Global Warming Solutions: Scientists Weigh In
One of the main issues covered in John and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s book, This Moment on Earth, is energy. The Kerrys highlight what companies and cities are already doing in America to reduce energy use. Texas Instruments hired people do design a manufacturing plant with energy efficiency as the primary concern…and would up saving gobs of money. Portland, Oregon, has carefully redesigned itself to cut back its carbon emissions…and has done so WHILE experiencing a period of economic growth. This Moment on Earth shows that not only CAN it be done, but it is BEING done and done at a profit. Any excuse to ignore global warming and continue on our old, destructive way is obsolete. The entirety of chapter 7 and Appendix A are dedicated to energy policy and are worth reading.
Two cornerstones of what can be done, should be done, and increasingly IS done, are increasing energy efficiency (as Texas Instruments learned) and use of renewable energy sources (currently primarily wind and small hydroelectric and, on a smaller scale, geothermal). John and Teresa Heinz Kerry cover this very well in their book. But about a month and a half before their book came out, the February 9th issue of Science (subscription only...go to your nearest university science library to find it) came out covering some of the same ground: the future of energy. In fact, this particular issue of America’s foremost scientific journal was titled: “Sustainability and Energy.â€
Back in 1995 I remember reading an issue of Scientific American discussing energy in America. Two things were highlighted above all else: increased efficiency and wind power. The potentials of these two things were powerful even in 1995. All other ways of dealing with global warming (and remember, much of the scientific community had already accepted global warming back then!) were still fairly speculative in 1995. But energy efficiency was a HUGE open opportunity to save both energy and money, while the wind potential of the Great Plains states alone could have even back then gone a long way to making us energy independent. That was 1995. One can only assume that we have advanced since then, Bush Administration denials to the contrary.
The Feb. 9th 2007 issue of science largely starts from the exact same place Scientific American left off in 1995: energy efficiency and wind power are here and now with other technologies being more speculative. Both push nuclear energy a little, but with caveats that seem even stronger in 2007 than in 2005. The main differences between then and now are a.) the weight of scientific consensus about the need to cut carbon emissions is greater, and b.) the focus on solar energy and biomass is greater now than it was then. And nuclear, though still mentioned, seems to be considered less of an option now than then.
Here is a summary of the issue of Science in the issue’s introduction:
Lewis (p. 798) points out that the direct conversion of sunlight with solar cells, either into electricity or hydrogen, faces cost hurdles independent of their intrinsic efficiency. Ways must be found to lower production costs and design better conversion and storage systems. In the short term, utilization of biomass relies mainly on sugar fermentation; Goldemberg (p. 808) discusses how Brazil's use of ethanol from sugarcane has greatly reduced its need for imported oil. Many long-term goals have been set for biomass utilization; for example, the European Union (EU) hopes to produce a quarter of its transportation fuels from biomass by 2030, as discussed by Himmel et al. (p. 804). Better ways are also needed for processing the available sugars, and conversion to higher alcohols or even alkanes is desirable. Stephanopoulos (p. 801) explores the options afforded by reengineering biosynthetic pathways in microbes.
How we tackle energy problems will turn on a number of policy issues. Potocbrevenik (p. 810) discusses how the EU is setting targets and allocating funding for alternative energy. Finally, Schrag (p. 812) explores the feasibility of sequestering carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel use and our technological readiness and willingness to implement such schemes.
The News section profiles national lab directors, computer modelers, captains of industry, and bench scientists who are writing the early chapters of the next book on energy research. Some of them are developing better plants to grow as fuel or ways to convert them into ethanol. Others are developing catalysts to extract hydrogen from water or generate electricity from hydrogen. What they all share is a desire to find new ways to power the future.
One reason why we have accomplished relatively little since 2005 is because funding for energy-related research has been low worldwide, as shown here:
There has also been little political will to push for alternatives. Wind energy, a way the Great Plains states could be energy exporters and American farms can make extra money, has only recently started picking up in the US. By contrast, Germany has been expanding its wind energy since the early 1990’s. And little old Denmark has paced the US in expansion of wind energy until only very recently. Had we started then, the influence of Saudi Arabia could have been greatly reduced, American farmers would be in a better financial situation, and the economy of the Great Plains states might be booming. This has been a huge missed opportunity.
