Singapore second only to US in energy comsumption This article is on Tuesday, 10 Jan 2006, Straits Times. In a report from World Bank in 2003, it showed Singapore is second to United States in the amount of energy used per person. A group in Singapore, focusing in environmental issues, feel that the main culprit is the air conditioning.
Personal Views 1) I guessed with this kind of weather ( i am not saying right now caused it has been raining daily for the past few days, i am saying the weather in general ) , it is only natural that Singaporeans would like to have at least an air conditioning system in their homes. 2) Try to recall the hot weather during the mid-year. The surroundding was so warm that without an air con, it is very diffcult to sleep comfortably. 3) But air con is ultimately still a luxury item. Look at our parents and the older generation, air con in the past was something far beyond the reach of most people. Just say 5 years back, a non inverter system 3 can cost $2500. Like my parents, they could only afford a small 9000btu window unit when they bought their first home. But if you look around, you will have noticed that air con has become very common. 4) Generally air con prices have been dropping. This is mainly due to manufactuers shifting their operations into areas where there will be less overhead. 5) So it is not great that prices have dropped!!!??? If only the electrical tariffs will to drop together, then it will be perfect. We have seen how the electrical tariffs have risen over the past 5 years. from 2000 of $0.1549 per kwh to 2006 $0.2102 per kwh.
Though the Singapore Power has been great by looking at the situation and adjusting the electrical tariffs every 3 months. 6) I think it is really down to us to make sure our electrical bills are not high. What u should do 1) Do buy energy saving products. This includes all appliances. Currently for air conditioning and fridge, you can refer to the Energy Label ticks given by Singapore Energy Labelling Scheme. For US products, you can go online and check if that model is having Energy Stars. 2) If possible, try to change all your lights to Energy Saving bulbs. U may have to spend some money changing some componets as not all are suitable for use of Energy Saving bulbs. But an energy saving bulb from a reputable manufactuer can save you between 50% to 80% of electricity. That is actually quite a lot. 3) U can consider getting an inverter air con and fridge if your usage and budget allow. These are more energy efficient products. 4) Reduce the use of electrical heating appliance like instant water heater, electrical oven and electrical heat pot..etc. These are very high energy consuming products. U can see the technical specifications at the product and u will understand. I am not saying these products are no good..just that try reduce it. For example, if u want to warm up your food, you might want to consider using the gas cooking instead. 5) Use a fan. This especially help to save you energy when use together will air con. Firstly, if u are using an air con, a fan will first assist in circulating the air in the room thus bringing even cooling faster. Secondly, when the fan on, u will feel both the cold and the wind. The fan will actually make us feel colder due to the wind effect. Thus u can set a higher temp. An single room air con use on average 800 watts per hour while a fan use on average of 70 watts per hour. 6) Off your appliance when you are not around. But if u are just leaving for a while or so, it is better to leave it on or standby mode. There is a power surge everytime we on a appliance. 7) LASTLY, i urge Singaporeans to support the Singapore Energy Labelling Scheme by buying only products with energy label ticks.
This pressure can caused the manufactueres to push themselves to produce more energy efficient products in order to meet the requirements. I also hoped SEC / NEA can bring in more products into the Singapore Energy Labelling Scheme.
Allegedly it’s a “myth” that mandated ethanol use contributes to food shortage and rising prices. After all, we just need to eliminate discriminatory barriers against Brazil’s cane ethanol, right? Nope.
Brazil Lacks Cane to Boost Fuel Exports, Senator Says — Brazilian sugar cane companies, which are preparing to boost ethanol exports to the U.S., don’t produce enough of the renewable fuel to do so, a lawmaker said.
Brazil won’t make enough ethanol to meet increasing foreign demand unless cane producers invest in new mills and plantations, Senator Katia Abreu said in an interview at Bloomberg’s headquarters in New York.
U.S. oil companies, which must comply with government mandates to blend environmentally friendly biofuels, are expected to expand their use of sugar-cane ethanol next year, and more than 100 Brazilian mills are preparing to deliver it. (Bloomberg)
Note also that Brazil needs new plantations to supply increased raw material. Goodbye rainforest?
