The global warming pot continues to boil, as people are otherwise (understandably) preoccupied with near-term crises.
A scientist points out in the The Washington Post that increased inputs such as coal-burning factories in the developing world are intensifying climate change beyond the most recent predictions of the IPCC.
This means that the latest climate models are probably underestimating the extent of temperature extremes, sea-level rises, polar melting, and other anomalies that climatologists expect to take place in the next 50 years (or sooner, or later).
The scientific evidence is ironic, considering that it has been since the 1980s and conservative Reagan years since I have sensed so many people wrapped up in the "climate change is a hoax" personal fantasy. The "feedback mechanisms" involved with excess greenhouse gases are likely to threaten the habitability of the planet for us and other species.
These mechanisms include the melting of massive amounts of permafrost, which releases more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere than mankind could ever muster; as well as the continued acidification of the oceans, which typically are a "sink" for CO2 in the atmosphere. The more acidified the waters become, the less CO2 uptake takes place in the oceans.
Further, the "albedo" effect by which snow cover reflects heat back into space is obviously reduced the more snow recedes and uncovers more forested terrain. Trees also become net CO2 emitters when the carbon saturation of the forest reaches a certain level. The Australians and to a lesser extent the Californians have experienced the extreme weather events that in all probability will increase in frequency over the next several years.
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Instinctive responses to global warming/cooling vary by region
It is snowing again in the U.S. northeast, where we are having a winter more evocative of my New England childhood in the 1960s. No roofs are spared the ominous ice dams, and you can hardly see over the snowbanks. Much of the United States has experienced a similiarly rough winter. What happened to global warming?
Well, once again, ask the Australians. They seem to be living in the equivalent of Death Valley, California, with temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide ranging from 109 to 114 degrees Fahrenheit, amid a 12-year-long drought. I hiked in Badwater, Death Valley this year where it was 109 F., and neither the landscape nor the temperature seemed to belong on Planet Earth.
The point is that weather is not climate, and that forming an opinion about global warming versus cooling based on the weather outside, however tempting, is short-sighted.
At any given moment you can find opposite representative examples of weather extremes in the world, such as Australia versus the top of Mount Washington (where Summer is really summery, and winter is really wintry).
The National Academies of Science and the Royal Society lean strongly toward global warming, as in forming a scientific consensus that unchecked manmade greenhouse gases can trigger dangerous feedback mechanisms.
As the AccuWeather global warming blog points out, a recent study indicates tht Antartica has indeed been warming during the last 50 years.
Finally, 2008 turned out to have been about the ninth warmest year globally since 1880.
Well, once again, ask the Australians. They seem to be living in the equivalent of Death Valley, California, with temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide ranging from 109 to 114 degrees Fahrenheit, amid a 12-year-long drought. I hiked in Badwater, Death Valley this year where it was 109 F., and neither the landscape nor the temperature seemed to belong on Planet Earth.
The point is that weather is not climate, and that forming an opinion about global warming versus cooling based on the weather outside, however tempting, is short-sighted.
At any given moment you can find opposite representative examples of weather extremes in the world, such as Australia versus the top of Mount Washington (where Summer is really summery, and winter is really wintry).
The National Academies of Science and the Royal Society lean strongly toward global warming, as in forming a scientific consensus that unchecked manmade greenhouse gases can trigger dangerous feedback mechanisms.
As the AccuWeather global warming blog points out, a recent study indicates tht Antartica has indeed been warming during the last 50 years.
Finally, 2008 turned out to have been about the ninth warmest year globally since 1880.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Climatologist Hansen makes personal appeal to President-elect Obama
It will be interesting to see the path that President Obama will take in dealing with climate change.
He's getting advice from all corners; everyone has their favorite strategies for reducing carbon emissions and fossil-fuel use: Al Gore (solar power, wind power and geothermal energy), Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute (a renewables strategy dominated by wind), even T. Boone Pickens the oil man, whose plan revolves around mainly wind energy and domestic natural gas.
Now the climate scientist James Hansen has written a personal letter to Obama with his own plan for mitigating global warming. His plan involves phasing out coal-fired power stations; implementing a carbon tax (he views cap-and-trade systems, such as this one in the U.S. northeast, as "ineffectual"); and developing fourth-generation nuclear power.
