Climate Myth Debunked:
Climate skeptics have often held to the theory that global warming is due to an increase in solar intensity; that human greenhouse gas emissions aren’t the problem - the sun is. Well, that belief ends today. A study published Wednesday in the journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, destroys this argument.
The report’s introductory paragraph says it all:
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
The sun may have had influence in the past, but over the past 20 years - when we have seen the most dramatic effects of global warming - the sun has not been the cause. This study further confirmed the terribly sobering fact - humans are to blame for the global warming we see. There are no scapegoats.
Solar Prospects:
But all is not lost! The issue of global warming is being tackled by people all over the world - by those who see the danger it presents to the planet we know and love. In just the past few days, exciting advances have been made in the realm of solar power.
Near the city of Granada, Spain, the second phase of the largest solar power plant in the world - 480 acres of solar power goodness - has begun. The leading companies, Spanish ACS and German partner Solar Millenium, will invest $360 million in the plant. Expected to come online in early 2009, this second phase will supply enough power for roughly 200,000 people. Germany and Spain, both European leaders when it comes to renewable energy, are on top of their game.
Plans for a third installation are currently underway with the Portuguese energy group EDP. Even Rwanda and South Korea are taking major steps towards solar projects. The US likes to say it is a world leader in innovation and technology, but I’m just not seeing it. It seems odd that, though millions of lives are at stake, Americans are more concerned with seeing a $300 million Spiderman movie than seeing a solar power plant constructed. What are our true priorities? Cities and States have taken some amazing steps, but nationally, we are falling behind.
It’s not all bad here in the United States though. A California based solar power company specializing in photovoltaic innovation has secured funding to begin large-scale manufacturing of “thin-film” photovoltaic modules. The goal of the company, Solopower, is to address a huge obstacle - high cost per watt compared to the alternatives (i.e. coal). By using “thin-film” technology, expensive polysilicon can be avoided.
After receiving a grant from the Department of Energy last month for $2.37 million, Solopower found financial backing and support with the Norwegian company, Convexa Capital. $30 million was raised in series B financing, which will allow Solopower to continue its fight, making solar power a more competitive energy source. American investors were approached, but the Norwegian company offered a better contract. Again, Europe is at the forefront of the climate crisis.
Climate on the Hill:
The United States Congress is certainly trying. Well, at least part of Congress is trying. There are still those who are pushing for nuclear energy and clean-coal investments as a global warming solution. Wind and solar power may seem an obvious choice to environmentalists, but they are fighting an uphill battle.
Though slow, there is legislation fighting its way through the political standoff. “The Solar Energy Research and Advancement Act of 2007″ (H.R. 2774) was recently approved by The House Science and Technology Committee.
Sponsored by Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz), this bill would help to expand the use of solar technology. To accomplish this, the bill would establish a research and development program, examine the possibility of incorporating solar plants into existing electricity grids, and study ways to reduce the water used in these plants. The bill would also establish a grant program that would strengthen the solar industry workforce through trainings and internships.
The overall cost of the legislation would be about $347 million from 2008-2012. A pittance compared to defense budgets. I wish we could go to war against global warming, then we wouldn’t have to worry about the checkbook.
Global warming has become a hot topic on Capital Hill and will continue to be addressed over the coming year - but will the necessary legislation make it through the swamp of politics? Coal and nuclear power are not the answer. We need to invest in a clean energy future, one not marred by new coal plants or nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.
A fundamental change in infrastructure is necessary if we are to truly reach 80% carbon reductions by 2050. The sun on my face and the wind in my hair - that is my energy future. Call your representatives and demand (in a nice way) the clean energy future for you.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
This reports author stated that if there was a lag ‘begin to see the rise in global temperatures slowing down’ RE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2123447,00.html
Which is what we have seen since 2000 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/HadCRUGNS_3plots.gif.
To suggest this thesis is wrong is to not look at the evidence. Which if you look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
You’ll see total irradiance stayed the same.
As for thermal lag, see here http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7161
I noticed in the Guardian article that recent polls still show the public believing that there is still significant debate over global warming. This may help explain the apparent indifference by the public to this issue.
And even when you can show scientific consensus, sometimes the response is that “science should not be a popularity contest.”
Hey Paul, thanks for the comment. I had a difficult time understanding your post at first, but after a quick search I found you posted similar comments on many other websites regarding this study. From what I gather, you think the solar hypothesis (that the sun is causing climate change) has merit. It is certainly possible, but I don’t agree. Let me address some of your points.
When talking about the report, a representative for the Royal Society put it well:
“This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous.”
I think the solar irradiance is what threw me off as to what you position is. I’m still not sure what you are trying to prove with it and would appreciate any clarification. The graph you cite seems to agree with the study, which had this to say on the subject:
“The inferred changes in TSI [Solar Irradiance] are much smaller than required to cause significant climate change.”
As for the quote from one of the reports author, below is the context from which you took it:
“‘Nobody has invoked that kind of lag before. It’s only been invoked now as a way out,’ he said [an author of the report]. Even if the lag were 50 years then he believes we would begin to see the rise in global temperatures slowing down.”
Fist, the author did not directly say the portion you quote, that was the article author summarizing. Though I admit he probably did say something similar, this is an important distinction. Is it possible there is a lag? Yes, if unlikely. Does it mean we shouldn’t try to cut CO2 emissions? Not in the least. The potential ramifications of doing nothing are immense. When the majority of the worlds scientists agree on something (that humans are causing climate change), I think it is wise to listen.
The article further points out an alarming fact that “even though there is almost no argument among scientific circles about the role of human activities as the main driver of climate change, a recent poll suggested that the public still believes there is significant scientific uncertainty.”
As for the NewScientist piece you link to:
This has nothing to do with the sun, so I assume you meant it to prove that thermal lag exists. The Royal Society study doesn’t address thermal lag, so this doesn’t prove or disprove anything regarding the study. The article itself actually further supports the need for immediate legislation addressing global warming.
“This time lag means policymakers cannot afford to wait to tackle climate change until its consequences become painful, because by then they will already be committed to further change, they urge.”
Some excellent news from the US - BP has official begun a $97 million expansion of its solar panel manufacturing plant in Maryland.
From the article:
“Lee Edwards, the president of BP Solar, a subsidiary of the oil giant BP, said a new state law that took effect in Maryland July 1 helped make the economic case for the expansion.”
The law, which requires an increasing percentage of energy come from solar, helped make this happen. The advancements we could make with decisive federal legislation are exactly what we need.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.frederick17jul17,0,6384709.story?coll=bal-pe-business