Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[wayneL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery


the man's a genius (imho) - even Suzuki "praised Flannery's "powerful insight into our current destructive path.""

my money's on Flannery - you blokes can bet on each other

So you believe it's a great idea?

The planet is more serious trouble than I thought, but it ain't from CO2.

 

[Wysiwyg]

There are natural aerosols and anthropogenic aerosols.The ones we can`t see but know exist.Kind of like out of sight, out of mind.

Anthropogenic aerosols

Particles emitted during human activity are called anthropogenic aerosols. Anthropogenic aerosols can be either large (coarse particles) or small (fine particles). Dust from roads and construction sites (such as cement works) produces coarse mode anthropogenic aerosols whereas small fine mode aerosols are generated from fossil fuel combustion in power generation and vehicles and from high temperature industrial processes such as metal smelting.

Many of these aerosol have an impact on our climate, some also have an impact on our health. Particle concentrations are high in indoor air and dust mites, fibres, insect sprays and asbestos are all examples of aerosols which can be very dangerous to human health.

 

[2020hindsight]

Don`t have any issue with this at all....
but on the introduction of sulphur

spooly
whether or not it gets to the point of using sulphur...
think of it this way
he still has 17% of people to convince there's a problem.

 

[wayneL]

spooly
whether or not it gets to the point of using sulphur...
think of it this way
he still has 17% of people to convince there's a problem.

He's probably set back the cause of AGW propaganda by 10 years. The outrage is near unanimous.

There is a problem, that is that there are nutters, fruit loops and commercial interests dominating the environmental debate.

In that sense, he has done the debate a great favour by alerting people of logic of that fact.

 

[2020hindsight]

Please note Tim Flannery's quotes / references to emergency measure etc:-

But he says it may be necessary, as the "last barrier to climate collapse."

"a radical suite of emergency measures "

"last resort that we have, it's the last barrier to a climate collapse"

"We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve."

Here's a similar article from 18 months ago (Sep 2006)
which in turn is based on 30 yearold technology.

Wigley claims the sulphur would not be dramatic ....

"because his model called for less than 10% additional sulphur dioxide than is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels"

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/830969

Expert: Sulphur to stall global warming
Sep 15, 2006 2:03 PM

To stall global warming for 20 years, one climate scientist proposed lobbing sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, which would work in concert with cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The sulphur dioxide, a pollutant on Earth, would form sulphate aerosol particles to shade the planet, much as the ash clouds from a major volcanic eruption do, said Tom Wigley of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Wigley used computer models to determine that injecting sulphate particles at intervals from one to four years would have about the same cooling power as the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines.
…

The idea of injecting sulphates into the stratosphere, some 16 kilometres above the Earth's surface, was first proposed and quickly rejected three decades ago as a dangerous tinkering with natural processes.

But Wigley said he was prompted to pursue this angle when Paul Crutzen, a Nobel-winning atmospheric chemist, recently suggested a new look at the notion of geoengineering, as this notion is known.

"I'm not suggesting we don't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for energy," Wigley said in a telephone interview. "I think that that's the only long-term solution to the problem of global warming, we definitely have to do that.
……….

On Earth, sulphur dioxide contributes to respiratory illness, aggravates heart and lung disease and contributes to acid rain. Power plants and other factories are the biggest producers.

But Wigley said the amount of sulphur dioxide needed for the geoengineering project would probably cause negligible pollution down on Earth's surface, because his model called for less than 10% additional sulphur dioxide than is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels.

The technology exists now to put this plan into effect, but studies of economic feasibility are needed, he said. It has the potential to stall global warming for 20 years, to buy time for solutions to the problem, according to Wigley.

"We've got to consider it very seriously because otherwise we might be in for much worse things just due to emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases," he said.

There are other "stratospheric aerosols" for the "maintenance of present-day climate" apparently...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, since 1990, the trend has reversed.[1]

It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend in 1990 happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline.

Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.