But wind is not featured much in this issue of Science. It is too much today’s technology, what we should have started pushing 10 years ago. Scientists are, of course, more interested in the future.
One of the most striking things mentioned in this issue of Science is shown in this figure from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, and the U.S. Department of Energy:
It shows the energy flow from production to use in the US…and it shows that half of all energy produced in the US is wasted (light grey portions). This shows one of the potentials for improvement: simple efficiency. Now NOTHING is ever 100% efficient, so energy efficiency cannot double our output even if half of our energy we produce is wasted. But clearly this is one place we can make some real, meaningful changes. And possibly save money in the process. The article that shows this graph mostly discusses the long-term, large scale challenges we face if we are going to mitigate global warming, but for me this diagram was the most dramatic part of the article.
Nuclear is only covered in two articles, one proposing a new, supposedly “safe†nuclear technology based on thorium. This is a proposal focused on Norway since Norway has one of the world's largest reserves of thorium. The idea seems to be considering developing an altogether new technology. This new technology would not use enough fuel to sustain a chain reaction, thus eliminating the worst dangers of nuclear power: the Chernobyls and TMIs we have faced in the past. Waste is “expected to be low,†but exactly how low and what could be done with it is not discussed.
Solar is covered in a few articles, including a new technology using a gallium arsenide-based solar cell developed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado and being used in the Negev desert in Israel. It is estimated that this technology, if used on a large enough scale, can reach 40% efficiency at converting sunlight to electricity and can achieve what is considered the magic number of $1000 per kilowatt of electrical capacity that would be needed to make solar competitive. Another article suggests a technology that could cut the cost of producing solar cells by as much as 75% using a modification traditional silicon based technology.
Many articles cover biofuels. One article covers the intersection of agriculture and energy, how farmers can make money growing the fuel for biofuels. It is proposed that small farms could produce crops such as the grass Miscanthus for local biorefineries, which would produce local energy. I should note wind power already provides a way in which small farmers, but placing turbines on part of their farms, can make more money than if they grow only crops. This is partly because of the very unfair way in which crops are purchased by large agribusiness, providing farmers with almost no profit. But it also indicates that there really is a good market for locally-produced wind energy.
Other articles discuss the use of genetically engineered microbes and plants to produce biofuels more efficiently. “Genetic engineering†is a term that worries many, and there are dangers that require regulation. But genetic engineering is not inherently dangerous and if proper regulation is in place it is a powerful technology. Genetic engineering is part of what I have been doing for 20 years. But when it is done on a large scale, as in agriculture, safety measures must be in place to prevent environmental spread of the genetically engineered organism. If this is done, the potentials described for boosting biofuels could be enormous.
This is simply a brief overview of SOME of what is covered in this excellent issue. I recommend going to your local University science library and tracking it down. It is a rich source of information on the current scientific thinking regarding energy issues. I also recommend reading chapter 7 of This Moment on Earth, which also gives some good overview on energy issues. Simply put, this single issue will be the overarching issue of the next 10 years, because THAT is how long we probably have to mitigate global warming and we can’t do it without changes in energy production, distribution and usage.
As a final note, the single most practical though you can personally do to address global warming is to replace your light bulbs with compact fluorescent lights. The initial purchase price is high, but the savings more than make up for that, saving YOU money on each and every energy bill and reducing your carbon footprint. You can order them here. I also find them in my local supermarket and hardware stores.
And there is an even better light bulb technology that I have yet to try: LED bulbs. These really are expensive, but they last practically forever and use only a tiny fraction of the energy that a regular light bulb uses: they last 60,000 hours and use only 2 Watts of power to give a 31-lumen output or 3 watts for 60 lumens. If you want to take the plunge you can find them here.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
alternative energy | Energy | Science
1 simple answer
Submitted by mole333 on 6 April 2007 - 6:50am.
My answer is I don't know what you are talking about. I don't know what presentation of the data you are looking at, but the sudden and unprecedented increase in temp is a more recent phenomenon than 700 years ago. The only thing I can figure is you are trying to include the Medieval Warm Period in this. WEll, that phenomenon was slower and more minor increase that fits perfectly within normal fluctuations seen over the previous 650,000 years, perhaps slighly larger due to the increased deforestation due to increased European population. THe Medieval Warm Period is not really part of the carbon dioxide induced phenomenon since the two a.) have a completely different dynamic and b.) are separated by the "little ice age" (a cold period whose dynamics also fit the pattern of normal fluctuations over the past 650,000 years).
