Carbon mitigation is essential to limit any detrimental significant damage to the environment and by extension human civilization. However, carbon mitigation requires intelligent planning and forethought not a simple scratch-the-surface methodology buttressed by good intentions and hope. Sadly most of the individuals that place significant hope in a vast deployment of solar and wind power behave in this very manner when it comes to the incorporation and maintenance of such an idea. The hard questions are either outright ignored with a sporadic scolding of those asking along with labeling as ‘anti-renewable’ or ‘anti-Earth’ or these questions are addressed through the use of inappropriately isolated or small examples, which only brush the outside of the core inquiry. What follows is a group of questions that everyone who supports the massive deployment of solar and wind power in the eventual representation of over 80+% of energy consumption should be able to answer in nauseating detail and specifics in order to justify the legitimacy of their beliefs that such widespread deployment is the appropriate strategy.
As France is the model country for nuclear power, many solar proponents are looking towards Germany as the model country for solar power [of course the solar strategy embarked on by Germany has always been confusing due to the below average capacity ratings (5-20%)]. In addition, due to political pressure, Germany as also begun to rapidly decommission existing nuclear power plants before eliminating coal power plants. While combining the loss of the trace emission nuclear plants with the below average capacity of solar power make little sense in a centralized power structure, solar proponents that support Germany have quickly sought to explain this behavior with the contention that Germany is exploring decentralization of their electricity grid, which requires the elimination of baseload in favor of load following plants to augment the energy from renewables.
The problem with decentralization is that no one has actually explained why it is superior to a centralized system consisting of nuclear and/or enhanced geothermal system baseload. The two immediate looming problems in a decentralized system is first based on economic theory the overall costs of such a decentralized system greatly exceeds a centralized system largely due to the increased transport costs (multiple build sites versus one) and adjustment for terrain inefficiencies resulting in redundant builds. Second, intermittent energy sources (solar and wind) require storage backup, but in a decentralized model this storage backup can lack multi-modal storage inputs, thus it would demand more redundancies in the system, which would further increase costs.
So those individuals that support a decentralized model of energy need to demonstrate the justifications for the incredible increase in costs over a centralized model governed by nuclear or enhanced geothermal as well as document how effective storage systems for each decentralized unit will be developed as it is assumed that individuals would want on-demand electricity availability.
Another potential problem that solar proponents avoid is the relationship between solar radiation management geo-engineering and solar energy. Most solar proponents would suggest that this confliction is irrelevant because it would be dangerous to undertake solar radiation management based geo-engineering methodologies. Unfortunately the slow global response to carbon mitigation increases the probability that solar radiation management techniques need to be utilized despite questions of uncertainty. For example at the moment global temperatures have increased approximately 0.9 degrees C. If one believes the conclusions of Dr. James Hansen, one of the grandfathers of climate science, this temperature increase only represents approximately 50% of the anticipated warming associated with the concentration increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due a two tiered (one slow and one fast) feedback effect. Thus, another 0.8-1 degree C temperature increase is expected in the future even if carbon emissions were reduced to generate a net mass balance difference of 0 tomorrow (basically the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere equaled the amount of carbon removed by carbon sinks).
At this moment expecting such a result is completely unrealistic and most individuals believe global emissions will continue to rise, largely due to the growth in China, India and Brazil and mitigation resistance from more developed countries like Canada and the United States; therefore, it would be reasonable to add at least another 0.8-1 degree C temperature increase to the 0.9 that has already occurred and the 0.8-1 that is already expected for a total increase of 2.5 – 2.9 degree C. Working from existing information and behaviors this is the best possible case for warming at the moment. Even this ‘best-case’ will place significant strain on both the environment and society that solar radiation management geo-engineering strategies will more than likely be needed.
Due to the fact that all solar radiation management techniques will reduce the volume or intensity of solar energy striking the earth what strategies do solar proponents have that will address how this reduction will influence available solar energy and electricity when solar consists of 40+% of the grid as dreamed of by solar proponents? As discussed above, simply saying that it will not happen is not a viable strategy because logic dictates that it probably will happen.
