Two interesting studies. here's the first. http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sciencetech/homepage/article_1660665.php [rquoter]Ethanol may cause more smog, more deaths, study says By SETH BORENSTEIN The Associated Press WASHINGTON – Switching from gasoline to ethanol _ touted as a green alternative at the pump – may create dirtier air, causing slightly more smog-related deaths, a new study says. Nearly 200 more people would die yearly from respiratory problems if all vehicles in the United States ran on a mostly ethanol fuel blend by 2020, the research concludes. Of course, the study author acknowledges that such a quick and monumental shift to plant-based fuels is next to impossible. Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles. "It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds. It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse." His study, based on a computer model, is published in Wednesday's online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology and adds to the messy debate over ethanol. Farmers, politicians, industry leaders and environmentalists have clashed over just how much ethanol can be produced, how much land it would take to grow the crops to make it, and how much it would cost. They also disagree on the benefits of ethanol in cutting back fuel consumption and in fighting pollution, especially global warming gases. In January, President Bush announced a push to reduce gas consumption by 20 percent over 10 years by substituting alternative fuels, mainly ethanol. Scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that could mean about a 1 percent increase in smog. Jacobson's study troubles some environmentalists, even those who work with him. Roland Hwang of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that ethanol, which cuts one of the key ingredients of smog and produces fewer greenhouse gases, is an important part of reducing all kinds of air pollution. Jacobson's conclusion "is a provocative concept that is not workable," said Hwang, an engineer who used to work for California's state pollution control agency. "There's nothing in here that means we should throw away ethanol." And Matt Hartwig, spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, the largest Washington ethanol lobby group, said other research and real-life data show "ethanol is a greener fuel than gasoline." But Jacobson found that depends on where you live, with ethanol worsening the ozone problem in most urban areas. Based on computer models of pollution and air flow, Jacobson predicted that the increase in ozone _ and diseases it causes _ would be worst in areas where smog is already a serious problem: Los Angeles and the Northeast. Most of those projected 200 deaths would be in Los Angeles, he says, and the only place where ozone would fall is the Southeast because of the unique blend of chemicals in the air and the heavy vegetation. The science behind why ethanol might increase smog is complicated, but according to Jacobson, part of the explanation is that ethanol produces more hydrocarbons than gasoline. And ozone is the product of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide cooking in the sun. Also, the ethanol produces longer-lasting chemicals that eventually turn into hydrocarbons that can travel farther. "You are really spreading out pollution over a larger area," he said. And finally, while ethanol produces less nitrogen oxide, that can actually be a negative in some very smoggy places. When an area like Los Angeles reaches a certain high level of nitrogen oxide, that excess chemical begins eating up spare ozone, Jacobson said. Hwang agreed that that is a "well-known effect." While praising Jacobson as one of the top atmospheric chemists in the nation, Hwang said he had problems with some of Jacobson's assumptions, such as an entire switch to ethanol by 2020. Also, he said that the ozone difference that Jacobson finds is so small that it may be in the margin of error of calculations. Jacobson is also ignoring that ethanol _ especially the kind made from cellulose, like switchgrass _ reduces greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. And global warming will increase smog and smog-related deaths, an international scientific panel just found this month, Hwang said.[/rquoter]
and the second, from the economist: http://economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8998216 [rquoter]A new tree line Apr 12th 2007 From The Economist print edition A climate model suggests that chopping down the Earth's trees would help fight global warming TREES are good. Good enough to hug. Trees have a nifty biochemical strategy called photosynthesis that enables them to take carbon dioxide in through their leaves, and swap that nasty gas for oxygen, a nice one. They use the carbon thus sequestered to make molecules like cellulose, and thus more tree. That is why some rich people who love to burn things containing carbon, such as petrol and aircraft fuel, have recently started paying others to plant trees on their behalf. Burning adds oxygen to carbon, making carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide makes the world warmer. A warmer world will mean higher sea levels. So if people burn things without offsetting the carbon dioxide thus produced, their holidays in the Maldive islands will disappear, along with the islands themselves. This chattering-class environmental