Why are contrails and cirrus positive? Don't they block more incoming radiation than outgoing?

Interesting, I just posted something on road transport today. The British government is considering additional taxes on road vehicles in an effort to promote greater economy.

My take is that they are missing the point: we need a viable alternative to cars. Cars require lots of energy to build, take up lots of space, and require lots of land to be covered in black stuff.

Let's leave the poor motorist alone, invest in some viable mass transport infrastructure to take care of routine transport, and free up the roads for the enjoyment of driving.

I love cars, but we are using them for the wrong purpose today.

http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/01/29/are-eco-friendly-cars-really-the-answer/

Mass-Transit is an answer, but not a reasonable answer. People will not want to give up the control they have on their way to work or the grocery store, etc.

There is no viable mass transit solution.

Amazing that this report actually made news. If trains were a more dominant form of transportation, they would be the cause of more carbon emissions.

Transportation shifted to cars, trucks and airplanes over rail networks because roads are far more *agile* than a sparse network of tracks that have to be carefully maintained.

Personal transportation pods (i.e. cars) will continue to be the dominant (and, dare I say, best) mode of local and intermediate travel because of that same agility. Public transportation only makes sense in a very dense city center. Outside a city center, you cannot build enough rail infrastructure or deploy enough buses or taxis to compete with the efficiency and agility of some form of automobile.

I lived fine without a car as long as I lived in a city center (in London and Tokyo). Both required me to spend a lot of money on taxis, and taxis are still cars...

Mark,

Cars require lots of energy to build, take up lots of space, and require lots of land to be covered in black stuff.

I vote we go back to the horse and/or horse and buggy. What the heck do we need to move around so much for anyway?

/sarc off

Mark, I share your scepticism on taxes and green - especially roads. If they used present taxes to improve our roads enough for traffic to flow instead of hopping along in first gear it would do a lot more good.

Brett, do you know if anyone has ever done a proper comparative study on resource use in travel? (Reply: I do not know.) We visit friends in LA from time to time - an 11 hour flight. Apart from the fuel and a couple of coffees, plus airport infrastracture, there's not much used. Any other form of transport would take a long time and that's a chunk out of our lives just getting there. During that time we need to eat, drink, sleep, some kind of sanitation etc. How many hours do I have on a boat or train to use the same amount of resources that I do in an hour in a plane?

Mass-Transit is an answer, but not a reasonable answer. People will not want to give up the control they have on their way to work or the grocery store, etc.

People won't necessarily have to give up their control. They might have to give up the idea of a car as an expression of personal identity, because one solution is to use cars to solve the last-mile problem of a larger transportation network.

Suppose, for example, that fast, reliable, and affordable trains left suburban and ex-urban locations on a frequent and regular schedule.

Suppose that something along the lines of ZipCar made individual vehicles available at each of those location, so that most commuters on most days simply picked up the next car, took it home for the evening, and dropped it off at the station the next day.

That worker emits less pollutants and gets to work faster (at least for most workers, who fight heavy drive-time traffic on congested highways).

There is no viable mass transit solution.

That's a simple matter of economics. US governments (federal, state and local) have been subsidizing automobiles, trucks, and airplanes for decades. From the second half of the 19th century through the middle of the 20th century, mass transit was far more affordable, reliable, and available than any of the alternatives.

Amazing that this report actually made news. If trains were a more dominant form of transportation, they would be the cause of more carbon emissions.

Nope. Steel wheels rolling on steel rail presents dramatically less friction than rubber wheels on pavement or wings through air. Take another look at energy requirements per ton-mile -- you'll see that rail is compellingly better than ALL the current alternatives.

Transportation shifted to cars, trucks and airplanes over rail networks because roads are far more *agile* than a sparse network of tracks that have to be carefully maintained.

Wrong again. Roads are "agile"? The only "agility" I've ever seen in pavement is when the pieces of a pothole fly up and break the windshield of the following car.

Roads do a good job for short-haul "less-than-carload" freight movement -- the "last mile" problem I mentioned earlier. In that context, automobiles are better than horse-carts and bicycles.

The interstate highway system, the backbone of what most folks mean in discussions like this, was created by massive federal spending. A similar network of rail connections already exists (and existed), built by private companies in the 19th century.

I'm under the impression (though this bears further investigation) that the maintenance costs of modern rail infrastructure, again measured per ton/mile of freight, compares very favorably with same measure of highway cost.

Personal transportation pods (i.e. cars) will continue to be the dominant (and, dare I say, best) mode of local and intermediate travel because of that same agility. Public transportation only makes sense in a very dense city center. Outside a city center, you cannot build enough rail infrastructure or deploy enough buses or taxis to compete with the efficiency and agility of some form of automobile.

