The front-runner merry-go-round for the Republican nomination continues. I try to pay it no attention but it's hard to do given the non-stop coverage by the news stations. All you can be sure of is that whoever the eventual candidate is he (or she) will be in favor of the same policies that got us into the ongoing financial crisis. After the New Hampshire debate, Robert Scheer posted an article on Truthdig and The Nation that notes "It’s as if the sound government regulation of the financial industry implemented in response to the Great Depression—not its polar opposite, the radical deregulation fueled by Republican free market zealots—was the source of our banking meltdown...It was precisely the legislation that their party pushed through Congress, and that Democrat Bill Clinton shamefully endorsed, that launched the era of unregulated credit default swaps and mortgage-based securities that came close to destroying the entire economy."
Meanwhile Congressional Republicans continue to ignore and oppose the American Jobs Act but rather push for funding cuts to government programs they oppose as the price of avoiding a government shutdown. Sickening behavior. We can only hope that they will be defeated in 2012 and that the fear mongering, outright lies, and election rigging and vote-denying proposals (identity cards, registration restrictions, changes to electoral college procedures) don't succeed this time around.
In the New Hampshire candidates' debate, as the WSJ reported, the candidates all strongly supported "the dismantling of government regulations drawn up over 40 years, using a candidates’ debate here to call for the scaling back or elimination of environmental, labor, financial and health-care rules." This is what a Republican victory would mean in 2012. But I think it would turn the clock back even further - maybe to pre-Depression conditions. In the words of George Santayana:
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Friday, September 30, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
The Post I Prayed Not to Have to Write
Tomorrow an innocent man will be executed by the State of Georgia. The final clemency appeal for Troy Davis was turned down by the Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles after listening to testimony Monday. The testimony included that of one juror who says that had she known at the time of the trial what she knows now (see below - ballistics report), she would never have voted to convict. The Board has the sole authority in Georgia to approve or deny clemency.
Troy Davis was convicted for the murder of a policeman coming to the aid of a homeless man who was being attacked. His lawyers maintain and the evidence is overwhelming that it is a case of mistaken identity and that another man fired the shot that killed the officer.
For those unfamiliar with the case:
Neither the facts nor the testimony nor the appeals were enough to sway the Board. So tomorrow, Wednesday September 20, the State of Georgia will murder an innocent man.
It is long past time that the United States joined the rest of the civilized world and abolished the death penalty. In 2010, only China, Iran, North Korea, and Yemen executed more people than the United States.
The death penalty has never been shown to be a deterrent to crime. Numerous innocent people have been executed. And in modern society an alternate exists - life without parole. There is a strong moral dimension to this. How can one justify the morality of killing someone who is already imprisoned and poses no threat? The Catholic Church has, for years, taken a strong stand against the death penalty and American bishops are opposing it. Although sentiment in our country has been steadily growing against the death penalty, a majority of Americans, a supposedly religious nation, still support it. (Remember the cheers for Rick Perry at the Republican candidates' debate when the number of executions under his regime was noted by the moderator.) Until they change their attitude, tragedies such as the execution of Troy Davis will continue to happen.
Troy Davis was convicted for the murder of a policeman coming to the aid of a homeless man who was being attacked. His lawyers maintain and the evidence is overwhelming that it is a case of mistaken identity and that another man fired the shot that killed the officer.
For those unfamiliar with the case:
- There is no physical evidence linking Troy Davis to the crime. The only piece of physical evidence presented at the trial has been found to be false. Specifically, the ballistics report, which purported to link the bullet fired at the crime scene with a gun fired earlier at a party, was wrong.
- No murder weapon has been found.
- The police and prosecution staged a re-enactment of the crime for the eyewitnesses and allowed them to speak among themselves. Of the nine eyewitnesses that participated in this illegal charade, seven have since retracted their testimony. One of the remaining two eyewitnesses holding to his story has been accused of bragging about committing the murder.
Neither the facts nor the testimony nor the appeals were enough to sway the Board. So tomorrow, Wednesday September 20, the State of Georgia will murder an innocent man.
It is long past time that the United States joined the rest of the civilized world and abolished the death penalty. In 2010, only China, Iran, North Korea, and Yemen executed more people than the United States.