 

[2020hindsight]

National Geographic has a "Special Report Magazine" just out - called "Changing Climate" - check it out at the newsagent

Meanwhile the oceans are becoming more acidic ( purely by the absorption of CO2....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Bob Steneck, Prof at Uni of Maine :- "the rate of acidification is so great... that given the trajectory we are on, reefs can't exist" says Steneck.

(Acidification plus warming of the ocean etc)

Here's a brief video ... (in fact a string of em - Glaciers, Global Warming 101 etc)

http://video.nationalgeographic.com...-warming-environment/way-forward-climate.html

Incidentally to those who might complain that sulphur might cause some acid rain (an increase of 10 or 20% whatever over existing) ... here's another side to that story.... also from National Geographic....

Some species are thriving in their new climate, .... . The mountain pine beetle, a voracious bug about 3mm long, is having a field day, since warmer summers have allowed it to produce two generations per year instead of one. Moreover North American winters almost never get down to -40degF any more ( also = -40deg C incidentally) the temperature needed to kill the bug and its larvae.

As a result, the beetle population has exploded across the western US and Canada, killing millions of acres of trees. Forestry officials in Canada predict that if the beetle continues to spread at its current rate, 80 percent of Britsh Columbia's mature lodgepole pines - the provinces most abundant commercial specias - will be dead within five years.

 

[2020hindsight]

A sobering video on the icecap melting , including the difficulties polar bears are facing trying to hunt in an open sea ....

http://video.nationalgeographic.com...change.html?fs=science.nationalgeographic.com

And this one ... "the next 10 years are probably the most important ever for the earth etc "

http://video.nationalgeographic.com...change.html?fs=science.nationalgeographic.com

 

[Aussiejeff]

Expert: Sulphur to stall global warming
Sep 15, 2006 2:03 PM

To stall global warming for 20 years, one climate scientist proposed lobbing sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, which would work in concert with cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The sulphur dioxide, a pollutant on Earth, would form sulphate aerosol particles to shade the planet, much as the ash clouds from a major volcanic eruption do, said Tom Wigley of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Wigley used computer models to determine that injecting sulphate particles at intervals from one to four years would have about the same cooling power as the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines....

Ummm. What if, after "clever" humankind lobs tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere to create a cooling effect, a REAL volcano happens to erupt shortly after and doubles or triples the cooling effect?

Sounds like rolling dice to me.....



AJ

 

[2020hindsight]

Ummm. What if, after "clever" humankind lobs tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere to create a cooling effect, a REAL volcano happens to erupt shortly after and doubles or triples the cooling effect?

Sounds like rolling dice to me.....AJ

AJ, this article from 1994/5 analysing the trend of global temp after the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines.

The chart below does indeed show a small dip in the green graph around 1991 .. but keep in mind the extrapolated graph of where we are heading.... the entire Y axis as drawn is only 1.5degrees. We are looking at 2 degrees increase (most optimistic scenario).

This is problem that a half dozen volcanoes will be needed to solve. - and going off every few years to "maintain the dimming".

It would be brilliant if there were some volcanoes - just emerge from the sea like a heaven-sent correction - (avoiding the human chaos that they had around Pinatubo for instance).

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/... PINATUBO (PHILIPPINES)&field=geo&match=exact

A Global Warming Resumed in 1994, Climate Data Show
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS January 27, 1995
Whatever happened to global warming? The question was on many lips a year ago, when the northeastern United States suffered through its bitterest winter in years. Now an exceptionally warm winter has whipsawed perceptions about the world's climate once again. An answer has become apparent in annual climatic statistics in the last few days: global warming, interrupted as a result of the mid-1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, has resumed -- just as many experts had predicted.

Volcano's Eruption in Philippines May Counteract Global Warming
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS June 30, 1991
A global warming trend that began in the 1980's and has continued into 1991 could be offset over the next few years by atmospheric cooling caused by the eruption this month of the Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines, scientists say. The major factor at work in the climatic effect is not the familiar dust cloud, but a chemical reaction. Volcanic eruptions spew out vast quantities of sulfur dioxide gas that later combine with water to form tiny supercooled droplets.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...37A25751C0A9609C8B63&scp=2&sq=krakatoa&st=nyt

The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia ranks among the most powerful volcanic blasts in history. It spewed six cubic miles of ash and dirt into the air and disrupted the world's climate for several years........