picture is not necessarily wrong, but it does include many assumptions. One of them, that planting trees will make the world cooler than it would otherwise be, is the subject of a newly published study by Govindasamy Bala, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California, and his colleagues. Dr Bala has found, rather counter-intuitively, that removing all of the world's trees might actually cool the planet down. Conversely, adding trees everywhere might warm it up. Clearcut cooling The reason for this is that trees affect the world's temperature by means other than the carbon they sequester. For instance forests, being generally green and bristly things, remain quite a dark shade even after a blizzard. They are certainly darker than grasslands smothered in snow, and thus they can absorb more of the sun's heat than vegetation which might otherwise cover the same stretch of land. That warms things up. Transpiration—the process by which plants suck up groundwater and evaporate it into the atmosphere—is another and opposite matter. Woodlands are usually better than other ecosystems at getting water vapour into the air. In warm places this tends to make things cloudier, and those clouds, in turn, reflect the sun's heat back into space. That cools things down. Dr Bala and his colleagues took such effects into account using a computer model called the Integrated Climate and Carbon Model. Unlike most climate-change models, which calculate how the Earth should absorb and radiate heat in response to a list of greenhouse-gas concentrations, this one has many subsections that represent how the carbon cycle (photosynthesis and its consequences) works, and how it influences the climate. Thus, Dr Bala's model can be told to replace all the world's forests with shrubby grasslands, and left alone to work out how such a change would alter greenhouse-gas concentrations and how that, in turn, would influence the temperature in different places. When Dr Bala ordered global clearcutting, the model calculated that the atmosphere's carbon-dioxide levels would roughly double by 2100. This is a much greater increase than happens in a business-as-usual simulation, but it would, paradoxically, make for a colder planet. That is because brighter high latitudes would reflect more sunlight in winter, cooling the local environment by as much as 6°C. The tropics would warm up, since they would be less cloudy, but not by enough to produce a net global heat gain. Overall, Dr Bala's model suggests that complete deforestation would cause an additional 1.3°C temperature rise compared with business as usual, because of the higher carbon-dioxide levels that would result. However, the additional reflectivity of the planet would cause 1.6°C of cooling. A treeless world would thus, as he reports in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, be 0.3°C cooler than otherwise. No one, of course, would consider chopping down the world's forests to keep the planet cool. But having made their point, Dr Bala and his colleagues then went on to look at the nuances of forest growth and loss at different latitudes. In Russia and Canada, cutting trees down led mostly to local cooling. The carbon dioxide this released into the atmosphere, though, warmed the world all over. Around the equator, by contrast, warming acted locally (as well as globally), so a tropical country would experience warming that it, itself, created by cutting down trees. Whether that will be enough to entice those countries to prefer rainforests to ranches is another matter. One thing that might persuade them would be if rich people with a fondness for burning things started paying them to do so. Carbon-offset outfits should take note of Dr Bala's paper. Planting trees in convenient places such as Europe and North America may actually be counterproductive. Instead, in an environmental two-for-one, it is the rainforests that need bolstering.[/rquoter]
Ethanol and bio-fuels are a transitory technology since they still fuel internal combustion but as the article noted: So there is still a benefit to switching to renewable bio-fuels from fossil fuels. In regard to the second article its true that high latitude areas with more snow cover do reflect more heat back out into space leading to local cooling but as the article noted their is a complicated tradeoff in regard to how much carbon is put into the atmosphere from clear cutting and clear cutting in tropical regions provides no benefit in reflecting heat.
And we can always depend on Mother Nature to only give us those nice, harmless, puffy little clouds. She would never put them together in an unstable atmosphere would she?
If you would like the proof that this is not the case, I can provide you journal articles. The sun has caused some climate variations. For instance the Little Ice Age was caused by a cyclical reduction is sunspot frequency called the Maunder Minimum, but extensive analysis of the sun has shown current variability in the sun accounts for a negligible effect on climate.
really??? i need some help with this. because, though i'm no scientist, i certainly would consider the Little Ice Age more than "negligible effect." particularly if i were alive in that day and time. was the Little Ice Age not MORE of a change than what we've experienced with warming temps?
suns = sun is... thats a little texas grammar there. but when i need a proof-reader youll be the first one i call.