The death penalty has never been shown to be a deterrent to crime. Numerous innocent people have been executed. And in modern society an alternate exists - life without parole. There is a strong moral dimension to this. How can one justify the morality of killing someone who is already imprisoned and poses no threat? The Catholic Church has, for years, taken a strong stand against the death penalty and American bishops are opposing it. Although sentiment in our country has been steadily growing against the death penalty, a majority of Americans, a supposedly religious nation, still support it. (Remember the cheers for Rick Perry at the Republican candidates' debate when the number of executions under his regime was noted by the moderator.) Until they change their attitude, tragedies such as the execution of Troy Davis will continue to happen.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Jobs, Executions, Gaza's Children
Obama presented a 450 billion dollar job plan in his address to the special session of Congress. Preliminary estimates are that the American Jobs Act could put as many as 1 million Americans back to work - particularly because of the infrastructure rebuilding. Robert Reich in a PBS interview noted that this is a "two-fer" - our roads and schools can use the rebuilding and with Treasury notes at 2% there has never been a better time to rebuild. As expected, Republicans have begun criticizing the parts of it that are not direct tax breaks. It will be interesting to see how this plays out - it may be too much to ask that Republicans put country ahead of party and ideology. After all, if nothing happens and the job situation does not improve, Obama will be out of a job after 2012. And that, as Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader in the Senate, has famously stated, is his primary goal.
Who would be elected if Obama is thrown out of office? The Republican front-runner is Rick Perry, another Governor from Texas. This guy is Bush on steroids - at least Bush talked about "compassionate conservatism" in his first campaign; Perry blames the dismal performance of Texas' public schools on the fact that they share a border with Mexico. His state has the highest rate of hunger in the country and he wants to dismantle Social Security. More disturbingly, at the first Republican Presidential candidates' debate, the Republican audience erupted in cheers when the commentator mentioned the 234 executions under the Perry regime - the most of any modern governor. This is one sick political party. It's time the United States joined the rest of the civilized world and abolished the death penalty. Sadly, though, a nation gets the government it deserves. Let's just hope Texas secedes before 2012 as Perry mentioned as a possibility in a 2009 address to the Tea Party.
Finally, a sad note on freedom of speech...the Oakland Museum of Children's Art decided to cancel its planned exhibition of drawings by Palestinian children documenting their experiences during the 2008-2009 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. 1400 people, the vast majority civilians including 300 children, were slaughtered in the Israeli invasion at the end of the Bush presidency.
Who would be elected if Obama is thrown out of office? The Republican front-runner is Rick Perry, another Governor from Texas. This guy is Bush on steroids - at least Bush talked about "compassionate conservatism" in his first campaign; Perry blames the dismal performance of Texas' public schools on the fact that they share a border with Mexico. His state has the highest rate of hunger in the country and he wants to dismantle Social Security. More disturbingly, at the first Republican Presidential candidates' debate, the Republican audience erupted in cheers when the commentator mentioned the 234 executions under the Perry regime - the most of any modern governor. This is one sick political party. It's time the United States joined the rest of the civilized world and abolished the death penalty. Sadly, though, a nation gets the government it deserves. Let's just hope Texas secedes before 2012 as Perry mentioned as a possibility in a 2009 address to the Tea Party.
Finally, a sad note on freedom of speech...the Oakland Museum of Children's Art decided to cancel its planned exhibition of drawings by Palestinian children documenting their experiences during the 2008-2009 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. 1400 people, the vast majority civilians including 300 children, were slaughtered in the Israeli invasion at the end of the Bush presidency.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Global Warming 101 - Part IV
In the last post, we discussed the time frame for the upcoming global warming disaster (40 to 90 years) and one of the three tools at our disposal to mitigate the impact - specifically the reduction of GHG emissions. This post will discuss two other tools: GHG "sinks" and engineering and technology solutions.
Carbon Dioxide Sinks
"Sinks" absorb and trap greenhouse gases. Forests, soil and oceans are three natural sinks.
A significant portion of the current higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to land use and development. The World Research Institue estimates that 18% of GHG emissions comes from land use changes. Specifically, deforestation reduces the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed via photosynthesis. As Tim Flannery writes in his recently published Here on Earth: "By 2009, around half of the tropical forests present in 1800 had been destroyed and, at the current rate of destruction, by 2050 most of the remainder outside protected areas will be gone as well." One solution to this is sustainable forestry enforced by a global treaty (for example, certification that forest products have been harvested sustainably). Another would be a ban on logging in old growth forests.
