Global Warming

[drbill]

Good to see the issue of conservation not only coming to the forefront but one with which folks of different persuasions can agree.

I was reminded recently while watching Ken Burns documentary about World War II ("The War") about the stories my parents told us about conservation efforts at home during that global conflict. In retrospect I still find it impressive the way Americans (and I'm sure folks from all countries affected by that conflict) rose to the occasion, made sacrifices, recycled and practiced energy conservation to support the war effort.

It would be wonderful if we today could approach the issue of global warming in the same way.

The level of energy waste in most people's lives (and I include myself, despite efforts to conserve) is amazing. In another lifetime I used to be the energy conservation engineer for a major aerospace firm here in SoCal. I prepared educational materials for our employees and for other business (through an environmental forum my boss and I ran each month through the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce).

One of the graphics we presented was a representation of the per capita energy use by citizens of various industrialized countries. Each figure was dressed in clothing representative of their country, and the sizes of the individuals (height/weight) was proportional to their per capita energy use. It was so obvious from that graphic that Americans used a highly disproportionate amount of energy compared to the rest of the world. Of course things have probably improved a bit since then (the mid 70's).

Back then I proposed savings in the multi-million dollar per year range to the Vice President. After my presentation (which my very pro-business boss approved and was supportive of), the V.P. took me aside and said. "Bill, your ideas are good and would save our company a lot of money. However, our government contracts are on a "cost plus" basis." The implication was that not only did the government contracts (and we US citizens as taxpayers) pay for that bloated energy use, we also paid a percentage sum on top of those costs as the "plus" part. I hope things have changed since then... but I'm not overly optimistic.

 

[Eris Lucan7*]

>Yes its years ago and all have it forgoten that in the 60s all European Uninon

and the large worldforces assinet the international spacecontract,so is it

forbiten to bring nuclearweapon in the terran Oribt wail when they explo in the

near off the hermesver (Carryerrocket downshot default..) the sunlight will

revlect the radioactivi out off the partical dust for many years....more later.....

E.L.7*

 

[mrjimboalaska]

Doesn't that depend how long it's spread over? The life of your system?

In our case my wife arranged a sort of "mortgage" over the guaranteed life of the system. The monthly repayment is what is being balanced. It's about break-even, but I prefer paying for solar instead of power-plant. Our cost was about $50,000.

If you manage to get 12 yrs..(10-12 is about the Maintenance "Free" period) your $50,000 equates to $347 a mo. Then at that point you start replacing Batteries, PV cells, Controlers, Signal generators, relays....then the wind turbine needs bearings and other service......it's really not at a break even cost yet. You can get there if you start being a minimalist, no Sat TV, no Microwave, less light usage(which really wont save you much if you have LED lighting) and lower the energy you need to generate.
BUT, you are supplying your OWN energy, that is hard to put a price tag on. To me, it's priceless! We will pay more, pumping water out of the ground takes power...but the wife and I want a self sufficient home/ranch with modern luxuries. We have just added the rain water system to our plans. Did you know if you have 1000sqft. of roof and it rains 1 inch, you gather 600 gal. of h20? Grey water systems in the average US home would be enough to supply water to irrigate your close-in landscaping(minus the lawn).
I'm not into passing new laws and regulations SURPRISE! but, I would go along with passive solar hot water systems being required on new construction. It makes sence. I would like to have one to heat the pool in the winter.......why not, smoke detectors have now become pretty much required in most states these days.

 

[Kim]

If you manage to get 12 yrs..(10-12 is about the Maintenance "Free" period) your $50,000 equates to $347 a mo.

Ah.....we don't have any of the wind turbine type stuff - just solar. That's not going to need so much maintenance AFAIK. We don't use batteries either. When we are producing more than we need it goes back into the grid and the electric company pays us for it. At night we use their power, but that's basically taking back what we gave them during the day. But your above cost estimate is actually close to what our electricity/gas saving is - and just over what we are paying - it's about $300, so you're pretty close. (Government subsidized about 10% of the cost)

Personally I think it would be a very good idea to mandate things like this in new buildings. Here's an interesting article about the German approach - whole towns......community solar....

 

[Hank49]

The world is warming and everyone's efforts to help reduce the rate of warming are commendable. One thing I dont' understand though...with the economic situation in the world today....emerging economies in Asia that will require lots of oil and or coal to fuel it, it's likely the warming trend will continue despite American or European efforts, BUT, why is everyone so sure that warming is a bad thing? Other than I'll lose my beach lot up on San Pedro....There are some postives. The major concern is food production. The world has to eat. A warmer overal climate could be a positive in that regard with year round production in the temperate zones. All I hear is doom and gloom associated with warming. Why?

 

[SNorman]

I know we're chin deep in global warming rhetoric now, but can we talk about whether CO2 makes any difference at all? I haven't seen much concrete evidence of how much CO2 contributes to the "greenhouse effect". Computer models that predict warming do not model the atmosphere physically based on properties of CO2 and predict energy flow, they simply have a number that is typed in that is a scientist's best "guess" as to the relationship between CO2 concentration and warming.

CO2 has a very narrow absorption band, so it can only absorb about 8% of the blackbody radiation sent out from the atmosphere and Earth's surface no matter how much of it is there. Also, it absorbs completely within the atmosphere at those narrow absorbtion bands, so there is no IR "escaping" right now that would be held in the atmosphere longer by more CO2.

There's also the view that atmospheric CO2 is rising because of slightly higher ocean temps, which in turn dissolve less CO2.

Anyway here are a couple sites that discuss this:

Cold Facts on Global Warming

Nitty Gritty Perspective on Global Warming—the CO2 Absorption Spectrum.

