A longer post today, covering some familiar material, which the Old Man thought might be of more general use. If you disagree, feel free to comment. If you want to snark, don’t bother.
What follows was written in response to an email sent; the correspondent’s comments are in italic, followed by my responses.
____________________________________
I hope you don’t object to me making a few observations about your proposed document.
I have been a student of climate science for a couple of years now and a postgrad part-timer on environmental ethics, so have done a substantial amount of research on climate change, energy, peak oil and politics. These are my thoughts, please don’t mind my presumption; I hope you find them useful, or at least thought-provoking…
• I think contrary to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, by 2100 it is very feasible that surface oceanic temperatures will have increased by 6˚C – and equatorial parts of continents by 10˚C.
These feelings, whilst understandable, are not supported by the current science, as you will know. My take on this is that a 3c rise is very likely, a 4c rise likely, a 5c rise plausible. With unconstrained global development, there is a small chance of a 6c rise. But the amount of increase beyond 3c is less pertinent, since the consequences of a change at this level are a) not well understood, but a source of deep concern to many scientists, and b) likely to be sufficient in and of themselves to radically transform our world. This second point is not well appreciated outside science circles, because it doesn’t sound like a big change, but it really is a massive alteration in relation to the stability we have previously experienced in the post-industrial era. Simply put, our existing infrastructure is likely to collapse under the pressure of such a change.
A scenario without Gulf Stream reversal is…
(the most likely scenario is neither reversal nor shutdown of the THC, but fluctuation at previously unknown levels, the consequences of which will mainly be felt in Europe and North Africa). But the science is so uncertain that discussion of these possibilities is invariably speculative. However, there is a demonstrable and measurable risk of this, and this must be factored in to any consideration of the future shape of the world and the UK.
• World population displacements.
This does not require THC changes or a 6c rise; this, I am certain, is already inevitable; indeed, in some places it has already begun. My estimate is that within 40 years there will be 150-1000 million people displaced due to climate change, poor international policy and the ancillary effects of these.
• A world food crisis.
This has already begun and will worsen dramatically in the near future.
• Over the next 150 years mankind will see very large increases in sea levels.
This is not very likely. An increase of 1-1.5 metres globally is feasible, and is supported by recent science. Again, this is much worse than it sounds; Portsmouth, for example, will cease to exist. It is hard to find a scientifically rational scenario where sea level will rise more than this. They don’t need to, in order to change our world substantially. Say goodbye to Bangladesh…
• Markedly after 2080, emissions of methyl clathrates from shallow oceans, and methane from permafrost areas, will lead to final temperature rises of ~ 35˚C.
This is absolutely unknowable and highly speculative. Though the conditions under which massive clathrate releases are still not well understood, the thinking is that whilst this is not impossible, it is too uncertain to include in a realistic future analysis. Methane release is a more real and serious issue, but is already factored in to the numbers cited above. Over the next 100 years, uncertainty over methane might plausibly result in an increase of global temperature to 4.5c-5c. The amount of methane required to raise temperatures by 30c is unimaginably vast and almost certainly more than exists on the planet.
To quote a phrase from Lenin: ‘What is to be Done?’.
• We see an ‘energy gap’, globally and in the UK. Peak oil production may have happened in 2007 or 2008, peak capacity may occur up to 2010. Peak gas is expected five years after peak oil, i.e. around 2013. Nuclear will not fill this gap.
In the short term, the ONLY realistic energy option for the UK is wind power; at least until better technology has been developed and is shown to be economically viable.
• If the US develops Thorium reactors, we should collaborate on this and with the EU on Carlo Rubbia style ‘energy amplifiers’.
This implies a reliance on future technologies which is characteristic of an American way of thinking (don’t change anything now, wait tiill we have found the answers…). These may or may not happen. We cannot wait; by the time it is a reality, we will have condemned ourselves to disaster.
• Coal is a disaster (Climate Change), and terrible example to other nations. No coal without secure 100% carbon capture and disposal. There is more than one technology for this. They should be developed with vigour.
The government and big business must get over the obsession with cheaply available energy; the price of energy is not just its cost, but also its consequences. The real future price of cheap energy now is measurable in human lives lost, nations damaged beyond survival. Fossil fuels must be wound down at the fastest rate possible. A Carbon tax is a good start; it should be draconian.