Soil presents an even larger total sink for CO2 than vegetation. The burning and natural decomposition of trees and agricultural matter contributes a large amount of CO2 being released to the atmosphere. Biochar can potentially store this carbon in the ground, thereby making a significant reduction in atmospheric GHG levels. The carbon in CO2 can be mineralized in charcoal and "biochar" using a technology called pyrolysis. Pyrolysis involves the burning of biomass in the absence of oxygen. The mineralized carbon can then be stored stably for hundreds or thousands of years by mixing it back in to the soil. Biochar also has a beneficial effect on the soil itself. It can improve plant yields for certain types of crops, improve water quality, reduce soil emissions of GHGs, reduce leaching of nutrients, reduce soil acidity, and reduce irrigation and fertilizer requirements. The UK's Royal Society has estimated that widespread application of this technology for sequestering carbon can reduce atmospheric CO2 levels by 50 to 150 ppm.
By far, the largest CO2 sink that we have is the oceans. That's the good news. The bad news as reported in a 2009 ScienceDaily article: "The oceans are the planet's main carbon sink, but in the last ten years they have become increasingly unable to play this role, in both the northern and southern hemispheres." As atmospheric CO2 levels increase and water temperatures increase, the oceans can absorb less and less CO2. The only solution to this is to reverse the trend of increased human-indiced emissions.
Engineering and Technology
The last tool to be discussed is engineering and technology solutions to protect coastal cities, shorelines, and food supply. Regardless of what steps we take to reduce emissions and increase the absorptive capacity of the land and oceans, there will be a signicant negative effect of the ongoing human-induced global warming. The extent to which we will need engineering solutions will depend on the extent we are able to reduce CO2 levels. If we do nothing, then the cost of the engineering solutions will be high. If we do much, then the cost of the engineering solutions will not be quite as high.
And if we do nothing at all - if we neither reduce atmospheric GHG levels nor provide mitigation by engineering solutions - the cost will be many trillions of dollars in damages and, globally, literally billions of displaced persons.
Dikes, levees and water removal systems for coastal cities will need to be constructed or improved. Improved heat-resistant crops with low water requirements will need to be developed. By 2050, the world's population will increase 50% to 9 billion. Let's hope we all do the right things to sustain these people of the future.
Global Political Will
More than anything else, the success or failure of the efforts to mitigate the effect of human-induced global warming depends on the political will of the nations of the world - the ability to think long-term and to cooperate globally. The United States, as one of the leading contributors to the current problem, must also be a leader in its solution. If the Know-Nothing's of today are really concerned about the world they will leave to their children and grandchildren, they better think about what the overwhelming scientific evidence is showing. Why not give the world an example of American exceptionalism in the best possible way by leading this effort ?
Final Note: For forecasts of the economic and human impacts, please see the Global Warming Forecasts website.
Carbon Dioxide Sinks
"Sinks" absorb and trap greenhouse gases. Forests, soil and oceans are three natural sinks.
A significant portion of the current higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to land use and development. The World Research Institue estimates that 18% of GHG emissions comes from land use changes. Specifically, deforestation reduces the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed via photosynthesis. As Tim Flannery writes in his recently published Here on Earth: "By 2009, around half of the tropical forests present in 1800 had been destroyed and, at the current rate of destruction, by 2050 most of the remainder outside protected areas will be gone as well." One solution to this is sustainable forestry enforced by a global treaty (for example, certification that forest products have been harvested sustainably). Another would be a ban on logging in old growth forests.
Soil presents an even larger total sink for CO2 than vegetation. The burning and natural decomposition of trees and agricultural matter contributes a large amount of CO2 being released to the atmosphere. Biochar can potentially store this carbon in the ground, thereby making a significant reduction in atmospheric GHG levels. The carbon in CO2 can be mineralized in charcoal and "biochar" using a technology called pyrolysis. Pyrolysis involves the burning of biomass in the absence of oxygen. The mineralized carbon can then be stored stably for hundreds or thousands of years by mixing it back in to the soil. Biochar also has a beneficial effect on the soil itself. It can improve plant yields for certain types of crops, improve water quality, reduce soil emissions of GHGs, reduce leaching of nutrients, reduce soil acidity, and reduce irrigation and fertilizer requirements. The UK's Royal Society has estimated that widespread application of this technology for sequestering carbon can reduce atmospheric CO2 levels by 50 to 150 ppm.
