<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Carbon Commentary &#187; science</title>
	<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com</link>
	<description>A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:56:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>The global warming ‘standstill’</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/04/25/83</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/04/25/83#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:42:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #10]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[weather]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/04/25/83</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/ncdc-data.gif" />
Nigel Lawson and others are suggesting that temperatures have ‘stabilised’ since the late nineties. 1998 saw the highest global average temperature and only 2005 has closely matched it. Since no year since 1998 has exceeded the record, some commentators are saying the global warming has stopped. The implication, sometimes stated, sometimes not, is that the increasing rate of growth of CO2 concentration is having no effect on temperature.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/ncdc-data.gif" /><br />
Nigel Lawson and others are suggesting that temperatures have ‘stabilised’ since the late nineties. 1998 saw the highest global average temperature and only 2005 has closely matched it. Since no year since 1998 has exceeded the record, some commentators are saying the global warming has stopped. The implication, sometimes stated, sometimes not, is that the increasing rate of growth of CO2 concentration is having no effect on temperature.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/04/25/83#more-83" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/04/25/83/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Roy Spencer presentation to the Heartland Institute conference</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:05:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #9]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/heartland-institute.jpg" align="left" height="177" hspace="5" width="133" />The Heartland Institute, a US free-market think tank, held a conference on climate change in New York in early March. It was a forum for some of the climate change sceptics to discuss their research. The conference got very little coverage in the media and was ignored by the science pages of the newspapers.

This seems a mistake. A large section of the population of the US and the UK, and smaller numbers elsewhere, believe that the apparent scientific consensus on global warming is a result of selective coverage by TV and press. The failure to cover presentations by some of the leading sceptics is support for the accusation that global media, and mainstream climate scientists, are refusing to engage with the dissenting views of reputable scientists who do not share the standard view.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/heartland-institute.jpg" align="left" height="177" hspace="5" width="133" />The Heartland Institute, a US free-market think tank, held a conference on climate change in New York in early March. It was a forum for some of the climate change sceptics to discuss their research. The conference got very little coverage in the media and was ignored by the science pages of the newspapers.</p>
<p>This seems a mistake. A large section of the population of the US and the UK, and smaller numbers elsewhere, believe that the apparent scientific consensus on global warming is a result of selective coverage by TV and press. The failure to cover presentations by some of the leading sceptics is support for the accusation that global media, and mainstream climate scientists, are refusing to engage with the dissenting views of reputable scientists who do not share the standard view.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81#more-81" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The promise of cellulosic biofuels</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/71</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/71#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:49:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #8]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[biofuels]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon reduction initiatives]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/71</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tr>
<td><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/switchgrass.jpg" alt="Switchgrass biofuel crop" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><small>Switchgrass biofuel crop</small></td>
</tr>
</table>
Will next-generation biofuels have a less destructive effect on agriculture? A study just published by US government scientists suggests that so-called ‘cellulosic’ ethanol has much better energy balance than today’s biofuels.<a href="#footnote1" name="footnoteref1" title="footnoteref1">[1]</a> By energy balance, we mean the energy used to make the fuel compared to its energy value when burnt in a car’s engine. News summaries of the paper’s contents focused on one estimate that suggested that to make cellulosic biofuels might only need 6% of the energy value contained in the fuel. Depending on which crop is used, where it is grown, and how it is refined, most of today’s biofuels have only a weakly positive energy balance. So the paper gives hope that we might expect considerable progress towards carbon-neutral transport fuels when we can start refining all vegetable matter, not just foodstuffs, into fuels.