The current trend, popularly called "the hockey stick," looks NOTHING like any of the natural fluctuations in the past 650,000 years. The rate of increase is much faster (and matches the rate of increase seen in carbon dioxide, which is also unlike anything seen in the last 650,000 years) and much higher. The carbon dioxide levels are far higher than they have been in the past 650,000 years and the temperature is the highest it has been in the past 650,000 years. If you look at the past 650,000 years you see relatively gradual fluctuations that peak within a certain range. If you look since 1800, you see a change in carbon dioxide AND temperature with a biphasic character: about 150 years where the rate of change looks maybe higher than normal, but maybe not (possibly a natural phenomenon with a minor human caused componant) followed by 50 years where the rate of change is unprecedented in the past 650,000 years.
So, please familiarize yourself with the full data, not just the tiny bit Rush Limbaugh tells you about. Remember, he used to blame global warming on Mt. Pinatubo...based on numbers he KNEW were wrong.
Thank you, I mean it.
Submitted by mrme (not verified) on 6 April 2007 - 12:40pm.
I honestly appreciate you getting back to me on my question. The problem is I didn't make the question clear. The data I was referring to is the chart that Al Gore shows on the screen in his movie--the chart that shows the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rise over a long stretch of history. It's the part where he jokes something like, "think there's any connection?" because there obviously is. My point is that if you actually look at that chart closely, CO2 rises are CONSISTENTLY 700 years behind temperature rises. Throughout history, and before. In other words, the very chart he shows would seem to suggest (unless there's another plausible interpretation of the data, to which I'm all ears) that warmer temperatures CAUSE a rise in CO2.
Below is someone's response to the dilemma and I think it is immediately deeply flawed. He says that the lag shows that CO2 doesn't cause the beginning of warming but causes the middle and end of warming. To that I simply say he needs to consult his dictionary, and look up the word "cause." Cause happens at the beginning. A cause doesn't kick in once change is underway:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
So, perhaps you have a better explanation. Thanks again.
Well...
Submitted by mole333 on 8 April 2007 - 9:48am.
I am not sure exactly which Gore graph you are referring to, but when I look at the original graphs (e.g. on NASA, GISS, or most university websites that cover the topic) I see something very different. What goes on 700 years ago is separate from what is going on today and has a very different profile. I look over 650,000 years and very broadly the two correlate extremely well. But keep in mind that the raw data does not really tell you causation. That is why I always refer to correlation. Where you get an idea of causation is from physics. We KNOW that carbon dioxide acts as a green house gas. That is pure physics and is demonstrated by looking at the atmospheres and surface temperatures of Venus, Earth and Mars. Physics tells us increasing carbon dioxide leads to increased planetary temperatures. So when we see the correlation in 650,000 years of temperature and carbon dioxide data we can pretty well imagine that we are seeing this knonw physics in action. I actually call it proof of principle when we see in action something physics tells us should happen.
Now 700 years ago, the main human contribution to carbon dioxide was deforestation. This was not trivial, but it doesn't come close to comparing what is happening now. And as I read the graphs the events of 700 years ago resolved. The current rises in carbon dioxide, with a slope that you never see in the past 650,000 years and reaching carbon dioxide levels that you have not seen in the past 650,000 years, really began around the time of the Industrial Revolution and has an inflection point to an even more dramatically unprecedented slope within the past 75 years or so. Every single graph I see shows this.
No one thinks humans are the only factor. But it does look like the correlation is with our activities. Combine the correlations and the physics and look at how human industrial activity correlates with the previously unprecedented slope of carbon dioxide increase and it is really hard to avoid the conclusion that we are causing it. I want to emphasize that there is not one single peer-reviewed scientific article that agrees with your "700 year lag" idea. Many peer-reviewed articles support the anthropogenic global warming theory. Not one refutes it. There are plenty of details that are opent to dispute. I do not think the premise behind that dumb movie about global warming leading to a localized ice age, is well accepted. But the broad outlines are completely accepted.
