Guest commentary by Spencer R. Weart, American Institute of Physics
I often get emails from scientifically trained people who are looking for a straightforward calculation of the global warming that greenhouse gas emissions will bring. What are the physics equations and data on gases that predict just how far the temperature will rise? A natural question, when public expositions of the greenhouse effect usually present it as a matter of elementary physics. These people, typically senior engineers, get suspicious when experts seem to evade their question. Some try to work out the answer themselves (Lord Monckton for example) and complain that the experts dismiss their beautiful logic.
The engineers’ demand that the case for dangerous global warming be proved with a page or so of equations does sound reasonable, and it has a long history. The history reveals how the nature of the climate system inevitably betrays a lover of simple answers.
The simplest approach to calculating the Earth’s surface temperature would be to treat the atmosphere as a single uniform slab, like a pane of glass suspended above the surface (much as we see in elementary explanations of the “greenhouse” effect). But the equations do not yield a number for global warming that is even remotely plausible. You can’t work with an average, squashing together the way heat radiation goes through the dense, warm, humid lower atmosphere with the way it goes through the thin, cold, dry upper atmosphere. Already in the 19th century, physicists moved on to a “one-dimensional” model. That is, they pretended that the atmosphere was the same everywhere around the planet, and studied how radiation was transmitted or absorbed as it went up or down through a column of air stretching from ground level to the top of the atmosphere. This is the study of “radiative transfer,” an elegant and difficult branch of theory. You would figure how sunlight passed through each layer of the atmosphere to the surface, and how the heat energy that was radiated back up from the surface heated up each layer, and was shuttled back and forth among the layers, or escaped into space.
When students learn physics, they are taught about many simple systems that bow to the power of a few laws, yielding wonderfully precise answers: a page or so of equations and you’re done. Teachers rarely point out that these systems are plucked from a far larger set of systems that are mostly nowhere near so tractable. The one-dimensional atmospheric model can’t be solved with a page of mathematics. You have to divide the column of air into a set of levels, get out your pencil or computer, and calculate what happens at each level. Worse, carbon dioxide and water vapor (the two main greenhouse gases) absorb and scatter differently at different wavelengths. So you have to make the same long set of calculations repeatedly, once for each section of the radiation spectrum.
It was not until the 1950s that scientists had both good data on the absorption of infrared radiation, and digital computers that could speed through the multitudinous calculations. Gilbert N. Plass used the data and computers to demonstrate that adding carbon dioxide to a column of air would raise the surface temperature. But nobody believed the precise number he calculated (2.5ºC of warming if the level of CO2 doubled). Critics pointed out that he had ignored a number of crucial effects. First of all, if global temperature started to rise, the atmosphere would contain more water vapor. Its own greenhouse effect would make for more warming. On the other hand, with more water vapor wouldn’t there be more clouds? And wouldn’t those shade the planet and make for less warming? Neither Plass nor anyone before him had tried to calculate changes in cloudiness. (For details and references see this history site.)
Fritz Möller followed up with a pioneering computation that took into account the increase of absolute humidity with temperature. Oops… his results showed a monstrous feedback. As the humidity rose, the water vapor would add its greenhouse effect, and the temperature might soar. The model could give an almost arbitrarily high temperature! This weird result stimulated Syukuro Manabe to develop a more realistic one-dimensional model. He included in his column of air the way convective updrafts carry heat up from the surface, a basic process that nearly every earlier calculation had failed to take into account. It was no wonder Möller’s surface had heated up without limit: his model had not used the fact that hot air would rise. Manabe also worked up a rough calculation for the effects of clouds. By 1967, in collaboration with Richard Wetherald, he was ready to see what might result from raising the level of CO2. Their model predicted that if the amount of CO2 doubled, global temperature would rise roughly two degrees C. This was probably the first paper to convince many scientists that they needed to think seriously about greenhouse warming. The computation was, so to speak, a “proof of principle.”
But it would do little good to present a copy of the Manabe-Wetherald paper to a senior engineer who demands a proof that global warming is a problem. The paper gives only a sketch of complex and lengthy computations that take place, so to speak, offstage. And nobody at the time or since would trust the paper’s numbers as a precise prediction. There were still too many important factors that the model did not include. For example, it was only in the 1970s that scientists realized they had to take into account how smoke, dust and other aerosols from human activity interact with radiation, and how the aerosols affect cloudiness as well. And so on and so forth.
The greenhouse problem was not the first time climatologists hit this wall. Consider, for example, attempts to calculate the trade winds, a simple and important feature of the atmosphere. For generations, theorists wrote down the basic equations for fluid flow and heat transfer on the surface of a rotating sphere, aiming to produce a precise description of our planet’s structure of convective cells and winds in a few lines of equations… or a few pages… or a few dozen pages. They always failed. It was only with the advent of powerful digital computers in the 1960s that people were able to solve the problem through millions of numerical computations. If someone asks for an “explanation” of the trade winds, we can wave our hands and talk about tropical heating, the rotation of the earth and baroclinic instability. But if we are pressed for details with actual numbers, we can do no more than dump a truckload of printouts showing all the arithmetic computations.