• Coal efficient energy burn, if this is possible, needs to be retrofitted to Chinese coal fired stations. All nations need to work together on this, because the Chinese will not dismantle their coal fired stations, though it is imperative that they must.
But who will pay for this? That is the real question, to which there is no simple answer.
• The wind farm electricity generation ‘ramp up’ must be massive, and provides opportunities for British Industry.
This is already the government’s intention, but in spite of best efforts, it is still held up by ambiguity in the planning process which allows local authorities to delay projects by years, thus making them uneconomic. For a wind ramp up to happen, the global supply chain must be stiffened, the UK must commit publically and vocally to the proposal, so manufacturers and developers can plan properly, and the planning process must be made absolutely clear, and supportive of wind projects, except in very specific and significant circumstances.
• Energy storage for wind generation is important – see suggestions in our report. This simply does not exist yet; anyway, for the next 12 years it is not an issue; we will use or export all the wind energy that can be created easily.
• The government must enforce Grid efficiency and construction.
This may require caps on dividend and shareholding profits for utility companies which would make them uncompetitive. It is necessary, but will almost certainly require some kind of subsidy or support.
I would also recommend discussions with Amory Lovins, Roger Pielke Sr. (not Jr), the British Antarctic Survey, Robert M Grumbine and Paul Baer, amongst others. George Marshall and William Connolley also have useful contributions to make.
I hope you find these comments useful; I am keen that [x] gets the best possible message based on the best available information. Whilst our perception of the problems is different, our intention is the same…
Old man in a cave 
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 31, 2009 at 11:49 pm
William
A world food crisis… This has already begun and will worsen dramatically in the near future.
In what sense? Are we short of food? http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/12/how_overfed_are_we.php for example. Do you have numbers?
February 1, 2009 at 3:45 am
ccpo
William,
You don’t seem to understand complex/chaotic systems. If it is already spreading through various parts of the world, it is starting. As time goes on and chaotic bifurcations increase, they will be visiting you.
Blog owner,
At every step along the way the science has been lagging behind the physical reality, yet you downplayed every concern of your correspondent. Does this make sense to you? I repeat: the science is now and has been wrong in that it is lagging reality by decades. How does this support your more conservative view? With the climate system becoming more chaotic, not less, our ability to predict what it is going to do should decrease, not increase.
For example, I am sure you are aware of the three studies on methane in the arctic from this past summer/fall. That’s science being 100 years or so behind reality.
It is great to see some rational thought on the Internet as opposed to the hordes of almost certainly paid off anti-AGW bots running all over posting on every blog before any reality-based responses can be posted by non-idiots, and find this to be a great discussion, but I encourage you to consider how poorly we have been keeping up with the change thus far.
That said, your point that anything after 3C might be moot is a sobering thought and probably salient.
Cheers
February 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm
fergusbrown
Hello both of you,
William,
In the sense that, though we produce plenty, it isn’t getting where it is needed, and where it is needed is vulnerable to drought and political instability, both of which are going to be exacerbated by climate change.
This is more of a political problem than a cc one, sure, but given the likelihood of increasing pressure on national economies from factors liable to be affected by cc, and increasing instability where the divide between wealth and poverty leaves millions living a subsistence life, I think my comments, though undoubtedly very brief and potentially misleading, are an adequate summary.
February 1, 2009 at 2:02 pm
fergusbrown
ccpo,
my name is Fergus. :). thanks for commenting.
You’re on dangerous ground challenging William’s understanding, but that’s for you two to sort out.
In response to your observations, I think we need to be clear that this is to a certain extent about positioning, but also about science.
My correspondent is an educated and well-informed person, who has spent some time reading and studying the subjects he discusses. To me, his observations are based too much on selective, rather than rounded, study; as a consequence, he tends towards a slightly more ‘alarmist’/’catastrophist’ position than mine. William generally tends to be on my other side, tending to squeeze me when my writing gets hyperbolic in my excitement.
All three of us (four, including yourself), share a concern over the state of the planet and a more or less informed position on the status and implications of climate change. But we all have a different take on what is implied by the science, what is likely or probable for the future, and what the causes and consequences of political and economic decisions might be.