In the Philippines, San Carlos Bioenergy has brought its 38 million liter per year ethanol back online after more than a year offline due to high molasses prices. Sugar prices have fallen by more than a third in the country, meaning the byproduct’s value has fallen as well due to significantly more supply.
As such, the company thinks that profit margins are favorable for the industry at the moment. Expansion plans to scale up to 40 million liters per year however are on hold to see how the market pans out.
Reports indicate that the sugar can crop in Brazil will be lower again this year, causing another drop in Brazil’s ethanol production that will have to be supplanted by imports, most of which come from the U.S.
Most of Brazil’s ethanol is made from sugar cane. The U.S. is the only other major international supplier.
Unica said Brazil’s ethanol production is now projected to reach 5.5 billion gallons, down 2.93 percent compared to the August projection and 19.68 percent less than the 6.6 billion gallon output in the previous harvest.
From early April to late September, Brazil imported 147.6 million gallons of ethanol and by the end of the harvest, the volume should reach about 312 million gallons.
The U.S. annually produces around 15 billion gallons of ethanol. U.S. exports of ethanol are expected to reach 900 million gallons this year.
The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) and the Center for Sugarcane Technology (CTC) and other producer associations has revised the total projected sugarcane crush for the 2011/2012 harvest down 4.26 percent from a previous revised forecast issued in August of this year (510.24 million tons) and down 12.29 percent from the 2010/2011 harvest.
Unica said September yields were down 18.2 percent in September, from the same period in 2010. The new projection for the 2011/2012 harvest in the South-Central region calls for a 20 percent reduction compared to the historical average of 85 tons per hectare.
Unica attributed the lower yields to the advanced age of the cane field and unfavorable weather conditions for plant development, including prolonged droughts during the winter months that affected the last two harvests and the occurrence of frost and flowering at the beginning of the current harvest.
In São Paulo, the country’s top producing region, agricultural productivity is the lowest in 20 years and the decline in crushing is expected to exceed 50 million tons, with emphasis on the regions of Ribeirão Preto, São José do Rio Preto and Araçatuba.
According to UNICA’s Technical Director, Antonio de Padua Rodrigues, “the variables mentioned, along with the expectation of only four new crushing mills launching next year, should result in a very slight increase in crop production for the 2012/2013 harvest.” Investment in the renewal of sugarcane fields are the best alternative to accelerate the growth of ethanol and sugar production as of the 2013/2014 harvest, as there is significant overcapacity in the industry and a lack of raw material, he warns.
UNICA estimates that 51.81 percent of all harvested sugarcane will directed to ethanol production in the 2011/2012 harvest. Total sugar production is expected to reach 30.80 million tons, down 8 percent from the 33.50 million tons produced in the 2010/2011 season.
For more news about Iowa agriculture and energy click here for the Register’s Green Fields page on Facebook.
Endowed with special planet-saving powers – e.coli, fungi, termites, flies and bacteria are like the SuperFriends of Saturday mornings past.
Mom taught you well, I’ll bet.
Swat the flies, pour disinfectant on a slimy mold, and shock a pool or pond that has algae in it. Never touch anything riddled with a fungus, avoid bacteria like the plague.
If you see a termite, call Orkin, and if you see e.coli (well you wouldn’t, unless you have Superman-like vision, but you get the idea), run screaming into the night.
Of course, in biofuels, you don’t avoid any of the above.
In the world at large, they are generally called pests. We call them ‘magic bugs’. They are like the SuperFriends of Saturday morning cartoons – Nature has certainly endowed them with magic powers.
In your own human genome, you have the (considerably useful) ability to break down a pretty good range of biomass into energy. Anything from the sugar rush from a Coca-Cola to the complex sea of carbohydrates and proteins in contemporary pizza. We’ve planted the world over with things that grow fast and we like to eat.
But make a carbohydrate, protein or lipid from thin air, with a little water and maybe a little sunshine? No can do. That’s where the magic bugs come in.
Beyond microalgae
Too often, public curiosity over microbial fuels begins and ends with microalgae. But there are two ways these other critters serve the general search for an energy solution.
1. Fermenting one low-value material into a higher-value one. For instance, converting hops into beer, corn mash into ethanol, or sugar cane syrup into alkane diesel.
2. Fixing atmospheric CO2, and freshwater or sea-water, into lipids, carbs and protein, which we capture and convert to feed, food, fiber and fuel.