Sorry. I just saw this post when it got bumped again. The answer is no. The little ice age was a change of about .2 to .3 degrees Celsius over about 150-200 years. Current changes are about .7 degrees Celsius over about 30 years. But the point I was trying to make is that the irradiance of the sun on the earth changed for the little ice age because of this sunspot cycle. There is no comparable change in solar irradiance for the current period. When the output of the sun changes it can affect the climate, but the output at the moment is relatively steady. When I said 'negligible effect' I was talking about this negligible change in the sun for the current period.
the tree cuttting thing is not exactly a new phenomenon - surface albedo is a well known phenomenon. However the principal argument about deforestation has nothing to do with global warmng - it long predates that. It has to do with wrecking forest ecologies, soil erosion (which causes devestating floods), desertification etc. And one thing that these guys did not factor into their model is the additional greenhouse gases that would be produced if you turned a rain forest into a parking lot - which would have more surface albedo - yet secondarily would promote more cars, etc. which would on a net basis probably destroy any temperature reductions Honestly the fact that this causes GW deniers like basso to do a touchdown dance is kind of pathetic.
hmm. ive seen articles recently talking about how the sun is indeed heating up - more sunspot and solar flare activity, which is having a major impact on "global warming". add to that that the sun itself is getting brighter. and 2012 is right around the corner - maybe those mayans were onto something. theres plenty or articles out there, but ill just throw this one into the mix... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm Global warming may not be caused by humanity's fossil fuel emissions, but could be due to changes in the Sun. Research suggests that the magnetic flux from the Sun more than doubled this century. As solar magnetism is closely linked with sunspot activity and the strength of sunlight reaching Earth, the increase could have produced warming in the global climate. The evidence for an increasingly energetic Sun comes from a new analysis of the magnetic field between the planets, carried out by scientists at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Oxford, UK. This magnetic field is caused by the Solar Wind, a stream of particles given off by the Sun which fills the solar system. The scientists produce evidence that since 1964 the interplanetary magnetic field has increased in strength by 40%. Evidence from before the space age suggests that the magnetic field is 2.3 times stronger than it was in 1901. Scientists do not doubt that the increased magnetic field results from a more energetic Sun. Their problem is that the effect of these increases on the Earth is unknown. The research is published in Nature and in the same journal Professor Eugene Parker, of the Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research, University of Chicago, comments that it could explain global warming. He notes that the increased solar activity has occurred in parallel with an increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. And it may not be a coincidence, he says. Professor Parker suggests that the Sun's increased activity caused the Earth's global temperature to rise and that in turn warmed the oceans. Warmer oceans absorb less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So a warmer Earth has more of the so-called greenhouse gases. Humanity's burning of fossil fuels may therefore not be the cause of global warming. Professor Parker adds that that more research must be done about the Sun's role in global warming before drastic action is taken here on Earth. "It is essential to check to what extent the facts support these conclusions before embarking on drastic, perilous and perhaps misguided plans for global action," he says. Measurements of the magnetic field are not the only evidence for the Sun's variable influence on the Earth. The planet went through a "little ice age" during the 17th Century, at a time when very few sunspots appeared on the surface of the Sun. And the so-called "medieval maximum" was a period of warmer than average global weather in the 12th Century. Astronomers believe that the Sun was slightly brighter at that time.
The first thing I would say is that your article was published in 1999. Many people in the article talk about 'It is essential to check to what extent the facts support these conclusions ' they have been checked and proven wrong. The paper also talks about the MCO - the Medieval Maximum, which has since been fairly well documented to be a non-global even, only a European event. Anything older than about 2001-2002 is outdated. That's when money started to gush in to the field, so that much more extensive research has been possible since then. The main proponents of a solar flux theory are a pair of Danish scientists who it turns out altered their data. This paper appeared in EOS magazine in 2004. The authors never retracted their data but have since come up with a couple of other theories which directly contradict their solar forcing theory. more proof more proof
im far from an expert in the field, but i can provide more recent articles if the 1999 is too outdated for your tastes. again, im not an expert or really even that knowledgeable in this area, but i have read quite a bit of info from people who are. i have frequently heard/read that humans only account for 6-10% of global warming - the rest is the sun and natural occurrences - and even of that 6-10%, the vast majority is corporate pollution (factories, refineries, ect). and the solution of people like al gore is to hit up the average person for a "carbon tax". this is from 2004 (same year as article you posted) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. advertisement "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact. Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels. Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860. Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures. To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output. The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years. Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last. He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself. Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said. "It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor." Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming. He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase. This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said. Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors. "The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not. "Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock." _________________________________________________________________ we can have article duels all day, im sure. but the point is that there are plenty of scientists who know far more than any of us here who are saying that increased sunspot activity is a big factor in our own planet heating up (as im sure there are plenty who say it isnt).
Yes I think the IPCC stated that the Suns overheated offense was a major contributor of Global Warming. They also recommend that D'Antoni created warming be countered by Van Gundy cooling.
