Global Warming 24

[zdas04]

Scientific American Frontiers on the U.S. PBS network aired a program this month about Alaska. One sequence showed a "drunken forest". The ground temperature under the forest increased 3F or so and the permafrost became permaslush. The trees were no longer adequately supported and have started to subside at odd angles.

One of the scary things about the show was the contention that global warming is a positive-feedback loop. The permafrost holds an unimaginable quantity of frozen plant material. The contention of the people interviewed is that when that plant material begins to rot, it will release more CO2 into the air than the sum total of all human emission sources of all time. That CO2 increases the green house effect and further raises temperatures. The higher temperatures thaw the permafrost further and further north and release even more junk.

This loop was in addition to the well-understood loop of the warmer temperatures melting more snow, the water under the snow reflects less light, and the extra energy further raises temperatures.

Evidence in the deep-ice cores show that cycles like this have happened many times in the past. My question is: What is the mechanism of the reversal of the warming cycle? And will the industrialization of the planet make it more or less effective.


David

 

[sms]

The best place to go for hurricane info is

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

But if you are really interested in the number of strikes, this is the page:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Based on this chart, it seems to me that the number of storms that strike the US is pretty constant...

 

[liberty]

My theory as to why there is a ~ten year hurricane cycle is that the energy in hurricanes comes from the sun, and the sun is on an 11-year cycle.

Hurricanes that affect the U.S. are the result of direct solar heating of the Sahara desert and the ocean surface in the northern tropics, helped along in the Atlantic by a prevailing easterly breeze off the Sahara. Thermal gradients between the Gulf of Guinea and the Sahara typically get the tropical waves started. When the ocean temperature in the tropics is 82F or greater, a tropical storm usually then develops. Global warming would not impact gradients that much, since by definition it would just be raising the ambient temp of each region the same. Global warming would not intensify storms, but might lengthen the hurricane season since the surface temp would reach 82F a little sooner and cool off a little later.

The Sahara has been a desert for a long time, so the hurricane cycle has been fairly constant over recent history. Turning the Sahara green with vegetation (or paint?) might help reduce the heating of the hydrosphere in that region and stall the engine that converts solar power into hurricanes. It would be interesting to know if there is an upward trend in Pacific typhoon activity, in the wake of the recent deforestation of the rain forests in South America.

 

[epoisses]

I thought it was a Japanese butterfly that caused the hurricanes..?? In all honesty, guys, I think the weather is just too complicated a thing for engineers. That's why there is no such thing as a climatological engineer.
Without joking now, I think it gets complicated because the world population just doesn't act as a perfectly organised bunch of people with one common goal (like ants). Instead, everybody and every country/company/organisation have their own private goals. As a result, information gets blurred and distorted (accidentally or on purpose) and it becomes impossible to have an accurate and unbiased opinion on such a topic. The missing actual information can easily be replaced by "religious" (in whatever sense) beliefs, catalysed by the same private goals and interests. We can fire bold statements at each other but will never reach agreement if our interests are not the same...

 

[liberty]

Living in Florida since '92, this engineer can't help but observe the machine that produces hurricanes (it's simpler than you might think) and imagine what kind of monkey wrench we could throw in there. Maybe there is some need for hurricane to happen, but I can't imagine what it is. Lava flows, forest fires, avalanches and even earthquakes are essential events nature needs to deal with releasing potential energy now and then. As far as disasters go, I don't see what geological or ecological purpose a hurricane serves.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Hurricanes dissipate tropical heat.

 

[HarrisDE]

I had some spare time at work around the time when "The Day After Tomorrow" came out - so I spent a lot of company time surfing the Internet for information on global warming & ice ages.

I would like to ask for comments regarding a different spin on things. What if we reduce the question of changing global warming to one of effective use of resources; this is plays more directly to the strenghts of engineers.

My contention would be that the cost of dealing with global warming is lower than the cost of changing our activities. This is likely a result of my bias towards free markets making effect use of limited resources so I'm interested to hear other opinions...

Gruß Scott

 

[moltenmetal]

HarrisDE: What if you're wrong? There's the problem- you can't go back, even if you ARE wrong. Once you've screwed the atmosphere's composition, it's tough to take it back.

Again- Hazop this thing: there's a substantial consensus amongst the scientific community that we are very likely affecting our climate. The exact effects are uncertain, but there is a probability of very significant and PERMANENT harm arising. Do we take actions to avert this NOW, or don't we?

An added benefit- any damned fool can solve a problem by throwing energy, raw materials or other resources at it, but it takes an ENGINEER to develop an optimal solution. Increasing energy efficiency and reducing non-renewable energy consumption in particular, will create engineering jobs, minimize environmental harm AND save money in the long run- particularly with increasing energy prices. So again, why WOULDN'T we do it?