Bottom lime, some mighty business models are depending on the unpaid services of some awfully small and occasionally icky organisms. Ranging from one cell to small insect size.
The yeoman service of the Soldier Fly
A company called Organic Nutrition is training soldier fly larvae to eat waste biomass, thereby converting it into insect protein. The hungry little varmints eat as much as twice their own body mass, per day. The aggregated insect protein is captured and crushed as animal feed. Kind of an appalling food source, but a lot of critters like insects just fine, thank you very much.
It appears to be a re-think of an older company called Neptune Industries, which disappeared to the bottom of the financial ocean a few years back.
Termites and their Symbiotic Liberation Army
Over at Purdue, research into the extreme environments in the termite gut, including termite’s own native enzymes, and symbiontic bacteria, is the subject of some breakthroughs out of the Mike Scharf lab. Researchers there, publishing in PLoS One, have discovered a cocktail of enzymes instrumental in the insects’ ability to break down the wood they eat.
The researchers are the first to measure the sugar output from enzymes created by the termites themselves and the output from symbionts, small protozoa that live in termite guts and aid in digestion of woody material.
“For the most part, people have overlooked the host termite as a source of enzymes that could be used in the production of biofuels. For a long time it was thought that the symbionts were solely responsible for digestion,” Scharf said. “Certainly the symbionts do a lot, but what we’ve shown is that the host produces enzymes that work in synergy with the enzymes produced by those symbionts. When you combine the functions of the host enzymes with the symbionts, it’s like one plus one equals four.”
In Florida, researchers at the University of Florida have isolated two enzymes termites use to break up lignin, which may provide a key to more efficient cellulosic ethanol production. The study follows more than two years of work to identify nearly 7,000 genes associated with the termite gut. The researchers are wading through the genes to identify which ones are associated with enzymes that could be useful, and they are hopeful that many more such exciting discoveries are yet to come.
With the new technique, cellulose must only be broken down into an intermediate stage known as cellodextrin, rather than into glucose, and the new yeast will get to work. It could be five years before the new technique is ready for commercial use.
In related news, the DOE has granted researchers at the University of California, Berkeley-hosted Energy Biosciences Institute $793,000 for a three-year program to study the genetic diversity of corn to create better strains for biofuels.
In this story from last year, “Turn and Face the Strange,” we looked at WWII canvas rotting fungi as a biomass conversion technology, a fungus that produces diesel, a fungus that synthesizes ethanol, one that produces cellulase, and a symbiotic garden of fungi managed by leafcutter ants to assist in their leaf-converting activities.
“A heft amount of carbon is sequestered by endophyte-infected fescue, so it has some carbon benefit. But that is courtesy of its ability to powerfully eradicate microbial life in its growing path and, by creating a nanoscopic, underground Chernobyl, storing carbon that otherwise would be munched and released by those pesky organisms known as life forms.”
In Illinois, researchers from the University of Illinois, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the University of California and BP have discovered a newly engineered yeast strain that can simultaneously consume both glucose and xylose from plants to produce ethanol. The new strain, made by combining, optimizing and adding to earlier advances, reduces or eliminates several major inefficiencies associated with current biofuel production methods.
In Maryland, Johns Hopkins researchers have engineered from scratch a computer-designed yeast chromosome and incorporated into their creation a new system that lets scientists intentionally rearrange the yeast’s genetic material. Jef D. Boeke, Ph.D., Sc.D., professor, explains, “We developed SCRaMbLE to enable us to pull a mutation trigger — essentially causing the synthetic chromosome to rearrange itself and introducing changes similar to what might happen during evolution, but without the long wait.”
“By shuffling the DNA according to our specifications, Boeke added, “we hope to be able to custom design organisms that perhaps will grow better in adverse environments, or maybe make one percent more ethanol than native yeast.”
In Germany, researchers at the Ruhr-Universität and a group from the Tokyo Institute of Technology have found a genetic switch in cyanobacteria, which when removed allows use of excess energy for biotechnological purposes, such as hydrogen production.
Professor Roegner of Ruhr-Universität estimated, “This should make it possible to use at least 50% of the energy gained from light-driven water splitting for other processes in the future, e.g. for solar-powered biological hydrogen production through cyanobacterial mass cultures in photobioreactors.”
