I was looking for a source for heat pollution - it seems to be just
another global apocalypse scenario - but do take everything on the
human knowledge site with a bucket of salt. Lucky we only have to
wait to 2012 for the end of the universe (LOL).
There is a new theory of climate that is a little more serious -
http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf
- it goes beyond the simple physics of gases and radiation to the
modern physics of complex systems. It views climate on decadal
timescales as an emergent property of complex and dynamic Earth
systems. There are all sorts of future possibilities - including
extremes. The ultimate 'strange attractors' seem to be states +/- 10
degrees C but being definitive beyond next month seems theoretically
impossible. Correlation certainly won't work as there is no simple
cause and effect.
Chaos theory explains why it hasn't warmed in the past decade. Thus
is the battle lost and it may take another generation or 2 to take any
action...
I am, at any rate, missing the point of science that needs to be
definitive and have scary answers. This is particularly the case
where science is synthesis rather than hypothesis and experiment.
There are three real human questions about climate.
1. Should we continue to change the composition of the atmosphere? No.
2. What is the cheapest and most effective way to transition
economies? I call this the organisational and technological path - it
is said by economist Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Group to be
300 times more cost effective than cap and trade methods.
Organisational methods could include such things as this geo-
engineering proposal for carbon sequestration involving afforestation
of deserts in Africa and Australia. A mega project in greening the
Sahel has potential not only to sequester carbon but to bring safe
water, sewerage, power, education and health services to the heart of
Africa. The proposal would have some ecological show stoppers in
Australia - but a project to restore carbon stores to pre-European
levels in Australian soils has as well productivity, fire risk and
conservation benefits. It is easily possible to do something other
than an inefficient, complex and market distorting government imposed
limit on carbon emissions. This latter approach seems to stem in
good part from a sincere desire, based on the limits to growth of the
Club of Rome or similar, to reduce global wealth to some ostensibly
sustainable level. An approach likely to be counter productive with
respect to both population and conservation. Population growth
declines and environmental standards increase with increasing
GDP.
There are a number of technologies that are available and in use, are
10 years or less away or can be delivered within 20 years. Thin (and
therefore cheap) solar panels are a dream source for many of the
world's poorest who don't have adequate energy supplies. Generation 4
nuclear plants have a 40 year development history and are being built
and operated now. A new model designed at Los Alamos - the US
government laboratory famous (or infamous) for the first atomic bomb -
will be available commercially from 2013. Generation 4 nuclear plants
can't melt down, are modular and flexible, can't be used for weapons
production, use a range of nuclear materials (conventional nuclear
waste, uranium, thorium and recycled weapons plutonium) providing
virtually limitless fuels, burn two orders of magnitude more
efficiently than conventional reactors and create much shorter lived
wastes (hundreds of years rather than hundreds of millennia). Endless
energy for endless purposes through clever fuel processing and
materials. The Gen 4 International Forum - which Australia should
join given our huge nuclear fuels advantage - has a technology roadmap
for 6 different designs for different purposes to be delivered by
2030. In the interim there are Gen 3 and 3+ technologies to go on
with. These are perfectly adequate in many locations and applications
- and indeed there are hundreds of these plants ordered or under
construction.
Geothermal, wind farms, solar concentrators, algal biofuels, oil
recovery from waste, co-generation, carbon efficiency, coal to gas
conversion, coal seam methane production to name a few more examples.
There are technologies available now that are cost effective and
others where costs are coming down and technologies are improving.
This is not market magic - but the inevitable outcome of the rapid
rate of technological innovation. Instead of spending $400 billion on
carbon regulation - spend, mostly by the private sector, a fraction of
that on research and development and create better and cheaper energy
options for the world.
Technology and organisation having changed the trajectory - science
(successfull in the job of provisionally warning) can return to being
fun explorations of the universe around us. I am particularly fond of
trying to reconcile evolutionary theory with the space/time continuum
but some people just don't have a sense of humour.
3. What does the science say?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218094605.htm
'The Sun not only emits light and heat into space, it constantly spews
out solar wind, a stream of charged particles. This solar wind carries
electrical and magnetic fields throughout the Solar System and ‘blows’
past the planets.
Unlike Earth, Venus does not generate a magnetic field. This is
significant because Earth’s magnetic field protects its atmosphere
from the solar wind. At Venus, however, the solar wind strikes the
upper atmosphere and carries off particles into space. Planetary
scientists think that the planet has lost part of its water in this
way over the four-and-a-half-thousand million years since the planet’s
birth.
“We do see water escaping from the night-side but the question
remains, how much has been lost in the past in this way,” says Stas
Barabash, Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Kiruna and Principal
Investigator of ASPERA, that looked at night-side data.
While the earth retains oceans and an atmosphere - there are the
ultimate feedbacks of the hydrological cycle and the Stefan-Boltzmann
relationship. Vapour will rise in the atmosphere and radiate at
increasing intensities (exponentially to the 4th power)as the planet
warms - an intensification of the hydrological cycle such as we have
seen since the climate shift of the mid 1970's.
