Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[--B--]

interesting post basilio

what exactly are these arguments you refer to?

 

[Pat]

...simply are not true and proven not to be the case many times over.

I'd like to see a paper disproving the possibility of anthropogenic climate change.
Or the proof humans are unable to alter the composition of the atmosphere.
Or proof the composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on global climate.

Or perhaps it is the IPCC's dire predictions that have caused such fuss... But disproving a prediction before the fact is a contradiction in terms is it not?
Maybe the predictions are way, way off, with no use of accepted scientific knowledge... just to throw a spanner in the works.

 

[Green08]

Or the proof humans are unable to alter the composition of the atmosphere.
Or proof the composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on global climate.

Pat I'm sure humans have had something to do with it but to blame humans for the entirety of the change is surreal. The universal system has its own rhythm. People are 'panicking' as the change is happening in their time.

Yes we have altered the composition of the atmosphere.

They say we can slow it down because we have sped it up, or enhanced climate change

.

We maybe able to slow it down to a point but we can't reverse it. How can even the best of intentions to reduce emissions be achieved when the global population is growing? People will always want for something and it costs

 

[basilio]

interesting post basilio

what exactly are these arguments you refer to?

Where do we start ? Assertions that increases in CO2 levels won't increase the amount of retained heat in the atmosphere. Assertions that Sunspots are a far larger factor in global temperatures than they actually are. Statements that there was medieval warm period (Just not true in comparision to current records) . In fact a number of science sites have outlined the most common furphies about global warming and the reality of the situation. As the article points out these are simply ignored and original argument is put with renewed vigour.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Pat I'm sure humans have had something to do with it but to blame humans for the entirety of the change is surreal. The universal system has its own rhythm. People are 'panicking' as the change is happening in their time.

Yes we have altered the composition of the atmosphere.

Quote:
They say we can slow it down because we have sped it up, or enhanced climate change
.
We maybe able to slow it down to a point but we can't reverse it. How can even the best of intentions to reduce emissions be achieved when the global population is growing? People will always want for something and it costs

Green 08 the sad fact is that the more we research the more we realise that in fact we are changing the climate of the world in very quick time. Yes there there are "rhythms in the universe" which affect everything. But unfortunately humankind has substantially altered the chemistry of the earths atmosphere by clearing forests and turning vast amounts of original forest (coal, oil) back into CO2. And it is this rapid increase in CO2 which is holding in the extra heat that is going to cook us.

The options?

1) Do nothing, have a party and cook or
2) Recognise just how bad the situation is and have a red hot go at attempting to reverse the trend. How? Check out the URl Below

http://www.safeclimateaustralia.org/

Interestingly enough in order to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to a "safe climate level" we need to capture and hold untold billions of tons of CO2 through foresty, increasing soil carbon capacity and other means. Not to mention reducing out current CO2 output to practically zilch...

And the sad part is that by 1990 the understanding of global warming was sufficient to say we were facing a serious problem. And if we had made a determined start on the problems 20 years ago .. well things may not look as bleak as they do now.

Did I mention this was a big ask ?

 

[Bobby]

.


Population growth equals pollution increases , the more humans the more green house gases released .
Solution is reduce world population .

Free Nembutal ? :

 

[Smurf1976]

Yes this is true, we are unable to meet demand...

But then I guess we need to analyse "demand", and how this came to be.

Economic success relys on on the glutenous use of resources and population growth.

Perhaps Malthusian limits apply not only to food, but many resources.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/cheap-food/bourne-text

But we are were we are, and it would seem some change is coming... slowly.
I understand "alternative energy" cannot meet demand... yet, it will one day.

Can't argue with that. The present economic paradigm relies absolutely on not only population growth, but on increased consumption per capita. That second point is possible only by two means - constantly increasing work effort or constantly increasing productivity.

Any reduction in energy productivity isn't about paying an extra 4 cents a kWh for power and catching the bus to work. It literally unravels the entire economic structure where tomorrow's growth is collateral for today's debt.

We won't be messing about with fossil fuels in 200 years time I think that's pretty certain. Either we come up with something radical, and realistically that would almost certainly be nuclear or geothermal since along with hydro (which is a limited resource) they are the only high productivity, high grade non-fossil energy sources we have apart from localised use of biomass.

More realistically though I'm expecting that we'll go part of the way with nuclear (probably via thorium reactors rather than uranium) and geothermal but that doesn't fix everything. We'll do a bit with wind, wave, solar, biomass and some more hydro too but again it's ultimately not enough.