Pass the salt, I need sugar
In New Jersey, Proterro has developed technology to produce sugar by using engineered cyanobacteria, photosynthetic organisms that can produce sucrose through a normally-occurring defense system. Their engineered cyanobacteria produces sucrose when the water they’re growing in is too salty. They claim that the water required to grow the cyanobacteria is much less than what is required to grow sugar traditionally, such as with corn and cane.
Your friend, E.coli bacteria
In the article “Microbial Biosynthesis of Alkanes” published in Science magazine last year, a team of LS9 scientists announced the discovery of novel genes that, when expressed in E.coli, produce alkanes, the primary hydrocarbon components of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. This discovery is the first description of the genes responsible for alkane biosynthesis and the first example of a single step conversion of sugar to fuel?grade alkanes by an engineered microorganism.
For over 20 years scientists have tried to identify the genes that enable particular natural organisms to directly convert biomass into alkanes. However, previous scientific research has failed to identify these genes. To solve this mystery, the LS9 team looked into the genomes of bacteria that produce alkanes in nature known as cyanobacteria. “We evaluated many cyanobacteria that made alkanes and identified one that was not capable of producing them. By comparing the genome sequences of the producing and non?producing organisms, we were able to identify the responsible genes,” said Andreas Schirmer, Associate Director of Metabolic Engineering at LS9.
The mysterious Archaea
In Arkansas, researchers at the University of Arkansas created the first methane-producing microorganism that can metabolize complex carbon structures, which could lead to microbial recycling of waste products and their transformation into methane. Daniel J. Lessner, assistant professor of biological sciences, and his colleagues Lexhan Lhu, Christopher S. Wahal and James G. Ferry of Pennsylvania State University worked with methanogens, methane-producing anaerobic microorganisms from the domain archaea.
The researchers introduced a gene into a methanogen that would allow it to break down more complex molecules for its own consumption by introducing a gene that would cause the organism to express an enzyme that breaks down esters. Esters can be found in nature and also solvents used in paints and paint thinners. Future research will look at developing a platform to engineer organisms, including a methanogen that can break down glycerol, a waste product from biodiesel fuel, and have it produce methane, allowing for possible production of useful chemicals or even as an energy source for a biodiesel plant.
High oil prices, a global economic rebound, and new laws and mandates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, and the United States, among other countries, are all factors behind the surge in production, according to research conducted by the Worldwatch Institute’s Climate and Energy Program for the website Vital Signs Online.
The United States and Brazil remain the two largest producers of ethanol. In 2010, the United States generated 49 billion liters, or 57% of global output, and Brazil produced 28 billion liters, or 33% of the total. Corn is the primary feedstock for U.S. ethanol, and sugarcane is the dominant source of ethanol in Brazil.
“In the United States, the record production of biofuels is attributed in part to high oil prices, which encouraged several large fuel companies, including Sunoco, Valero, Flint Hills, and Murphy Oil, to enter the ethanol industry,” says Alexander Ochs, Director of Worldwatch’s Climate and Energy Program. High oil prices were also a factor in Brazil, where every third car-owner drives a “flex-fuel” vehicle that can run on either fossil or bio-based fuels. Many Brazilian drivers have switched to sugarcane ethanol because it is cheaper than gasoline.
“Although the U.S. and Brazil are the world leaders in ethanol, the largest producer of biodiesel is the European Union, which generated 53% of all biodiesel in 2010,” Ochs says. “However, we may see some European countries switch from biodiesel to ethanol because a recent report from the European Commission states that ethanol crops have a higher energy content than biodiesel crops, making them more efficient sources of fuel.”
Vital Signs authors Sam Shrank, a Worldwatch MAP Sustainable Energy Fellow, and Farhad Farahmand, a Climate and Energy research intern, also explored how new mandates in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and China have altered the biofuel industries in these countries. “In Argentina, the biodiesel industry grew not only because of favorable conditions for growing soybeans, but also in response to a new B7 blending mandate, which requires the fuel to be 7% biodiesel and 93% diesel.” Accordingly, biodiesel producers in Argentina are investing heavily in facilities to increase production.