If Krakatoa had never exploded, the researchers found, the ocean warming and rise in sea level that occurred in the 20th century because of human activity would have been worse. The only 20th-century eruption on a similar scale, the 1991 Mount Pinatubo explosion in the Philippines, had less of a lasting effect. Ocean temperatures recovered faster because by then the warming trend was in full swing.

The noise of 1883 Krakatoa was "distinctly heard" in Perth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

The 1883 eruption ejected more than 25 cubic kilometres of rock, ash, and pumice,[2] and generated the loudest sound historically reported: the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Australia approx. 1,930 miles (3,110 km), and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius approx. 3,000 miles

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/01/an_artificial_volcano/

Paul Crutzen , the scientist responsible for giving the "artificial volcano" theory a new lease of life ....

"Crutzen says he doesn't think of "climate engineering" as a first-line response to global warming, but if governments fail to enact the proper controls for greenhouse gas emissions, it might become a necessary emergency measure"

".....And while the Bushies [Bush administration] have been hostile toward the idea of global warming, certainly the idea of attacking a complicated problem with heavy artillery will appeal to them so strongly that we might see some action soon." :eek3:

Sorry Paul, that prediction of yours was 18 months ago - not much action by the Bush Administration yet. - maybe George (like Johnny H) is still trying to pronounce "Globular Warming".

Bomb Earth's atmosphere with sulphur, researcher says
Shock and awe campaign on global warming
By Thomas C Greene in Washington DC -1st August 2006 09:36 GMT

Firing artillery shells into the stratosphere to release sulphur particles could defeat global warming, climate researcher Paul Crutzen says.

In a paper to be published in the journal Climatic Change in August, the professor will explain his scheme in greater detail.

So far we have learned, from this press release, that sulphur particles can reflect sunlight well enough to lower the Earth's temperature, if that ever becomes necessary.

Crutzen reckons that the effect would last about two years. He bases this on observations of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991, which released significant quantities of sulphur into the atmosphere and may have lowered the Earth's average temperature by 0.5 degrees Celsius. Or not.

Crutzen says he doesn't think of "climate engineering" as a first-line response to global warming, but if governments fail to enact the proper controls for greenhouse gas emissions, it might become a necessary emergency measure.

What could possibly go wrong? Oh, heaps of things. Very little is known about how sunlight affects weather patterns, so fiddling with it could result in anything from minor changes to catastrophic droughts throughout the world's most fertile regions.

On the other hand, we might already have come to depend on "global dimming" from air pollution to keep global warming at bay, so this artificial volcano idea might be the way back from disaster.

There is evidence suggesting that recent efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has caused a spike in global temperatures over the past decade. Without our protective layer of industrial pollutants, the Earth's atmosphere is now reflecting less solar radiation, and temperatures are rising. We could be rendering the planet uninhabitable just because we're afraid of a little shmutz in the air.

The message, then, that air pollution is good for the Earth, will no doubt resonate deeply with the Bush administration. And while the Bushies have been hostile toward the idea of global warming, certainly the idea of attacking a complicated problem with heavy artillery will appeal to them so strongly that we might see some action soon.

 

[Aussiejeff]

'Climate change will beat us'

I guess Mr Garnaut feels a tad pessimistic about the prospects of humanity keeping it's own "nest" clean in the coming years.....


"ECONOMIST Ross Garnaut thinks humanity will probably lose the fight against climate change.

The architect of Australia's response to climate change says the issue is "too hard" and there is "just a chance" the world will face up to the problem before it's too late.

Professor Garnaut issued the chilling prognosis in a speech in Canberra tonight.