 

[Zapster]

moltenmetal,any damned fool can spend a dollar to save fifty cents in non-renewable energy. So the simple answer to, “So again, why WOULDN'T we do it?” It is a poor economic choice. Not everyone has the excess resources to think years ahead about what if scenarios when they are firmly planted in the reality of today. Even if the USA were to cut their use of non-renewable energy in half, the rest of the world would quickly grow to consume the non-renewable energy the USA no longer used resulting in no net change world wide.

 

[makeup]

It was once said that we need not worry about O*G resourses because there was enough left to see us all through for the next 1000 years or so. What was missing from the equation was the quality of life once we had been through the burning process. Fact was the atmosphere would be so polluted that humans could not survive. So time says we need to find soemthing else. Practicallity says that once third world countries develop they will be very unlikely to wish to share there resourses. At the moment economics is driving the car but it will change, it has to, everything does. The smart cooky has already got the figure on the button.

 

[Zapster]

I recognize that there are a lot of people who believe they have an understanding of the world; when in fact, their knowledge is very limited at the time. Looking at the past examples:
* Patent office executive in the 1800s who stated that there would be no new inventions because "everything had already been invented,"
* Computer guru Bill Gates, who said in the early 1980s that "64 kilobytes of memory should be enough for anyone."
* The 1970’s environmental movement discussing, “The Cooling World, The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.”
When climatologists can get a world forecast correct 90 days into the future, I might listen to what they have to say about a weather forecast a few years out. I also know that our planet has been supporting life in recent geological times when it was both warmer and cooler than it is now. I do not plan to barter my standard of living on the unproven remarks of a few climatologists being touted as fact by environmentalist. If the past is any indication of the future, our planet will be both colder and warmer at some point in the future regardless of human presence on the planet. I am prepared for change. It seems that many are afraid of the natural changes in our world’s climate. But then again, my knowledge is very limited at this time.

 

[DrillerNic]

Zapster- I agreee with much of what you say, but there is a very good argument for encouraging more energy efficiency- higher mpgs, smaller cars, better building insulation, better buidling design & construction so that air conditioning requirements are reduced and so on, which wouldn't entail bartering your standard of living!

 

[Zapster]

DrillerNic, I recognized years ago that there was a potential for high fuel prices; hence, I purchased a VW diesel bug (49 mpg at highway speeds). Not cool like a SUV; however, very cool when a small percentage of my income goes towards fuel. I live in a highly insulated home, 8” insulated walls, 14” insulated ceilings, triple pane glass, etc... I could have built a bigger home; however, I chose a small home using construction methods that enable more fuel efficient operation. I did not want my standard of living adversely affected by high fuel prices. I did this and more, all without government encouragement. What I don’t want is to have government intervention in my life style choices. I don’t believe that putting greater taxes on income and energy to promote more fuel efficient designs is a reasonable solution. If this were done, I would have less money to purchase more energy efficient products and the government would have more money to waste on programs that do little to further the welfare of mankind. So I believe that we should let nature takes it course. Fuel price will rise because of market forces and thus make fuel efficient appliances the cost effective choice in today’s market. What annoys me more than anything else is to have jet-setting politicians and celebrities touting their environmental convictions about global warming while consume a disproportionate amount of non-renewable resources for their life style. These same non-renewable resources they say are causing the global warming.
So DrillerNic, how do you propose to “encourage more energy efficiency- higher mpgs, smaller cars, better building insulation, better building design & construction so that air conditioning requirements are reduced and so on” without somehow raising taxes, fees, surcharges, etc... ? My experience is when the government encourages choices; it costs more money than if we had made the choices on our own. What is the very good argument for spending more tax money so we have fewer choices? What makes you think that people can’t figure out the advantages of energy efficiency on their own? I have a great deal of faith in people when they are given the choice how to spend their own money that they will make the right choice. In contrast, I don’t have much faith in my government setting my spending priorities and getting it right.

 

[moltenmetal]

Zapster:

You make several excellent points, but your argument is still founded on a misunderstanding of economics. The price of fuels and electricity currently is only a FRACTION of the "true" cost of these energy sources. Fuel extraction and consumption generates negative externalities (unaccounted or incompletely-accounted costs) resulting from the exclusion of numerous factors from the economic analysis. One of these is global warming, but there are numerous others that are significant enough to convince me of the merits of energy conservation regardless of whether or not global warming is one of them.