In the United States, however, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made the decision to dramatically lower the country’s production target for cellulosic ethanol, a biofuel that is made from woody plants or crop waste and that can be converted to ethanol much more efficiently than conventional ethanol, resulting in lower associated greenhouse gas emissions. “The EPA’s target reduction reflects the technical challenges and high costs of commercializing so-called ‘second-generation’ biofuels,” says Shrank. “Instead of the 950 million liters required initially under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, the final target will be a much smaller 25 million liters.”
Proposed legislation in the U.S. Senate would cut current ethanol production subsidies while maintaining tax credits for related infrastructure such as refilling stations. If supports like subsidies and tariffs are removed in the United States, sugarcane ethanol from Brazil will likely become more prevalent. Although sugarcane ethanol has the benefit of being cheaper and more efficient to produce, there are concerns that increased production will speed deforestation in Brazil as more land is cleared for feedstock cultivation.
The new Vital Signs Online article highlights both the increases in global production of biofuels and the factors behind this growth. It presents the latest facts and figures on the major biofuels producers and outlines new laws and mandates that will affect production of the fuels.
Further highlights from the study: • Due to unsteady ethanol production in Brazil in 2010, the United States became a net exporter of the fuel for the first time, sending a record 1.3 billion liters abroad, a 300-percent increase over 2009. • Sugarcane ethanol supplies 41.5% of the energy (48% of the volume) for light-duty transportation fuels in Brazil. • Asia produced 12% of the world’s biodiesel in 2010, a 20& increase from 2009, mostly using palm oil feedstock in Indonesia and Thailand. • Virtually all of the 1.5 billion liters of Argentina’s biodiesel exports, representing 71% of total production, went to Europe. • Canada has national mandates for the production of E5 (5% ethanol and 95% gasoline) and B2 (2% ethanol and 98% gasoline), and four Canadian provinces have individual mandates up to E8.5. • In the United States, eliminating the $0.54 per gallon import tariff and $0.45 per gallon blenders’ credit would reduce the ethanol industry’s profits by 7% and its margins by 20%, according to the University of Missouri’s Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. • Brazil plans to build 103 new sugarcane mills by 2019, increasing production capacity by 66%
One Saturday in August, I took my kids to a wonderful outdoor science center in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire. The center is a place where visitors can learn about animals native to the area.
I was impressed that the center uses solar hot water in its bathrooms and explains how it works through an informational sign right at the faucet. I also appreciated that the center has a display about climate change. I like it that visitors who come to learn about animals are also taught about renewable energy and climate change.
But it got me thinking further about a topic that we discuss in the newsroom a lot: environmental protection and renewables. For the most part, if you consider yourself an environmentalist, you probably support renewable energy. Renewables are the clearest path to mitigating climate change by using the wind, sun and other naturally replenished resources for energy.
So when renewable energy projects are fought tooth and nail in the name of environmentalism, it always leaves me scratching my head.
Take for example a settlement agreement that was reached between the Sierra Club and other environmental groups and solar companies regarding San Luis Obispo solar projects, where SunPower’s 250-MW California Valley Solar Ranch and Topaz’s 550-MW Topaz Solar Farm were planned:
The projects are located in the Carrizo Plain, a core recovery area for endangered San Joaquin kit fox and giant kangaroo rats. While both companies have previously agreed to significant commitments to protect and preserve species in this important habitat area and have received project approvals based on environmental reviews by various federal, state and local agencies, with this agreement SunPower and Topaz commit to provide a suite of additional environmental benefits to further increase protection of the area. This agreement provides for additional conservation for the remaining unprotected lands in the northern Carrizo Plain above and beyond those provided under existing local, state and federal permits. [emphasis mine]
Going above and beyond anything always means adding cost. The agreements that the companies have made, which include stipulations such as helping fund the “efforts to eliminate rodenticides on the Carrizo Plain and other San Joaquin kit fox conservation areas” and “acquiring lots in the largely undeveloped subdivision in the Carrizo Plain to restore for wildlife conservation,” will most definitely add to the developer’s costs. Aren’t we supposed to be working to reduce the cost of solar?