Link to the full item here http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23818810-5005961,00.html

 

[2020hindsight]

'Climate change will beat us'

I guess Mr Garnaut feels a tad pessimistic about the prospects of humanity keeping it's own "nest" clean in the coming years......

don't know if it will beat us ( although it has to be a strong possibility) , but ...
I reckon Garnaut is right when he says we should share the pain on the broadest base possible - that airline tickets should reflect the carbon cost, cars likewise (price of petrol will go up bigtime), electricity likewise, business, personal , etc.

also that things are heading worse faster than predicted

60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 is an essential target - but we have to recognise the awful arithmetic that we will have to do significantly better than that

Garnaut issues climate change wake-up

GetUp! Demands Real Action on Petrol Prices

 

[2020hindsight]

......... the definition of "effective" tackling of the world-wide climate change question in the USA is that it musn't "harm the USA economy"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/07/2267956.htm?section=justin

Climate change bill blocked in US Senate
Posted 1 hour 8 minutes ago

Legislation in the United States to combat global warming has suffered a serious setback after Republicans in the Senate blocked efforts to bring the bill for a final vote.

Democratic Party leaders in the Senate fell 12 votes short of the 60 required to end a Republican delaying tactic on the measure.

The bill would have put a cap on carbon emissions, introducing a target cut of 70 per cent by the middle of the century.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it would be wrong to support a bill that damaged the economy.

"The President supports tackling the problem of climate change in a way that will be effective, meaning that it would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world in a way that would not harm our economy," she said.

Not that we are charging ahead on the matter
Here's a "hint" of where we might be heading...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/07/2267912.htm

Swan calls for broad emissions trading scheme
Posted 3 hours 3 minutes ago
Updated 1 hour 12 minutes ago

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan has hinted fuel could be included in the emissions trading program to be unveiled by the Rudd Government at the end of the year.

On a trip to London, Mr Swan criticised his opposition counterpart Malcolm Turnbull for suggesting the Opposition wanted individual fuel consumption kept out of the new scheme.

Mr Swan has told ABC Radio's AM program that the emissions trading scheme should be as broad as possible.

"We will be publishing a green paper next month which will open the discussion about this question, .......


"Well Mr Turnbull is on the record arguing for the inclusion (of petrol) on an emissions trading scheme, ....," he said.

 

[2020hindsight]

I swear that politicians can be as thick as three planks sometimes...

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23826164-31037,00.html

Petrol tax impact 'in doubt'By Julian Drape
June 07, 2008 03:06pm

...
1. Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt says the Government is divided on the issue. "They seem hopelessly divided," he said.
....
2. Mr Hunt called on the Government to explain how "whacking a great new 20-cent tax" on petrol would decrease emissions.
"We have serious reservations and scepticism about petrol tax, given that prices have increased four-fold in the last decade and petrol volume hasn't changed at all," he said.
"Can they explain how a 20-cent tax will decrease emissions?"

3. The Opposition was yet to take a "formal position" on including fuel in the ETS, he said.
"We want to see the modelling."

4. Mr Swan said if the Opposition argued for fuel to be excluded from carbon trading it would be a backflip from its earlier stance.
"Well, Mr Turnbull is (previously) on the record arguing for the inclusion of fuel in an emissions trading scheme," Mr Swan said in London overnight.

1. and 3. So according to the opposition, the govt (who are publicly discussing the pros and cons of the matter) are hopelessly confused,,, but they reserve the right to be in a stance of "yet to take a formal position".

2. How will a tax on petrol reduce petrol consumption and/or emissions? ... doh... maybe , einstein, people will move to smaller cars

4. backflips are the order of the day - depends if you're sincere I guess.

 

[wayneL]

I swear that politicians can be as thick as three planks sometimes...

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23826164-31037,00.html


1. and 3. So according to the opposition, the govt (who are publicly discussing the pros and cons of the matter) are hopelessly confused,,, but they reserve the right to be in a stance of "yet to take a formal position".

2. How will a tax on petrol reduce petrol consumption and/or emissions? ... doh... maybe , einstein, people will move to smaller cars

4. backflips are the order of the day - depends if you're sincere I guess.

Because it's a political issue, not an environmental issue.

It's about perceptions, revenue and management of supply, not CO2.

CO2 is the cover.

Let's face it, and I've pointed this out before. Either:

1/ AGW is real. We ain't doing anywhere near enough and we're stoofed.

2/ ABW is BS and a ruse.