By the way, anybody that assumes the "experts" always get it right, you've seen this right? DailyTech - Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

From the site:

The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II

 

[Kim]

A warmer overal climate could be a positive in that regard with year round production in the temperate zones. All I hear is doom and gloom associated with warming. Why?

Well.....not everyone lives in the temperate zones, and I hardly expect they'll give the increased production away!

One of the warming problems apart from sea-level rise is desertification. This normally affects those who can handle it the least - often subsistence farmers in the first place who suddenly can't grow squat, or maintain livestock. In the past stuff like this started whole population migrations. Now were talkin millions of people though that might suddenly need somewhere new to live.

Hmmmmmmm..............

 

[Warthaug]

I know we're chin deep in global warming rhetoric now, but can we talk about whether CO2 makes any difference at all?

The scientific consensus is that it does.

I haven't seen much concrete evidence of how much CO2 contributes to the "greenhouse effect". Computer models that predict warming do not model the atmosphere physically based on properties of CO2 and predict energy flow, they simply have a number that is typed in that is a scientist's best "guess" as to the relationship between CO2 concentration and warming.

Hardly. Current models represent some of the most complicated computer models yet devised by man, and with the exception of a few variables we cannot control (i.e. CO2 levels) are based on the known physics of the earth and its atmosphere. The "golden standard" of the day are general circulation models. These models take into account a broad range of factors from cloud formation, to precipitation, sea absorption/release of CO2, heat transfer in the atmosphere, effects of particulates, changes in solar intensity, changes in albedo, etc.

Before a model is even considered plausible it has to accurately model the known climatic conditions of the past - i.e. from ~1880 to today, and do it accurately. Given the greater and greater knowledge we have of paleoclimate, many of these models are also being verified by modeling over those longer periods.

As for "best guess", we scientists do not guess. We enter values based on empirical observations or derived from proven processes. When we do not know a value, we run a range through to model to ensure we are not biasing our results.

CO2 has a very narrow absorption band, so it can only absorb about 8% of the blackbody radiation sent out from the atmosphere and Earth's surface

Your number here is wrong. Most of the earths heat is released as IR energy; 71% of which is absorbed (and eventually re-emitted) by the atmosphere. CO2's spectra overlies pretty much dead-on the peak emission wavelength of the earth, meaning it can absorb a lot of heat. Of the energy captured by the atmosphere, H2O accounts for 60% of the absorbency, CO2 for ~26% with methane, N2O and O3 making up the remainder

These are commonly available values in any science or climatology textbook.

no matter how much of it is there. Also, it absorbs completely within the atmosphere at those narrow absorbtion bands, so there is no IR "escaping" right now that would be held in the atmosphere longer by more CO2.

Absolutely false. Absorption is far from 100%; so quite a bit of IR light escapes earth - it must, otherwise the surface of the planet would continually heat up.

There's also the view that atmospheric CO2 is rising because of slightly higher ocean temps, which in turn dissolve less CO2.

Conventional scientific thinking see's the problem as the opposite - the warming of the earth ahs reduced the oceans CO2 holding capabilities, as gas absorbance in water drops as temperatures increase. As a result the ocean can absorb less CO2, thus amplifying the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Anyway here are a couple sites that discuss this:

Cold Facts on Global Warming

Nitty Gritty Perspective on Global Warming—the CO2 Absorption Spectrum.

Well established sites who's aim is to refute global warming, regardless of what the science says.

For far better info try RealClimate, a webpage run by actual climatologists who are actually involved in climatic research. The best sign of its credibility is they are as likely to tear into papers which support GW as they are likely to tear anti-warming research appart.

By the way, anybody that assumes the "experts" always get it right, you've seen this right? DailyTech - Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

From the site:

The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II

For the USA, but not for the world.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

BUT, why is everyone so sure that warming is a bad thing?

Off the top of my head:

1) Massive loss of the most highly populated places on earth - the areas neighboring the sea.

2) The drying out of several of the worlds "bread baskets"

3) Increased weather severity, potentially combined with increased rates of storms

4) Mass extinction of animal and plant species

Other than I'll lose my beach lot up on San Pedro....There are some postives. The major concern is food production. The world has to eat. A warmer overal climate could be a positive in that regard with year round production in the temperate zones. All I hear is doom and gloom associated with warming. Why?

Because all of the climatic models agree that the warming we expect to see will have a net downward effect on crop production, not benefit. Keep in mind that the kinds of temperature changes we're talking about are not going to open up vast new area of the earth to farming. Instead we expect to see changes in rainfall and storm patterns, and unfortunately all evidence suggests that todays major agricultural areas are in for poorer growing conditions, not better.

Bryan

 

[Doc Intrepid]

With great respect, Bryan, given the sum total of what we do not yet know regarding the atmosphere on this planet and the manner in which its myriad variables (known and not yet known) interact with one another, the more alarmist conclusions being trumpeted in the media regarding predicted outcomes of climate change sound positively Malthusian.

Thomas Malthus's Essay on Population



I would like to return to Tassie's post a page back or so, and inquire into your (and Dr. Rohan's) thoughts regarding a sentence he wrote:

"There have been periods where there has been huge ice sheets covering most land masses (and we are still not fully sure how they melted as the albedo effect reflects heat)."

Given that the data appear to suggest that the ice sheets which previously covered the planet periodically throughout its known history were rather substantial, extending nearly to the equator in some instances and of significant thicknesses, what melted them?

Mankind's influence had yet to manifest itself.

It would appear that throughout the planet's history periods of intense cooling have been followed, cyclically, by periods of intense warming.

Allowing for even significant climatic degradation recently caused - to some extent - by mankind's deplorable abuse of natural resources, could it not also be that a cyclical period of warming may also naturally be occurring?