I’m not saying we don’t understand the greenhouse effect. We understand the basic physics just fine, and can explain it in a minute to a curious non-scientist. (Like this: greenhouse gases let sunlight through to the Earth’s surface, which gets warm; the surface sends infrared radiation back up, which is absorbed by the gases at various levels and warms up the air; the air radiates some of this energy back to the surface, keeping it warmer than it would be without the gases.) For a scientist, you can give a technical explanation in a few paragraphs. But if you want to get reliable numbers – if you want to know whether raising the level of greenhouse gases will bring a trivial warming or a catastrophe – you have to figure in humidity, convection, aerosol pollution, and a pile of other features of the climate system, all fitted together in lengthy computer runs.
Physics is rich in phenomena that are simple in appearance but cannot be calculated in simple terms. Global warming is like that. People may yearn for a short, clear way to predict how much warming we are likely to face. Alas, no such simple calculation exists. The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors. People who refuse to acknowledge that complexity should not be surprised when their demands for an easy calculation go unanswered.
GlenFergus (301), are you stating that the A380 was built and flown without any wind tunnel and similar tests on the equivalent shape and weight? I find that hard to believe, but don’t really know.
Et al, since the supercomputer-run aerodynamic models have been thoroughly vetted and tested over and over again with millions of hours of physical lab type processes, which climate models haven’t and can’t, how can aerodynamic models be used as evidence per se of the validity of GCMs? Ala the argument that tells us if we don’t accept GCMs hook, line, and sinker, we’d better not ever board a plane.
Ray #350:
That’s my guess, but not an assumption. All I am saying is we should get better bounds on the sensitivity before making drastic changes to our economy. If sensitivity really is 4.5C and fast mixing (so we’ll be there by 2100), we should probably be doing a heck of a lot more than making mild cuts to CO2 in the west.
But let’s be realistic. China and India are looking at catapulting their children from abject poverty to middle-class in a single generation. It’s very unlikely they’d be willing to jeopardize that for even a 4.5C rise, since the benefit to them far outweighs the cost.
I doubt that.
Eventually you do run into lower bounds that are hard – eg no-feedback sensitivity of 1C, or 0C sensitivity because of negative feedbacks, if you believe in the power of clouds to stabilize the climate.
There are no similar hard physical upper bounds, so while it may be strictly correct, it is not useful to claim some high sensitivity is much more likely than a low sensitivity near the hard physical limits.
Mark (344), no, sorry, but you have me confused with someone else; I didn’t say that.
Barton Paul Levenson #346,
I think that you are having trouble reading what I am saying. I am not defending those ideas as correct. I am saying they are not crackpot as
they have some sound elements and were taken seriously at the time they
were presented. You, who style yourself a wordsmith, should be thankful
for the correction.
Again, I do not say that all of Hoyle’s ideas were correct and I’m not
attached to them. My advisor’s advisor was Ryle. But, I am interested in
the proper use of the term crackpot because I think that there are ways to
save time when it is used correctly. AGW deniers tend to be crackpots or
stooges and in their case it may be possible to simply label them and ignore
them going forward.
I am sorry you are upset. Rereading what I wrote may help to calm you if you do it more carefully.
Ray: “Uncertainty is not your friend and it is definitely not the friend of your progeny.”
For once I agree, and I think the amount of uncertainty has been greatly exaggerated. For example, your discussion of 5.5C sensitivity. Here is what James Annan says about the upper limit given in his paper:
“As for the upper limit of 4.5C – as should be clear from the paper, I’m not really happy in assigning as high a value as 5% to the probability of exceeding that value. But there’s a limit to what we could realistically expect to get past the referees, at least without a lengthy battle.”
#352 — ” All I am saying is we should get better bounds on the sensitivity before making drastic changes to our economy” That makes no sense. Why not save money and increase human prosperity by changing the economy? That it also would mitigate climate change can be considered a bonus. 100% of all near-term changes proposed will save money. Efficient lighting, insulation, efficient cars. You’re saying on one hand that we MUST retain 1900s based inefficient technology, then on the other hand say that we need not be concerned for the future because Buck Rodgers style tech will save the day. Which is it? Do you want to keep the inefficient 1900s stuff you currently drive or go for the future?
Then you say that hard lower bounds exist, yet no hard upper bound exist. Yep, so far so good. Your conclusion is ludicrous, that giving little weight to the unlimited upper bound is the best course! The essential point is that one can’t do only one thing. Doubling CO2 was done many decades ago. That CO2 just hasn’t entered the atmosphere yet. Remember, CO2 lags thermal by perhaps 800 years, so you CAN’T measure CO2 this year and call it a conclusion. The real equation is CO2 –> temp rise —> CH4/CO2 rise (repeat until decay of CH4 into CO2 causes equilibrium)
Anyone else noticed that oil is still a glutted commodity and always will be? There’s enough tar sands and shale to produce oil at $21 a barrel for hundreds of years. OPEC is having to restrict output again to prop up prices. Energy cost has nothing to do with supply and demand. It is oligopoly, a game played with atmosphere and people, both consumed for profit. (is this too political a comment for this board? If so, let me know and I’ll adjust)
Re: 352
As long as we’re being realistic, let’s note what science has to say about a 4.5C rise, and if that’s intolerable, then we need to undertake measures to avoid it. Prudence would dictate that we build in a margin of safety as well.