Again, keep in mind that even the biggest SKEPTICS (as opposed to deniers) in climatology do not dispute the basic anthropogenic global warming theory, even though the question the most catastrophic scenarios (as do I).
Let's move on to solutions. The most optimistic models give us about 10 years left to react. Let's not squander it. Let's focus on the smartest ways to change before change become beyond our control.
Follow up
Submitted by mole333 on 8 April 2007 - 12:41pm.
So, since you actually are discussing real data and I like discussing real data, I dug out my copy of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. So I am looking at page 66-67, the graph that I think you are talking about. This is the graph of carbon dioxide and temperature over the past 650,000 years. Am I right that this is what you are talking about?
First thing to notice is the time scale is way to large on this graph to see differences of a mere 700 years. There are more fine scaled graphs covering shorter time periods (e.g. the last 2000 years) that are most pertinent to the current crisis that I have looked at and linked to, but Gore does not show such graphs. I will discuss some of this later. But first, Gore's graph on page 66-67 of his book.
If you look from about 300,000 years ago to present, I thik anyone would agree that the graphs match extremely well and if anything carbon dioxide rise predates temperature rise, though I would say you can not say that given the time scale. All you can say is that these two graphs correlate AMAZINGLY well and (as I said in my previous reply) you have to go to physics to understand the causation whereby it is well known that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
If you look before 300,000 years ago I may see what you mean by temperature lagging carbon dioxide. The problem with such a determination is that the further back you go, the larger the error in dating, so BOTH graphs will be fuzzier in terms of exact dating. Again, I don't think you can determine causation from this graph, merely look at the overall trend and see that the correlation is extremely close. You also can see on this grpah that the modern trend is outside any natural range over the entire 650,000 year time scale. Close correlation and a modern, radical departure from the natural pattern is all you can get looking at such large time scales.
To understand more about causation, you can look for timing on smaller time scales (within last 1000-2000 years, say) combined with the known physics I already mentioned.
There are of course graphs covering a finer time scale here. Let's look in some detail.
If we look at the inset graph here, we can see the current carbon dioxide anomaly in some detail (looking at the last 1000 years). We have a largely steady or slight increase until 1800, when we see a clear inflection point to a steeper slope. That is where we begin to see deviation. This is approximately when deforestation and coal use start to take off. But the slope of the curve around 1800 is still not so deviant from what you might see from natural variations, though I think most scientists think we are starting to have an effect as far back as the 1800's. What is most dramatic about the inset graph is that you get a second inflection point around 1950-1960 and the curve now enters a rate of change that is unprecedented on the larger graph covering 650,000 years I discussed before. So the modern trend began around 1800, though how much is human caused and how much is natural is much harder to determine at that earlier phase. After about 1950 the trend is dramatic, unprecedented and correlates very well with modern industrial and population trends.
Now let's look at temperature change since 1850 here. You can see no real deviation in temperature until about 1910. After that you see an almost steady increase until 1940 when there is a brief but significant decrease. As I recall there was some considerable speculation about this decrease, but it soon re-enters the upward sloping pattern and keeps going. This pattern (the 1940 downturn aside) would fit the effect of a carbon dioxide increase starting in the early to mid 1800's, with temperature rising only around 1900. If you look carefully you can see the increase gets even more dramatic around 1990, give or take. This is what you would expect from a carbon dioxide trend starting around 1950-1960. For some time now I have looked at graphs like this and been struck by how the temperature comes after the carbon dioxide change in a way that would be very much expected.
Now global warming models predict downtrends as well as uptrends. It is not expected to be one solid upwards trend. The 1940's decline could be due to any number of factors, but doesn't detract from the overall trend.
I would add one thing. For awhile atmospheric measurements did not always give the same warming trend as surface measurements. Those differences have been resolved as a better understanding of atmospheric dynamics has evolved and atmospheric measurements now agree well with surface measurements in terms of the warming trend.
I hope this helps. Again, if you are only looking at the 650,000 year graph, you will see mushier data in the earlier phases and you can never judge what is happening on less than 1000 year time periods. You have to go to the graphs that plot more recent trends and THEN you can try and judge what comes first. Looking over the post-industrial revolution period, it is extremely clear that carbon dioxide increase precedes temperature increases.
data
Submitted by mrme (not verified) on 8 April 2007 - 8:15pm.
