Views on Climate Change

[genemachine]

Natural ChemE,

Thanks for your input, especially given your expertise.

What you said is very agreeable, especially the end when you say

We need consistent economic models that limit the net environmental impact of industry (i.e., carbon credits), and, of course, we plain need to understand what's actually going on out there.

I can agree with this 100%. We must make judgement calls on what actions we should restrict or promote for the greater good based on whatever imperfect understanding we have.

Despite all their faults in application and details I can see the logic of taxing carbon and letting us vote with out money on what products we will consume less of or produce by more carbon-efficient means. If we do not do this then the tragedy of the commons will prevail as everyone suffers from the pollution and nobody is incentivised to change their behavior.

Before I became skeptical of CO2's dangers it always seemed obvious to me that we should stop all coal power and use gas and nuclear for electricity production and invest in using science to find even better solutions. It seemed inconsistent that some journalists would say that Climate Armageddon was on the way but nuclear is too dangerous.

My favourite alternative energy source of the moment is offshore wind because I believe it will create a more interesting habitat for fish and give some protection from the fishing trawlers. In contrast, I really hate cutting down jungles to farm wood or biofuels such as palm oil.

I know very little about carbon capture except that it burns more fossil fuels than would otherwise be necessary and costs money. I don't even know what you are planning to capture it into. Maybe these carbon stores could be very useful when, almost inevitably, we come to be threatened by the next ice age :)

[sara20]

I was taught a climate change course by a female professor who spent many yrs of her life researching this in Antarctica, you know, looking at ice samples from up to one million yrs ago and it would be an insult to her if I said I don't believe in it, I sure do and I have seen all the reasons for or against it.

My favorite for the deniers, especially for those who deny humans having any effect on it is to invite them to take a look at the TRI report and also, for fun, just check out the Global Warming Potential ( GWP) of one of MILLIONS of synthetic compounds dear humans have created and that is SF6.... you know, these compounds didn't ever exist on the pristine earth......just think abt it........They won't just disappear when you get out your magic wands.......now I rest my case...

[genemachine]

sara20,

Your refusal to be influenced by a personal relationship is admirable.

Was the scientist Ellen Mosley-Thompson?

[wolfhnd]

If the geological record did not clearly demonstrate the relationship between co2 and temperature one could be allowed a bit of skepticism on anthropomorphic warming. My complaint has always been that there is so little data that allows us to predict the back ground temperature on which the anthropomorphic warming is plotted that we could slip into an ice age without anyone knowing we were headed there. While that is a bit of an exaggeration and the situation has improved somewhat with NASA and other investing more in solar research the problem of refining our responses persists. 10 years after I first considered global warming the evidence of the severity of the problem has grown substantially, largely as a result of new data from core samples. I was never a skeptic but now I'm approaching a zealot stage in my concern. Our history is one of two little too late in response to impeding disasters and I'm confident that pattern will not change. We live in a world where most people have a 21st century life style and a 19th century attitude. Ronald Reagan was perhaps responsible for setting the US environmental response back 20 years let he is still remembered as a much greater president than Carter who at least had some clue what was happening. The population as a whole needs a much more sophisticated world view and a willingness to live in the present and not the nostalgic past. In the past we simply had no idea what was happening because there was no information to base an opinion on. Now perhaps the problem is too much information and too little faith in our ability to absorb it and act accordingly.

[genemachine]

If the geological record did not clearly demonstrate the relationship between co2 and temperature one could be allowed a bit of skepticism on anthropomorphic warming.

wolfhnd,

How did the ice-cores convince you that co2 was a significant driver on temperature?

There is an 800 year time lag with co2 concentrations following a temperature change.

This is consistent with this order of events:

* Some unknown factor causes temperature to change
* Temperature causes co2 concentrations to change
* Positive feedbacks cause more temperature change (through the geenhouse effect)

Apart from the 800 year lag, there are many reasons to expect temperature to affect co2 levels including:

co2's solubility is temperature dependent
At the end of ice ages, gasses such as co2 and methane are released from tundra
Polar regions teem with life in warm periods
Temperature affects evaporation
Forest fires may become more or less frequent

I have no idea how to weight these and other forcings, including the greenhouse effect which provides positive feedback.

Presumably it's the magnitude of the co2 feedback that makes you think that temperature has a high sensitivity to co2.

Given the complexity of the relationship, can you estimate temperature's sensitivity to co2 from this (lagged) correlation?

