The environment thread

[Chisoxfn]

Excellent.

One of the few things that I voted for which ended up working out. That and Prop 19.

[KipWellsFan]

The Gores got rich off of oil. It is what put his dad into the Senate and put Al Gore in the position that anyone gave a s*** what he thought in the first place. It is also an undeniable fact that he has gotten massively rich by pushing green companies.

 

 

Good for him. There's worse things.

[Balta1701]

The Gores got rich off of oil. It is what put his dad into the Senate and put Al Gore in the position that anyone gave a s*** what he thought in the first place. It is also an undeniable fact that he has gotten massively rich by pushing green companies.

It depends on how you define "Rich". He was a wealthy person based off of oil, but he multiplied that probably by 100 thanks to the Google.

[iamshack]

What do you guys think about the thinktank mentioned Super Freakonomics, Intellectual Ventures, and their position on climate change?

 

Intellectual Ventures

[southsider2k5]

It depends on how you define "Rich". He was a wealthy person based off of oil, but he multiplied that probably by 100 thanks to the Google.

 

Is being millionaires no longer rich to you? Because that's what they were.

[Balta1701]

What do you guys think about the thinktank mentioned Super Freakonomics, Intellectual Ventures, and their position on climate change?

 

Intellectual Ventures

I have no information on their position on climate change and I can't seem to find any at that page. Can you fill in the blanks?

[StrangeSox]

I have no information on their position on climate change and I can't seem to find any at that page. Can you fill in the blanks?

 

I know the freakonomics guys support "geoengineering" over carbon pricing/taxing/limiting policies.

[Balta1701]

I know the freakonomics guys support "geoengineering" over carbon pricing/taxing/limiting policies.

I'm aware of that but I didn't see either of the actual 2 guys on the list of names highlighted either, so I didn't want to assume that's what the group he cited wanted.

[iamshack]

I have no information on their position on climate change and I can't seem to find any at that page. Can you fill in the blanks?

Here is an excerpt from Super Freakonomics which describes the position taken by Intellectual Ventures:

 

Excerpt from Super Freakonomics

 

It's a long excerpt, but I promise you, it is definitely worth reading...

[StrangeSox]

Here is an excerpt from Super Freakonomics which describes the position taken by Intellectual Ventures:

 

Excerpt from Super Freakonomics

 

It's a long excerpt, but I promise you, it is definitely worth reading...

 

One big problem from skimming:

 

“Plants pay exceedingly dearly for carbon dioxide,” Wood jumps in. “A plant has to raise about a hundred times as much water from the soil as it gets carbon dioxide from the air, on a molecule-lost-per-molecule-gained basis. Most plants, especially during the active part of the growing season, are water-stressed. They bleed very seriously to get their food.”

 

So an increase in carbon dioxide means plants require less water to grow. Caldeira’s study showed that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide while holding steady all other inputs — water, nutrients and so forth — yields a 70% increase in plant growth, an obvious boon to agricultural productivity.

 

The "CO2 is good for plants!" argument doesn't hold up, especially not for all plants and all situations. CO2 would have to be the limiting factor for growth, and we'd have to ignore the likely droughts and floods that will result.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure this:

Then there is this little-discussed fact about global warming: while the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature has in fact decreased.

 

Is just simply untrue.

Edited November 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

I think you missed this in your skimming...

 

“Twenty thousand years ago,” Caldeira says, “carbon dioxide levels were lower, sea level was lower — and trees were in a near state of asphyxiation for lack of carbon dioxide. There’s nothing special about today’s carbon dioxide level, or today’s sea level, or today’s temperature. What damages us are rapid rates of change. Overall, more carbon dioxide is probably a good thing for the biosphere — it’s just that it’s increasing too fast.”

[BigSqwert]

I found this interesting.

[Balta1701]

Here is an excerpt from Super Freakonomics which describes the position taken by Intellectual Ventures:

 

Excerpt from Super Freakonomics

 

It's a long excerpt, but I promise you, it is definitely worth reading...

When "Superfreakonomics" came out, the climate community groaned that they had another poorly-informed piece that they had to deal with. As SS noted beforehand...things like "global temperature has actually decreased" are statements that people familiar with basic statistics should flat out scoff at, and those guys really ought to have known better. For another example, they raise the issue of the heat generated by burning carbon and what that does to the planet...not the heat that is trapped by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, the actual heat of the exothermic reaction burning carbon. The problem is, they didn't bother to do the math; if you estimate a reasonable lifetime for a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere, the amount of incoming solar radiation, the amount of heat generated by CO2 absorbing that light, and also calculate the energy released by a carbon-combustion reaction, the heat trapped by 1 molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere is something on the order of 10^6 times greater than the heat released by the combustion reaction. They didn't bother to do the most basic math to check their conclusions.

 

Basic errors like that riddle their climate chapter.