It’s the only responsible course if we want the best for everyone’s progeny.
Mugwump: “There are no similar hard physical upper bounds, so while it may be strictly correct, it is not useful to claim some high sensitivity is much more likely than a low sensitivity near the hard physical limits.”
I only know what the data allow me to say. They do not allow me to preclude high sensitivity, and that suggests caution in making big changes to our environment as well as to our economy.
I have traveled in both China and India. I’ve also traveled extensively in Brazil and lived in Africa. You would probably be surprised to know how well people in these countries understand the situation. It is true they want their share. However, many are educated and realize that climate change poses serious risks. I remember very well a conversation with an old man who had planted a mango orchard. Not only was he aware the climate had changed, he was aware of the role of greenhouse gasses–this from a man with little formal education in a remote area of West Africa! If citizens of developing nations were presented with choices that allowed them to continue growing (even at a somwhat slower rate) without risking the environment.
We in developed nations have to realize that development will occur. In the developing world they have to realize that climate change threatens their continued progress just as surely as any other threat.
Mugwump, misrepresenting the science is doing a disservice to the future, and that is what you are doing. By refusing to take action now, you are helping to ensure that tomorrow’s children will have a very difficult time of it. I’m sure you love you children very much, but if you think you can sequester wealth away while the rest of the world burns, and so protect your children’s future that way – well, that’s the psychology of money for you. There are plenty of things that money can’t buy, after all.
However, let’s stick to the science and consider your claims about “large-scale CO2 sequestration.” That’s already been covered at RC in some detail, for example here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/freeman-dysons-selective-vision/
More specifically, look at the arithmetic:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/freeman-dysons-selective-vision/#comment-88599
And continued:
Thus, the notion that carbon sequestration technology can be used to offset future emissions before the climatic effects of those emissions kick in is nonsense, practically speaking.
It is an energy-entropy problem. After all, there is a lot of gold in seawater – why hasn’t someone figured out a cheap way to extract it? Reducing the disorder of a system takes energy. Where will that energy come from? How many cubic meters of air need to be processed to recover one ton of carbon?
Burning one billion tons of carbon produces 3.67 billion tons of C02.
“The air currently contains 0.036% CO2, so one cubic meter of air is 1,000 liters so roughly 1000×0.00036=0.36 liters, divided by 22.4liters per mole=0.000159 moles x 44 grams/mole=~0.007grams per cubic meter.”
7 milligrams of CO2 per cubic meter… and we are injecting, globally, around 27 billion tons of CO2 per year. Let’s see – we would need some device capable of sucking a good fraction of the planet’s atmosphere through itself each year, and pulling out a significant fraction of the carbon dioxide.
We already have such a system, but it is maxed out – the biosphere – and is not capable of sequestering the excess (and it is more of a steady-state flowthrough system, not a sequestration system).
There is only one solution, and that is to voluntarily halt the use of fossil fuels, starting with coal, tar sands and shale oil. The stone age didn’t come to an end due to a lack of stones, did it?
So state that with a certain absolutism. I assume you’ve calculated the relative costs of both possibilities and are willing to show your work?
> All I am saying is we should get better bounds
Delay is the deadliest form of denial. — C.N. Parkinson
> before making drastic changes to our economy
Finally, the political basis for your persistent comments.
Yes, that would have been wise. The drastic change, burning large amounts of coal, should be stopped until we have a better idea of the consequences.
You don’t separate ecology and economy, do you? It’s the same thing.
> But let’s be realistic.
You mean like with actual reality, or with PR?
Without good science you have only ideology and public relations, and the disasters those lead to. Nature isn’t “realistic” — it’s real.
We don’t understand it, but we know we can screw up badly.
> poverty to middle-class
Emulating America? Not smart:
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2688
So look, you’ve finally stated your issue. Done yet?
mugwump: you are aware that growth can’t continue indefinitely, right?
I mean, at least as long as the number of people on the planet goes up, you just can’t treat resources as infinite.
Here’s an example. I did a little back of the envelope on oil supplies. I assumed that oil magically came out of the ground at whatever rate you wanted, ready for use. I further assumed a 1% increase in usage per year, leaving aside the effects on climate. The last assumption was that the whole earth was covered with a 1km thick layer of oil.
How long does that last? until about 2100. Maybe a little longer – say 2120 if you cut usage a bit over time.
I checked the numbers and found that the amount I had was remarkably close to the Energy Information Administration, with an important difference: They assume about half of that is recoverable. So using their numbers and making very generous assumptions about increasing usage, we get to what? 2070?
You’re a physics guy, mugwump. You know that the reason we use oil is because nothing else provides the energy density it does. Nuclear? Yes, that’s good for electricity, but not for driving cars. Solar and wind and tides provide decent point sources, but they are going to cost a bit more for a while.
