I want to set aside the question of whether the world is warming and whether it is because of CO2 we are producing as I think the evidence in unassailable.
What I'm sceptical about is whether (realistically) we can do anything to stop it. If we consider a single barrel of oil that is extracted from some Saudi oilfield. In order for climate change to be averted what has to happen to that oil? The answer is that it has to not be burned - ever. It has to sit in a storage facility somewhere, quietly saving the planet (or just not be dug up in the first place - same effect).
Given that we live in an almost exclusively free market world what is the one thing that isn't going to happen to that oil? That's right, it's not going to sit there doing nothing: it will be sold to the highest bidder. Now if the UK reduces it's oil consumption, all that means is that there will be one less bidder for that oil, so it will get sold a little cheaper. In other words it doesn't matter what we do because the same amount of oil will get burned so the same amount of CO2 will get released. If we reduce the amount of petrol used by cars, say, then that just means that the price of fuel will drop and industries that are currently struggling to meet their fuel needs (like agriculture) will be able to use more. No net effect.
As far as I can see the only way to control CO2 emissions is to control oil production, but given that OPEC production is already WAY over their stated quotas I can't see that ever happening.
So I guess it's "Yay!" to the Iraqi insurgents sabotaging oil production - they're saving the planet, man!
Originally posted by MindCrime: I want to set aside the question of whether the world is warming and whether it is because of CO2 we are producing as I think the evidence in unassailable.
Really? But you are not sure are you?
Regardless of what you 'think' the evidence is assailable.
Originally posted by APL: Really? But you are not sure are you?
Regardless of what you 'think' the evidence is assailable.
OK Here's you _____V
_____________________________and here's my point _______________________________________V
But if I must . . .
I'm a chemical physicist, so I come from a more physical rather than geological viewpoint. CO2, methane and water absorb IR radiation and hence cause the atmosphere to warm up. Nothing else in the atmosphere does. Add more CO2 or more solar radiation and the world warms up (feeding back through the water vapour). Man has increased the CO2 levels by, oh about 50% (can't be bothered to go get the exact figure). Isotope ratios conclusively prove it was man (chemical physicist, remember?).
So, with no negative feedback mechanism we know absolutely that the world will heat up (it's really, really simple science - beyond question). I can see no plausible negative feedback mechanism to which I want to trust the future of our world (and actually there are quite a few positive ones).
I agree it will be very difficult to change our oil addiction.
The most likely cause for switching from oil will be energy security.
Fundamentalist islam has replaced communism as the primary global movement opposing capitalism (in its democratic and non-democratic forms).
A lot of the oil lies underneath those islamic soils and so politicians are looking to reduce their dependence on the countries they regard their enemies.
Biofuel and nuclear are the only ones that can make a real impact on our oil consumption in the short term and so that is where the policitcal momentum will go. Witness President Bush's recent interest in biofuels.
Both will have serious consequences for how we use land (expect forests to be replaced by bio fuel plantations) and the environment.
As alternatives to oil are developed, so the price of oil goes down, and the political power of oil states goes down with it. As you rightly point out, somebody will still buy the oil, it will just be cheaper than it is now.
So, in fact we can expect the situation to be even worse than doing nothing. If the US switches to biofuels there will be a massive increase in CO2 caused by the change of land use to grow the crops. At the same time oil prices will plummet and India, China, Africa etc. will pick up the slack in oil burning.
Maybe George Bush is doing us a favour by dragging his heels.
And maybe Iran is doing themselves (and possibly everyone else) a favour by developing their nuclear energy program...
I cannot understand, in the light of global political endorsement of the IPCC and alternative energy sources, why we are so worried about some nations' desire to go nuclear. Surely the main reason they are doing this is because they know their oil reserves are going to run out eventually (maybe even quite soon). I think it is incredibly patronising and hypocritical (and possibly even futile) for the West to be trying to stop them. If their intention is to develop weapons, then quite frankly I'm not surprised because they clearly don't feel they can really trust us not to bomb them back into the stoneage on some flimsy pretence of WMD before they get the chance to protect themselves... Oh dear...maybe I should stop now!