My own preference for the U.S. is to fully exploit the potential for concentrated solar electric utilities in the sunny Southwest; keep building wind farms apace in the Midwestern wind corridor and off-shore; upgrade electric utilities to be able to efficiently distribute this electricity, and greatly expand the use of solar module arrays and geothermal energy by individual buildings and homes. What's yours?
He's getting advice from all corners; everyone has their favorite strategies for reducing carbon emissions and fossil-fuel use: Al Gore (solar power, wind power and geothermal energy), Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute (a renewables strategy dominated by wind), even T. Boone Pickens the oil man, whose plan revolves around mainly wind energy and domestic natural gas.
Now the climate scientist James Hansen has written a personal letter to Obama with his own plan for mitigating global warming. His plan involves phasing out coal-fired power stations; implementing a carbon tax (he views cap-and-trade systems, such as this one in the U.S. northeast, as "ineffectual"); and developing fourth-generation nuclear power.
My own preference for the U.S. is to fully exploit the potential for concentrated solar electric utilities in the sunny Southwest; keep building wind farms apace in the Midwestern wind corridor and off-shore; upgrade electric utilities to be able to efficiently distribute this electricity, and greatly expand the use of solar module arrays and geothermal energy by individual buildings and homes. What's yours?
Thursday, January 1, 2009
The USGS Assessment of Abrupt Climate Change
A group of scientists led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have released a report discussing the current knowledge of abrupt climate change.
You can download the executive summary here. The report analyzes the likelihood of "abrupt climate change," which it defines as:
"A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems."
I further quote from the executive summary:
"This report considers progress in understanding four types of abrupt change in the paleoclimatic record that stand out as being so rapid and large in their impact that if they were to recur, they would pose clear risks to society in terms of our ability to adapt: (1) rapid change in glaciers, ice sheets, and hence sea level; (2) widespread and sustained changes to the hydrologic cycle; (3) abrupt change in the northward flow of warm, salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic Ocean associated with the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC); and (4) rapid release to the atmosphere of methane trapped in permafrost and on continental margins."
The report reflects a greater understanding of abrupt climate change compared with five years ago, and goes into greater detail on this topic than did the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.
The gist of the report is that:
1) the melt waters from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are likely to contribute to greater sea-level rises than previous assessments have stated;
2) the U.S. Southwest could experience more intense droughts;
3) the Atlantic "conveyor belt" of warm water flowing from the southern latitudes to the North Atlantic and cold water flowing south, or AMOC, is likely to decrease from 25 to 30 percent during the 21st century, but not collapse; and
4) abrupt methane releases from heavily laden sources such as permafrost are unlikely but cannot be discounted (methane has more powerful heat-trapping effects than carbon dioxide, and one of the catastrophic feedback mechanisms that scientists warn about are massive natural methane releases from permafrost or methane hydrates in the oceans, releases that are precipitated by manmade greenhouse gases).
You can download the executive summary here. The report analyzes the likelihood of "abrupt climate change," which it defines as:
"A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems."
I further quote from the executive summary:
"This report considers progress in understanding four types of abrupt change in the paleoclimatic record that stand out as being so rapid and large in their impact that if they were to recur, they would pose clear risks to society in terms of our ability to adapt: (1) rapid change in glaciers, ice sheets, and hence sea level; (2) widespread and sustained changes to the hydrologic cycle; (3) abrupt change in the northward flow of warm, salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic Ocean associated with the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC); and (4) rapid release to the atmosphere of methane trapped in permafrost and on continental margins."
The report reflects a greater understanding of abrupt climate change compared with five years ago, and goes into greater detail on this topic than did the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.
The gist of the report is that:
1) the melt waters from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are likely to contribute to greater sea-level rises than previous assessments have stated;
2) the U.S. Southwest could experience more intense droughts;
3) the Atlantic "conveyor belt" of warm water flowing from the southern latitudes to the North Atlantic and cold water flowing south, or AMOC, is likely to decrease from 25 to 30 percent during the 21st century, but not collapse; and
4) abrupt methane releases from heavily laden sources such as permafrost are unlikely but cannot be discounted (methane has more powerful heat-trapping effects than carbon dioxide, and one of the catastrophic feedback mechanisms that scientists warn about are massive natural methane releases from permafrost or methane hydrates in the oceans, releases that are precipitated by manmade greenhouse gases).