We can’t assume that some new technology will save us in the future. And we certainly can’t develop that technology in w world with no petroleum, because we need it to make plastic among other things.
Again I draw the analogy with smoking. You could keep on doing it and hope a new technology comes along to save you, or you could stop smoking and avoid the problem of lung cancer.
With economies, you can do nothing, and hope the sensitivities aren’t as bad as we think, and that markets will develop the technologies to save us just in time. Might happen, might not.
Or, you can take a hit to growth now, because that will preserve the standard of living for your kids. Rather like saving money — you could spend everything and think “I have skills, I’ll always find something” or you could not. Which is better? Remember, you lose immediate use of income when you save, so you don’t get to build a bigger house or buy a bigger car or maybe send your kid to the most expensive college.
Now it’s possible that the precautions you take were unnecessary. But they might not be. And the stakes are high enough that we can’t treat them as idle speculation or “alarmist.”
Back in 2001 Scientific American published a piece about New Orleans. It described what would happen in a category 3-4 storm. the study it was based on was ignored. “Why spend all the money on an event that isn’t likely in the next few years” they said. That turned out well, right? I mean, the markets took care of everything, right? Or not.
And it isn’t like hurricanes in the Southeast are a surprise. You know they are coming, but in the name of growth Florida has continued to encourage people to build on the beaches. Am I the only one between the two of us for whom that’s nonsensical?
I come from a place where growth is pretty sluggish. But the town of Scituate is still standing. So is Hull, and Nahant. Those houses are built rather differently from those in Florida. We knew hurricanes would come, not this year, maybe not the next, but we knew they would come. We built accordingly. Who has more to leave to their children? But I’m from New England, and we’re weird that way, I guess.
why, mugwump (352)?
Why should we WAIT for more change to see whether we’ll be at the top end of expectation or lower end of expectation? If we do something NOW based on “worst case” then we will not have to change much to reverse or halt the changes we wish to avoid. Ergo, the expense will be heavy in the short term and nil in the long term.
If we wait, then we not only have to do more change in a shorter time, but we will have to put up with the changes we had to let take place to see the effects.
So why?
A bit of topic but I have another question with no simple answer on my blog abut a “sceptic” paper.
mugwump wrote: “I know what is better for my descendants, and it is not halting growth on the basis of uncertain climate sensitivity projections.”
Unmitigated anthropogenic global warming will “halt growth” and it will “halt growth” permanently on any time scale that matters to the human species.
On the other hand, phasing out costly, destructive, increasingly scarce fossil fuels and moving to an energy economy based on harvesting clean, abundant, ubiquitous, endless, free wind and solar energy will drive the economic growth of the New Industrial Revolution of the 21st century.
Your children’s future economic well-being depends on a rapid transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy — which just so happens to be the transition that’s needed to address global warming.
From comment 343:
Sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere is possible now with sanely unadvanced terrestrial technology.
RE sensitivity, it may not be wise to analytically take (and keep) this out of context of important variables, such as long term positive feedbacks. Skeptics so gleefully point out how warming preceeds CO2, and I believe ’em — warming causes nature to release carbon, which then causes all the more warming.
It seems the warming situation is not a simple linear function of OUR carbon emissions with a sensitivity constant (tho I understand sensitivity is not actually a constant, but a log function effect that has it decreasing a bit with more CO2). It seems rather that we’re looking at something more like a quadratic or exponential or catastrophe (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory ) or geometrical progression type of function with OUR carbon emissions.
That is, we warm the world a bit with our carbon emissions, then nature takes over both in reducing albedo and increasing releases of carbon from melting ocean hydrates and permafrost (which recent studies say we have grossly underestimated), and the further warming from that further increased factors that cause more warming. In other words, carbon is itself both a causal and effect variable, sort of like an infinite do-loop or a hall of mirrors, though with upper hysteresis bounds, like after the end-Permian when 90% of life died, the extreme warming eventually halted and got back down to life-friendly temps, or we wouldn’t be here, but watch out for the hydrogen sulfide outgassing and massive death meanwhile (another variable we’ve got to watch, tho perhaps not for 100s or 1000s of years).
Sort of like those fission demonstrations — someone throws a ping-pong ball (our emissions) into a room full of mouse-traps (warming) with ping-pong balls (nature’s carbon emissions), and they all get released rather quickly helter skelter, even though the spring tension (sensitivity) is constant, and even if it’s a bit weak (low).
A lower sensitivity would only delay a bit reaching the runaway tipping point of no return (for 1000s or 100,000s of years anyway). Assuming, of course, we haven’t already crossed that threshold.
Re #353. Yes well we are hardly likely to do much anyway what with the need to replace 800 million internal combustion vehicles for starters within 40 years which is nigh in impossible especially considering we have at present no replacement technology for liquid fuels.
Fortunately for electricity production we can replace some gas and coal usage with sustainable sources but by no means all, well not politically or economically anyway, the will is not there presently.