The most important issue that solar and wind supporters refuse to address is the realistic long-term shortage of rare earths, which depending on the type of rare earth will either result in higher mining and building costs or the inability to construct the particular renewable source. It is surprising that solar and wind proponents do not address the central question of whether or not enough materials even exist to construct their desired trace emission energy infrastructure. This reluctance implies either ignorance to the fact that rare earth supply is actually an issue or fear as answering the question of rare earths will lead to an answer that will not be liked. Look at this blog post for an excellent place to understand the rare earth issue.
Returning to one of the central problems with the arguments of solar and wind proponents is a matter of scale relative to intermittence. It stands to reason that wind and solar supporters are tired of hearing about intermittence as a problem, but that characteristic is the greatest weakness of solar and wind power. Sadly the more pressing problem almost seems to be the way proponents are responding to this weakness with inappropriate exaltations of very small and sheltered proof-of-concept test storage plants like Gemasolar (19.9 MW). No realistic individual can conclude that an effective solar infrastructure can be developed by building millions of 20-50 MW solar plants, thus these small proof-of-concept plants cannot be touted as the solution to the intermittence problem.
Another problem pertaining to intermittence is transmission loss. In a more centralized model for solar and wind power generation a vast majority of the production occurs in low population areas, which will result in meaningful transmission losses. Unfortunately for the most part the extent of these losses is unclear. Thus solar and wind proponents need to understand how the scale and nature of these losses of these low population infrastructure plans they have devised are appropriate.
For example all three types of plants (baseload, load-following and peak) operate on a general level of consistency based on usage trends. However, they are able to do so because they are dispatchable in various ways whereas wind and solar are not. Thus, transmission losses may provide more influence to wind and solar transfer versus current sources because those losses are more sporadic and non-linear than the more linear losses of baseload plants. Within the vein of transmission loss is the unfortunate crutch of a smart grid. While the full incorporation of a smart grid would be great, too many renewable proponents view it as inevitable and as a panacea for all intermittence and transmission problems, which it is not on both accords. Thus, renewable proponents must make contingency plans in case smart grids do not emerge in the ubiquitous nature solar and wind proponents dream.
Another big problem for proponents is storage, but not in the limits maximums demonstrated so far, but the demands that will be required. One must recall that the storage components to these plants start empty and need to be charged. Clearly this charge comes from surplus generated by the system. Most proponents believe that this surplus will be widely available, but there is a concern that these proponents are misleading themselves because their conclusions come based on observations of the existing energy infrastructure where significant overage is created by solar and wind sources due to existing fossil fuel baseload. However, if that fossil fuel baseload is removed then the probability for surplus is dramatically reduced. Therefore, in a trace emission energy world heavy redundancy of solar and wind constructions will be required to ensure sufficient storage during the ‘bleaker’ times. The concern is that not only will this excess redundancy increase costs, but is it even possible to construct due to rare earth shortages?
For example suppose renewables are to replace 500 MW from a baseload plant. If renewable sources function at an average capacitance of 25% with a 100% penetration one would initially suggest more than 500 MW of name-plate capacity is required (probably somewhere between 750-850 MW) to effectively cover the replaced baseload amount. Unfortunately the unpredictability of intermittence along with the maximum ceilings on storage elements (due to cost even if a surplus of 124 MW may exist over the period of a month only 50 MW may be available for storage) will demand that an even greater redundancy be developed to ensure available electricity. Basically if one could plan out all weather over the course of a year and how much electricity would be demanded every minute or so over that year then redundancy would be more controllable, but because this is not the case more source is required to cover the uncertainty.
Some proponents argue that biomass based energy, which can be better controlled, will act as a counterweight limiting the amount of redundancy required. The problem is that individuals who make this argument do not discuss how a steady supply of biomass will be cultivated over years and years because most of the biomass supply utilizes land that will compete or complicate food production. For example one idea is to use grain and forest residues because no animals consume them, but people forget about bacteria and how the bacterial-based decomposition of these residues aid soil quality; take away these residues and soil becomes more exposed to water and wind erosion in addition to being stripped of nutrient rejuvenation.