 

Now...if you want to deal with their actual proposals...they're big fans of types of geoengineering. For example, they cite the fact that aerosol particles in the atmosphere wind up reflecting out sunlight and causing cooling, and consider that as a method of dealing with the problem permanently; just inject particles into the atmosphere.

 

Problem is...there are reasons why very few scientists think that these proposals are viable (although I will grant that some do and I think continued research in them is a very worthy goal)...the politics and the science both make it hard.

 

I'll start with the science. The basic problem with CO2 in the first place is the side effects. No one would care about increasing atmospheric CO2 if it didn't cause warming. The geoengineering solution, such as adding aerosol to the atmosphere, produces 1 side effect; counteracting the CO2 warming, but that isn't the only side-effect. Adding CO2 changes circulation patterns and heating patterns in a certain way; adding aerosols can produce overall cooling, but it produces a different set of side effects. In some regions, you make things excessively dry and you compound the problem. Or, you wind up with other side-effects like the production of acid rain or ozone damage. On top of that...we have some idea of the side-effects of massive jumps in CO2 both because we've already done it and because we've spent a lot of effort analyzing that problem geologically; massive increases in aerosol emissions have been investigated some, but there are very likely to be other side effects we haven't researched at all.

 

Furthermore, there's the fact that it's only at best a temporary solution. If we continue on the current CO2 emission trend, we're going to triple atmospheric CO2 concentrations within the next 100 years. From 300 ppm pre-industrial to over 1000 ppm by 2100. Going the aerosol emission route, that will require an enormous amount of sulfate aerosols to be pumped into the atmosphere. If you want to counteract that, you're pretty much going to have to create a Venusian haze that blots out a substantial portion of the sun worldwide. You'd literally have to have a global, permanent, smog layer. Think the air in Beijing, except global. That is going to have massive impacts on plant life, crop growing, and hell, even Vacations.

 

That of course doesn't take into account the politics, and in this case the politics are as bad or worse than in cutting emissions as your solution. Let's say you want the sulfate aerosol solution; who is going to pay for that? Is the U.S. going to pay for the whole thing? What happens if China decides not to pay their fair share? Will the U.S. do so anyway? What happens if China winds up being pushed into a decades long drought because the U.S. has decided to pump out sulfate aerosols? Who pays for that? Or other options, like putting a big mirror in solar orbit to block out a portion of the sun...who pays to launch the thing, who pays for the loss of crops associated with cutting the incoming sunlight? And how would China and Russia feel if the U.S., for example, controlled a large scale geoengineering system that the U.S. could use as a negotiating tool or a weapon? If you were Russia, would you want the U.S. controlling a system that the U.S. could turn off, causing rapid melting in parts of Russia?

 

In general, I think Geoengineering solutions seem easy because of the fact that no one has actually put forwards a genuine, seriously thought out proposal that can be actually discussed. The politics of carbon mitigation seem challenging because they are. There is every reason to think that the politics of geoengineering are just as complicated, if not more complicated, but we haven't had reason to actually deal with them.

 

So, to summarize, I haven't seen a geoengineering solution that I think would actually work. It is an interesting idea and I have no issues with continued research on a variety of topics. However, it can not and should not be treated as a feasible solution until a unified plan can be put forwards, and frankly, most of the people who float geoengineering solutions are doing so not out of a belief that they might actually work, but instead as a means of further confusing the politics of carbon mitigation and making it so that we delay rather than taking steps to deal with the problem.

[StrangeSox]

I think you missed this in your skimming...

 

Well, to sound a little contradictory here, more CO2 may be "better for the biosphere" overall (though I don't know how you quantify that), but it probably isn't better for humans (along with many other species).

[Balta1701]

I think you missed this in your skimming...

The actual guy that they tried to cite was taken horribly out of context and personally ripped the book in interviews.

“Carbon dioxide is the right villain,” Caldeira wrote on his Web site in reply. He told Joe Romm, the respected climate blogger who broke the story, that he had objected to the “wrong villain” line but Dubner and Levitt didn’t correct it; instead, they added the “incredibly foolish” quote, a half step in the right direction. Caldeira gave the same account to me.

 

Levitt and Dubner do say that the book “overstates” Caldeira’s position. That’s a weasel word: The book claims the opposite of what Caldeira believes. Caldeira told me the book contains “many errors” in addition to the “major error” of misstating his scientific opinion on carbon dioxide’s role.

[iamshack]

The actual guy that they tried to cite was taken horribly out of context and personally ripped the book in interviews.

I remember hearing the criticism when the book was published, so I knew they were being a little loose with their facts, which is why I originally linked to the Intellectual Ventures page instead of Super Freakonomics.

 

Thanks for the explanations, Balta. That was informative.