[wolfhnd]

“Carbon dioxide has been suspected as an important factor in ending the last Ice Age, but its exact role has always been unclear because rising temperatures reflected in Antarctic ice cores came before rising levels of CO2,” said Shakun, who is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Post-doctoral Fellow at Harvard University and Columbia University.

“But if you reconstruct temperatures on a global scale – and not just examine Antarctic temperatures – it becomes apparent that the CO2 change slightly preceded much of the global warming, and this means the global greenhouse effect had an important role in driving up global temperatures and bringing the planet out of the last Ice Age,” Shakun added.

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/ ... glaciation

Keep in mind that a lot of the data skeptics use is somewhat dated and more recent work is more supportive of co2 nudging temperature.

We could have an endless debate over which studies are valid and which are not, who here is really able to make those judgment calls?

Scientist are skeptics by nature which is a point that the lay population does not fully appreciate when reviewing the debate from the outside. It is easy to get lost in the details of just how much of the current warming can be attributed to anthropomorphic forcing. What no one debates is that co2 is a greenhouse gas and even if the majority of the warming was due to natural causes the fact that the planet is warming is not in debate. Evidence suggest that in periods of climate instability even a small amount of forcing can tip the positive feed back scales. So even if as little as 15 percent of the forcing is anthropomorphic if could be critical.

If climate patterns repeat in a predictable way then we are about to fall off the warming cliff into another ice age some time in the next thousand years but that does not mean that we can just wait for it to start cooling. Human population growth means that there is very little margin of error in terms of food supply before we have mass starvation. Keeping these facts in mind my choice would be to immediately intervene to slow warming even if co2 emissions cannot be reduced. Reducing co2 is not the only thing we can do to slow warming, land use, aerosols, and other steps can be taken many of which have side benefits that significantly offset the cost and are easily reversible. Cooling such as another little ice age even over a period of two years would be far worse than the predicted warming in terms of it's effect on food supply so putting all our eggs in one basket seems unnecessarily fatalistic and that is my issue with environmentalist. While it is true that intervention could do more harm than good the same could be said about bypass surgery but often the natural remedies are insufficient and drastic steps are justified.

What is the debate really over anyway, fossil fuels pollute, oil imports destabilize the world economically and politically, desertification needs addressed, low till agriculture works, shore lines benefit from plantings, carbon is a valuable resource worth conserving, quality of life is less dependent on material wealth than attitude, population density has made the current transportation system impractical, non point source pollution is now a bigger issue than industrial pollution, fossil fuels are non renewable, population growth is out of control, technology to control climate must be developed to prevent the next ice age, human impact on the environment is often worse with low tech solutions, why are we waiting for the debate over Climate Change to be conclusive?

[mtbturtle]

"why are we waiting for the debate over Climate Change to be conclusive?"

What would it take for it to be conclusive?

[wolfhnd]

Clearly there is no single answer to what it would take for the debate to be conclusive or perhaps concluded is a better way of putting it. It depends on your level of skepticism, your personal sense of self interest, better prediction of back ground temperatures, etc. etc. I'm certainly not in a position to argue with the skeptics on every point and there will always be the issue of how much warming we are talking about.

Soon however I think we can stop talking about warming and focus on other emerging issues like ocean acidification that are directly linked to co2 levels. I have long argued that it is in humanities interest to adapt to warming climates but that implies a slower and moderated increase in temperature and it now appears that co2 is not the answer to controlling climate in any case.

[genemachine]

wolfhnd,

We could have an endless debate over which studies are valid and which are not, who here is really able to make those judgment calls?"

I too find it hard to hard to decide what to make of this study in relation to numerous studies reporting a temperature first lag. I think most of the older studies looked at of a longer time period.

They seem to have found that temperature changes in the southern hemisphere lag northern hemisphere temperatures by 1000 years. The southern temperature changes precede the co2 which then precedes the northern hemisphere changes. I'm not completely sure whether the lead of the southern hemisphere is significant here. The results of the conflicting studies may depend on which hemisphere they use for temperature proxies.

Anyway, none of this seems to shed much light on how significant a feedback co2 is and what we can expect from anthropogenic changes to it's concentration.

My prediction for a doubling: mild warming concentrated near the poles, increased forest, decreased desert, increased bioproductivity and crop yields globally.