So lets hope your guess is right mugwump about 2C for 450 or was it 550 ppmv CO2e?
A lower limit of say 2C on the overall average Earth temperature doesn’t take into account that some regions will warm quite a bit more. The polar regions have already warmed(about twice as fast thus far) faster than other regions and will continue to do so, due in part to loss of reflective sea ice. Furthermore there is more to global warming than temperature change. Melting ice will spill into the more saline oceans,diluting them, and potentially affect ocean circulation patterns. Melting land ice will raise sea level. Warmer temperatures could lead the formation of higher intensity storms. Flora and fauna will be affected by dislocation and extinction .These are a few of the considerations other than a change in Earth’s average temperature.
mugwump says in in comment #352:
“That’s my guess(2C), but not an assumption. All I am saying is we should get better bounds on the sensitivity before making drastic changes to our economy.”
This is a short sited view,in my opinion, and doesn’t take into account the potential catastrophic events that are possible,and even probable, at the lower limit of average change.
Ike #356:
Who says we have to use trees to sequester? Think exponential growth in technology: eg, imagine billions of tiny nano-sequesterers released into the atmosphere that fall as inert soot when they are done.
Once we really get going on molecular and nano machines, existing biology is going to look as limited as the abacus does next to my quad-core pentium.
Re Jess #359:
RE #359:
You underestimate the power of markets Jess. Look what happened in the US when gas (finally) reached the point of price elasticity. SUV sales fell off a cliff. The market achieved in a matter of months what decades of hectoring by environmentalists failed to do.
If plastic turns out to be too expensive to manufacture once petroleum runs low, investment in alternatives will surge, and we’ll very likely find adequate replacements.
[BTW, I took advantage of the temporary glut in inventory to pick myself up a very nice, brand new SUV at a bargain basement price, and now gas prices are falling again :-) ]
RE #364:
Antarctica has warmed very little, if at all.
RE #363 & “Yes well we are hardly likely to do much anyway what with the need to replace 800 million internal combustion vehicles for starters within 40 years which is nigh in impossible.”
It’s doable, since ICE vehicles can be converted into EVs. Regular people can even do the conversions themselves. I wish I had had time to do a conversion when I lived closer to an EV club, and now I’m far away….the closest is Houston or Austin (see http://www.eaaev.org/ to find a chapter near you). When I asked a guy from the Fox Valley EV Assoc if a woman could make a conversion, he said there was a guy there who had never held a screwdriver in his life who made a conversion. That the motor is sort of like a sewing machine motor — I could ID with that.
So, what you do is either get a used car whose engine has blown, or sell the engine….then do the conversion. It won’t have regenerative braking of other nice stuff that a company-built EV has, but it can get people from point A to point B very cheaply, since maintenance and electricity is far cheaper than for ICE cars. I believe the typical conversion has a range of about 20 to 30 miles, but if you add more batteries (I’m talking lead acid), you can get a better range.
And they say that even if fossil fuels are used to create electricity for the EV, it would still be much less polluting, involving much less GHGs. And for me, with wind powered electricity, I’d be driving on the wind.
Maybe if people spent less time in front of a computer, and more time making EV conversions, the problem would be half solved.
Mugwump,
You seem to be discounting the risks of inaction for some reason. As far as we can tell the chance of a large temperature rise under business as usual is much greater than the chance of one that we can ignore. The costs of inaction if we do have a large temperature rise are greater than the costs of unnecessary action if we have a smaller temperature rise. Just think of the costs of relocating cities. Given what we know the prudent thing to do is to take action to mitigate the climate change. It is simply a matter of decision theory. And I mean effective actions not displays of concern. You see to have looked at the costs of mitigation and recoiled saying “Too much”. You then seem to have not allowed yourself to react to the cost of inaction if action is necessary. Unfortunately we don’t have any good alternatives.
If you want to wait for more certainty, well certainty will be expensive. This is a cumulative problem and generally the sooner we act the smaller the total cost will be. There are some exceptions mostly when a more effective mitigating technology is nearly but not quite ready. In these cases it might be best to wait a short while. But I am only talking about technologies that will be ready very soon as in the next few decades. I’m primarily thinking of biomass for fuel production and solar electricity.
In general we cannot count on the necessary technology being ready when we need it. After all we have been working on thermonuclear fusion for more than 50 years. We cannot count on the new technology we require being ready in a hundred or even a hundred and fifty years.
However in the very long term I do think we can count on the necessary technology to reverse global warming effects. In three hundred years I would be very surprised if we could not deal with these problems. But even then there will have been damage that cannot be reversed. I think we should focus on the consequences expected in the next 50 to 300 years. Inaction is gambler’s behaviour, focusing only on the best possible outcome even though that outcome is unlikely.
> Phil, what’s the source for your statement?
Sorry Hank and Ray. I was being careless. Number on table was ~2. Nothing of what I have read (here, IPCC) gives me any confidence that sensitivity is less than 2. Colleagues working on marine methane hydrates scare the hell of me with possibility of sensitivity being a great deal higher. I wasnt being clear – I was really arguing against the idea that uncertainty precluded action. Nothing is completely certain in science but we proceed anyway. It was here that I learnt sensitivity was output of GCMs not an input.