Lucibee no you shoudnt stop On this point I think your right...It is a bit rich for us to tell Iran not to have nuclear when we have weapons and power stations. Not only that but against the will of probibly the majority of brits the goverment are going to spend 25 Billion on new trident..
Originally posted by MindCrime: I'm a chemical physicist, so I come from a more physical rather than geological viewpoint. CO2, methane and water absorb IR radiation and hence cause the atmosphere to warm up. Nothing else in the atmosphere does. Add more CO2 or more solar radiation and the world warms up (feeding back through the water vapour). Man has increased the CO2 levels by, oh about 50% (can't be bothered to go get the exact figure). Isotope ratios conclusively prove it was man (chemical physicist, remember?).
So, with no negative feedback mechanism we know absolutely that the world will heat up (it's really, really simple science - beyond question). I can see no plausible negative feedback mechanism to which I want to trust the future of our world (and actually there are quite a few positive ones).
Hence - unassailable.
For a scientist you are making an awful lot of assumptions.
Ah! Hang-on, are you one of these post-normal scientists Mike Hulme talks about?
Well as a chemical physicist you'll probably be able to answer my Question 3 posted here .
Your assumption that GW is man-made through increased CO2 relies on the assumption that CO2 is a main driver of GW implying also that CO2 is on par with solar radiation in heating the planet, and you assume that this CO2 rise is 50% - without which your point about isotope ratios is meaningless.
As for no negative feeback, I assume you mean CO2, is reduced in the atmosphere through absorption and photosynthesis - and if these negative feedback mechanisms are to trivial to be counted as negatve feedbacks then please explain why it is without 'no negative feedbacks' CO2 had not spiralled out of control over the last 400,000 years?
Originally posted by Lucibee: I cannot understand, in the light of global political endorsement of the IPCC and alternative energy sources, why we are so worried about some nations' desire to go nuclear. Surely the main reason they are doing this is because they know their oil reserves are going to run out eventually (maybe even quite soon).
Iran is going nuclear because they have just witnessed the US/UK destroy their neighbour Iraq and expect to be next - not because the oil is running out. Going into Iraq (illegally) was the biggest political mistake of the 20th century - all based as we now know on 'sexed up' facts and lies.
AGW political science has a lot in common with the WMD lies - pushed no doubt by the same set of faceless bureaucrats.
Originally posted by APL: For a scientist you are making an awful lot of assumptions.
No doubt - perhaps you could point to one you don't find acceptable.
quote:
Originally posted by APL: Well as a chemical physicist you'll probably be able to answer my Question 3 posted here .
The question being: If CO2 is the main driver of climate change why with such a substantial increase in CO2 in the industrial era is there no corresponding rise in temperature?
These things take time. Each year the extra CO2 causes more energy to be added to the Earth and over time the temperature rises. And no one says that CO2 is the main driver of short-term changes in mean global temperature. Solar activity, pollution, volacanos etc. can have larger effects in a short space of time. But as long as the CO2 is there a little more energy is absorbed than would be otherwise and the baseline temperature goes up.
quote:
Originally posted by APL: Your assumption that GW is man-made through increased CO2 relies on the assumption that CO2 is a main driver of GW implying also that CO2 is on par with solar radiation in heating the planet, and you assume that this CO2 rise is 50% - without which your point about isotope ratios is meaningless.
Either I don't understand what you are saying or you don't. Perhaps you could expand on it.
quote:
Originally posted by APL: As for no negative feeback, I assume you mean CO2, is reduced in the atmosphere through absorption and photosynthesis - and if these negative feedback mechanisms are to trivial to be counted as negatve feedbacks then please explain why it is without 'no negative feedbacks' CO2 had not spiralled out of control over the last 400,000 years?
The amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere from natural processes is tiny. About 99.95% of the CO2 taken up by plants is returned to the atmosphere through decomposition/respiration. So you're left with the tiny amount from volcanism and weathering of carbonate rocks which is balanced by minerals being sequestered in marine sediment and the tiny amount of organic matter that's destined to become new oil.
We start dumping loads of CO2 into the atmosphere and there's nothing there to soak it up.