Wind and solar proponents largely have a problem with details and specifics when it comes to their ideas for a future trace infrastructure governed principally by these two generating sources. When planning for the future the details need to rival that of the Sistine Chapel not ‘Connect the dots to see an outline of an elephant’. The two biggest problems seem to be that most proponent tie cost, name-plate and storage estimations of wind and solar to the present system with fossil fuel baseload instead of the future system where fossil fuels and (for most of them nuclear) will not be contributing to the energy mix. Also proponents have not appropriately addressed the availability of rare earths both from a cost structure and a simple supply amount. Part of this problem is that rare earths that are used in wind turbines and solar cells are not exclusive to these elements, but are also utilized in other commercial products. The looming potential of solar radiation management strategies is also ignored in general under the increasingly less realistic belief that they will never be utilized.
Overall wind and solar proponents need to start getting serious when it comes to the details and future planning of their intended energy infrastructure; just looking at Germany and saying ‘that’s the model’ is not good enough because the German system is not mature or independent enough to warrant it as a model.
Showing posts with label Alternative Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alternative Energy. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Nuclear Insurance and Safety Checks
The two major valid economic criticisms against the expansion of nuclear power have been the large initial capital cost investment and uncertainty regarding the cost of cleanup for any meltdown or similar type event. Any fears surrounding the possibility of a meltdown event itself are rather unfounded. Opponents of nuclear power would immediately take offense to that previous statement citing the two events: Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. While true these citations are not relevant to the current environment. Chernobyl occurred due to an improperly designed experiment on the fourth reactor, an illogical residence time on back-up power generation and a shelved and generally bad plant design. Using Chernobyl as a boogieman for nuclear power is akin to using the Hindenburg as a boogieman for air travel.
Fukushima Daiichi was a 40+ year old plant, based on a 50+ year old design, that was built and maintained in such a way that Japanese authorities were basically betting on a disaster. The plant was constructed in the worst possible place due to its high probability of tsunami and seismic activity (if the plant operator TEPCO did not change the original location of the plant for trivial economic reasons the meltdown NEVER would have happened); also the Japanese government allowed TEPCO to evade legitimate and genuine safety inspections and upgrades for decades along with TEPCO falsifying numerous ‘safety’ checks.
The meltdown was caused by a lack of power available to cool the water immersing the nuclear rods. The reason for this lack of power is that the backup power for the plant was not constructed in a manner that would isolate it from any event which would knock out the main power generator. In its entirety the meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi occurred due to human error, greed and stupidity not any technical failure associated with nuclear power. Note that one of the main common themes here between both meltdowns is poor backup power planning and execution.
Therefore, if one eliminates these human faults nuclear power should not foster any reasonable fear of detrimental consequence. However, if there is no detrimental consequence when behaving responsibly why is the uncertainty regarding cost cleanup an influencing factor in the cost to construct a nuclear power plant? The rationality behind this concern is the uncertainty itself. Despite all of the bold statements about risk and reward in capitalism the simple fact is that private companies are reluctant to make any significant move when risk is involved (unless someone else is paying for it) and uncertainty embodies significant risk. Therefore, even though the certainty of the event is non-existent when appropriate safety steps are taken, the uncertainty is what is scary. Oddly enough individuals are so afraid of the size of x they do not realize that it is being multiplied by 0. Unfortunately logic will not work in this situation so a strategy must be developed to assuage these concerns.
One particular strategy that does not appear to have been tapped, which could provide useful for problems of human neglect/malfeasance and uncertainty is suppose the controlling government within the boarders of any new nuclear construction guarantees to cover all costs associated with any nuclear reactor event which is not attributable to human error for the company running the plant. In exchange the company MUST comply with a yearly safety audit of the plant conducted by both the government as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under such an agreement the cost uncertainty associated with any catastrophic meltdown, however unrealistic, will no longer be a concern for the company and the country housing the plant will eliminate the only real factor which could lead to a meltdown, human greed and incompetence, by initiating safety compliance. One additional element to this strategy could be a condition where the government seizes the power plant if the operating company fails to comply with the necessary safety recommendations from the previous year.
The elimination of the uncertainty element should speed the overall attractiveness of constructing nuclear power plants not only from the company perspective, but also for the public. A significant obstacle for nuclear power construction is blind resistance by the public to nuclear power brought about by fear largely born from this uncertainty. While capital costs are typically high for the most part these costs associated with plant construction are not nearly as crippling as most nuclear opponents would like others to believe. Relative to other methods of electricity generation over the average lifespan of the plant nuclear power actually becomes more cost effective than all other forms of electricity generation when external factors are considered.1 Initial capital costs can also be reduced through plant design standardization.