I am also not convinced that mugwump’s ascertain that economy would adversely affected by action – it would certainly change and be bad for say coal miners and SUV manufacturers. However, impact statements would suggest that a great deal worse for the economy long term if do nothing so even if a short term hit was required, its better in long term.
359 Jess:
Your comments to Mugwump stole the words from my mouth. However, speaking as an investor-class parasite, how are my kind to employ our sucking financial mouth-parts in the absence of “growth”? “Growth” is the only mode of human existence that allows people like me to infinitely spend and spend again capital that was originally created with an actual measurable amount of work– preferably done by somebody else– merely by sitting in my easy chair and loafing. That’s why we’re so keen on “growth”, see? We parasites promote “growth” because without it we can’t survive.
Who says perpetual motion can’t work? Or am I really just a dissipative structure? I’m certainly not conservative because I seem to be violating some fairly basic notions of conservation.
Seriously, Mugwump should indeed follow “growth” to the logical conclusion and then try to imagine how things will work when further growth becomes impossibly constrained. Your true parasite does not really care, but those sincerely concerned about future generations should do.
“The last assumption was that the whole earth was covered with a 1km thick layer of oil.”
That would convert to 3.227.848.101.265.820.000 liters or 20.429.418.362.441.900 barrels. Way enough for everybody on earth to drive a SUV far beyond 2100. But your point is valid, nevertheless and I don’t think anybody assumes we’ll have oil forever.
Sorry. Did the conversion to barrel twice. In fact it would be 3.227.848.101.265.820.000 barrel.
mugwump writes:
Who is proposing “halting growth?”
mugwump 370,
“Think exponential growth in technology: eg, imagine billions of tiny nano-sequesterers released into the atmosphere that fall as inert soot when they are done.
Once we really get going on molecular and nano machines, existing biology is going to look as limited as the abacus does next to my quad-core pentium.”
This sounds just like the blind faith of some fundamentalist religious folk. You seem to have merely switched the word God with the word Technology.
Frankly, such hubris and contempt for existing biology scares me.
Do you really think your children will actually want to live in this cyborgian fantasy that you foresee ? I know I don’t.
http://www.countercurrents.org/jensen010908.htm
http://www.chrismartenson.com/three_beliefs
The problem, mugwump, is that all that growth in wealth (and technology) ends up using a greater resource base each time to maintain it.
Let me put it this way: we use resources more efficiently, but there’s a point where the returns fall off. For example, a hunter-gatherer society using stone tools needs a large area to operate in. But the impact is small, and the amount of stuff each person needs is small.
A technological society that uses steel tools and agriculture uses a smaller area to live in, but they use more stuff. With metal tools, you have to mine the metal and move X tons of rock to get Y pounds of metal. You have to cut down a huge forest to provide however many acres to feed people. The population rises and the cycle goes again. Eventually you get resource constraints.
Remember, new technologies don’t remove the need for resources a lot of the time–they just change which one you use. All are finite in that sense. We may not use stone tools anymore, but to supply metals we have mining operations that have permanently destroyed and damaged huge areas.
Also, markets are powerful things, but they only develop stuff that’s profitable. Cars are more fuel efficient in Europe and Japan because the price of gas was kept expensive (you notice a price jump $6 to $7 a lot less than $2 to $3). But the markets didn’t do that, government policy did. Markets (as constructed now) assume all the costs they impose are external– they just aren’t counted. The most egregious example is slavery. The cotton and sugar markets never accounted for the huge, gigantic economic costs to populations imposed by capturing people in Africa (and generating a market for such) and shipping them to the Americas. Even now such things aren’t considered relevant to market calculations.
You can’t predict what new technologies will appear, it’s true. But it’s precisely for that reason that when you are faced with decisions to make, you can’t just ride off and hope, you have to deal with what you have now. You use seat belts, right? They were invented in response to regulations designed to protect people in accidents. Car companies complained they cost too much at the time. Would you have said “well, in the future we might develop force fields and seat belts won’t be necessary?” “Keep smoking, we’ll develop a way to cure cancer instantly someday.” “make toxic toys for my kids, I’m sure the technology to cure them will catch up.” C’mon, mugwump, do you use lead paint in your house and give your kids chips to chew on on the premise that the technology will save them someday, maybe?
Markets are poor systems for certain things because they just aren’t designed for it. The basic assumption for market economists is that everyone has complete information and behaves economically rationally, and that resources are infinite. That is clearly not the case — if it were bubbles would never happen and there would be no bid/ask spread on stocks (and the stock market would be static because everyone would know the proper price for everything already.
RE #375:
That’s the million (quadrillion?) dollar question. From my reading we’re quite uncertain as to the probability of a large temperature rise. The problem is the two get conflated: an uncertain probability of a large temperature rise is not the same thing as a high probability of a large temperature rise.
Anyway, I think I have worked out a way to tackle the nonlinearity question. I want to check the literature to see if anyone else has already done the analysis.