By far, the largest CO2 sink that we have is the oceans. That's the good news. The bad news as reported in a 2009 ScienceDaily article: "The oceans are the planet's main carbon sink, but in the last ten years they have become increasingly unable to play this role, in both the northern and southern hemispheres." As atmospheric CO2 levels increase and water temperatures increase, the oceans can absorb less and less CO2. The only solution to this is to reverse the trend of increased human-indiced emissions.
Engineering and Technology
The last tool to be discussed is engineering and technology solutions to protect coastal cities, shorelines, and food supply. Regardless of what steps we take to reduce emissions and increase the absorptive capacity of the land and oceans, there will be a signicant negative effect of the ongoing human-induced global warming. The extent to which we will need engineering solutions will depend on the extent we are able to reduce CO2 levels. If we do nothing, then the cost of the engineering solutions will be high. If we do much, then the cost of the engineering solutions will not be quite as high.
And if we do nothing at all - if we neither reduce atmospheric GHG levels nor provide mitigation by engineering solutions - the cost will be many trillions of dollars in damages and, globally, literally billions of displaced persons.
Dikes, levees and water removal systems for coastal cities will need to be constructed or improved. Improved heat-resistant crops with low water requirements will need to be developed. By 2050, the world's population will increase 50% to 9 billion. Let's hope we all do the right things to sustain these people of the future.
Global Political Will
More than anything else, the success or failure of the efforts to mitigate the effect of human-induced global warming depends on the political will of the nations of the world - the ability to think long-term and to cooperate globally. The United States, as one of the leading contributors to the current problem, must also be a leader in its solution. If the Know-Nothing's of today are really concerned about the world they will leave to their children and grandchildren, they better think about what the overwhelming scientific evidence is showing. Why not give the world an example of American exceptionalism in the best possible way by leading this effort ?
Final Note: For forecasts of the economic and human impacts, please see the Global Warming Forecasts website.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Global Warming - Part III
As we in the Northeast brace for Hurricane Irene, we are constantly being reminded by our newscasters that this may be a "big storm". Increased severe weather incidents are, of course, one of the long-term impacts of global warming. The frequency and intensity of severe weather may vary from year to year but inevitably as more heat energy stays within our atmosphere, this energy needs to be released at some point. Storms and tornadoes release this energy.
So what can be done about global warming? Is it already too late to prevent the worst case scenarios from occurring?
Let's start with the last question first. According to a 2009 MIT report, if little changes from the current situation - i.e., same emissions pattern as today, we can expect a 5 to 7 degree Centigrade (9 to 16 degree Fahrenheit) rise in global temperature by the end of this century. The results would be absolutely disastrous. Sea levels would be 20 feet above where they are now causing widespread destruction to some of the world's largest cities and most beautiful coastlines. In addition, a greater portion of the world will become unsuitable for crops because of temperature increases, increased desertification in some areas, and increased crop loss caused by storms and floods in others. The result: up to 3 billion people will have to migrate from the increased drier, warmer regions or starve. And this is the scenario for GHG emission patterns getting no worse than today. Higher emissions are a significant possibility as more developing nations achieve higher standards of living and the corresponding increase in energy use.
If you want to think shorter term - say to 2050, then just halve the numbers above - it's still a global disaster.
What can be done to prevent this disaster in the 40 to 90 years we have before it hits? Well, we have three tools at our disposal:
(1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(2) Increase the "sinks" that can trap carbon dioxide and other GHG's
(3) Use engineering and technology solutions to protect coastal cities, food supply and the shoreline
(Note to certain budget-cutting Republican presidential candidates and their supporters: shutting down the EPA as you have been suggesting will not help the situation. I've left it off the list. Call me if you'd like to discuss further.)
The primary action we can take is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the rest of today's blog will discuss this subject. Reducing emissions has been the focus of the climate change conferences held over the past 15 years or so. It has been estimated that, to stabilize the climate, the nations of the world must reduce their GHG emissions by 50% from 1990 levels by 2050.
In the US, 94 to 95% of CO2 emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels. Of this, 42% of the emissions come from electricity generation and 33% from transportation. Any plan to reduce US CO2 emissions should concentrate on these.