They collectively fix everything with one exception - transport. When you realise that just one semi doing 100 km/h is running at around 500 kW of primary energy then you start to understand the problem with transport. Stand beside a main road in even a modest town and watch the megawatts roll by. We're not replacing that with a few batteries that's for sure. And if we go to rail then we're back with the productivity issue - that's why trucking boomed in the first place. Likewise if we replace aircraft with ships.

Overall, I see the real problem as simply this. We've got all sorts of energy sources but NONE of them can deliver the massive productivity that fossil fuels do now.

Industrial civilisation works because we use energy and equipment to leverage human productivity. That's fine when the energy comes with no real effort (the vast majority of people don't work in oil or gas...) but it comes unstuck big time once we have to put significant effort into getting energy. And all those diffuse sources require more effort, a point that even their strongest supporters have always acknowledged.

Even conventional nuclear power doesn't really stack up in many situations compared to coal / oil / gas / hydro. We've put massive resources in to get back, thus far, relatively little. Coal still produces twice as much electricity globally whilst hydro and gas are both in the same order of magnitude as nuclear. But all those require a lot less effort and messing about.

 

[basilio]

For those interested in where we are with regard to GW and what we need to do to dig our way out, I came across an exceptionally powerful anlaysis in Mother Earth Magazine a few years ago.

I have posted an excerpt and the reference.

Cheers

The Thirteenth Tipping Point
12 global disasters and 1 powerful antidote

....IN 2004, JOHN SCHELLNHUBER, distinguished science adviser at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the United Kingdom, identified 12 global-warming tipping points, any one of which, if triggered, will likely initiate sudden, catastrophic changes across the planet. Odds are you've never heard of most of these tipping points, even though your entire genetic legacy””your children, your grandchildren, and beyond””may survive or not depending on their status.

Why is this? Is it likely that 12 asteroids on known collision courses with earth would garner such meager attention? Remarkably, we appear to be doing what even the simplest of corals does not: haphazardly tossing our metaphorical spawn into a ruthless current and hoping for a fertile future. We do this when we refuse to address global environmental issues with urgency; when we resist partnering for solutions; and when we continue with accelerating momentum, and with what amounts to malice aforethought, to behave in ways that threaten our future.

A 2005 study by Anthony Leiserowitz, published in Risk Analysis, found that while most Americans are moderately concerned about global warming, the majority””68 percent””believe the greatest threats are to people far away or to nonhuman nature. Only 13 percent perceive any real risk to themselves, their families, or their communities. As Leiserowitz points out, this perception is critical, since Americans constitute only 5 percent of the global population yet produce nearly 25 percent of the global carbon dioxide emissions. As long as this dangerous and delusional misconception prevails, the chances of preventing Schellnhuber's 12 points from tipping are virtually nil.

So what will it take to trigger what we might call the 13th tipping point: the shift in human perception from personal denial to personal responsibility? Without a 13th tipping point, we can't hope to avoid global mayhem. With it, we can attempt to put into action what we profess: that we actually care about our children's and grandchildren's futures.

Science shows that we are born with powerful tools for overcoming our perilous complacency. We have the genetic smarts and the cultural smarts. We have the technological know-how. We even have the inclination. The truth is we can change with breathtaking speed, sculpting even "immutable" human nature. Forty years ago many people believed human nature required blacks and whites to live in segregation; 30 years ago human nature divided men and women into separate economies; 20 years ago human nature prevented us from defusing a global nuclear standoff. Nowadays we blame human nature for the insolvable hazards of global warming.

The 18th-century taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus named us Homo sapiens, from the Latin sapiens, meaning "prudent, wise." History shows we are not born with wisdom. We evolve into it.

CLIMATE CLIQUES AND NAYSAYERS

EISEROWITZ'S STUDY OF risk perception found that Americans fall into "interpretive communities"””cliques, if you will, sharing similar demographics, risk perceptions, and worldviews. On one end of this spectrum are the naysayers: those who perceive climate change as a very low or nonexistent danger. Leiserowitz found naysayers to be "predominantly white, male, Republican, politically conservative, holding pro-individualism, pro-hierarchism, and anti-egalitarian worldviews, anti-environmental attitudes, distrustful of most institutions, highly religious, and to rely on radio as their main source of news." This group presented five rationales for rejecting danger: belief that global warming is natural; belief that it's media/environmentalist hype; distrust of science; flat denial; and conspiracy theories, including the belief that researchers create data to ensure job security.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2006/11/thirteenth-tipping-point

 

[Pat]

Good post Smurf...
Your "radical idea" will most likely be found in fusion... but I think we are way off, quite possibly 200 yrs. I have read a little about the ITER reacter in France, nice and expensive.