There were some questions a while back in this thread on how we know that climate sensitivity is linear with temperature. I will give a quick derivation for radiative forcing, which has a well defined relationship between radiant flux and temperature. I apologize for the ASCII representation; latex rendering does not work currently.
Start with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, with ε representing emissivity.
E=εσT4
dE/dT=4εσT3
(dT/dE)now = (Tnow)-3/(4εσ)
(dT/dE)LGM = (Tnow – ΔT)-3/(4εσ)
where ΔT = Tnow – TLGM
(dT/dE)LGM = [(1 – ΔT/Tnow)-3]*(Tnow)-3/(4εσ)
(dT/dE)LGM = (dT/dE)now*(1 – ΔT/Tnow)-3
Since ΔT<<T (5K << 288K), we can make a binomial approximation:
(dT/dE)LGM = (dT/dE)now*(1 + 3ΔT/Tnow)
and hence the climate sensitivity due to radiative forcing can be approximated as linear for small changes in temperature. The 5% difference between LGM and today is miniscule compared with the ranges in climate sensitivity predicted from models, for instance.
Lynn, EV conversion sounds like a decent idea. But removing an engine (with hoists, special wrenches, disconnecting parts, reaching those pesky rear block and engine mount bolts, etc.) if you’ve never even held a screwdriver sounds like a need for a hefty dose of truth in marketing!
> I know what is better for my descendants
And this too is a political position. Not science.
Re #373. The lack of warming in Antarctica is well understood I thought relative to the Arctic, being a continent and not being surrounded by other continents but cold dark ocean makes it take a lot longer for it to warm up. This is well understood and known.
People always use Antarctica as if its the skeptics ultimate weapon but climate models do not show Antarctica warming up either, well not anytime soon anyway.
Mugwump, one thing we do agree upon is that in a sustainable economy, economic growth is driven primarily if not exclusively by technological advance. On the other hand, I think that it is a mistake to simply assume technology will be available when it is needed. Technology doesn’t just happen. It depends on there being a scientific infrastructure from which it can draw technical solutions, and our track record for investment in basic research has been deplorable since the ’60s. Technology takes time to develop, and the only way I know of to buy time is to cut ghg emissions.
It is evident that you don’t reject the basic science. Given the fact that climate change is occurring and the way the uncertainties stack up, what would you consider to be reasonable mitigation?
Rod B #351:
Rod, they’re called GCM (Global Circulation Models) for a reason: they are about modelling climate and weather. To satisfy your curiosity do a google on “GCM weather testing”. For me it turned up straightaway three interesting articles on using weather situations to test and improve the “engine room” of these models, which is pretty much common to both weather and climate.
Dunno about “millions of hours”, but methinks quite a lot of “weather hours” have gone and are going into the development and fine tuning of these “climate” models.
So yes, the analogy between aerodynamic modelling and GCMs seems valid to me. Do remember though that the aerodynamic models are not perfect either — this is taken care of in engineering by this thing called “safety margins”. Something to consider.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/sio117/ipcc_figs/IPCC_9.20small.bmp
IPCC estimates of the probability distribution for climate sensitivity.
From this collection:
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/sio117/ipcc_figs.html
Linear? Published where?
RE Rod B, #385, that’s why they have EV clubs, to help out with that, and why I wouldn’t think of making a conversion without club support. If I recall the Fox Valley EV club met at a community college, and perhaps they use the auto-shop facilities there….
I guess what we need more than anything else is for the “CAN’T-DO” attitude to be converted to a “CAN-DO” attitude, but something tells me that it will take more than hoists and special wrenches for that herculian task. However, I’m certain it can be done.
“The problem, mugwump, is that all that growth in wealth (and technology) ends up using a greater resource base each time to maintain it.”
I don’t see that. For centuries now, growth and wealth has increasingly been achieved thru technology rather than other resources. I’ll admit that it doesn’t feel good to depend on the faith in future developments but we must make sure that our efforts to avoid future catastrophe does not end in endangering our current society and by that keeping ourselves from making those crucial developments. Its a very narrow corridor our politicians have to manouvre in and they should focus on the most effective things rather than those yielding little result but require much effort. I always get the feeling, that especially the “oil and car” talk is misleading. We do have technology to do without coal today – and in the long run, coal is a far greater problem than oil (just my 2ct and sorry for my bad english)
Re: 373.
So what’s been melting all that ice then? Rudolf’s red nose?
‘mugwump’ in comment 381 says,
Soot — carbon particles — would not be inert; they would eventually reoxidize and their carbon would be back in the air.
Small sequestering particles have already been demonstrated. They can work in the air but also on the ground or a short distance under it, and when they are done they are carbonate particles, and they really are inert.
(Actually, as carbonate particles, they may be only half done. They may depart from inertness to the extent of dissolving in the sea. This definitely wouldn’t result in their letting any of their captured CO2 go back into the air. There has been dispute in these pages over whether it will cause them to take more out, but this additional effectiveness doesn’t seem essential to me. If it exists, it’s a bonus.)