Yesterday, First Solar announced that it would not be able to meet DOE requirements to accept the $1.9 billion loan that it had been offered conditionally back in June to build the Topaz Solar Farm. I can’t help but wonder if these environmental regulations — the ones that are adding cost to develop the project — factored into First Solar’s decision to back away from the project overall. The company said it is in advance talks to sell the project to potential buyers.
Environmentalism or NIMBYism?
In the newsroom, we often wonder if objections to projects on the grounds of environmentalism are really just a front for NIMBYism. Cape Wind is an example. Last year a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit alleging that the Minerals Management Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by allowing the project to “take” roseate terns and piping plovers without sufficient safeguards.
Could the very same people who object to Cape Wind on the grounds that it would distort their pristine view of Nantucket sound somehow be involved in bringing this lawsuit to fruition? Of course the animals can’t advocate for themselves and environmental groups must fight for them if we want them to exist. That’s a given. But environmental groups advocate for renewable energy, too, and sometimes the simple fact is that the two cannot peacefully coexist, at least not without some sacrifice on one or the other’s part. If environmentalists support the idea that we use less fossil fuels in order to stave off the catastrophic effects of climate change but don’t want to see any species harmed in the development of renewables, where does that leave us? How do we further a new energy agenda if we keep fighting amongst ourselves?
The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.
2 Reader Comments
Comment 1 of 2 Anonymous September 23, 2011
The meaning of “environmentalism” has been strangely corrupted since it was heavily politicized by the Ronald Reagan administrations of 1981-1989.
Today, “environmental” organizations speak with no clear and consistent voice on almost any matters of scientifically verifiable environmental concern. Some groups voice a concept of protecting a sacred nature functioning apart from humanity – a concept without scientific validation when all near surface waters, lands, vegetation systems, and atmosphere of our planet are polluted to some degree by greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic emissions. One can find “environmental” organizations strongly supporting nuclear power and “clean coal” energy. Simultaneously, other “environmentalists” are using all their valuable resources to fight wind and solar power developments at many different scales, and to the remarkable exclusion of even considering the impacts of fossil fuel energy alternatives. The variety of conflicting positions and approaches of “environmental” groups is disheartening, especially in terms of messaging to a hopelessly confused and largely uninterested public. Meanwhile, the messaging of the fossil fuels industries is clear, consistent, unambiguous, and unrelenting. The start of a new agenda would be to establish a new set of core values to govern the actions of competing environmental groups, and develop tight messaging consistent with those values.
Comment 2 of 2 Anumakonda September 26, 2011
Excellent post on Environmentalism Jennifer Runyon . I very much liked it. Thanks. Dr.A.jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India Wind Energy Expert E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
Review
“Presents the basic principles of the complicated, sophisticated, and sometimes mysterious philosophy of T’ai Chi . . . made easy to understand by the author’s insightful commentary. . . . A worthy contribution to keeping the spirit of T’ai Chi alive.”—East and West Series Product Description
The deepest benefits of T’ai Chi cannot be realized without an understanding of its underlying principles. This book presents these principles through translations of three core classics of T’ai Chi that are often considered the “T’ai Chi Bible,” accompanied by the author’s insightful commentary. Master Liao demonstrates how to increase the body’s inner energy (ch’i) and transform it into power, health, and well-being. By reading the clear and precise explanations of the fundamental principles of T’ai Chi, students can develop a more complete understanding of the art and philosophy of this traditional martial art.
Breaking: A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008″ – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011)
Posted on July 4, 2011 by Anthony Watts
The Kaufmann et al 2011 paper (Note: Michael L. Mann is a co-author, not the same as Michael E. Mann of hockey team fame) was embargoed until 8PM GMT (12PM PDT) today, and we have an advance copy thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser .
Here is the PDF file: pnas.201102467
The headline from the abstract:
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.
But in the conclusion:
The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”
From the GWPF:
Comments by Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al.
Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008.
It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade.
The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.
They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.
The researchers seek to explain the temperature standstill between 1998 and 2008. They say that the global temperature has increased since then.
This is misleading. There was an El Nino in 2010 (natural cyclic warming) but even that did not raise temperatures above 1998. In fact the standstill has continued to 2010 and 2011 appears to be on course to be a cooler year than any of the preceding ten years.
Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.
Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out of date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.
Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.
This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported.
I also hoped SEC / NEA can bring in more products into the Singapore Energy Labelling Scheme.