Overall although the cost uncertainty associated with nuclear power accidents should be reduced to basically zero with logic, responsible planning and maintenance, and properly trained staff it does not appear that these elements are enough when actually trying to construct power plants. The above strategy of combining funds with the meeting safety inspections is one way to eliminate this uncertainty problem. Despite the belief of those in the anti-nuclear camp it is highly improbable to anticipate that solar and wind resources will be able to steam the deleterious affects of global warming alone, thus addressing the uncertainty problem is critically important.
--
Citations:
1. The Economics of Nuclear Power. World Nuclear Association Dec. 2011; http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
Fukushima Daiichi was a 40+ year old plant, based on a 50+ year old design, that was built and maintained in such a way that Japanese authorities were basically betting on a disaster. The plant was constructed in the worst possible place due to its high probability of tsunami and seismic activity (if the plant operator TEPCO did not change the original location of the plant for trivial economic reasons the meltdown NEVER would have happened); also the Japanese government allowed TEPCO to evade legitimate and genuine safety inspections and upgrades for decades along with TEPCO falsifying numerous ‘safety’ checks.
The meltdown was caused by a lack of power available to cool the water immersing the nuclear rods. The reason for this lack of power is that the backup power for the plant was not constructed in a manner that would isolate it from any event which would knock out the main power generator. In its entirety the meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi occurred due to human error, greed and stupidity not any technical failure associated with nuclear power. Note that one of the main common themes here between both meltdowns is poor backup power planning and execution.
Therefore, if one eliminates these human faults nuclear power should not foster any reasonable fear of detrimental consequence. However, if there is no detrimental consequence when behaving responsibly why is the uncertainty regarding cost cleanup an influencing factor in the cost to construct a nuclear power plant? The rationality behind this concern is the uncertainty itself. Despite all of the bold statements about risk and reward in capitalism the simple fact is that private companies are reluctant to make any significant move when risk is involved (unless someone else is paying for it) and uncertainty embodies significant risk. Therefore, even though the certainty of the event is non-existent when appropriate safety steps are taken, the uncertainty is what is scary. Oddly enough individuals are so afraid of the size of x they do not realize that it is being multiplied by 0. Unfortunately logic will not work in this situation so a strategy must be developed to assuage these concerns.
One particular strategy that does not appear to have been tapped, which could provide useful for problems of human neglect/malfeasance and uncertainty is suppose the controlling government within the boarders of any new nuclear construction guarantees to cover all costs associated with any nuclear reactor event which is not attributable to human error for the company running the plant. In exchange the company MUST comply with a yearly safety audit of the plant conducted by both the government as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under such an agreement the cost uncertainty associated with any catastrophic meltdown, however unrealistic, will no longer be a concern for the company and the country housing the plant will eliminate the only real factor which could lead to a meltdown, human greed and incompetence, by initiating safety compliance. One additional element to this strategy could be a condition where the government seizes the power plant if the operating company fails to comply with the necessary safety recommendations from the previous year.
The elimination of the uncertainty element should speed the overall attractiveness of constructing nuclear power plants not only from the company perspective, but also for the public. A significant obstacle for nuclear power construction is blind resistance by the public to nuclear power brought about by fear largely born from this uncertainty. While capital costs are typically high for the most part these costs associated with plant construction are not nearly as crippling as most nuclear opponents would like others to believe. Relative to other methods of electricity generation over the average lifespan of the plant nuclear power actually becomes more cost effective than all other forms of electricity generation when external factors are considered.1 Initial capital costs can also be reduced through plant design standardization.
Overall although the cost uncertainty associated with nuclear power accidents should be reduced to basically zero with logic, responsible planning and maintenance, and properly trained staff it does not appear that these elements are enough when actually trying to construct power plants. The above strategy of combining funds with the meeting safety inspections is one way to eliminate this uncertainty problem. Despite the belief of those in the anti-nuclear camp it is highly improbable to anticipate that solar and wind resources will be able to steam the deleterious affects of global warming alone, thus addressing the uncertainty problem is critically important.
