Fixing Climate Change May Add No Costs, Report Says

Predicting the Future
Good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

What Goes Down…
The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation.Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists atNASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.



Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif


Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up
How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

harries_radiation.gif


Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory ofgreenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.
 
An energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. The deathprint is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced and, like the carbon footprint, coal is the worst and wind and nuclear are the best. According to the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Science and many health studies over the last decade (NAS 2010), the adverse impacts on health become a significant effect for fossil fuel and biofuel/biomass sources (see especially Brian Wang for an excellent synopsis). In fact, the WHO has called biomass burning in developing countries a major global health issue (WHO int). The table below lists the mortality rate of each energy source as deaths per trillion kWhrs produced. The numbers are a combination of actual direct deaths and epidemiological estimates, and are rounded to two significant figures.

For coal, oil and biomass, it is carbon particulates resulting from burning that cause upper respiratory distress, kind of a second-hand black lung. Our lungs just don’t like burnt carbonaceous particulates, whether from coal or wood or manure or pellets or cigarettes. The actual numbers of deaths in China from coal use exceeded 300,000 last year since they have ramped up coal so fast in the last decade and they usually do not install exhaust scrubbers. The impact on their health care system has been significant in not just deaths, but in non-lethal health effects and lost days of work.

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&***ush)

It is notable that the U.S. death rates for coal are so much lower than for China, strictly a result of regulation and the Clean Air Act (Scott et al., 2005). It is also notable that the Clean Air Act is one of the most life-saving pieces of legislation ever adopted by any country in history. Still, about 10,000 die from coal use in the U.S. each year, and another thousand from natural gas. Hydro is dominated by a few rare large dam failures like Banqiao in China in 1976 which killed about 171,000 people. Workers still regularly fall off wind turbines during maintenance but since relatively little electricity production comes from wind, the totals deaths are small. Nuclear has the lowest deathprint, even with the worst-case Chernobyl numbers and ***ushima projections, uranium mining deaths, and using the Linear No-Treshold Dose hypothesis (seeHelman/2012/03/10). The dozen or so U.S. deaths in nuclear have all been in the weapons complex or are modeled from general LNT effects. The reason the nuclear number is small is that it produces so much electricity per unit. There just are not many nuclear plants. And the two failures have been in GenII plants with old designs. All new builds must be GenIII and higher, with passive redundant safety systems, and all must be able to withstand the worst case disaster, no matter how unlikely. We also must deal with our spent fuel better, something we know how to do (Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Disposal – No New Taxes).





http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...a-price-always-paid/
 
A noble effort, piezoe. But you’re reasoning with a wall.
IF he has the capacity, FC (aka ‘have opinion will travel’)
certainly hasn’t the intention to reason.

If he really wanted to understand why his offensive rants have nothing
to do with science, these would be a good place to start.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09...ent-cool-phase-will-continue-until-the-2030s/

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/9/3/salby-in-blighty.html


In the meantime, FC (aka ‘have opinion will travel’) is doing a grand job
- of driving everyone else in the opposite direction.
His supporters should demand a refund.


Here are points I hope you will read and comprehend.

1) Correlation does not necessarily have anything to do with causation! I can take almost any two independent variables I choose, and by selecting only a portion of their analog records and plotting them using different y-axis scales for each, make them appear as though they are highly correlated.

2) technically, among other things, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition, for CO2 to have a significant greenhouse effect that is noticeable against all the other phenomena that affect the Earths surface temperature. It's an, as yet, impossible task to accurately separate out the magnitudes of the individual components of the Earths climate. That might be possible if there existed accurate models of the long term climate. None exist. What is being debated currently is whether a small change of ~100 molecules of CO2 in a million air molecules will have a noticeable affect on the Earths surface temperature. Most scientists would intuitively respond, "it's impossible to detect such an effect against the background of all the other temperature influences. The models that assume an effect have been developed by incorporating various feedback mechanisms. The "science" being used here is horribly flawed. This is now beginning to be recognized by the majority of well trained scientists, including myself, Lindzen, Woodcock, Salby, and many many others, all of whom have international reputations in their respective fields.

3) Lindzen was a lead author for the IPCC. Why would you trust your opinion over his? I certainly wouldn't do that. Though I am a well-trained scientist with years of research experience and an international reputation in my field, I would certainly defer to Lindzen's opinion over my own, as I am neither a meteorologist nor atmospheric physicist. I originally made the mistake of trusting Hansen's judgement (Gore's was never an issue) but he has by now been shown to have been wrong. It is not unusual for scientists who become administrators to lose touch with current developments and for their science to become a bit "shaky" over time. I suppose that is Hansen's case. No matter, as a scientist you must satisfactorily address every observation that runs counter to your hypotheses, and Hansen hasn't done that. He has become personally invested, just as you have, in the outcome of current climate research. That's destroyed his objectivity, just as it has destroyed yours. When you leave science behind and start calling those who disagree with you assholes or idiots, you've lost your objectivity, and your science can no longer be trusted. It's OK to say my position is silly in your opinion, or even to call me an idiot, but when you leave it at that and continue to repeat the same argument without addressing the flaws in it that others see, your argument loses credibility.