Coal for electricity production is a major source of emissions. As GHG emitters go, it is the worst. Natural gas used for electricty generation emits about half the amount of CO2 per kilowatt as coal does. So replacing coal plants with natural gas plants would go a long way to reducing the amount of CO2 the country releases. Alternative electricity generation sources that emit zero CO2 such as wind, solar, hydro and even nuclear must be considered. This conversion of course will take time and should be started now.
More efficient automobiles, trucks and busses combined with improved rail and mass transit projects offer a way to get at transportation, the second major source in the US. Mandatory increases in the fuel efficency of automobiles is essential. Fuel cell technology and hybrids that generate their own electricity may help as would using natural gas instead of gasoline and diesel. Two notes: (1) ethanol does not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions and we are basically converting food into fuel; (2) smarter management of the energy grid and the power plant conversion described above are essential if plug-in electric cars are ever expected to help. Gasoline emits CO2 in amounts about midway between natural gas and coal. So if we are just replacing gasoline with coal as the ultimate source of transportation energy, we will do little to solve the GHG problem.
To be continued and concluded in the next blog
So what can be done about global warming? Is it already too late to prevent the worst case scenarios from occurring?
Let's start with the last question first. According to a 2009 MIT report, if little changes from the current situation - i.e., same emissions pattern as today, we can expect a 5 to 7 degree Centigrade (9 to 16 degree Fahrenheit) rise in global temperature by the end of this century. The results would be absolutely disastrous. Sea levels would be 20 feet above where they are now causing widespread destruction to some of the world's largest cities and most beautiful coastlines. In addition, a greater portion of the world will become unsuitable for crops because of temperature increases, increased desertification in some areas, and increased crop loss caused by storms and floods in others. The result: up to 3 billion people will have to migrate from the increased drier, warmer regions or starve. And this is the scenario for GHG emission patterns getting no worse than today. Higher emissions are a significant possibility as more developing nations achieve higher standards of living and the corresponding increase in energy use.
If you want to think shorter term - say to 2050, then just halve the numbers above - it's still a global disaster.
What can be done to prevent this disaster in the 40 to 90 years we have before it hits? Well, we have three tools at our disposal:
(1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(2) Increase the "sinks" that can trap carbon dioxide and other GHG's
(3) Use engineering and technology solutions to protect coastal cities, food supply and the shoreline
(Note to certain budget-cutting Republican presidential candidates and their supporters: shutting down the EPA as you have been suggesting will not help the situation. I've left it off the list. Call me if you'd like to discuss further.)
The primary action we can take is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the rest of today's blog will discuss this subject. Reducing emissions has been the focus of the climate change conferences held over the past 15 years or so. It has been estimated that, to stabilize the climate, the nations of the world must reduce their GHG emissions by 50% from 1990 levels by 2050.
In the US, 94 to 95% of CO2 emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels. Of this, 42% of the emissions come from electricity generation and 33% from transportation. Any plan to reduce US CO2 emissions should concentrate on these.
Coal for electricity production is a major source of emissions. As GHG emitters go, it is the worst. Natural gas used for electricty generation emits about half the amount of CO2 per kilowatt as coal does. So replacing coal plants with natural gas plants would go a long way to reducing the amount of CO2 the country releases. Alternative electricity generation sources that emit zero CO2 such as wind, solar, hydro and even nuclear must be considered. This conversion of course will take time and should be started now.
More efficient automobiles, trucks and busses combined with improved rail and mass transit projects offer a way to get at transportation, the second major source in the US. Mandatory increases in the fuel efficency of automobiles is essential. Fuel cell technology and hybrids that generate their own electricity may help as would using natural gas instead of gasoline and diesel. Two notes: (1) ethanol does not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions and we are basically converting food into fuel; (2) smarter management of the energy grid and the power plant conversion described above are essential if plug-in electric cars are ever expected to help. Gasoline emits CO2 in amounts about midway between natural gas and coal. So if we are just replacing gasoline with coal as the ultimate source of transportation energy, we will do little to solve the GHG problem.
To be continued and concluded in the next blog
Monday, August 22, 2011
Global Warming 101 - Part II
The Carbon Dioxide Balance - why the relatively low amount of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions is doing so much damage
Although the amount of human-caused CO2 emissions (~30 billion tons/yr) is small compared to naturally occurring emissions (750 billion tons/yr), the natural CO2 emissions were, for thousands of years, in balance with the Earth's ability to absorb them in land and water. Once the balance was upset (primarily) by the burning of fossil fuels starting in the second half of the 18th century, the carbon dioxide that cannot be absorbed naturally enters the atmosphere and stays for a very long time. It is estimated that about 40% of human-induced CO2 emissions are absorbed - so we are adding 18 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually.