[NorthSideSox72]

Counteracting pollution by adding another, different pollution seems on its face to be exactly the wrong-headed mindset that got us here. They key should be conservation - use less energy, and create less pollution. The earth acts like a living thing, and it reacts to changes in ways that cannot even be calculated. The one sure thing is that you will have many unintended consequences, and each of those changes costs people money and health.

 

[StrangeSox]

Geological Society of London statement on climate change

 

The Geological Society has prepared a position statement on climate change, focusing specifically on the geological evidence. A drafting group was convened, with the aim of producing a clear and concise summation, accessible to a general audience, of the scientific certainties and uncertainties; as well as including references to further sources of information.

 

The drafting group met on 18 February and 2 July. The resulting document has been discussed, revised and agreed by the External Relations Committee, and by Council. ...

 

The statement is intended for non-specialists and Fellows of the Society. It is based on analysis of geological evidence, and not on analysis of recent temperature or satellite data, or climate model projections. It contains references to support key statements, indicated by superscript numbers, and a reading list for those who wish to explore the subject further.

 

and the money-shot:

In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon from burning oil, gas and coal at close to or higher than today’s levels, and from related human activities, could increase the total to close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event – some 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes. Further contributions from ‘natural’ sources (wetlands, tundra, methane hydrates, etc.) may come as the Earth warms22. The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5-6ºC, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of any mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation44. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.

[BigSqwert]

I don't know what they're talking about. It was cold outside this morning.

[StrangeSox]

We're going to emit 55 millions years worth of CO2 in a couple of centuries, and somehow it's still inconceivable for some people that this will impact the climate.

[Balta1701]

We're going to emit 55 millions years worth of CO2 in a couple of centuries, and somehow it's still inconceivable for some people that this will impact the climate.

That's not what that statement says at all.

 

We'd be pushing CO2 levels to the point that they have not been since 55 million years ago.

 

Actually a big difference. There are constant, large fluxes of CO2 into sediment and out of the atmosphere, and there are large fluxes of CO2 to the atmosphere from volcanic sources and from decay of organic material. This makes it possible for their to be rapid (10,000 year scale) shifts in atmospheric CO2 due to release (i.e. of methane stored in ices), or for there to be large amounts of organic carbon buried during certain time-periods (much of the U.S.'s coal comes from the period about 300 million years ago or so).

[StrangeSox]

That's not what that statement says at all.

 

We'd be pushing CO2 levels to the point that they have not been since 55 million years ago.

 

I think you're wrong.

 

could increase the total to close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event – some 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes.

 

amounts added = carbon dumped into the atmosphere, at least by my reading. Further, the preceding paragraph:

In total, human activities have emitted over 500 billion tonnes of carbon (hence over 1850 billion tons of CO2) to the atmosphere since around 1750, some 65% of that being from the burning of fossil fuels18,45,46,47,48.

 

So, we've already added 500B tonnes, and if we keep going at present rates, we'll pass 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes, the total amount released during a 55 million year long period.

 

 

 

Actually a big difference. There are constant, large fluxes of CO2 into sediment and out of the atmosphere, and there are large fluxes of CO2 to the atmosphere from volcanic sources and from decay of organic material. This makes it possible for their to be rapid (10,000 year scale) shifts in atmospheric CO2 due to release (i.e. of methane stored in ices), or for there to be large amounts of organic carbon buried during certain time-periods (much of the U.S.'s coal comes from the period about 300 million years ago or so).

 

I agree that there is a big difference, but I still think my reading of the sentence was correct.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I think you're wrong.

 

 

 

amounts added = carbon dumped into the atmosphere, at least by my reading. Further, the preceding paragraph:

 

 

So, we've already added 500B tonnes, and if we keep going at present rates, we'll pass 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes, the total amount released during a 55 million year long period.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that there is a big difference, but I still think my reading of the sentence was correct.

 

I think the "55 million year event" is similar to "100 year flood". It doesn't mean it endured for that long, it means a periodic event time.

 

[Balta1701]

OK, now I get why you're misunderstanding it.

 

The 55 million year old event was in itself a fairly rapid event. The phrase is the "Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum". It was in itself a (geologically speaking) rapid event. Within a period of 10,000-100,000 years a substantial amount of carbon was released to the atmosphere. That carbon probably was stored in fossil form, most people would guess stored in some sort of methane ices. It was released geologically rapidly, and it was a huge event in climate.

 

The correct way to say it would be we're on the verge of releasing the same amount of carbon in 200 years that were released in 10,000 years at the PETM, and that much carbon at the PETM shifted ocean currents, caused extinctions of creatures, formed large scale deserts, and prevented formation of long-lived ice caps for 20 million years.

[Balta1701]

I think the "55 million year event" is similar to "100 year flood". It doesn't mean it endured for that long, it means a periodic event time.

No, it also is not periodic. That was a 1 time event. It is cited in this discussion because it is the largest, carbon-related climate catastrophe that we have in the recent geologic record.