Over time, vegetation would adjust to new CO2 emission (if the emission rate were stable) and the level of CO2 would stop rising. Unfortunatley it would happen over a VERY long timescale (in human terms). Putting that aside, our emissions are not even stable but are constantly increasing and the new level of CO2 would be much higher and the world correspondingly hotter. No one suggests that climate change is going to go on forever getting hotter and hotter - eventually a new equilibrium will be reached but it will be a world much more hostile to human civilisation.
How come you 'as a chemical physicist' have cut out all the other variables and attributed GW directly to CO2 and 'WATER' of which there are vast amounts because of 'isotope ratios' How does this work?
Originally posted by MindCrime: The question being: If CO2 is the main driver of climate change why with such a substantial increase in CO2 in the industrial era is there no corresponding rise in temperature?
These things take time. Each year the extra CO2 causes more energy to be added to the Earth and over time the temperature rises. And no one says that CO2 is the main driver of short-term changes in mean global temperature. Solar activity, pollution, volacanos etc. can have larger effects in a short space of time. But as long as the CO2 is there a little more energy is absorbed than would be otherwise and the baseline temperature goes up.
I don't accept this - we are not talking about half-lifes here it's temperature, local temperature alters in seconds, global temperatures may take longer but we are talking days not millenia - otherwise we would not have seasons.
The point is global temperature responds quickly to change as can be seen on a seasonal basis the huge amounts of CO2 (if a driver) would also force temperature change equally quickly and we are not seeing that.
So I would like to know what is causing the delay in CO2 GW process because it is certainly not temperature being slow to respond.
Originally posted by Sarah77: How come you 'as a chemical physicist' have cut out all the other variables and attributed GW directly to CO2 and 'WATER' of which there are vast amounts because of 'isotope ratios' How does this work?
Well I'm sad that no one wants to talk about my actual point but that's your perogative.
What I actually said was:
quote:
Originally posted by MindCrime: CO2, methane and water absorb IR radiation and hence cause the atmosphere to warm up. Nothing else in the atmosphere does.
You might have misunderstood me. I meant that no other gasses absorb IR.
All energy on Earth comes from the Sun. Absorbing the light from the Sun warms things up. The sunlight, which is high energy visible and UV, enters the atmosphere where about half of it is reflected/scattered back out again so about half of it reaches the ground. The ground absorbs the high energy light (heats up) and re-emits it as low-energy infrared. Some of this escapes back into space and some is absorbed by CO2, water vapour and methane. Oxygen and Nitrogen (which of course make up the vast majority of the atmosphere) don't absorb any.
Water vapour absorbs a lot but the amount of water vapour is very variable (and tends to increase with temperature - hence positive feedback) and only hangs around in the atmosphere for a short time.
So if you add CO2 to the atmosphere it WILL absorb more of the available infrared. The ONLY way the world will not heat up is if 1) there is a corresponding drop in other greenhouse gasses (and as I say, warming due to CO2 will tend to increase the amount of water vapour rather than decrease it) or, 2) there is a corresponding drop in the total amount of solar radiation, so that the increasing fraction being absorbed does not mean an increasing absolute amount.
The only way I can see (2) happening is if the warming associated with CO2 caused increased cloud cover (specifically the high altitude ice clouds, I think, but I'm not an atmospheric scientist so I'm not sure). I have seen no arguments that this will happen.
As I said before - there are lots of positive feedbacks that I haven't mentioned here.
Originally posted by APL: The point is global temperature responds quickly to change as can be seen on a seasonal basis
What I actually said was
quote:
Originally posted by MindCrime: No one says that CO2 is the main driver of short-term changes in mean global temperature.
so I guess you are agreeing with me
CO2 will only cause a very small warming each year, but it will do that every year for a thousand years. And we release more and more carbon each year which is not being removed, so the effect is accelerating. Once the heating becomes obvious it's too late to do anything about it.
Mindcrime - vis cloud cover and and possible effects on GW. Evidence i have read suggests that the effect of increased cover will help to deflect more of the suns radiation back into space but that these clouds absorb radiation as well, releasing the heat into the atmosphere below. There is no accurate data for this at present but consensus (if we are allowed that anymore) says the 2 effects balance.
Iam sure that this area will prove to be more significant than we think.