Other Effects and Complications - why things could be even worse than you thought
There are other more immediate, shorter term effects of global warming besides the potential destruction caused by rising sea levels. In particular, more intense storms, greater incidences of flooding and the destruction of wildlife habitats are even now becoming evident.
Before turning to possible solutions, we unfortuantely need to add some more bad news to the mix. Key to this discussion is the boot strapping effect that occurs as the global temperature increases.
The first complication is that the ability of water to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) decreases as temperature increases. A five degree Fahrenheit increase in water temperature would result roughly in a 10% decrease in the solubility of CO2 in water. This will decrease the capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and more CO2 will remain in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming.
The second complication comes from the release of methane currently trapped in ice and ocean sediment in arctic regions. Geologist John Atcheson, among others, have warned of this effect. A temperature increase of a few degrees in the Earth's annual temperature would cause some methane to volatilize and get into the atmosphere. Methane is a strong greenhouse gas and this increased concentration in the atmosphere would further raise temperatures, leading to a runaway effect. There are 400 billion tons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra - more than enough to start this chain reaction.
Alternate Worst Case Scenario - why you really need to hope this doesn't happen
Finally, there is an alternate worst-case scenario to the increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses. This involves the shutdown of the ocean conveyor belt that distributes heat through the ocean currents. The Gulf Stream, which warms Western Europe, for example, is part of this system.
The scientific term for the ocean conveyor belt is thermohaline circulation. Temperature (thermo) and salt (haline) content determine the density of ocean water. Differences in ocean water density drive this (literally) world-scale conveyor belt. If this conveyor belt receives a big enough shock - for example, large amounts of fresh water from melting glaciers or increased precipitation - the northern oceans will experience a decrease in salt content and density. This will interfere with or shutdown the ocean conveyor belt. The result would be somewhere between the Younger Dryas event (10-20 degree F. temperature drop) and a return to a full-blown glacial period. If this catastrophe does occur, the change will be very quick - not quite as quick as in the movie The Day After - but on the order of a decade. In any case, it will be difficult to do anything about it once it begins.
To be continued
Although the amount of human-caused CO2 emissions (~30 billion tons/yr) is small compared to naturally occurring emissions (750 billion tons/yr), the natural CO2 emissions were, for thousands of years, in balance with the Earth's ability to absorb them in land and water. Once the balance was upset (primarily) by the burning of fossil fuels starting in the second half of the 18th century, the carbon dioxide that cannot be absorbed naturally enters the atmosphere and stays for a very long time. It is estimated that about 40% of human-induced CO2 emissions are absorbed - so we are adding 18 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually.
Other Effects and Complications - why things could be even worse than you thought
There are other more immediate, shorter term effects of global warming besides the potential destruction caused by rising sea levels. In particular, more intense storms, greater incidences of flooding and the destruction of wildlife habitats are even now becoming evident.
Before turning to possible solutions, we unfortuantely need to add some more bad news to the mix. Key to this discussion is the boot strapping effect that occurs as the global temperature increases.
The first complication is that the ability of water to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) decreases as temperature increases. A five degree Fahrenheit increase in water temperature would result roughly in a 10% decrease in the solubility of CO2 in water. This will decrease the capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and more CO2 will remain in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming.
The second complication comes from the release of methane currently trapped in ice and ocean sediment in arctic regions. Geologist John Atcheson, among others, have warned of this effect. A temperature increase of a few degrees in the Earth's annual temperature would cause some methane to volatilize and get into the atmosphere. Methane is a strong greenhouse gas and this increased concentration in the atmosphere would further raise temperatures, leading to a runaway effect. There are 400 billion tons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra - more than enough to start this chain reaction.
Alternate Worst Case Scenario - why you really need to hope this doesn't happen
Finally, there is an alternate worst-case scenario to the increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses. This involves the shutdown of the ocean conveyor belt that distributes heat through the ocean currents. The Gulf Stream, which warms Western Europe, for example, is part of this system.
