Climate Change
2010-Jan-31, 2:00 pm
Conservative attack on Science
What is going to happen the next time Science warns us of a forthcoming catastrophe? What if, as with Swine Flu, we aren't as "lucky" that next time?
Activist denialists make out that science has exaggerated the risks of Anthropogenic Global Warming *AGW".
In a world constrained by the threat of liability, warnings are, necessarily, given early, and with the worst case scenario clearly stated. When the worst case scenario isn't played out, there are accusations of "exaggeration" or waste, and, conversely, when the outcome is worse than expected there are cries of "why weren't we warned?". Education in understanding risk and probability might be useful.
That said, I think the latest wave of "anti-science" has lead to a gross under-estimate of the dangers of AGW, on top of a playing down of what the science is telling us.
My fear is that "anti-science" will develop into an extremist cult that will be taken up as a new escapism and diminish the hopes we had to address the real threats we face. Worse still is the prospect that such an extremist cult gains power in a drunken orgy of righteousness. Human history is rich with such episodes, and it is only afterwards that we say "How couldn't they see what was going on?".
2010-Jan-19, 9:20 am
2009 was second warmest year on record
2009 was second warmest year on record according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Anomaly for 2009 was 0.57°C above the average for the base period 1951-1980, and 0.92°C above the average in 1909.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gi
2010-Jan-18, 4:55 pm
Most of the World's Glaciers are Retreating
Of the 176 longest glaciers in the world (greater than 10 km in length):
18 are markedly retreating
78 are slightly retreating
23 are stationary
56 are slightly advancing
1 is markedly advancing
Source: World Glacier Inventory
and of all the glaciers in the database:
7,856 are markedly retreating
14,652 are slightly retreating
10,670 are stationary
1,150 are slightly advancing
68 are markedly advancing
2010-Jan-18, 8:17 am
Most of the World's Glaciers are Retreating
While AGW denialists are saying how impossible the a reduction in CO2 will be, the real world gets on with the job.
and
The AGW deniers will increasingly become irrelevant as homes become better insulated, people re-think the cars they buy, the houses they build, where they work and so on.
Most people know that sustainability is the only future for humanity.
2010-Jan-17, 1:34 pm
The future of Cars in a Carbon Constrained World
Can we afford to keep our cars whilst making
the cuts to CO2 emissions?
Certainly not the way cars are used now. Regardless of any change made
due to addressing AGW, peak oil will also force that change to occur.
Cost will dictate the change in car use. Other sensible changes will
follow – people working closer to where they live and decentralisation
of commerce and industry. It's not all negative – less time travelling
and a healthier lifestyle often arise out such changes. In many
countries in the world now, households have small, efficient cars for
daily use and larger
cars for longer trips – that's just sensible.
2010-Jan-16, 1:34 pm
How can we Avert a Climate Catastrophe? Calculating the Planet's Limit.
In 2009, we, as the inhabitants of this planet, anthropogenically emitted 2.843 x 1010 tonnes of CO2
In 1972 we emitted about half that.
During that time CO2 went from 325 ppm to 383 ppm, which infers that 4.99 x 1011 tonnes of the anthropogenic emissions were absorbed in 37 years. This means that the system can absorb about 7.84 x 109 tonnes per year.
The absorption of CO2 is not linear, but, or perhaps because, some systems are in danger of saturation.
To gauge the catastrophic point, we have to estimate the CO2 level that represents the tipping point. If we take 450 ppm as an optimistic level, that means we could, if we cut it fine and if we dare, dump another 3.16 x 1011 tonnes into the atmosphere (about 16.5% more CO2 than currently there). If we recognise that our ability to tackle the problem will take time, I reckon we need to aim at 27.5% reduction of current C02 production by 2020 and then we need to go further by 2050. By 2020 we should aim for the major energy saving and replacement strategies to kick-in and reaching their greatest mitigating effect by say 2050 – 2060.
My reasoning has to do with a "curve fit" with the projected CO2
in that curve.
Probably best illustrated by this:
http://www.energy-savin
Except I don't think we need nuclear or CCS (both dumb technologies in
my opinion).
If we just make 450 ppm then, in a century we could reach an equilbrium with natural systems. That would mean under 8Gt per year. Yes I mean 75% of current emission in 100 years.
If we do nothing, we will be at 450ppm much sooner than 11 years.
2010-Jan-14, 2:22 pm
Earth's Energy Imbalance.
Schuckmann (2009) uses Argo data and finds
globally, the oceans continue to accumulate heat. Over the last 5
years, the oceans have been absorbing heat at a rate of 0.77 ±
0.11 Wm-2.
The fundamental data used is direct temperature and salinity
measurement.
" This data field is based on the Argo array of
profiling floats (95% of the data, see http://www.argo.net),
drifting buoys, shipboard measurements and moorings. "
Steric sea levels are not used by this work to calculate heat content (or more specifically heat content anomaly), if fact, the paper shows steric sea levels confirm the heat content anomaly.
http://www.mercator.eu.
This figure is not trivial.
0.77 W/m2 means 3.61 x 1014 m2 x 0.77 x 3600 x 24
x 365
= 87.6 x 1021 J/yr
= 87.6 ZJ/yr (zettajoules)
That means (taking earth's oceanic volume to be 1.338 x 109
km3),
if the oceans were warming uniformly, average ocean temperature would
rise 1.56°C per century. Unfortunately, oceans do not heat
uniformly,
so the ocean surface temperature is likely to rise much more than that.
This is consistent with other predictions ranging from 4°C to
8°C per
century. This would be catastrophic.
2010-Jan-11, 8:41 pm
Lord Martin Rees' Superb Address
I think Martin Rees did a good job and roughly summarises my position.
http://www.abc.net.
2009-Dec-29, 12:51 pm
On Stephen McIntyre's website:
When you go to the donation page you get:
"Individual contributions help cover Climate Audit costs. There's no formal organization here. No tax benefits. Just individuals helping out."
The money goes into Stephen McIntyre's account – of course.
stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
Stephen McIntyre is hardly an impartial source.
I think the Guardian summarised Copenhagen well
"Before it even began, Copenhagen was at once already a success, because no country could pretend to ignore any longer the scientific consensus on climate change, and already a failure, because it was clear that no binding treaty or full protocol would emerge from it. The meagre agreement painfully reached in Copenhagen screams for European leadership: as we enter the nuts and bolts era in climate change policy, we will need fewer and fewer grand declarations and more and more small steps towards efficient economic instruments."
For all McIntyre's protestations and the inappropriate responses by
some scientists, in the end, the real process of science will emerge,
and the task we all know has to be tackled will be addressed.
TechDev Services