This site http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm
has a bunch of relevant graphs. It is impossible to look at them and not see that temperature rise precedes carbon dioxide rise. I can't take any of the human-cause argument seriously when it's very core is illogical.
data
Submitted by mole333 on 9 April 2007 - 7:13am.
I am wondering why you are so willing to accept the word of some random website where they don't even give citations for their data (therefore we don't know that their data is even real) rather than look at the work as presented by the actual scientists who are doing the work, as Al Gore and I do. Seriously, in some ways you are citing people whose view you WANT to believe and ignoring the experts, even the most skeptical of experts.
But let's look at the data on the website you refer to. First off, I don't know where they get their data, so I cannot judge its validity. But assuming it is valid, here are my problems: they are picking and choosing data they happen to like and ignoring gobs of data that is out there. The graphs I referred to use a far wider range of data.
Let's start with their Greenland temperature graph. This is just ONE location, yet they claim that these "changes are probably very indicative of temperatures changes across all of the Northern Hemisphere." There are two fundamental problems with this. First, you cannot in any way assume temperature records from ONE location can possible be representative of an entire HEMISPHERE. Local variations can be enormous. Second, they act like this is the only temperature record for the entire Northern Hemisphere. It isn't. Taking the ENTIRE HEMISPHERE (data comes from this site (NOAA)) you can see from this graph that what is shown for Greenland in your website is most certainly NOT "very indicative of temperature changes across all of the Northern Hemisphere." Again, assuming their data is accurate, they are engaging in a particular mistake scientists have to avoid: over interpreting their data. The data they present represents a single location, not an enitre hemisphere. The temperature records across the hemisphere show something clearly different, and yet the website you present doesn't mention that. And the graph from this NOAA page, again covering hemispheric temperatures using a different set of methods, once again shows that the first graph on the site you show is NOT indicative of the temperature changes across the whole hemisphere. Beware of people who pick and choose data. There is a very comprehensive set of graphs and data here that you can review. It is from the raw data and not filtered through anyone's belief in what is happening the way the website you cite is.
The second graph you show is again a single location, so not necessarily indicative of larger scale changes. Second, why are they covering periods of 20,000 to 50,000 years ago? That is a very odd time span, isn't it? Why not look up until the present? Why not look back 650,000 years? As with the single location data, taking one specific period and ignoring the rest of time is suspicious. Remember, the further back you go, the larger your inherant error regarding precise time. Evidence from 2000 years ago will be more precise than evidence from 20,000 years ago. But they ONLY are looking at one time point and one time period while ignoring other, more precisely measured time periods.
The third graph has basically the same problems as the second graph.
The fourth graph shows the exact opposite of what you and they claim. The increase in carbon dioxide CLEARLY precedes the increase in temperature, and the 5 year ave temp is increasing as one would expect from the increasing carbon dioxide. The website you refer to claims that the annual variation in temp (some years up some down) somehow disproves global warming. Well, that is a fallacy that NO ONE should still be making. Not only is annual variation expected to continue, but some models predict MORE record cold years as well as more record high years. The annual variation is expected to INCREASE by some models, but the 5-year average temperature is STILL going up despite that annual variation. This is the actual definition of global warming: an overall warming despite the annual variations. I will point out that this fourth graph is the ONLY one they show that isn't a single location and the ONLY one where the data shown covers anthropogenic global warming and it also shows exactly the expected dynamics of global warming.
Please look at a wider range of data and consider ALL data critically. You are taking one website's word for it and not considering the bias. When I look at data from ANY source I consider whether the data actually supports the claims made. I look at your site and the data does NOT support the claims made and, in the case of the last graph, supports the opposite conclusion from what they make.
I will also point out that the website you cite is ignoring a huge amount of data from other sources that show increased carbon dioxide leads to increased temperature. This is fundamental to understanding the planet Venus which, due to its greenhouse effect, has a surface temperature HOTTER than on mercury. Your website is ignoring what we have learned from Venus.
Again, I am happy to discuss data, but I suggest you consider data from all sources more critically than you are.
1 simple question
How do you fit the fact that temperature rise precedes CO2 emission rise by 700 years into the theory that CO2 emissions contribute to temperature rise?