--
Citations:
1. The Economics of Nuclear Power. World Nuclear Association Dec. 2011; http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
Friday, June 25, 2010
A Brief Revisiting of Peak Oil
For background on this subject go to this link:
http://bastionofreason.blogspot.com/2009/09/reality-of-peak-oil.html
Although discussed previously, the recent explosion of Deepwater Horizon and the resultant oil discharge into the Gulf of Mexico have some raising the issue of ‘Peak Oil’ as one of the hodgepodge of reasons to reduce the general reliance of oil in our society. The appropriate way to view ‘Peak Oil’ is the point where global oil production peaks and some believe that time as already occurred. Unfortunately others have expanded the peaking of production to signify a lack of available supply. Basically global production cannot reach the previous high because the total remaining supply of oil is insufficient. This distinction is not correct, for there are still large quantities of oil available.
Why can the statement be made that there are still large quantities of oil available? First, although it is true that most traditional existing wells are on the down-slope of their production curves, there are some remaining undeveloped traditional sites, mostly located in Iraq and Russia. In fact the prospective reserves in Western Iraq are thought to be especially large. Second, deepwater sites similar to Deepwater Horizon are still being explored and as technology continues to advance exploration of potential new sites will become more accurate and inexpensive. Most of the best deepwater sites are thought to be located off the Atlantic coast of South America and in the unfortunately fast-melting Arctic. Third, untraditional sources of oil have been identified (oil shale, oil sands, etc.) with very large deposits in Venezuela, Canada and even in the United States (Rocky Mountains). So with all of these additional acquisition opportunities around the world, not just in the Middle East why are there so many that believe the world has already entered the era of ‘Peak Oil’?
The simple answer is that each of these three types of resources have one major thing in common, oil extraction from these sources is more expensive than from current widespread traditional wells. Although many experts believe there are still large globally meaningful deposits that can be acquired through traditional wells, the countries that control the land containing this oil have been reluctant to allow foreign companies the opportunity to invest and conduct business under fair contracts. Thus, foreign companies do not view investment in these new undiscovered areas as profitable enough to warrant their time. Deepwater drilling has caught on in recent years as a viable alternative to unsuccessfully haggling with uncooperative foreign countries. However, as witnessed in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, deepwater drilling can be troublesome when things go wrong, environmentally and economically. Extraction from untraditional sources has been a hot topic in the petroleum industry for decades and as traditional sources become less and less available, the first serious wells are being developed, but mass production of these sources have stalled due to the high costs. Interestingly enough despite the belief of ‘Peak Oil’ it seems more likely than not that all three of these sources will be tapped to significant extent despite the significant cost obstacles because of the shear lack of alternatives and the necessity of oil in driving economic growth.
One of the chief elements to the cost obstacle is the classical volatility profile of oil prices. A general rule of thumb is that businesses love patterns and predictability. Some argue that the general volatility of oil price will keep petroleum companies from fully investing in these alternative sources types thus resulting in global production values that will fail to exceed current values. Basically a company needs to know if they are going to make profit on an investment a majority of the time and price volatility confuses the ability to make that prediction. Other potential unpredictability is what big consumption countries like the United States, China, India, etc. will do regarding carbon emission policy and how that new policy will influence oil price and consumption.
With falling ‘easy’ supply sources, future oil price volatility is somewhat reduced in that prices will steadily increase with few, if any, significant drop periods. Basically the future oil price curve will oscillate around a steadily increasing positive slope with the total period and amplitude of the oscillations dropping as the time progresses. An example of this concept is shown in below. The increase in oil price will eliminate a significant amount of trepidation for investment in more expensive sources. As long as a company can predict a profit to be made without a viable alternative, effort will be applied to make that profit.
Look at it this way: suppose you normally climb a 10 ft. tree to collect apples that you sell at a net profit of $30 per apple. Unfortunately almost all of the 10 ft. trees no longer have any applies available. However, there are 30 ft. trees will lots of apples, but the extra time and equipment required to collect apples from these higher trees will reduce the net profit per apple to $15. Some may question the will to continue to collect apples at half the profit, but if the individual cannot devote time to a more profitable venture (an option facing most oil companies) and people still want apples and can pay for them then apple collection will still occur. Right now the individual does not have the real viable option to sell oranges or some other fruit (biofuels) at $20 per unit, so apples it is.