The scientific term for the ocean conveyor belt is thermohaline circulation. Temperature (thermo) and salt (haline) content determine the density of ocean water. Differences in ocean water density drive this (literally) world-scale conveyor belt. If this conveyor belt receives a big enough shock - for example, large amounts of fresh water from melting glaciers or increased precipitation - the northern oceans will experience a decrease in salt content and density. This will interfere with or shutdown the ocean conveyor belt. The result would be somewhere between the Younger Dryas event (10-20 degree F. temperature drop) and a return to a full-blown glacial period. If this catastrophe does occur, the change will be very quick - not quite as quick as in the movie The Day After - but on the order of a decade. In any case, it will be difficult to do anything about it once it begins.
To be continued
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Global Warming 101 - Part I
Human-induced global warming is taking the planet into a zone of no return. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The only questions now are: how bad will the damage be, when will it come, and what can we do to mitigate it?
So what exactly is happening with atmospheric greenhouse gases and why should it be of concern? The three most prevalent greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Water vapor comes and goes quickly. It's in the atmosphere for a matter of days before condensing into rain or snow. Methane lasts 10-15 years breaking down in time to water vapor and carbon dioxide. A good portion of the carbon dioxide is removed naturally by being absorbed in plants and forests and dissolved in oceans and lakes. However, what carbon dioxide cannot be removed persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. And that is the heart of the problem.
Before the start of the fossil-fueled Industrial Revolution, the Earth was more or less in carbon dioxide "balance". What was being emitted by natural sources was being absorbed by natural "sinks" such as plants and oceans. As we burned more and more fossil fuels and simultaneously cleared forests and jungles for development, we created an imbalance. Prior to 1750, CO2 levels (determined from ice core samples) held at 260-280 parts per million (ppm) for the previous 10,000 years. The July 2011 reading at the Mauna Lua (Hawaii) Earth System Research Laboratory was 392 ppm - an increase of 30-35%. Coincidence? I think not.
These atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have not been seen for at least 650,000 years according to a 2008 report. The same report also noted that the rate at which carbon dioxide is accumulating is faster than had been estimated by the computer models. Scientists at UCLA then applied the ice core sampling technique to study the period from 800,000 to 20 million years ago. Science Daily reported on the research in a 2009 article. The researchers concluded that the last time carbon dioxide was sustained at this level for a long period was 15 million years ago. Temperatures back then were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today. This would result, among other things, in a melting of the polar ice caps, a dramatic rise in the level of the oceans, and the complete destruction of sea level cities globally - from New York to London to Singapore. And that's the good news...some scientists believe the carbon dioxide levels will rise to 600-900 ppm if nothing is done now to reverse the disturbing trend.
(to be continued)
So what exactly is happening with atmospheric greenhouse gases and why should it be of concern? The three most prevalent greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Water vapor comes and goes quickly. It's in the atmosphere for a matter of days before condensing into rain or snow. Methane lasts 10-15 years breaking down in time to water vapor and carbon dioxide. A good portion of the carbon dioxide is removed naturally by being absorbed in plants and forests and dissolved in oceans and lakes. However, what carbon dioxide cannot be removed persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. And that is the heart of the problem.
Before the start of the fossil-fueled Industrial Revolution, the Earth was more or less in carbon dioxide "balance". What was being emitted by natural sources was being absorbed by natural "sinks" such as plants and oceans. As we burned more and more fossil fuels and simultaneously cleared forests and jungles for development, we created an imbalance. Prior to 1750, CO2 levels (determined from ice core samples) held at 260-280 parts per million (ppm) for the previous 10,000 years. The July 2011 reading at the Mauna Lua (Hawaii) Earth System Research Laboratory was 392 ppm - an increase of 30-35%. Coincidence? I think not.
These atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have not been seen for at least 650,000 years according to a 2008 report. The same report also noted that the rate at which carbon dioxide is accumulating is faster than had been estimated by the computer models. Scientists at UCLA then applied the ice core sampling technique to study the period from 800,000 to 20 million years ago. Science Daily reported on the research in a 2009 article. The researchers concluded that the last time carbon dioxide was sustained at this level for a long period was 15 million years ago. Temperatures back then were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today. This would result, among other things, in a melting of the polar ice caps, a dramatic rise in the level of the oceans, and the complete destruction of sea level cities globally - from New York to London to Singapore. And that's the good news...some scientists believe the carbon dioxide levels will rise to 600-900 ppm if nothing is done now to reverse the disturbing trend.
(to be continued)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)