[JohnD]

Can't say I know anything at all about the subject other than what has been in the media but something always tends to confuse me about these arguments.
In a couple of media reports I have read there has been speculation that oil reserves will run out in the next 100 years or less. If this is so then exactly what is the argument?

[wolfhnd]

The argument is an academic one concerning the validity of the various positions people have taken on the issue.

I'm not so sure that it is so much about anthropomorphic causes for warming anymore as how much, when and what should be done. There remains questions such as positive feedback which may be distorting some of the ways in which the data from core samples etc. are interpreted. We will probably move on past those issues too. There are financial interest both cooperate and individual that will make any kind of solution very difficult as the finer points of how much, when, where and how are discussed. If financial interests were not bad enough we have other political problems concerning the use of Global Warming and other environmental issues to promote broader agendas. Reaching constructive compromises will be very difficult and the debate heated.

I will offer an example of how unreasoned the various players can be even when they have the best of intentions.

While the political right has been in denial or blocking remedial action to placate their constituency the liberals have done little to help in any practical way preferring to squeegee every ounce of political advantage possible from their superficial moral indignation. The example I offer is Katrina and the demands for government action to address New Orleans problems. My question is why would we rebuild a city that is below sea level in the face of rising ocean levels and how can that be in the best interest of the victims? After the flooding in the Midwest in 1993 whole towns were relocated because it was clear levies are not the answer to most flooding problems. Unfortunately the remedies for global warming will place a far greater burden on the poor and underdeveloped nations than on the wealthy something many liberals will label as unfair. Practical solutions will not come without a willingness not only to make sacrifices in terms of our pocket books but we will also be forced to sacrifice the better than thou attitudes that currently makes politics so polar. Environmentalist will also have to make hard choices, compromising their positions enough to maintain some momentum. There is simply no way that the issues can be addressed equitably and without doing harm in the process.

So while the debate over anthropomorphic forcing may be receding the debate over who pays for what and how is just commencing. That is what this thread is about, the whole question of who owes who what and how is it morally justified. I can't answer that question because there are too many variables. What I do believe is that it is too late and a waste of time to place blame or to find those responsible and make them pay for remediation or shame them into changing their life styles. I also believe it is to late to abandon fossil fuels and find alternatives. Intervention is in my opinion over due and the risks are acceptable. co2 emissions will still have to be lowered but the positive feed back cycle from warming should be broken first. Life is all about calculated risks and mitigation of negative consequences.

[genemachine]

In a couple of media reports I have read there has been speculation that oil reserves will run out in the next 100 years or less. If this is so then exactly what is the argument?

The argument is simply that there's not enough. US production is in decline, Saudi Arabia is claimed to be overstating it's reserves. Sounds pretty bad if you read an article from one side of the argument.

Personally I think more oil will become economic to extract for the foreseeable future and that there will be no shock ending but rather a gradual price increase.

We have loads of other fossil fuels, coal and gas. Coal may present an upper limit for how high transportation fuel can get. It is possible, though dirty and inefficient, to process coal to make transportation fuel. I hope we have better alternatives before this point arrives.

It will be a real shame if oil becomes expensive given it's role in feeding the world and enabling trade.

[genemachine]

I'm not so sure that it is so much about anthropomorphic causes for warming anymore as how much, when and what should be done.

Logically whether temperature sensitivity to co2 doubling is 1 degree or 5 degrees should matter. It really should matter a lot since billions are currently pushed further into poverty by rising prices. Higher food prices contribute to malnutrition and other hardships. Actions strong enough to actually make a difference will cost a lot more.

For all the "investment" in windmills, solar panels, and mercury filled light bulbs, we have had approximately zero impact on emissions. Bizarrely our policies have helped push industry over to coal powered China. Germany may have been busy installing solar panels but due to the perceived risk of tsunamis flooding their nuclear plants they have decided to ramp up their coal generation.

We can make significant and relatively affordable reductions in co2 emissions with gas and nuclear but this is politically unpopular due to (what I consider to be) exaggerations of the dangers involved.

If someone can simultaneously think that we are on the edge of an unprecedented human tragedy through co2 induced global warming(/climate change/climate disruption/climate wierding) but that nuclear is a bad idea then I cannot fully respect their position on either.

When environmentalist George Monbiot changed his position to endorse nuclear I had some thinking to do. To reconcile our agreement I'm now anti-nuclear; I say lets burn the coal and see what happens. Let's have more forests and jungle over tundra and deserts, let the crop grow big so we can devote less land to feeding humanity and biofuels.