I think runaway warming is just one more problem too far. I would
have one thing to say to James Hansen - with all my love - don't worry
it will be 2012 very soon. I wonder why Venus doesn't have a magnetic
field? Is it something to do with the core materials?
Cheers
Robbo
On Jan 6, 3:59 am, Igor Samoylenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have not read his book yet but from what I can see so far it is indeed
> difficult to justify his level of certainty (from his lecture):
>
> "All Coal ->?? (Runaway Possible)
> Coal + Tars ->!! (Dead Certainty)"
>
> With all due respect to James Hansen (and I do have tremendous respect for
> him as a scientist), it is hard not to take this view as an outlier amongst
> the climate scientists.
>
> I wonder if he is using the same approach here as in his paper on sea level
> rise "Scientific reticence and sea level
> rise"?:http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/2/024002/erl7_2_024002.html
>
> "Is my perspective on this problem really so different than that of other
> members of the
> relevant scientific community? Based on interactions with others, I conclude
> that there is
> not such a great gap between my position and that of most, or at least much,
> of the
> relevant community. The apparent difference may be partly a natural reticence
> to speak
> out, [...]"
>
> That may be the case with the sea level rise but has any climate scientists
> come out to support him in his views on the possibility of the Venus-type
> runaway greenhouse effect here on Earth?
>
> PS: According to one of the links cited by Robbo
> (http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html):
>
> "Global Warming. Accumulation of greenhouse gases is causing a rise in global
> temperature of a few degrees celsius. This may by 2050 melt enough antarctic
> ice to raise sea levels by a few feet and cause some coastal flooding.
> Warming may make weather cycles more extreme but may also make land more
> useful in the northern expanses of Asia and North America. Projected
> greenhouse warming is not severe enough to lead to runaway effects like on
> Venus."
>
> So, that is OK then :-)
>
> The next quote though casts some doubt over the credibility of this site (as
> far as climate science is concerned at least):
>
> "Ice Age. When Earth's next ice age arrives in 10,000 years or so, [...]."
>
> Yeah, right...
>
> A few more quotes for your entertainment:
>
> "Timeline
> ...
> 2020Almost all overt tyranny has been eliminated.
> ...
> 2030Radio astronomers have discovered signals from extraterrestrial
> intelligence."
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kooiti MASUDA <[email protected]>
> To: globalchange <[email protected]>
> Sent: Mon, 4 January, 2010 11:00:23
> Subject: [Global Change: 3410] Re: Hansen on runaway warming
>
> On Jan 3, 8:52 am, Igor Samoylenko <[email protected]> wrote:> Hansen
> mentioned the Venus syndrome in his Bjerknes Lecture he gave at AGU in
> December 2008:
>
> >http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf
>
> > What he said is this:
>
> ...
>
> In the chapter 10 'Venus syndrome' of his book 'Storms of my
> Grandchildren',
> Hansen says similar thing.
> But, as far as I understand, he does not properly formulate here
> what is the condition for runaway greenhouse effect, or 'Venus
> syndrome'.
> What he shows with good scientific support is that the climate system
> is
> more sensitive to radiative forcing (either solar constant or CO2)
> at both warmer and colder extremes, due to greenhouse effect of water
> vapor
> and ice-albedo feedback, respectively. I think this is reasonable.
> Then he suggests that even CO2 level of 1000 ppm may be dangerous
> (this corresponds to "10-20 W/m2" in the Bjerknes lecture, I guess),
> perhaps first triggering such an event like Paleocene-Eocene Thermal
> Maximum
> and then Venus-like runaway greenhouse (evaporation of the ocean).
> But he does not tell how likely will it be, or how confident he is.
> (This is a complaint a la Stephen Schneider. I know it is a tall
> order.)
> As far as I understand, the value 1000 ppm is just an estimate of the
> maximum
> level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the Cenozoic era except PETM.
> I could not grasp why he considers this level is near the runaway
> situation.
>
> So I am tempted not to use Hansen's book as a reliable source about
> climate
> change (though it is still a very interesting book).
>
> *****
> By the way, some attempts to simulate runaway greenhouse condition in
> GCM
> are here (information for experts of climate dynamics):
>
> Ishiwatari M., Takehiro S.-I., Nakajima K., Hayash Y.-Y., 2002:
> A numerical study on appearance of the runaway greenhouse state of a
> three-dimensional gray atmosphere.
> Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 59, 3223-3238.
> DOI:10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<3223:ANSOAO>2.0.CO;2
>
> Ishiwatari M., Nakajima K., Takehiro S., Hayashi Y.-Y., 2007:
> Dependence of climate states of gray atmosphere on solar constant:
> From the runaway greenhouse to the snowball states.
> J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13120, doi:10.1029/2006JD007368.
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD007368.shtml
> (subscription needed for full text)
>
> Note that their formulation of radiative processes was crude.
> Probably they wanted to focus in dynamics.
>
> Ko-1 M. (Kooiti Masuda)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public,
> moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy
> dimensions of global environmental change.
>
> Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
> submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
> gratuitously rude.
>
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]
>
> For more options, visit this group
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