I understand what you are trying to get at, but your argument contains a flaw; insofar as we understand what the reality of our current situation is, we understand it from the science, not in spite of it. The studies you refer to, indeed far too much of the science which is published, is reinterpreted and spun by either the media or bloggers with their own agendas, and not necessarily to the benefit of the central issues. The tendency to anticipate disaster is a common one, but if we are to respond in the best way for a best future, we have to deal with what is known, not what is feared.
The final point I make to my correspondent is that, in my opinion, the most likely, ‘least alarmist’ scenarios of temperature increase are sufficient of themselves to justify concerted action now. Since most of the measures to mitigate climate change affects are also, simultaneously, generally good for the environment and ecosphere, action is a win-win choice; it is inaction which is the source of concern.
Finally, thanks for the words about rational debate. feel free to visit any time, but be aware that pressure of work now means that I blog less frequently than I used to. Use my bloglist to find more stimulating, more scientific debate.
regards,
February 7, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Tony Hansen
Fergus,
I cannnot remember a time when there was not a food crisis somewhere. (Africa, Asia, South America…) and usually in several/many places at any one time. The major problem always(?) seemed to be getting food delivered or delivered safely.
The amount of grain being fed to ruminants or converted to ethanol is… a lot (as I remember Chapman in Life of Brian:).
I think the wasteful use of grains is only one leg of the problem. Another is the abysmal water-use efficiency of grain grown in drier sub-tropical environments. There are some farmers that see this issue rather clearly and do have the runs on the board, but I will admit that they are a minority.
So I dont see grain production as the biggest problem, but rather the efficient and effective use of what is grown. More efficient methods of production in some areas would also help
Cheers
May 7, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Aaron Lewis
When I was young and impressionable, a very domineering old man said, “ Define the boundaries of your system! Calculate how much energy is in every component of the system! And, estimate energy flows!” He may have only said it once, but now it seems like he said it every Tuesday morning at 8 AM.
I cannot think about global warming, without thinking about that Tuesday morning precept. The Southern Ocean has great blocks of ice standing in it (WAIS). If our oceans get too warm, the ice will melt, cooling the ocean. This little effect was forgotten as they built the GCM, but it is Mother Nature’s rule and she will apply it without fail.
In the North, Greenland sits in the path of two different sets of prevailing winds. As the oceans around it warm, the winds will pick up latent heat and transfer it to the ice, thereby cooling the oceans. (Wind also drives the “Gulf Stream”. As long as the Arctic is cooler than the tropics, we will have the Gulf Stream, regardless of what happens to thermo- haline- density drivers and the North Atlantic Drift in general.)
Thus, I am not too worried about excessive heat accumulation in the oceans until a good part of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the WAIS have melted. On the other hand, I think such melting could happen a whole lot faster than any “respectable” scientists have admitted in writing. (Take your estimated sea temp rise and see how much ice that much heat would melt. If you break up the ice shelves, what will the glaciers above them do? Ice does not have to melt to weaken and slide into the ocean.)
The behavior of fresh water ice in contact with sea water is wickedly nonlinear over even rather tiny temperature changes. Add in the effects of pressure as some of that ice is deeply submersed, and we have the potential for Mother Nature to teach us more science that we want to know.
After all, if we really wanted to know about all that stuff, scientists at respectable institutions would have connected the dots and written it up in peer reviewed journals. And, how long has it been since respectable writers scoffed at my suggestion that Arctic Sea Ice might be substantially melted by the end of the 2012 season?
Sometimes a simple model that is well understood will give a better answer than a model that is too complex for any small group of researchers to completly understand. The GCM are so large and complex that they give whatever answer that management wants. They have become huge, expensive ouija boards. Unfortunatly Mother Nature is not given a chance to review the results before they are peer reviewed (by folks sitting at other ouija boards) and published.
May 30, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Aaron Lewis
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/AAT_Browse.php?chan=01&satnum=15&aord=a
I see a plume of water vapor over Antartic ice shelves over the last few weeks, that is 40C to 60 C warmer than I expect at this time of the year, My take is that they have stored heat as pore water. Such pore water would weaken them.
I think we can kiss major ice shelves good bye in the next 5 – 10 years. Loss of these ice shelves will result in a cascade of other effects.
It is time to put a real hussle on our efforts to slow climate change.