.
Yes let's be honest.
1. You have misused or misunderstood the term 'microclimate.'
2. The empirical research of 97% of climate scientists supports the thesis that the warming trend of the past 100 years or so is primarily man-caused. Those are the only opinions that matter. Not pundits, not pols and not you or I, unless you are a peer-reviewed journal published researcher in the field.
And what was before the past hundred years or so?
The Little Ice Age
Widespread famine across Europe. 12 months of snow in New England. Norwegians driven from Greenland.
The level of credibility given to prediction is astonishing!
Is there a geologist in the house?
Gramp And what was before the past hundred years or so? The Little Ice Age Widespread famine across Europe. 12 months of snow in New England. Norwegians driven from Greenland. The level of credibility given to prediction is astonishing! Is there a geologist in the house?
Unfortunately you either only remember what the popular media reported 40 years ago (as opposed to most scholarly journals) or are simply repeating the deniers' half-truths.
More facts:
Ice age predicted in the 70s"Many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895."
In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.
At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.
By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.
The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of the papers of climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming. [from Skeptical Science]
A more comprehensive examination: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
Much of the disinformation campaign originated with a Koch Brothers-sponsored group (read oil special interests), the Heartland Foundation. Years earlier this same group was funded by Philip Morris to try to discredit the scientific consensus on the health hazards of tobacco.
Not a geologist, but took several very good geology and astronomy classes in college. The Last Glacial Maximum occurred 26,500 years ago with ice sheets covering huge swaths of North America, Europe and Asia. Approximately 19,000 years ago the glaciers started receding. But even that ice sheet pales in comparison to previous ones. And at one point tropical seas covered vast swaths of North America and the foliage along those seas, growing and dying over millions of years formed the coal beds of Utah, Wyoming, West Virginia, etc.
Read this US Geological Survey publication for more facts based on actual geological data:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/
The climate and earth is always changing. Homo sapiens are not in charge no matter what we do. For those who spend their nights losing sleep worrying about man's influence on the planet, better that they not think about the earth's orbit around the sun, as the planet is not on rails. Even the slightest deviation in that orbitary path will result in enormous changes in climate occuring very swiftly that we will have absolutely no control over.
Most people know very little about the massive changes in the earth's climate in earth's history. In the history of the earth, there is nothing to indicate its climate has ever been static, nor that the climate in the 21st Century or any other century is the optimal or final state.
Most of us are aware of ice ages, etc. Posting a few irrelevant facts from your college survey classes has nothing to do with the overwhelming consensus of scholarly research on topic.
Here are gathered in chronological sequence the most important events in the history of climate change science. (For a narrative see the Introduction: summary history.) This list of milestones includes major influences external to the science itself. Following it is a list of other external influences.
1800-1870 Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).
Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C.
First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.
1824 Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere. =>Simple models
1859 Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change. =>Other gases
1896 Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2. =>Simple models
1897 Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks. =>Simple models
1870-1910 Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.
1914-1918 World War I; governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.
1920-1925 Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energy.
1930s Global warming trend since late 19th century reported. =>Modern temp's
Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages. =>Climate cycles
1938 Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question. =>CO2 greenhouse
1939-1945 World War II. Military grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.
1945 US Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding climate change. =>Government
1956 Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for quick ice age onset. =>Simple models
Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere. =>Models (GCMs)
Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance. =>Radiation math
1957 Launch of Soviet Sputnik satellite. Cold War concerns support 1957-58 International Geophysical Year, bringing new funding and coordination to climate studies. =>International
Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans. =>CO2 greenhouse
1958 Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water. =>Venus & Mars
1960 Mitchell reports downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s.=>Modern temp's
Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and detects an annual rise. =>CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, peak of the Cold War.
1963 Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level. =>Radiation math
1965 Boulder, Colo. meeting on causes of climate change: Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of climate system and the possibility of sudden shifts. =>Chaos theory
1966 Emiliani's analysis of deep-sea cores and Broecker's analysis of ancient corals show that the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes. =>Climate cycles
1967 International Global Atmospheric Research Program established, mainly to gather data for better short-range weather prediction, but including climate. =>International
Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees. =>Radiation math
1968 Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically. =>Sea rise & ice
1969 Astronauts walk on the Moon, and people perceive the Earth as a fragile whole. =>Public opinion
Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks. =>Simple models
Nimbus III satellite begins to provide comprehensive global atmospheric temperature measurements. =>Government
1970 First Earth Day. Environmental movement attains strong influence, spreads concern about global degradation. =>Public opinion
Creation of US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the world's leading funder of climate research. =>Government
Aerosols from human activity are shown to be increasing swiftly. Bryson claims they counteract global warming and may bring serious cooling. =>Aerosols
1971 SMIC conference of leading scientists reports a danger of rapid and serious global change caused by humans, calls for an organized research effort. =>International
Mariner 9 spacecraft finds a great dust storm warming the atmosphere of Mars, plus indications of a radically different climate in the past.=>Venus & Mars
1972 Ice cores and other evidence show big climate shifts in the past between relatively stable modes in the space of a thousand years or so, especially around 11,000 years ago. =>Rapid change
Droughts in Africa, Ukraine, India cause world food crisis, spreading fears about climate change. =>Public opinion
1973 Oil embargo and price rise bring first "energy crisis". =>Government
1974 Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; scientists are doubtful as journalists talk of a new ice age.=>Public opinion
1975 Warnings about environmental effects of airplanes leads to investigations of trace gases in the stratosphere and discovery of danger to ozone layer. =>Other gases
Manabe and collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2. =>Models (GCMs)
1976 Studies show that CFCs (1975) and also methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. =>Other gases
Eddy shows that there were prolonged periods without sunspots in past centuries, corresponding to cold periods .=>Solar variation
1977 Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century. =>Public opinion
1978 Attempts to coordinate climate research in US end with an inadequate National Climate Program Act, accompanied by rapid but temporary growth in funding. =>Government
1979 Second oil "energy crisis." Strengthened environmental movement encourages renewable energy sources, inhibits nuclear energy growth. =>Public opinion
US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming. =>Models (GCMs)
World Climate Research Programme launched to coordinate international research. =>International
1981 Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement to power. Political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming. =>Government
IBM Personal Computer introduced. Advanced economies are increasingly delinked from energy.
Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, raising confidence in models showing future greenhouse warming. =>Aerosols
Some scientists predict greenhouse warming "signal" should be visible by about the year 2000. =>Modern temp's
1982 Greenland ice cores reveal drastic temperature oscillations in the space of a century in the distant past. =>Rapid change
Strong global warming since mid-1970s is reported, with 1981 the warmest year on record. =>Modern temp's
1983 Reports from US National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Protection Agency spark conflict, as greenhouse warming becomes prominent in mainstream politics. =>Government
1985 Ramanathan and collaborators announce that global warming may come twice as fast as expected, from rise of methane and other trace greenhouse gases.=>Other gases
Villach Conference declares consensus among experts that some global warming seems inevitable, calls on governments to consider international agreements to restrict emissions.=>International
Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 and temperature went up and down together through past ice ages, pointing to powerful biological and geochemical feedbacks. =>CO2
Broecker speculates that a reorganization of North Atlantic Ocean circulation can bring swift and radical climate change. =>The oceans
1987 Montreal Protocol of the Vienna Convention imposes international restrictions on emission of ozone-destroying gases. =>International
1988 News media coverage of global warming leaps upward following record heat and droughts plus testimony by Hansen. =>Public opinion
Toronto conference calls for strict, specific limits on greenhouse gas emissions; UK Prime Minister Thatcher is first major leader to call for action. =>International
Ice-core and biology studies confirm living ecosystems give climate feedback by way of methane, which could accelerate global warming. =>Other gases
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is established. =>International
1989 Fossil-fuel and other U.S. industries form Global Climate Coalition to tell politicians and the public that climate science is too uncertain to justify action. =>Public opinion
1990 First IPCC report says world has been warming and future warming seems likely. =>International
1991 Mt. Pinatubo explodes; Hansen predicts cooling pattern, verifying (by 1995) computer models of aerosol effects. =>Aerosols
Global warming skeptics claim that 20th-century temperature changes followed from solar influences. (The solar-climate correlation would fail in the following decade.) =>Solar variation
Studies from 55 million years ago show possibility of eruption of methane from the seabed with enormous self-sustained warming. =>Rapid change
1992 Conference in Rio de Janeiro produces UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but US blocks calls for serious action. =>International
Study of ancient climates reveals climate sensitivity in same range as predicted independently by computer models. =>Models (GCMs)
1993 Greenland ice cores suggest that great climate changes (at least on a regional scale) can occur in the space of a single decade. =>Rapid change
1995 Second IPCC report detects "signature" of human-caused greenhouse effect warming, declares that serious warming is likely in the coming century. =>International
Reports of the breaking up of Antarctic ice shelves and other signs of actual current warming in polar regions begin affecting public opinion. =>Public opinion
1997 Toyota introduces Prius in Japan, first mass-market electric hybrid car; swift progress in large wind turbines and other energy alternatives.