You are right in saying transport is a big concern, something like 46% of pollutants are produced by transportation.

But I think electricity is the key. I have heard it is cleaner to use electricity generated by coal to power a car than using petrol.

Electric motors and power storage in cars have not had the time or money to develop and evolve. Give a little time, technology will evolve as it does and soon enough we'll have our electric trucks and busses.

Right now we are completly dependant on fossil fuel to keep society running. Some sort of shift is obviously needed.

 

[Happy]

And imagine that we would be able to delay the problem by couple of thousand years should we adopt China’s 1 child policy for several centuries.

This way we would buy extra time to develop new energy.

 

[Green08]

And imagine that we would be able to delay the problem by couple of thousand years should we adopt China’s 1 child policy for several centuries.

One child policy unless you pay. I would be interesting to see if this auctually worked thought their numbers are increasing all the time

I wonder how many of the 'educated and wealth' were permitted to 'breed' more than one child? More self obnoxious materially orientated is all we need.

You may have a more rapid response in Australia if your STOP the baby bonus and maternity leave entitlements

 

[--B--]

Where do we start ? Assertions that increases in CO2 levels won't increase the amount of retained heat in the atmosphere. Assertions that Sunspots are a far larger factor in global temperatures than they actually are. Statements that there was medieval warm period (Just not true in comparision to current records) . In fact a number of science sites have outlined the most common furphies about global warming and the reality of the situation. As the article points out these are simply ignored and original argument is put with renewed vigour.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

hmm, any chance of some links to back your claims or are you happy to pass on a pro-AGW hype site in order to 'prove' what you assert?

in addition, what are your thought on the recent temp plateau and subsequent cooling and how this in no way correlates to the IPCCs fancy computer model 'predictions' of continuing rapid increase in temp?

 

[Pat]

hmm, any chance of some links to back your claims or are you happy to pass on a pro-AGW hype site in order to 'prove' what you assert?

in addition, what are your thought on the recent temp plateau and subsequent cooling and how this in no way correlates to the IPCCs fancy computer model 'predictions' of continuing rapid increase in temp?

You know... The end result is what the IPCC's model predicts, not how we get there.

If anyone is looking for anthrogogenic climate change studies, do a simple search in any peer reviewed journal, like Nature-
http://www.nature.com.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/
Then you can see the actual material the IPCC uses for there predictions etc...

If your looking for propaganda, any old website will do.

 

[--B--]

You know... The end result is what the IPCC's model predicts, not how we get there.

dear oh dear.

and here folks is the problem we face.

when faced with the proof that the 'models' the IPCC have generated in order to prove their assumptions are incorrect, we're still told that its all going to happen in the end.. just now how we said it would.

no offense pat,, but thats quite unbelievable.

Then you can see the actual material the IPCC uses for there predictions etc...

you mean the material thats has predicted something that hasnt happened but were still supposed to think it will eventually?

 

[Pat]

dear oh dear.

and here folks is the problem we face.

when faced with the proof that the 'models' the IPCC have generated in order to prove their assumptions are incorrect, we're still told that its all going to happen in the end.. just now how we said it would.

no offense pat,, but thats quite unbelievable.



you mean the material thats has predicted something that hasnt happened but were still supposed to think it will eventually?

Hmmm...

The computer based models make 4 major climate projections based on emissions scenarios. The models are designed to illustrate the IPCC's arguments, not prove it. They don't display erratic weather, or short term variability such as the ENSO...

Which scenario doesn't take into account your "recent temp plateau and subsequent cooling"?

Climate change is not about cooking the planet, it is about the possible effects on civilisation. We are quickly changing global environments, changing the balance in many of earth's known cycles, of which the long term effects are unknown, but the question is not what will happen? It is how bad will it be?

We ask this question because we can see our effect on the environment, not because we are being cynical. Just one tiny example is the Murray Darling Basin. The river is dying, at least at its outlet and the land is experiencing desertification, not because of increased emissions, but because of deforestation. This isn't helping a global population with many people starving, as the world grows food production doesn't necessarily grow with it.

We fear increasing greenhouse gasses, by quite a bit- doubling and tripling concentrations, will change the energy balance, and therefore climate, enhancing our detrimental effect on the environment we rely on so much.

We need to wait 90 or so odd yrs and continue to emit have we have always done to settle this debate. Either way a transition away from fossil fuels in the not too distant future is inevitable, and we'll probably look back and wish we invested more as it would of made the the transition easier.

 

[Smurf1976]

Climate change is not about cooking the planet, it is about the possible effects on civilisation.