I agree that a "personal transportation pod" is the best current solution to the last-mile problem of the transportation system. Just as we no longer use individual twisted copper wire-pairs to carry telephone conversations from NY to SF -- even though they are still a very affordable last-mile option -- so too should we, in my opinion, no longer rely on cars to move people 20-30 miles each way every day.

At the same time, it makes far more sense to rent those vehicles during the relatively short periods when one of those commuters needs one, while allowing other people to use them during the day when the vehicle sits idle. This is the win of ZipCar.

I lived fine without a car as long as I lived in a city center (in London and Tokyo). Both required me to spend a lot of money on taxis, and taxis are still cars...

City residents who take the occasional trip in a taxi are a tiny part of the pollution and CO2 emission problem we currently face. The huge volumes of suburban commuters are a much more significant portion.

The total for trains is probably lower now because
the biggest snowstorm in 50 years has hundreds of
thousands of rail passengers stuck in a train
station in China!

I think everyone should give up their cars and quit working to make liberals happy. Life was much better in the days of horse drawn carriages, witch trials, potato famine, smallpox and the plague.

Here is some good humor from the NOAA press department last fall. The climate model predictions are always good for a laugh on a bitter cold winter day.

NOAA forecasters are calling for above-average temperatures over most of the country and a continuation of drier-than-average conditions across already drought-stricken parts of the Southwest and Southeast in its winter outlook for the United States, announced at the 2007-2008 Winter Fuels Outlook Conference in Washington, D.C., today.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/20071009_outlook.html

This map was drawn up by their cartoon department.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/images/20071009-temperature.png

mrsund:
Why are contrails and cirrus positive? Don't they block more incoming radiation than outgoing?

I agree. From personal experience I have felt the temperature difference a contrail has on a sunny day. But contrails typically dissipate quickly I can't see how they would have any 'blanket' greenhouse effect similar to clouds at night.

I also thought that methane was a powerful greenhouse gas. Why does it have a cooling effect?

"Road traffic is the number one contributor of atmospheric greenhouse gases in the transportation sector and has led to two-thirds of the warming caused by all transportation emissions"

Since when was the science settled that we now know the exact ratio of how much CO2 causes how much warming?

Something strange is happening at Europe's ski resorts. It's snowing

The climate change doomsayers said that we had better get used to shorter, later ski seasons in Europe but a couple of heavy snowfalls and forecasts of more to come seem to have turned back the clock all the way to the last century. Does it mean the return of proper winters? 'Last season we now believe was just a blip,' said Lisa Holm, of the Austrian Tourist Office.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article2933492.ece

It appears very likely that John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee. This ensures that our next President, whether it be a Democrat or Republican, agrees with the scientific consensus on AGW and favors reducing CO2 emissions.

For those who are hoping for the day that public policy catches up with the science on AGW, today is a great day.

At last something both skeptics and AGW could possibly agree on (effect of land use on temps)
http://climatesci.org/

Brookline Tom

Your argument(?) of mass transit over cars is totally bogus.

First of all, you are making the assumption that a majority of people drive to a city where there is a mass transit system in order to work. Today, there are growing centers of work, i.e, office buildings, industrial centers out in the suburbs where there are no mass transit systems such as rails. There would have to be a massive, really massive infrastructure built in the U.S. in order to have a rail system as described in your scenario that worked in the rural areas and suburbs. Just in my area alone, a semi-rural area, a huge number of homes, farms, towns would have to be torn down to make way for a rail system. Eminent Domain on steroids. People generally move AWAY from rail systems, a la, to the suburbs.

Most of the people around here in housing developments drive less than 20 miles to get to work, plus if you were to map out the routes from housing development to a particular work place, it would look like a spider web.

Second of all, people are not going to give up their cars no matter what you think. Cars have given us freedom, to get to work, change jobs, change where we live, to visit relatives, to travel and see what a beautiful country we have, and learn and see how others live. There is no way I am going to use a zipcar, it would be like driving a taxi, you don�t know who or what had previously been in that car and who knows what they DID in the car. ewwww. You wouldn�t be able to keep anything in your car, if you were planning on going somewhere after work.

I have XM radio in my car and I love it, the music keeps me sane when I have to drive with the other morons on the road. I am not going to drive some ucky frequently used by who knows what zipcar!

I worked as a consultant in Philadelphia for about 3 months so I used the SEPTA train. I had to drive 10 miles to the closest train station, it took about 20 minutes, small country roads. Then it took about 1 hour on the train to get to 30th street station in Philly. So round trip for a day was about 3 hours, which was gross, very long day. But the worse part was sitting next to all those people on the train, eating, drinking, talking on their cell phone like the person on the other end was deaf.