International conference produces Kyoto Protocol, setting targets for industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if enough nations sign onto a treaty (rejected by US Senate in advance). =>International
1998 A "Super El Niño" makes this an exceptionally warm year, equaled in later years but not clearly exceeded until 2014. Borehole data confirm extraordinary warming trend. =>Modern temp's
Qualms about arbitrariness in computer models diminish as teams model ice-age climate and dispense with special adjustments to reproduce current climate. =>Models (GCMs)
1999 Criticism that satellite measurements show no warming are dismissed by National Academy Panel. =>Modern temp's
Ramanathan detects massive "brown cloud" of aerosols from South Asia. =>Aerosols
2000 Global Climate Coalition dissolves as many corporations grapple with threat of warming, but oil lobby convinces US administration to deny problem. =>Public opinion
Variety of studies emphasize variability and importance of biological feedbacks in carbon cycle, liable to accelerate warming. =>Biosphere
2001 Third IPCC report states baldly that global warming, unprecedented since the end of the last ice age, is "very likely," with highly damaging future impacts =>Impacts and possible severe surprises. Effective end of debate among all but a few scientists. =>International
Bonn meeting, with participation of most countries but not US, develops mechanisms for working towards Kyoto targets. =>International
National Academy panel sees a "paradigm shift" in scientific recognition of the risk of abrupt climate change (decade-scale). =>Rapid change
Warming observed in ocean basins; match with computer models gives a clear signature of greenhouse effect warming. =>Models (GCMs)
2002 Studies find surprisingly strong "global dimming," due to pollution, has retarded arrival of greenhouse warming, but dimming is now decreasing. =>Aerosols
2003 Numerous observations raise concern that collapse of ice sheets (West Antarctica, Greenland) can raise sea levels faster than most had believed. =>Sea rise & ice
Deadly summer heat wave in Europe accelerates divergence between European and US public opinion. =>Public opinion
2004 First major books, movie and art work featuring global warming appear. =>Public opinion
2005 Kyoto treaty goes into effect, signed by major industrial nations except US. Work to retard emissions accelerates in Japan, Western Europe, US regional governments and corporations . =>International
Hurricane Katrina and other major tropical storms spur debate over impact of global warming on storm intensity. =>Sea rise & ice
2006 In longstanding "hockey stick" controversy, scientists conclude post-1980 global warming was unprecedented for centuries or more. =>Modern temp's The rise could not be attributed to changes in solar energy. =>Solar variation
"An Inconvenient Truth" documentary persuades many but sharpens political polarization. =>Public opinion
2007 Fourth IPCC report warns that serious effects of warming have become evident; cost of reducing emissions would be far less than the damage they will cause. =>International
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and Arctic Ocean sea-ice cover found to be shrinking faster than expected.=>Sea rise & ice
2008 Climate scientists (although not the public) recognize that even if all greenhouse gas emissions could be halted immediately, global warming will continue for millennia.=>CO2
2009 Many experts warn that global warming is arriving at a faster and more dangerous pace than anticipated just a few years earlier. =>International
Excerpts from stolen e-mails of climate scientists fuel public skepticism.=>Public opinion
Copenhagen conference fails to negotiate binding agreements: end of hopes of avoiding dangerous future climate change. =>International
2012
Controversial "attribution" studies find recent disastrous heat waves, droughts, extremes of precipitation, and floods were made worse by global warming. =>Impacts
2013
An apparent pause or "hiatus" in global warming of the atmosphere since 1998 is discussed and explained; the atmosphere is still warming, and the oceans have continued to get rapidly warmer. =>Modern temp's
Mean global temperature is 14.6°C, the warmest in thousands of years.
Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 397 ppm, the highest in millions of years.
schlimm1. You have misused or misunderstood the term 'microclimate.'
You gathered that from one sentence with no other questions? ESP? Man's impact on micro climate has been proven as the example with heat islands within major cities caused by artificial surfaces and heat retention / radiation. Hard to confuse Micro Climate with Macro Climate........no idea what they teach in flatlander country that makes you think the two terms can be easily confused.
No such consensus exists. In fact if you applied any critical thinking to the above statement instead of just blindly accepting it you could probably figure out the problem is the word "primarily" and the lack of evidence there outside of models and theories. If the word "contributing" was used in it's place.......possibly less of an extremist statement.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
Whatever though we are not going to settle this in a railroad forum. You can believe the myth......I will wait for the proof, which is still yet to be produced.
Sounds like a lot of us are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic and stay friends at the same time.
Let me say this: If you think the air and water are dirty now, then you don't remember what it was like 50 years ago, or you weren't there like I was. Things are a hell of a lot better now than they were then, trust me.
And then there's China, where you can cut the air with a knife and make like Jesus and walk on water, and they don't care, everyones got a job and the money's rolling in. And no-one can make them do anything about it either.
Moral of the story is, we can beat our breasts and wear sackcloth and ashes about global warming but other nations beyond our control don't care, especially when it affects their economies. Just the way it is.
Firelock76Moral of the story is, we can beat our breasts and wear sackcloth and ashes about global warming but other nations beyond our control don't care, especially when it affects their economies. Just the way it is.
[from Wanswheel above] "Mean global temperature is 14.6°C, the warmest in thousands of years.
Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 397 ppm, the highest in millions of years."
We can do nothing or tend to our own situation, setting an example. And more and more folks in China, including the millionaires with influence are demanding controls on pollution. And yes, I remember how carbon particles in the air from coal smoke was dirty and bad, but we are talking about invisible CO2 levels which endanger our livable climate.
CMStPnPschlimm 1. You have misused or misunderstood the term 'microclimate.' You gathered that from one sentence with no other questions? ESP? Man's impact on micro climate has been proven as the example with heat islands within major cities caused by artificial surfaces and heat retention / radiation. Hard to confuse Micro Climate with Macro Climate........no idea what they teach in flatlander country that makes you think the two terms can be easily confused.
No, I understand the difference quite well. Yes, heat islands are often man-made microclimates. There are also microclimates that occur naturally, such as Minau or the Kaiserstuhl. But man has been by far the dominant cause of the warming (as opposed to recent natural events that towards cooling effects) and other changes measured in our global macroclimate. That is the topic at hand.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.