Climate change, as the term is commonly understood, most certainly IS about an increase in temperature due to incresing concentrations of greenhouse gases. Perhaps not "cooking" but certainly an increase in temperature.

If the Earth's temperature does not rise then by definition "climate change", "global warming" or "the greenhouse effect", all of which are different terms for the same thing, has not happened. All sorts of other environmental damage maybe, but not CO2-induced warming.

But why not reduce emissions anyway, just in case?

I'll put it this way. I challenge anyone here to put forward a credible plan to actually reduce emissions in their state / country by x% and detail how that would be achieved. I don't mean dubious comments about trading or taxes, but what would physically be done. What would energy consumption be, where would it come from and what would it cost? What would be the impact on exports, imports and GDP?

Do this little exercise and you'll find there's a big downside to cutting emissions as well as the upside. It's either piles of nuclear waste, all sorts of changes to the natural environment for large scale hydro / wind / biomass and/or serious deterioration in state / national wealth.

There's some pretty big impacts there both environmentally and economically so it's not simply a case of "let's do it anyway" unless you're arguing that those consequences are acceptable moreso than the non-CO2 impacts of fossil fuels (given that the context here is there not being outright proof of CO2-induced warming, we're acting as a precaution only).

 

[Pat]

If the Earth's temperature does not rise then by definition "climate change", "global warming" or "the greenhouse effect", all of which are different terms for the same thing, has not happened. All sorts of other environmental damage maybe, but not CO2-induced warming.

What I wrote is wrong, I omitted the word 'debate', but you omitted the word 'enhancing'... :

The solution for climate change is one that will evolve, there is much economic red tape to cut through. Fundamentaly, we consume resource as if contained in an infinite stockpile.

 

[mexican]

transition away from fossil fuels in the not too distant future is inevitable.

Pat if that is the case, then how will steel be made?

 

[Pat]

transition away from fossil fuels in the not too distant future is inevitable.

Pat if that is the case, then how will steel be made?

Look up the word transition.
and not too distant is 50 yrs or so...

 

[basilio]

Where do scientists think we stand with regard to Global Warming at the moment ? What are we facing if we don't take a deep breath and change the basis on which we currently run our world?

Came across this current overview by MIT climate scientists.

Price of doing nothing costs the earth

MIT scientists forecast a global temperature rise of 5.2C by 2100 - but climate change deniers reject models devised by the world's finest minds. So what do they suggest instead… seaweed?

What happens if we do nothing? If, in other words, we do as Vaclav Klaus and many other suggest, and let climate change take its course?

Six years ago the climate modellers at MIT suggested that the median probability was a global temperature rise of 2.4C by 2100. Since then they've refined the model. Now the median estimate is 5.2C by 2100. This is another way of saying the end of life as we know it.

What has changed? Unlike other models, MIT's Integrated Global Systems Model makes detailed assessments not just of climate science but also of the likely changes in human activity. The difference between the two outcomes arises from several factors, such as new economic data showing that our greenhouse gas emissions are unlikely – if there are no constraints – to be as low as previously thought, and new oceanic temperature data, showing that the deep oceans are not removing heat from the atmosphere as quickly as scientists expected.

Even the new figure could be an under-estimate, the team suggests, because it doesn't account for the full range of positive feedbacks, such as melting permafrost releasing methane and carbon dioxide.

Climate change deniers hate these models. Why, they say, should we base current policy on scenarios and computer programmes rather than observable facts? But that's the trouble with the future: you can't observe it. If you reject the world's most sophisticated models as a means of forecasting likely climate trends, you must suggest an alternative. What do they propose? Gut feelings? Seaweed? Chicken entrails?

Computer models are only as good as the assumptions they contain, which is why those assumptions are constantly tested and updated. No one claims to have a definitive answer; instead the models test hundreds of different likely scenarios, then find the median result. There is no attempt to make the future look either rosier or grimmer than it is.

What they give us is the best available estimate of the consequences of doing as Mr Klaus and others suggest, and letting events take their course. The MIT model suggests that even the most profligate climate change programme the world's governments could devise would do nowhere near as much economic and humanitarian damage as our failure to act. Nothing is certain: it's all a matter of probability. But which risk do you want to take?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/20/climate-change-denier-mit

 

[Smurf1976]

The solution for climate change is one that will evolve, there is much economic red tape to cut through. Fundamentaly, we consume resource as if contained in an infinite stockpile.

Agreed there.

One thing that really worries me though is that virtually all of the so-called "solutions" rely on burning a lot more natural gas to replace coal for electricity.