Cellulosic biofuels may well become important sources of motor fuels. There is certainly huge amounts of money flowing into the field. Unfortunately none of the news articles covering the US research pointed out the technology for turning cellulose into fuel is still a long way from commercial viability. Yes, we can turn grass into ethanol, but at prices which will double the price of petrol. And the greenhouse gas savings will almost certainly not be as attractive as the paper suggests, not least because the authors did not include the serious impact of nitrous oxide emissions from fertilised fields.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tr>
<td><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/switchgrass.jpg" alt="Switchgrass biofuel crop" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><small>Switchgrass biofuel crop</small></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Will next-generation biofuels have a less destructive effect on agriculture? A study just published by US government scientists suggests that so-called ‘cellulosic’ ethanol has much better energy balance than today’s biofuels.<a href="#footnote1" name="footnoteref1" title="footnoteref1">[1]</a> By energy balance, we mean the energy used to make the fuel compared to its energy value when burnt in a car’s engine. News summaries of the paper’s contents focused on one estimate that suggested that to make cellulosic biofuels might only need 6% of the energy value contained in the fuel. Depending on which crop is used, where it is grown, and how it is refined, most of today’s biofuels have only a weakly positive energy balance. So the paper gives hope that we might expect considerable progress towards carbon-neutral transport fuels when we can start refining all vegetable matter, not just foodstuffs, into fuels.</p>
<p>Cellulosic biofuels may well become important sources of motor fuels. There is certainly huge amounts of money flowing into the field. Unfortunately none of the news articles covering the US research pointed out the technology for turning cellulose into fuel is still a long way from commercial viability. Yes, we can turn grass into ethanol, but at prices which will double the price of petrol. And the greenhouse gas savings will almost certainly not be as attractive as the paper suggests, not least because the authors did not include the serious impact of nitrous oxide emissions from fertilised fields.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/71#more-71" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/71/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Carbon uptake by plants and trees is vulnerable to autumn warming</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/72</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/72#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:46:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #8]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/72</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center"><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Mauna_Loa_carbon_dioxide.png" /></p>

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise by about 2-3 parts per million every year and the rate is slowly increasing. As well as this upward trend, there is an annual cycle: carbon dioxide levels fall in the northern hemisphere summer and rise strongly in the winter. The reason is that most of the vegetated land area is in the northern hemisphere and during the northern summer plants and trees absorb CO2.One effect of increasing spring and autumn temperatures has been to increase the length of what is loosely called ‘the growing season’. Plant growth can start earlier in spring and can continue until later. It might be thought that this would help vegetation take up more CO2, acting as a counterweight to increased fossil fuel use.

Research published in <em>Nature</em> in early January very strongly suggests that this is not happening. Warmer autumns are associated with a bringing forward of the date at which plants start losing CO2, not the reverse. Higher spring and autumn temperatures are tending to decrease the length of the period each year in which northern hemisphere plants are taking up carbon. If this research is confirmed, this is yet another potential positive feedback because higher temperatures might diminish the ability of biomass to take up carbon.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center"><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Mauna_Loa_carbon_dioxide.png" /></p>
<p>Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise by about 2-3 parts per million every year and the rate is slowly increasing. As well as this upward trend, there is an annual cycle: carbon dioxide levels fall in the northern hemisphere summer and rise strongly in the winter. The reason is that most of the vegetated land area is in the northern hemisphere and during the northern summer plants and trees absorb CO2.One effect of increasing spring and autumn temperatures has been to increase the length of what is loosely called ‘the growing season’. Plant growth can start earlier in spring and can continue until later. It might be thought that this would help vegetation take up more CO2, acting as a counterweight to increased fossil fuel use.</p>
<p>Research published in <em>Nature</em> in early January very strongly suggests that this is not happening. Warmer autumns are associated with a bringing forward of the date at which plants start losing CO2, not the reverse. Higher spring and autumn temperatures are tending to decrease the length of the period each year in which northern hemisphere plants are taking up carbon. If this research is confirmed, this is yet another potential positive feedback because higher temperatures might diminish the ability of biomass to take up carbon.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/72#more-72" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/72/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The 2007 IPCC synthesis report</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #6]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/IPCC.gif" vspace="5" />
The IPCC released a 23-page report summarising the work of the fourth phase. Newspaper headlines suggested the document was more apocalyptic than the third summary of 2001. The reality is more complex.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/IPCC.gif" vspace="5" /><br />
The IPCC released a 23-page report summarising the work of the fourth phase. Newspaper headlines suggested the document was more apocalyptic than the third summary of 2001. The reality is more complex.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#more-55" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