Monday, November 10, 2008
Hey wait, the earth is cooling...
I have heard a few arguments for global cooling of late.
This is a huge issue because, for example, President Obama may propose a far-reaching cap-and-trade system for CO2. While any opposing theory deserves consideration, "global cooling" discussions should not become another excuse for inertia unless the evidence is extremely strong and a scientific consensus forms around it, because the stakes are too high for future generations.
First, all short-term anecdotal evidence, such as glaciation in Alaska, should be thrown out, because one or two years is just a nanosecond in geological time.
You can just as easily find anecdotal evidence for continued warming in other regions.
Tell the Australians that their continent is "cooling off," or the people in southern California or Arizona, whose forested regions are often on fire. There are a lot of villages in Alaska where the permafrost is melting, causing their abandonment.
I've visited a glacier in Switzerland for the last 15 years (it has lost 30 percent of its mass since the 1970s), and it added snow last year, but that doesn't mean that "phew, global warming must be over."
"Global weirding" I've heard is a much better term for what's happening.
In addition, weather patterns are heavily affected by the growth of algae in the seas (algae is an important CO2 sink, and is critical for the formation of reflective clouds because it generates the cloud-seeding precursor chemical dimethyl sulfide).
The upper layer of the oceans has warmed over the decades, creating vast "deserts" where algae plumes used to flourish. Some scientists have concluded that runaway global heating can occur partly because of this massive algae destruction. See James Lovelock's "The Revenge Of Gaia."
This is a huge issue because, for example, President Obama may propose a far-reaching cap-and-trade system for CO2. While any opposing theory deserves consideration, "global cooling" discussions should not become another excuse for inertia unless the evidence is extremely strong and a scientific consensus forms around it, because the stakes are too high for future generations.
First, all short-term anecdotal evidence, such as glaciation in Alaska, should be thrown out, because one or two years is just a nanosecond in geological time.
You can just as easily find anecdotal evidence for continued warming in other regions.
Tell the Australians that their continent is "cooling off," or the people in southern California or Arizona, whose forested regions are often on fire. There are a lot of villages in Alaska where the permafrost is melting, causing their abandonment.
I've visited a glacier in Switzerland for the last 15 years (it has lost 30 percent of its mass since the 1970s), and it added snow last year, but that doesn't mean that "phew, global warming must be over."
"Global weirding" I've heard is a much better term for what's happening.
In addition, weather patterns are heavily affected by the growth of algae in the seas (algae is an important CO2 sink, and is critical for the formation of reflective clouds because it generates the cloud-seeding precursor chemical dimethyl sulfide).
The upper layer of the oceans has warmed over the decades, creating vast "deserts" where algae plumes used to flourish. Some scientists have concluded that runaway global heating can occur partly because of this massive algae destruction. See James Lovelock's "The Revenge Of Gaia."
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Introduction
This is the introduction to my blog that was published in 2006:
I guess the best place to start is to explain the purpose of this page. What is the reason for taking up a space in the Web ether anyways?
Well, first of all, energy and environment are by far the most important issues facing current and future generations. Specifically, this page will discuss elements of E & E (as I'll refer to them from now on) involving the upcoming energy crisis or “peak oil,” as amplified by human-induced global warming.
These issues are much more important than international terrorism, for instance, or just about anything else you can think of, because they spare no person or species (in terms of warming) in the world their impacts, and literally “hit everyone where they live,” affecting how they get their food and water, how they stay warm in winter and cool in the summer, and whether or not people and their communities live in a stable habitat.
Why not write about the most important topic in you and your family's life?
I'll briefly summarize these two terms, peak oil and global warming. Then I'll provide you a little information about the writer, in the spirit of full disclosure, because it's only fair to convey to readers the background, biases, and motivations of the web page's producer.
Peak oil refers to a milestone or point on a time line when the world is approaching or has already attained the peak production, the top of a bell curve, of the oil that it can extract from the earth. Simply put, once the world has attained oil peak, the amount of oil that we can take from the ground begins to wane at varying rates, and is of lower quality and more inefficient and expensive to extract.