Now, given that gas is a highly concentrated resource geographically (Russia, Iran and Qatar have well over half of it) I'm not too comfortable with that in terms of the non-climate consequences. At best it puts effective control of virtually everyone in the hands of a very few who gain an effective right to take as much economically as they choose. At worst, I can see it very easily leading to war at some point.

Prior to the CO2 issue gaining prominence, the general concern in relation to energy was about how to shift away from oil and gas. They are both very limited reources relative to current and especially future demand and both are subject to the geopolitical issues.

The resource issues haven't gone away. We continue to find less oil than we're using once you net out the phony reserves of countries where real reserves are a state secret with only policially acceptable data (which remains the same year after year despite ongoing production) published.

There's also the point that simply shifting to gas is a road to nowhere. What do we do in 20 (not 50) years time when production's near peak and we're faced with all the associated problems? What do we do with an entire fleet of relatively new power stations that can only run on gas or liquid fuels (modern gas-fired plants can't be converted to conventional coal-fired operation since they don't have boilers as such)?

The inevitable answer involves first a crisis (shortage, price spike, war) followed by a crash course coal liquefaction and/or gasification - and they're anything but "clean" environmentally. Note what's happening already in the US, UK and others where gas production has peaked - they're going straight back to coal.

I'd be a LOT more on side with those calling for cuts to CO2 if they'd stop pretending that we have far more gas than seems likely. It's a limited resource that we need to make fertilizer (food!), plastics, chemicals as well as efficient use for direct heat. And it's the only real replacement we've got in the near term for liquid fuels for transport.

So yes, cutting emissions I'm OK with. But it needs to be done via proper solutions rather than a temporary shift in fuels that ends up committing us to coal in the future.

Trouble is, and I'm sure that environmentalists are well aware of this, a solution that doesn't depend on limited gas reserves that WILL run out means building a lot more nuclear power plants, big hydro dams, wind farms as well as finding a way to make geothermal a major energy source as soon as possible, associated with which is a lot more transmission lines and a shift toward, not away from, centralised grid electricity. Either that or we bring about a massive reduction in energy demand somehow, a situation that has serious implications for the wellbeing of most people on Earth - the West could cut to literally zero but that's not enough if China etc continue to develop using coal.

Solution? End the focus on CO2 per se and focus on fossil fuel use itself. Treat coal as no better or worse than gas or oil. Then have an international agreement to cut fossil use, not CO2. That puts us on track to fix the problem in the long term without heavily penalising those countries, most notably the US, with very mature gas and lots of coal. But with total fossil fuel use capped, it still fixes the problem in the end - and that's a lot better than what we're doing at the moment.

In terms of resources, most nuclear fuel is at present completely wasted via the throw away uranium nuclear fuel cycle. There are truly massive resources there that are going to waste.

Thorium is another one. Nuclear yes, but far more of it than uranium and thorium reactor is inherently safe - it requires external input to run (in a manner similar to how a petrol engine doesn't run without electricity - turn that off and it WILL stop there and then).

Hydro too. Two thirds of the world's potential is untapped and yet hydro is still by far the dominant source of renewable electricity both locally and globally. I know it will upset many, but it's an actual replacement for baseload coal-fired power whereas wind and solar are not. I'm not saying dam the whole lot, but I do think we could do more and it's very proven, safe and cheap technology. And even Bob Brown admits that the damage from dams can be largely reversed in a matter of decades at most - that sure beats the impacts of coal, oil, gas, uranium etc.

And geothermal. Plenty of heat there and using it is just conventional steam turbines (same as coal or nuclear) so no problems in the power station. And transporting that power is just conventional extra high voltage transmission lines on steel towers - we've been building those right here in Australia for 95 years now. All we have to work out is a cheap and reliable means of getting the heat to the surface in the form of steam - something that seems quite doable when you consider the lengths we go to in order to extract oil and gas.

And the others? Well wind especially makes a good supplement especially if integrated with hydro. Same with large scale solar thermal (not panels on roofs) which works even better since it's more predictable. But they are not, with present technology, actual replacements for baseload coal, gas, nucelar or hydro generation no matter how much money you throw at them, a situation that would change only with the development of very large scale storage technology.

In the Australian context, and I've said this here before, geothermal holds the key for baseload generation supplemented by both natural flow and pumped storage hydro (yes we DO have suitable sites, that's a fact that's been known for decades) plus a bit of wind and solar.

When? Stop building conventional fossil fuel power plants. They don't last forever and many are getting old now so there's no need for forced closures. Just build the geothermal plus a bit of wind now and eventually add more hydro too whilst shifting final energy consumption towards, not away from, grid electricity. Coal and gas will just decline in an orderly manner with that approach.