We agree that celebrities or anyone else preaching environmentalism as a religion isn't going to solve anything. Religion implies belief which is not subject to reason or debate, and religion has no business in public discourse on technical matters. The values that these people attribute to the natural environment, though, ARE important- and currently are assigned a ZERO cost in the economic equation. Disasters actually INCREASE GDP, remember, so it's a poor measure of our societal values in composite.

We also agree that the only way to convince people to consume less energy, and a smaller quantity of energy-intensive products, is to hit them in their pocketbooks. They can then decide which priorities are more important to them and spend their money accordingly. For some, it might be the gas for a huge SUV or the fuel to heat a house with thousands of unnecessary square feet, but for most it probably won't be. Once the "choice" is made a truly fair one, rather than being subsidized by unaccounted environmental harm, people's "tastes" will change too. They'll moderate their consumption of these things based on their ability to pay, NOT based on somebody's "religion".

You don't want governments messing with people's "lifestyle decisions". You also tout the truism that governments are necessarily inefficient at everything they do- no doubt you support the notion that the so-called "free market" is necessarily more efficient in everything it does too. So basically you don't believe in doing anything to make sure that the cost of fuel includes ALL the costs of that fuel, including a penalty for the environmental harm its emissions cause. I understand your point of view but utterly disagree with it.

What we need to do is to tax fossil fuels and the devices which consume them on a sliding scale based on how much harm they cause. Since I'm convinced that global warming is a very serious global risk, I'd use CO2 emissions as one of those harm factors. We then need to SEGREGATE that new tax revenue and put it to use in funding PUBLIC energy-efficiency projects like better mass transit, cogeneration projects linked to district heating, renewable electricity generation and any number of other, similar projects which need to be done at a PUBLIC scale. If there were anything left over after that, I'd use it for the more popular but more problem-filled and inefficient rebate-type programs for private household energy efficiency improvement etc.

People who choose to make the investment in smaller, more efficient homes and cars would reap comparative advantage- greater comparative advantage because of the greater input cost and hence quicker payback. And yes, the poor would be left out in the cold by this because they lack the capital to make the necessary investments in energy efficiency, so you'd have to do something to help them out too.

Inefficient? Probably so- but no more so than wasting huge amounts of land to build roads and infrastructure for subdivisions, parking garages and all the other stuff that our car-dependence requires of us as a society. And this money generally comes from the "public purse", and is paid for by taxes, so it's totally legitimate for government to intervene in these matters. Certainly more efficient than warring over diminishing supplies of low lift-cost crude oil...

We're energy gluttons, addicts and morons in the so-called "developed world". We need help to kick this addiction- as societies, we rather like cheap oil and aren't going to give up this particular fix voluntarily as individuals. That's where government is required to provide LEADERSHIP- when the current will and behaviour of the majority is also against the long term interests of the majority. Yeah, I know, probably totally hopeless...

 

[DrillerNic]

Higher car fuel taxes in Europe have meant that market forces have forced average mpgs in Europe to be higher than in North America, where mpg is a matter of legislation (rather than market forces)... And don't forget that until very recently, fuel prices were at their lowest in real terms for many, many years, so relying on simple market prices won't always result in the greater good (if you accept that increasing fuel efficiency is a desirable aim for society at large!)

And simply changing existing regulations and codes can encourage many changes without additional taxes, fees etc amking better insulation etc or natural air conditioning a requirement in building codes; changing electical code to encourage things like CHP plants.

 

[tomaspin]

In the UK, car fuel economy has to a certain extent been driven by changes to the way in which company cars are taxed.
Previously, the taxable benefit depended on how far you drove in a year. 0-2500 miles = 35% list price, 2500-18,000 =25%, and 18,000+ = 15% tax. Private fuel benefit was a flat rate based on engine size. So, the more you drove, the cheaper it got - sales reps loved it!
Now it's based on CO2 emissions.A 40mpg petrol(about 150g/km CO2) equates to a taxable befefit of 15% list price, rising to 35% for 25mpg. The fuel benefit is calculated in a similar way. This has been in force for about 3 years, and has certainly changed peoples behaviour.

My business mileage is very variable, and under the old system, I would frequently be taxed at the highest rate, irrespective of the car I drove.
Now, through choice, I drive a good sized turbo-diesel, and pay tax on 15% of list price - like most of the people in our organisation.
The performance is at least the same or better than the petrol version, so I can't say that I feel hard done by.

Most people now view this as being an intelligent form of taxation, which gives people an incentive (through lower taxes) to lower their energy consumption, by (slightly) modifying their behaviour.

If they are honest, most people really don't give a toss about energy efficiency for it's own sake. But they do care about how much money they have in their pocket.