Maybe you could answer this. From 1910 to 1940 the 5 year mean ave global temp rose by 0.45 degC. the increase then stabilised for 40 odd years at 0. From 1980 to 2004 it rose 0.4 degC. Figures C/O Nasa. The rise we have seen over the past 30 years has been indentified as highly significant and yet there was a very similar rise from 1910 to 1940.
Originally posted by Robmb: Evidence i have read suggests that the effect of increased cover will help to deflect more of the suns radiation back into space but that these clouds absorb radiation as well, releasing the heat into the atmosphere below. There is no accurate data for this at present but consensus (if we are allowed that anymore) says the 2 effects balance.
I think you are probably right about this. I certainly think you can't rely on clouds to conveniently put things right.
quote:
Originally posted by Robmb: Iam sure that this area will prove to be more significant than we think.
Yes. I think much of the current research concerns clouds and aerosols.
quote:
Originally posted by Robmb: Maybe you could answer this. . . . Whats going on??
I'm no climate scientist so no, not really.
I would suggest that this is because of all the things sceptics usually talk about. Solar cycles, particulate pollution and local effects etc. Mean global temperature changes a lot on these time scales (and shorter). It doesn't mean that the small change in the "baseline" temperature about which it varies (determined by long term conditions such as CO2 level) is any less significant or damaging.
i agree. However there does seem to be a problem with the argument here.
The highly significant increase in temp over the past 30 or so years has been put down to CO2 levels. What was the cause of the equally high rise from 1910 to 1940? If we are going to say that this is a short term blip in the important long trend then why has so much attention been focused on the last 30 years - another short term trend. somewhere that doesnt add up
Mindcrime. You've brought to the table the view I basically take and that is that Oil will continue to be used. We may use less but others will use more to establish economic growth (ie get themselves a decent life).
I don't know if GW is primarily caused by CO2, the sun, other natural cycles or what. Because of the above I think the cause is pretty irrelevant.
But GW has been measured over the last 100 years and despite the blip 1940-1970 which was probably caused by particles of pollution from dirty industry causing global cooling. If the AGW lobby are right then we have a problem. If they're not right then we haven't but we could still be careful to use a mix of energy sources to make oil last a bit longer.
But based on the precautionary principle and your/my view about use of oil anyway the other option to 'save the world' is to use science / engineering to create a balancing global cooling. In previous days on this space I've raised several times why isn't there significant global investment in other solutions. Mainly ignored because everyone's fighting either for or against AGW or putting their energy into being reasonable. But here I am plugging away again.
It can be done (we did it by accident 1940 - 1970). Humans are clever and ingenious given the chance to be creative. At present it's all being crowded out by AGW vs Sceptics and goverments worried about votes and legacies.
I'm afraid I can't get excited about anything that includes "humans are clever and ingenious". I think humans are actually stupid, short-sighted and greedy. I can't think of one example where man has successfully influenced the environment without messing it up eventually. Green revolution, hydro-dams, irrigation, tube wells, storm defenses, draining wetlands, building on flood plains, destroying mangroves, desertification, and on and on and on . . .
The logical conclusion of your comment is do nothing. I'm sure there must be a wise old taoist sage who says 'Inaction is action'. Or 'Damned if you do and damned if you don't'. I think overall we've made progress of some form except when it comes to housing.... You just can't get a good cave to live in anywhere these days.
Joking apart I'd contend that the human condition is better today than in the past and all the result of the application of science whether agricultural, physics, chemistry,bio, electronics..... Great steps forward by 'clever and ingenious humans' on who's shoulders we now stand.
So I stand on their shoulders with the belief that we'll continue to innovate and solve real problems while making real progress.
I don't know. Honestly I don't. But I think it depends on how you measure the human condition. If you measure material wealth, lifespan or happiness you will get three completely different answers. I would say these are all perfectly valid measures.
As to what we should do: I think there is a big problem in the modern world that we think all problems must have solutions. Some situations just don't have a happy ending.
Yes but to each of the measures you quote you'll get different answers from different people. I've known people who seem very happy (contented) all the time under difficult conditions. I've known people who seem miserable all the time under what I would judge comfortable conditions. Most are somewhere in the middle.
But we only find out what problems don't have a solution (yet!) by working on them not by giving up.