Looking at possible environmental and energy regulations, some argue that changing dynamics in the United States will reduce demand for oil, thus reducing the total capacity for price increase thereby reducing investment incentive and total future supply. While it is true that average motor vehicle gas mileage will increase in the future with increasing design efficiencies of internal combustion engine driven vehicles along with further deployment of hybrid and 100% electric vehicles, there are some issues that are not addressed. While proponents are eager to mention these efficiency increases, they do not discuss the high probability of increasing fleet size. While motor vehicles will become more efficient, there will also be more of them on the road, which with the exception of 100% electric vehicles will increase oil demands. So when including changes in fleet size it is difficult to measure whether or not U.S. demand will actually drop and if it does, by what amount. Also increasing fleet size leading to increased oil demand is an especially large concern with developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil that may not have the infrastructure to support electrical vehicles and develop cleaner use power sources. Side note: some people cite China having 100-125 million electrical bicycles as a good thing, funny that they fail to mention that those bicycles are being powered by coal.
A quick detour to explain the importance of market forces. The two chief reasons why some believe the era of ‘Peak Oil’ has begun are that official oil discoveries have been declining significantly over the last 40 decades (most believe that the discovery peak was reached in the late 60s – early 70s) and significantly rising prices starting in the middle of 2005 which only dropped due to the global recession and an inability of large consumers to buy oil. Many believe that this ‘catastrophic’ price increase was due to rising demand finally breaking through outpacing of supply, thus ‘peak oil’ must be close. Unfortunately there may be a problem with this logic. As the average price of oil rose from approximately $41 (a barrel to approximately $60 a barrel, global oil production was maintained at a consistent 85 million barrels a day.
A steady-state production level despite rising prices (almost a 50% increase) initially implies an inability to increase production because basic economic theory anticipates some level of increase in supply to maximize the profit potential from a price increase that is not accompanied by a demand decrease. However, when oil prices really jumped through the roof in late 2007 to mid 2008 (exceeding over $130 a barrel) global production did slightly increase which implies a greater sense of control over the production value over basic economics. Without understanding the mindset of those in control of the principle rates of production (OPEC provides upper 30 to lower 40%) it is difficult to identify whether or not there is any production supply significance to the size of the increase. Note that in this radical oil price time frame, oil production reached a new global peak when prices were around their own maximum. When prices began to fall due to the global recession, production dropped as well.
There are two possibilities regarding existing tapped oil supplies with respects to supply changes occurring in response to the radical price changes. First, oil supplies have become rather inelastic thus it is difficult for supply to increase significantly in accordance to a price increase like basic economic theory anticipates. Second, increasing oil supply is more difficult than economic theory predicts due to an existing set of rules created by OPEC. There is reason to believe that the dramatic price shift was caused in part by oil speculation in the free market due to the past free-flowing credit market where anyone could get credit even if he/she did not have the necessary assets. The entry of purchasers that previously would be unable to purchase oil could easily spike prices. Such price reaction, and even manipulation, may have been viewed as ‘short-term’ in the minds of the producers, thus the corresponding increase in production was slower than theoretically anticipated. Overall a combination of both of the reasons make-up the rationality behind the production response with a greater weight on the inelasticity issue.
In the United States further questions regarding the inability of possible buyers to acquire credit will reduce demand for oil in the United States not from lack of want, but from lack of ability to pay. However, regardless of the change in the U.S. it is almost impossible to consider a drop in global demand driven entirely by market forces, because of rapidly expanding demand in the developing world and a vast amount of available credit for purchase. Therefore, despite higher production costs petroleum companies should not be deterred due to questions about demand.
Although it appears that the future marketplace will not drive a decrease in global demand, new global environmental regulations and new widespread electrical grid design fostered by government law and/or directives could. Administration of a carbon tax, cap and trade system and/or streamlining grid construction would have a positive effect on lower oil demand by either adding cost to oil exploration and production or reducing the costs for oil alternatives allowing them to be more competitive in the marketplace. Unfortunately all of the large oil consuming countries appear to only be slowly advancing to adding additional costs to oil and other carbon sources, if moving at all, thus as it stands it appears that very little demand shift will come from the one element that could create a significant short-term shift.
