2 Comments to “The Science of Climate Change”

1. Oscar Escobar says:

   November 29, 2011 at 2:56 pm

   Dear Dr. Eckman:
   Thankyou for your concern about the enviroment. I just wish to share this very recent document. I enjoyed your study titled “THE ETHICS OF GEOENGINEERING” and I am sorry that it has been deleted from your website since I never thought of saving a copy.
   Best regars and God Bless,
   Oscar Escobar
   Lakeland, FL 33805

   Exerpts of:
   Draft study on the impacts of climate-related geo-engineering on biological diversit
   “Social, economic, cultural and ethical considerations of climate-related geo-engineering (preliminary compilation)
   There is as yet little information on the perspectives of indigenous peoples and local communities on geo-engineering, especially in developing countries. Considering the role these communities play in actively managing ecosystems this is a major gap (Section 6.1).
   There is a growing discussion and literature on ethical considerations related to geo-engineering, including issues of ?moral hazard?; intergenerational issues of submitting future generations to the need to maintain the operation of the technology or suffer accelerated change; the possibility to use geo-engineering technologies as weapons of war; as well as the question of whether it is ethically permissible to remediate one pollutant by introducing another (Section 6.3.1)”

   “”However, it should be noted that for any listed geo-engineering technique to be effective over the long-term it would need to be continued for decadal to century timescales (and potentially for millennia), or until such time as the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases have been stabilised at levels that no longer present unacceptable danger to ecosystems, food production and economic development (possibly to below current levels). This ?treadmill? problem is particularly acute for SRM interventions, whose intensity would need to be progressively increased unless other actions are taken to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations. The cessation of SRM interventions would also be a highly risky process, likely to result in a rapid increase in the solar radiation reaching the Earth?s surface, and associated very rapid increase in surface temperature ? up to 20 times greater than present-day rates1. Thus high reversibility should not be equated with high desirability as such a characteristic could result in even more rapid climate change.” Lines 614-625 Draft study on the impacts of climate-related geo-engineering on biological diversity”

   “4.1. Potential impacts on biodiversity of a generic SRM approach.
   4.1.1. Potential reduction in temperature and other climate change effects from SRM deployment
   Computer modelling of future scenarios shows that against a baseline of ?2xCO2 world? (a world with doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations compared with pre-industrial levels), a ?sunshade world? in which there is a uniform dimming of sunlight, through an unspecified generic SRM technique, to compensate for the temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 concentrations, most areas of the planet would less temperature change.1 However, a few would suffer more. In this particular model, overall changes to precipitation would not be any worse than the 2xCO2 world, and at best there would be significantly less change. However, the positive impacts of the technique on reducing changes in temperature and precipitation are least in equatorial regions, the most biodiverse regions. These simulations suggest that geo-engineering, if feasible and effective, could reduce the overall changes in temperature and rainfall resulting from climate change but also lead to redistribution of the effects of temperature and rainfall2,3.
   Overall, this would be expected to reduce some of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. However, only very limited modelling work has been done and many uncertainties remain concerning the side effects of SRM techniques on biodiversity (as noted in the following sections). It is therefore not possible to predict the net effect with any degree of confidence. Scientists are also far from being able to predict which areas might experience greater changes in temperature and precipitation under SRM deployment, and even further from being able to predict which ecosystems, and elements thereof, might be affected, and how. (lines 1052-1074)”
   http://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/review/

2. Issues in Perspective says:

   December 7, 2011 at 2:33 pm

   Oscar – this may be what you’re looking for:
   The Science of Climate Change

   Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute has written a most helpful article entitled ?Five Truths about Climate Change.? Because there is so much hype and emotional baggage surrounding this topic, it is always refreshing when you read something that is balanced and insightful. To that end, I want to use Bryce?s essay as the basis for this Perspective.

   Bryce acknowledges the reality of a global change in temperatures but, in doing so, he simply presents factual data and observations that place an issue like this in a helpful perspective. Here is a summary of his argument:

   1. Carbon-dioxide emissions have been the environmental issue of the past decade. Former Vice President, Al Gore, focused rather powerfully during this past decade on carbon emissions as the singular most important cause of the increase in global temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change basically agreed. Worldwide there was talk of a global tax or placing limits on carbon dioxide. There were promises, for example, from the world community when it gathered in Copenhagen in 2009 but there was no decisive action on either a tax or limits on carbon dioxide. So, during this past decade, carbon emissions rose by 28%. As Bryce observes, ?those increases reflect soaring demand for electricity, up by 36%, which in turn fostered a 47% increase in coal consumption. (Natural gas use increased by 29% while oil use grew by 13%.) Carbon-dioxide emissions are growing because people around the world understand the essentiality of electricity to modernity. And for many countries, the cheapest way to produce electricity is by burning coal.?

   2. Regardless of the cause of the global increase in temperatures, the world simply must produce a great deal more energy to remain productive and comfortable. And right now the vast majority of that energy need comes from hydrocarbons.

   3. The carbon-dioxide issue is not about the United States anymore. During the past decade, carbon-dioxide emissions in the US fell by 1.7%, and, according to the International Energy Agency, the US is now cutting carbon emissions faster than Europe, even though the European Union has instituted an elaborate carbon-trading, pricing scheme. Simply put, the US is producing vast quantities of cheap natural gas from shale, which is displacing higher-carbon coal. In contrast, China?s carbon emissions jumped by 123% over the past decade, surpassing the US by more than 2 billion tons per year. Africa?s carbon-dioxide emissions jumped by 40%, Asia?s by 44% and the Middle East?s by 57%! Thus, even if you omitted the US from all carbon-emissions usage, the use of carbon worldwide would have gone up.

   4. The world must become more efficient in its energy production?and it is. Today?s best natural gas fired turbines have thermal efficiencies of 60% (compared with the original turbines of Thomas Edison, which converted less than 3% of the heat energy of the coal being burned into electricity). Bryce argues that ?nearly all of the things we use on a daily basis?light bulbs, computers, automobiles?are vastly more efficient that they were just a few years ago.?

   5. If we accept the proposition that carbon emissions are bad, it is not really that clear exactly what we should do about this. For example, Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder recently published a report that determined ?switching from coal to natural gas would do little for the global climate.? Wigley discovered that particulates put into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants, ?although detrimental to the environment, cool the planet by blocking incoming sunlight.? Thus, using energy sources that emit no particulates, like nuclear or natural gas, will not make a major difference in averting near-term changes in the climate caused by carbon dioxide. It also follows that widespread use of renewable energy (e.g., wind and solar energy) will not make a difference either. The bottom line of much of this discussion is that those who are so critical of carbon emissions really have no credible alternatives to replace the hydrocarbons that now provide 87% of the world?s energy.

   Every now and then, we must step back and ascertain what the truth is about climate change and carbon emissions. Robert Bryce has done so in his essay. Our world is dependent on hydrocarbons for its energy sources. There is nothing currently on the horizon that will alter this simple fact.

   See Bryce?s essay in the Wall Street Journal (6 October 2011).