One time coming home on the train after a particularly grueling day at work, I had to sit next to a pediatrician who was catching up on all her patient�s calls. I had to listen to her talk about diapers and what color was the baby�s poo, and found out more than I ever wanted to know about children and their diseases.

NOW the only way I will use a commuter train is if I get my own private railcar.

The government currently heavily subsidizes, i.e., our taxes, the railroad mass transit systems. If the trains that carry people didn�t get subsidized by the government today, the trains would only carry freight.

I could probably write a thesis on why your ideas won�t work, but Brett wouldn�t like that.

BT, you are so out of touch with reality, it is unbelievable. Thank goodness you exist though, because every time I read one of your postings, you make me feel less guilty (actually not guilty at all) about global warming. Matter of fact, I feel so good, thanks to you, I think I am going to go on a road trip this weekend after making sure I leave all my house lights on (incandescent bulbs of course).

Umm...I wonder how they were able to figure all of that great information out? Seems like it might be a wild guess with a spin bent on pointing out that cars are bad. I mean no one ever checked to see how much gas I used in my cars, oops SUVs, in the 90's.

I get this sense after reading the article and the manner in which each aspect is portrayed as bad and worse for climate change. Even the supposed "good" effects of cooling from SO4 and NOx are short lived compared to the "long" term effects of CO2. I mean even the good is bad.

Now, on top of that, when you go to CICERO's main page and learn about the organization, it can be clearly seen that they approach the issue with a "man did it" philosophy first. It even says so clearly in their mission statement. "Man Made" climate change is a complex issue and we are here to study it and "fix" it.

Give me a break. Talk about a tainted view. I guess this is not a blatantly conservative group, eh?

Point in fact, I would like to hear a rational explanation of how mankind produces one iota of the energy required to cool the entire midwest 40 degrees in 4 hours. Oh, and throw in the generation of 40 mph winds from Illinois to Pennsylvania.

Simply put, the entire energy production of the country for the entire year could not equate to the energy being released right outside my house tonight. And this is from one storm. Say BT, your the numbers guy right? Why don't you calculate how much energy it takes to cool this much space in 4 hours. And then throw in the wind, and the precip. etc and let us know what that number is. Betcha it's pretty big.

Oh, and Mark, thanks for consistently proving my point that the liberals/AGWers in our happy little family nearly always throw in the first stone about politics relating to an issue. And 9 times out of 10, it has nothing to do with the topic put forth by Brett.

Since you brought it up, how come the public policy of the 90's did not meet with AGW movement approval? Could it be that he fully realized that any changes in governmental policy would negatively effect his party and position? Nah couldn't be. Not saying the economy would crash like some skeptics believe, but I figure that the Gore knew that it would have been constricting.

Why is methane shown as a negative forcing? The EPA claims methane's over 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat. Perhaps I misunderstand what the chart purports to represent.

Mark: For those who are hoping for the day that public policy catches up with the science on AGW, today is a great day.

Yippee. Now we can join with all those European counties, making commitments and not meeting them; or if we're really sincere, spending lots of money to achieve the Kyoto goals which, even fully accepting the AGW theory, will have a negligible effect on the climate.

what is happening with
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.jpg
Bering sea ice
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html
and Chucki sea ice (beside)
seems to be a major melt since 27/01/08. is this usual? can only be explained by warmer sea currents, Volcanic underwater activity or something else AGW? If this is correct suggest ice cover was or is quite thin and maybe AGW'ers have a point? Comments very welcomed from experts in that area if any LOL

Mark, sure McCain may be the nominee, but he and the congress still answers to the public. The public is not on the side of artificial measures that will pillage their wallet. Good luck with your fantasies.

Mark,

You and BT love McCain so much, why dont you vote for him? Until after Super Tuesday, the nominee is still a toss up.

Let me dumb down the discussion even more, because clearly we are headed for a global meltdown.

Jerusalem blanketed with heavy snow. About 10 people, mostly elderly or homeless, died of hypothermia during a recent cold wave, with twice as many hospitalized.

Jerusalem lies around 32 degrees North latitude, or SOUTH of El Paso. Significantly more than half the planet endures winter conditions. God forbid if it warms up a few degrees. Unbelievable.

Mark,

Spin this.

China is apparently having a bit of a problem with cold and snow this winter.

The snowstorms, which began on 10 January, are the worst for half a century and have affected nearly 80 million people across 14 provinces.

Patrick Henry:

You'll link to any old thing, won't you?

I'm supposed to take the word of an employee of the "Austrian Tourist Office" that global warming is "just a blip."

Please.

And you scream and yell about the bias that you perceive among peer reviewed scientists.

If you're going to take up as much space as you do on this blog, you have an obligation to at least fill it with something legitimate.