This is geological reality; oil is a finite resource. Why does this matter? Because so much of everything we depend upon in daily life — manufacturing endless amounts of stuff, driving around in cars, heating homes, schools, and hospitals, and other critical forms of transportation like aircraft and shipping — run on oil.
This is a giant topic, but I'll try to make this little, admittedly inadequate definition as pithy as possible. There are a lot of good books out now, and apparently much solid evidence, that we have already or will shortly reach peak oil. The compelling nature of this issue is intensified by the fact that our governments and institutions have not adequately prepared for the impending situation when oil is not abundant and cheap. In other words, a substitute resource such as hydrogen or biofuels is not available to simply “step in” and run the global economy on, particularly faced with the rising oil demand from countries like China and India.
When is the last time you drove past a fuel station carrying gasified coal or tar-sands derived oil? Industry can begin immediately generating alternative fuels, but the transportation and distribution infrastructure is another ball game.
The Greenhouse Effect makes it possible for life to exist on earth. Global warming refers to the effect of the excess dumping or filling of the lower atmosphere with greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. This has a destabilizing effect on the climate, causing fluctuations that in all probability would not have occurred, or would not have occurred with the same intensity, if the atmosphere had not received this load of gases.
Scientists have pretty much reached a consensus that human sources, such as car driving, smokestacks, and the burning of tropical forests, are substantially contributing to the catastrophic part of the global-warming equation. Another crucial part of the equation is that global warming feeds on itself; for example, the warmer the atmosphere gets, the more permafrost melts; the more permafrost that melts, the more methane and CO2 gets released, and on an on.
Ice cores have provided a solid historical record of how global CO2 levels affect average temperature; the atmospheric scientists really know what they're talking about here. Global warming is one of the few technical areas where the experts are more alarmed than the average person, which tells you something.
These two issues — peak oil and human-induced global warming — amplify each other. Destabilized weather patterns in the form of dramatic regional climate changes, rising seas, brutal storms, tropical disease migrations, and the like, make the stresses and strains of an energy crisis that much more difficult to deal with. This is why it seems natural, and more interesting to write and think about (like numerous people are) these two issues together.
Now for the disclosure part; I am not an expert in these areas by any stretch of the imagination. I have degrees in liberals arts and software engineering, and I am a writer, but mainly in the last few years of software books. Years ago I wrote a popular newsletter for environmental managers, but that was more about the ins and outs of regulations than science. I am a father and a outdoors devotee. I run, climb, and ride a bike a lot. I'm like everyone else; I notice weird changes in my immediate environment, like mosquitoes that are still present in the marshes in New England in January. In fact, these are some of the things I'm going to be writing about in part on this page.
My biases are thus: I advocate a tremendous and immediate investment in renewable sources of energy like small hydropower plants; wind farms; and solar thermal plants and arrays. I advocate foremost conservation, as in reducing the amount of energy we consume and pollution we emit as individuals. In other words, falling back in love with your bike. Conservation is probably the easiest way, the low hanging fruit, with which the human race can deal with peak oil and emitting fewer greenhouse gases.
This page will not be one of those holier than thou tracts; I pollute and consume as much as anyone else (oh, maybe a little less, as I drive a hybrid car, keep food waste out of landfills and in a glorified garbage pile called “compost,” recycle like mad, use compact fluorescent bulbs, and ride my bike and walk a lot instead of drive). I have ridden a bike more for that great outdoors feeling and competition than as a driving substitute, but lately I've been trying to do more errands on my bike.
In general, I'm for confronting problems, finding solutions, not fearing change, and taking some of the heat (no pun intended) off of the future generations that have to deal with the implications of our largesse. Thanks for reading to this point.
I guess the best place to start is to explain the purpose of this page. What is the reason for taking up a space in the Web ether anyways?
Well, first of all, energy and environment are by far the most important issues facing current and future generations. Specifically, this page will discuss elements of E & E (as I'll refer to them from now on) involving the upcoming energy crisis or “peak oil,” as amplified by human-induced global warming.
These issues are much more important than international terrorism, for instance, or just about anything else you can think of, because they spare no person or species (in terms of warming) in the world their impacts, and literally “hit everyone where they live,” affecting how they get their food and water, how they stay warm in winter and cool in the summer, and whether or not people and their communities live in a stable habitat.
Why not write about the most important topic in you and your family's life?