4) You have repeatedly fallen back on opinion poles to make your case for CO2 driven global warming. You have also sited summary statements issued by various scientific bodies. These summaries, having been prepared or edited by administrators, can be quite misleading. They can obscure subtle details, and suggest something that isn't true. For example, if you asked meteorologists if they believe there has been global warming, the vast majority will say "yes", there has been, though some will say it's uncertain. One might carelessly conclude that the majority of the meteorologists believe the Hansen hypothesis is correct, but that's wrong. Only a minority of meteorologists believe we are in danger of catastrophic warming, and there is about a fifty/fifty split on how important anthro CO2 is with regard to warming. That is far from settled science. But you might not know this from the summary statement being issued by their professional organization. Keep an open mind. Follow the science, and remain vigilant whenever you see signs of emotional, or political involvement in what should be a purely scientific issue. Lindzen, in his J Physicians and Surgeons article in 2013, contrasted science as a means of inquiry versus science as source of authority. Sadly, it's the latter that we have got caught up in with regard to the Global warming. It is time we got back to science as a means of inquiry, and that's where you'll find Lindzen, and Salby, versus Hansen who is out on the streets protesting that we haven't taken him seriously enough. How can you expect scientists to go along with an hypothesis that is not supported by either observation or reason?

5) None of my arguments should be interpreted as having anything to do with the desirability of this environmental measure or that. I am making a plea to avoid basing policy on defective science! What I fear could happen now is that we get involved with CO2 abatement measures around the globe just as we enter a long period of naturally occurring global cooling. We could then be hearing how effective our measures have been, when nothing could be further from the scientific truth. The layman is far too easily deluded when science is used as a means of authority.

[For those with no scientific training, do not confuse the global warming issue with the ozone hole matter, as lay persons often do. They are unrelated different issues. The ozone business is scientifically sound, having being sorted out by the brilliantly conceived kinetic studies of Frank Rowland and Mario Molina, UC, Irvine. The global warming advocate position, on the other hand, is anything but sound. There is a startling contrast to be drawn here. In the case of Ozone Layer Depletion, the Corporate, and therefore political, interests were all aligned against the science, but science, as it must do, triumphed in the end. In the Present Global warming issue, corporate interests are mixed, i.e., those corporate interests who will profit from carbon credits trading and CO2 abatement are aligned against the science, and those who stand to lose profits are aligned with the science. Politicians are split between those aligned with and those against the science. (We could generalize by saying that democrats are aligned against and republicans with the science, but neither for the right reasons!) Curiously, none of the sides as yet understand where the real science lies. Once that's known by the vested interests, we should see a hardening of positions until it becomes untenable to remain on the losing side. This will play out in the next few years, let's hope. In the meantime, much time and money is going to be wasted.]
 
piehole is not reasoning. He is fucking lying. Douchbag. And your little articles of pseudo science put you in the same category. Why are all your dozen posts on this topic and this one only? Right after piehole? Are you his back-up at the think tank or are you piehole with another name? Go fuck yourself whore.


A noble effort, piezoe. But you’re reasoning with a wall.
IF he has the capacity, FC (aka ‘have opinion will travel’)
certainly hasn’t the intention to reason.

If he really wanted to understand why his offensive rants have nothing
to do with science, these would be a good place to start.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09...ent-cool-phase-will-continue-until-the-2030s/

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/9/3/salby-in-blighty.html


In the meantime, FC (aka ‘have opinion will travel’) is doing a grand job
- of driving everyone else in the opposite direction.
His supporters should demand a refund.
 
piehole is not reasoning. He is fucking lying. Douchbag. And your little articles of pseudo science put you in the same category. Are you his back-up at the thing tank? Go fuck yourself.
Aw the rants of an ignorant delusional self important hypocritical peter puffing heat & air installer.
 
that judith curry post is new... good work.


A noble effort, piezoe. But you’re reasoning with a wall.
IF he has the capacity, FC (aka ‘have opinion will travel’)
certainly hasn’t the intention to reason.

If he really wanted to understand why his offensive rants have nothing
to do with science, these would be a good place to start.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09...ent-cool-phase-will-continue-until-the-2030s/

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/9/3/salby-in-blighty.html


In the meantime, FC (aka ‘have opinion will travel’) is doing a grand job
- of driving everyone else in the opposite direction.
His supporters should demand a refund.
 
Back
Top