Regards,

Tom

 

[Zapster]

Thank you for illustrating my point Tom, and no thank you for the type of taxes you have in the UK. Currently, the average cost of fuel in the U.K. is 3 times what it cost in the U.S. Through the U.K.’s gallant efforts to conserve fuel, there is more cheep fuel for the rest of the world. Fuel conservation by taxation in one country will transfer the usage of the available resources to other countries at a lower comparable price. It will not create a net drop in fuel consumption for the world.

Tom you say, “Most people now view this as being an intelligent form of taxation” and then you say, “If they are honest, most people really don't give a toss about energy efficiency for its own sake.” So you have an intelligent tax for things that you don’t give a toss about? If honest, I don’t believe people in your country are really happy paying higher prices for fuel because of the taxes.

It seems like you are paying higher prices for gas in the name of conservation and in effect subsidizing others nations to use more fuel at a lower price, and then call this intelligent.

 

[BillPSU]

Global warming is a hypothesis and will probably never be proved to some people level of acceptance.

There are several things which are now coming to fruition. Perma frost is melting in Canada at an ever increasing rate. Glaciers in Europe and the U.S. are shrinking and oceans are rising. The current oil comsumption has reached production capacity.

Wind power is being exploited in some areas and already some environmental groups are complaining about wind farms. Technical issues abound about "renewable" resources. Example North Dakota could produce enough wind energy for the United States. How do you tranport the energy across 3000 miles of transmission lines? Build more transmission lines across which state?

My top two issures are population control world wide and replacing our ever diminishing fossil fuel supply. Population control is not for this forum but replacing fossil fuel is.

Short term, conservation, solar and wind power are some good opportunities however the long term answer is fusion. Why aren't the environmentalist demanding more research money for fusion research? Current funding is about $300 million while taxpayer support for oil and coal is at a minimum $6 billion (direct tax U.S. benefits). Oil and coal are both profitable business ventures yet need government subsidies? The scientific and engineering community should take a position supporting additional fusion research funding.

Currently I believe the EU is leading in fusion power research with the U.S. concentrating on containment filed research. The Chinese follow as they were the recipient of the old EU fusion experiment and are doing their own investigations now.

I personally do believe we are experiencing global warming caused by CO2 emissions. I will be dead before the worst affects of global warming impacts Earth but I would like to believe I can impact some peoples ideas about controlling and maintaining our world not for 100 years but for 10,000 years.

 

[tomaspin]

Zapster

You misunderstood the point I was making.
I was referring to the taxation on company car use, not fuel tax.
It is generally acknowledged that the UK has the highest fuel taxes in Europe, and make no mistake we're not too pleased about it. However, most people would be reasonably content if fuel costs were similar to those in France and Germany.

Just because a commodity like fuel is cheap now, does not mean it makes good long term sense use it inefficiently.
During my engineering training, the importance of achieving the desired result for the least weight or cost was always brought home to us. Energy conservation is just an extension of this philosophy.

As countries like China becomes progressively more industrialised, their apetite for oil will increase further. Constantly rising fuel costs are going to be a fact of life - wherever you live. Irrespective of the scientific and political arguments concerning global warming, energy efficiency is fast becoming an economic necessity.

Tom

 

[DrillerNic]

The other point Zapster, is that the UK is still (just) a an oil exporting nation....partly because of improved fuel efficiency in UK cars, driven by company car taxes encouraging people to own smaller, more economical cars. So while your point about high taxes in one country transferring the usage of the available resources to other countries is true, those available resources are being supplied by the UK, helping the UK balance of trade enormously.

Imagine if the US could increase fuel effiency (by smart taxes on engine size say), reducing US reliance on imported oil- mainly from Venuzuala. Imagine depriving Chavez of his main foreign currency earner!

And most people in the UK generally accept the existing fuel taxes- there were widespread disputes about an automatic, year on year, fuel tax increase a few years ago, but nothing since. (BTW tomaspin, UK fuel taxes may be high, but we don't yet have toll roads like most of the rest of Europe!)

 

[liberty]

Tax advocates argue about which tax will encourage energy conservation. We lack the political fortitude to do what we should instead - boycott Middle East oil.

Cutting off 20% of our (USA) supply would certainly increase prices for us significantly in the short term. It would drive a cultural shift to make us more energy efficient and sooner. This would be a nice kick in the pants for all of us to take energy conservation more seriously. The gradual cost increases over time make us the proverbial "frog in the saucepan". As long as the heat is slowly added, the frog won't jump out. We need to jump out, or we need to start climbing out, but we can't just keep swimming around like we are, oblivious to what is happening.