Mugwumps: The 2010 Prius is estimated to get 94mpg. That’s using a Japanese-style programming (they tune the electronics differently for different markets), and stuff is never as good as predicted, so let’s drop it to 67mpg for a large midsize vehicle. (the 2010 Prius is far larger, faster, and better than the current version.) The US’s fleet gets 22mpg. Direct challenge: how does tripling mileage for automobiles by using cheap current technology (Atkinson cycle engine, some electronics, and way-proven NiMH batteries) inhibit the economy? Dropping gas cost in half (remember supply and demand) would allow for the transfer of taxes from income and property to fuel without any price increase at the pump – that’s dropping net per mile fuel costs by 5/6ths while reducing transportation carbon emissions by almost 2/3rds! Please explain your stance that such policy would decrease the growth of the economy. The whole board awaits.
Lynn, EV conversions aren’t nearly as good an idea as just buying a fully-designed vehicle. The ZENN for non-interstate driving is a good example and available now. The 2010 Prius is the gold standard for a modern vehicle (if you can wait a year) One-off constructions almost always cost more in carbon and money than mass-produced, so while you’d be making a statement, you’d be doing little or negative good unless you can religiously avoid the interstates. High speed driving destroys EV batteries. 25mph is about the practical limit for current EVs. That’s why the Chevy Volt is slated to cost $40k – and that’s pr-speak. Actual cost without corporate or federal subsidies is probably far higher. (and the Volt will only get 50mpg – it’s far behind the curve in hybridville)
On feedbacks – many posts give 1/(1-f). That seems wrong to me. Many (or most?) big feedbacks are based on ice, and ice exists at -1C and doesn’t at 1C, so we’re talking one-off pulses, especially since the regions of ice left are pretty discrete. Is this right?
Lloyd: “If you want to wait for more certainty, well certainty will be expensive. This is a cumulative problem and generally the sooner we act the smaller the total cost will be.”
Like many here, you are disagreeing with the consensus of peer reviewed professionals (economists) on this point. Other than a small carbon tax (less than current US gas taxes), most economists think drastic regulations on carbon emissions at this point would be very bad policy.
Moderator, a question on comment moderation: why do some comments take so much longer than others to be approved? My comment 355 to Ray seemed to take 24 hours longer than other comments at a similar time.
[BTW, I took advantage of the temporary glut in inventory to pick myself up a very nice, brand new SUV at a bargain basement price, and now gas prices are falling again :-)]
Comment by mugwump — 16 September 2008 @ 8:02 PM
Why only one?! You could have bought two and saved twice as much! Modern technology will most surely come to your rescue. Perhaps quantum mechanics will become applicable in the macro world and you’ll be able to go from point A to point B in your SUV by means of quantum tunneling. The price of oil be damned. :-?
RE #382 Jess:
And a lot of the time they do remove the need for resources. 15 years ago the computer on my desk took up an entire building.
Exactly my point: when it becomes unprofitable to make plastic from scarce petroleum, the market response will be to find replacements. The example I gave of SUV demand destruction in the face of $4 gas is very cogent. Consumer demand is like a tidal wave. When the economics fit, that demand can force change overnight. Trying to force change counter to consumer demand is like pissing into the tidal wave to hold it back.
Two things make your analogies fail:
1) we know the consequences of munching on lead whereas climate sensitivity is still very uncertain;
2) bad consequences of climate change are probably a very long way off, whereas my kids will suffer from lead poisoning immediately.
A very uncertain threat a long way off has all kinds of possible solutions that munching on lead or smoking cigars do not.
RE #388:
It depends. Last time I checked the pious did not pay back it’s extra price in gas saved. It’s also pretty difficult to visit the grandparents with 5 kids in the prius. But I have no problem if people want to buy them: it’s still a free country.
Since we’re talking solutions, here’s two:
Cars: rear wheels connected via CVT to a flywheel. The computer adjusts the CVT and clutch to keep enough power in the flywheel to take the car to 80 (random number) mph in about 4 seconds (random number), so at 80mph no power would be stored and at stop, a lot of power stored. Front wheels driven by two gasoline or diesel motors – one has a bout 20HP and the other perhaps 40HP. The three power systems combine, without batteries, for perhaps 150mpg in a full-size vehicle that can go from 0-60mph in 4 seconds.
Power plants: Build a cheap box out of depleted uranium and fill it with thorium and add U235 or Plutonium seeds. Design so that with 0 output (hot summer day heat dissipation is just *barely* enough to keep it from melting down. Add piping to route input air for a coal or natural gas power plant (existing is fine, new construction is grand) So when lower power is required (almost all the time) little or no fossil fuel is burned, and when peaks are needed, only a bit of fossil fuel is needed. NO control rod, NO safety systems, NO other expensive devices are required and it is completely retrofittable to existing plants. Net result is a power plant that runs at a super-high temp/efficiency, burns almost no fossil fuel and has none of the traditional issues with nukes either.
There ya go, the solution to the world energy problem in a couple paragraphs…. Just engineering to make it so. Anyone here see a flaw?
And appropriately, capcha is other nursery.*