I'll briefly summarize these two terms, peak oil and global warming. Then I'll provide you a little information about the writer, in the spirit of full disclosure, because it's only fair to convey to readers the background, biases, and motivations of the web page's producer.
Peak Oil
Peak oil refers to a milestone or point on a time line when the world is approaching or has already attained the peak production, the top of a bell curve, of the oil that it can extract from the earth. Simply put, once the world has attained oil peak, the amount of oil that we can take from the ground begins to wane at varying rates, and is of lower quality and more inefficient and expensive to extract.
This is geological reality; oil is a finite resource. Why does this matter? Because so much of everything we depend upon in daily life — manufacturing endless amounts of stuff, driving around in cars, heating homes, schools, and hospitals, and other critical forms of transportation like aircraft and shipping — run on oil.
This is a giant topic, but I'll try to make this little, admittedly inadequate definition as pithy as possible. There are a lot of good books out now, and apparently much solid evidence, that we have already or will shortly reach peak oil. The compelling nature of this issue is intensified by the fact that our governments and institutions have not adequately prepared for the impending situation when oil is not abundant and cheap. In other words, a substitute resource such as hydrogen or biofuels is not available to simply “step in” and run the global economy on, particularly faced with the rising oil demand from countries like China and India.
When is the last time you drove past a fuel station carrying gasified coal or tar-sands derived oil? Industry can begin immediately generating alternative fuels, but the transportation and distribution infrastructure is another ball game.
Global Warming
The Greenhouse Effect makes it possible for life to exist on earth. Global warming refers to the effect of the excess dumping or filling of the lower atmosphere with greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. This has a destabilizing effect on the climate, causing fluctuations that in all probability would not have occurred, or would not have occurred with the same intensity, if the atmosphere had not received this load of gases.
Scientists have pretty much reached a consensus that human sources, such as car driving, smokestacks, and the burning of tropical forests, are substantially contributing to the catastrophic part of the global-warming equation. Another crucial part of the equation is that global warming feeds on itself; for example, the warmer the atmosphere gets, the more permafrost melts; the more permafrost that melts, the more methane and CO2 gets released, and on an on.
Ice cores have provided a solid historical record of how global CO2 levels affect average temperature; the atmospheric scientists really know what they're talking about here. Global warming is one of the few technical areas where the experts are more alarmed than the average person, which tells you something.
Feeding Off Each Other
These two issues — peak oil and human-induced global warming — amplify each other. Destabilized weather patterns in the form of dramatic regional climate changes, rising seas, brutal storms, tropical disease migrations, and the like, make the stresses and strains of an energy crisis that much more difficult to deal with. This is why it seems natural, and more interesting to write and think about (like numerous people are) these two issues together.
Who Am I?
Now for the disclosure part; I am not an expert in these areas by any stretch of the imagination. I have degrees in liberals arts and software engineering, and I am a writer, but mainly in the last few years of software books. Years ago I wrote a popular newsletter for environmental managers, but that was more about the ins and outs of regulations than science. I am a father and a outdoors devotee. I run, climb, and ride a bike a lot. I'm like everyone else; I notice weird changes in my immediate environment, like mosquitoes that are still present in the marshes in New England in January. In fact, these are some of the things I'm going to be writing about in part on this page.
Biases and Opinions
My biases are thus: I advocate a tremendous and immediate investment in renewable sources of energy like small hydropower plants; wind farms; and solar thermal plants and arrays. I advocate foremost conservation, as in reducing the amount of energy we consume and pollution we emit as individuals. In other words, falling back in love with your bike. Conservation is probably the easiest way, the low hanging fruit, with which the human race can deal with peak oil and emitting fewer greenhouse gases.
This page will not be one of those holier than thou tracts; I pollute and consume as much as anyone else (oh, maybe a little less, as I drive a hybrid car, keep food waste out of landfills and in a glorified garbage pile called “compost,” recycle like mad, use compact fluorescent bulbs, and ride my bike and walk a lot instead of drive). I have ridden a bike more for that great outdoors feeling and competition than as a driving substitute, but lately I've been trying to do more errands on my bike.
They Shoot Messengers Don't They?
In general, I'm for confronting problems, finding solutions, not fearing change, and taking some of the heat (no pun intended) off of the future generations that have to deal with the implications of our largesse. Thanks for reading to this point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)