What we're doing now is just total BS.

I will from now on largely ignore the issue, concentrate on general and effective environmentalism (saving the Blue Tit, reducing overall pollution etc).

The IPCC, and sticky fingered gu'mints can go to hell where they belong.

 

[Smurf1976]

2. How will a tax on petrol reduce petrol consumption and/or emissions? ... doh... maybe , einstein, people will move to smaller cars

One of the key principles of a carbon tax or similar is that the fuels with the most carbon get taxed the most. So in order to achieve that, either petrol excise as it currently stands should be added to ALL fossil fuels (coal included) or completely removed from petrol. Then you have an even starting point from which to add the carbon tax.

To simply add the carbon tax without removing petrol excise would mean higher taxes on (cleaner) petroleum than on coal. That's the exact opposite of what you want if the aim is to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

[2020hindsight]

I've pointed this out before. Either:

1/ AGW is real. We ain't doing anywhere near enough and we're stoofed.

2/ ABW is BS and a ruse.

1. Well I think I’ve pointed out before also that I find that totally confusing
a. if GW is real ( let alone AGW), then we could surely consider being proactive to advantage, and
b. rather than conclude “we’re stoofed”, and roll over – just let the “stoofing”: happen….

I’d prefer to at least listen to the theories of genuinely educated and educational people on this topic like Tim Flannery ( which makes him different from you and me btw) – who at least can put forward an “emergency plan” using man made volcanoes. Better than just saying we’re stoofed yes?

2. well there’s plenty of evidence of melting icecaps, yes? so GW (at least) is not a ruse , yes? – or are you choosing to argue – again - that we’re not even warming?

 

[2020hindsight]

One of the key principles of a carbon tax or similar is that the fuels with the most carbon get taxed the most. So in order to achieve that, either petrol excise as it currently stands should be added to ALL fossil fuels (coal included) or completely removed from petrol. Then you have an even starting point from which to add the carbon tax.

To simply add the carbon tax without removing petrol excise would mean higher taxes on (cleaner) petroleum than on coal. That's the exact opposite of what you want if the aim is to reduce CO2 emissions.

smurf, I guess we are talking classifications within classifications ( bit like the GST)

I mean , there's surely a case for the combined wisdom of carbon tax and imminent resource expiry, - petrol (at the bowser) can be taxed on both counts.

Or, I guess, think of it as user pays - since infrastructure spending on highways is gonna start eating into the NSW surplus for instance.

PS I don't think there is much risk of petrol being made so (artificially) expensive (i.e. if the excise stays, which as you might distort the "perfect" carbon tax model) that coal-fired cars slip in under them as a cheaper alternative.

 

[Smurf1976]

PS I don't think there is much risk of petrol being made so (artificially) expensive (i.e. if the excise stays, which as you might distort the "perfect" carbon tax model) that coal-fired cars slip in under them as a cheaper alternative.

But what you don't want to encourage is, say, the use of coal in industry, power generation etc at the expense of something cleaner (and oil is cleaner than coal).

The market will handle the relative abundance of coal versus oil as far as firing boilers is concerned. If we're going to tax carbon then fair enough - tax carbon. But don't tax some carbon more than other carbon if the aim is to reduce the total emission.

Taxing oil more would make sense if the issue is scarcity of resources. But in that case a higher tax on natural gas to discourage its use in boilers etc would also make sense - both are ultimately fairly limited resources compared to oil.

Somewhat off topic, but we're doing real well at this emissions cutting thing down here in Tas right now. A whole lot better than we'd like actually. Let's just say it's ALL going wrong...

 

[Aussiejeff]

Wow!

Oz to build up to 10,000 local Camry hybrids p.a. from 2010.

Big deal.

How much are these "Big Prius's" going to cost? $40,000+?

Why not cut the duty on the existing Prius's (they would then be under $35,000).

Won't these "Big Prius's" still need to run on $2.50+ petrol from 2010 (optimistic)?

Granted, it IS a better than nothing announcement, BUT only a tiny, tiny, miniscule bit.....

All too little, too late IMO.



AJ