Even though oil will still be required in the global community and this requirement will continue to drive investment and exploration, historical evidence and economic theory predict that dealing with higher oil prices will be financially difficult for most societies, especially the United States. Historical evidence set a magic price of $80-85 per barrel before the probability of financial recession in the United States increases significantly. In fact a majority of the time that oil has been in or above this price threshold the economy has been officially in a recession. The two most important industries that are influenced by oil prices are transportation and food production (harvesting equipment for large factory farms). Therefore, if the reality of more expensive oil is almost guaranteed then new strategies need to be executed to improve the ability to maintain quality of life in the United States and probably later in the developing world as well.
Unfortunately the development and deployment of oil alternatives do not appear ready in the near-future to play any significant substitution role for oil. The popular refrain for this deficiency is the claim of economics, but the real reason is scale. While algae and cellulous-based bio-fuels may eventually churn out 10-20 million barrels of oil a year by 2020 when the global demand is 80-100 million barrels of oil a day that amount is rather worthless regardless of how much it costs to produce that bio-fuel. If ethanol-based fuel ever even got close to the current demand for oil a vast majority of the population would starve because of the land use competition between bio-fuel and foodstuffs. With regards to electrical and hybrid vehicles, despite heavy optimism from proponents heavy deployment is unlikely. Even if such a revolution occurred, it remains to be seen if the evolution of the electrical grid would keep pace with the new demand or uncertainty and brownouts would become the norm. So without the ability to depend on the brute force of viable alternatives the global community as a whole needs to decide on a course of action.
For example consider global trade and its dependence on shipping. A higher oil price increases the overall costs associated with shipping requiring an increase in the price paid by the businesses importing the good, a cost that will later be passed on to customers. Eventually the oil price will increase to a point where the consumer will be unable to purchase the good, which will end trade of the particular good in that particular region. Therefore, a new strategy must be implemented in the transportation sector to counteract the negative effects of the oil price increase. Shipping in general is rather efficient in maximizing capacity in order to save money (ships are loaded to near full capacity), so the change must come on the propulsion end. Reverting back to ‘no active force’ (a.k.a. wind power) is not a suitable solution because of the wait times between departure and arrival, especially for perishable goods. The development of an electrical motor powerful enough for a ship of any reasonable size seems unlikely and inherently inefficient.
Realistically bio-fuels and nuclear are the two most plausible alternatives for ship travel where due to supply issues nuclear has the advantage. However, how safe would it be to have thousands of nuclear vessels transporting goods across the ocean on a daily basis? Such a ship-based population would be much larger and more exposed to danger than ‘proof-of-concept’ nuclear submarines.
Overall when discussing ‘Peak Oil’ it seems silly to discuss a lack of available oil or even a lack of drive to access oil in more expensive and/or difficult locations. Instead the most ironic feature of ‘Peak Oil’ is that government and individual decision-making will most likely bring on its occurrence. Reduction of demand through increasing efficiency or use and further development of alternatives are the only real ways to enter the ‘Peak Oil’ era in the short-term. Maybe it would be more appropriate for ‘Peak Oil’ converts to talk about entering the ‘Expensive Oil’ era or the end of ‘Cheap Oil’. Sadly the era of ‘Expensive Oil’ may be better than the era of ‘Peak Oil’, but not by much. If society is to effectively manage the era of ‘Expensive Oil’ significant changes need to be made with regards to travel and food production.
http://bastionofreason.blogspot.com/2009/09/reality-of-peak-oil.html
Although discussed previously, the recent explosion of Deepwater Horizon and the resultant oil discharge into the Gulf of Mexico have some raising the issue of ‘Peak Oil’ as one of the hodgepodge of reasons to reduce the general reliance of oil in our society. The appropriate way to view ‘Peak Oil’ is the point where global oil production peaks and some believe that time as already occurred. Unfortunately others have expanded the peaking of production to signify a lack of available supply. Basically global production cannot reach the previous high because the total remaining supply of oil is insufficient. This distinction is not correct, for there are still large quantities of oil available.
Why can the statement be made that there are still large quantities of oil available? First, although it is true that most traditional existing wells are on the down-slope of their production curves, there are some remaining undeveloped traditional sites, mostly located in Iraq and Russia. In fact the prospective reserves in Western Iraq are thought to be especially large. Second, deepwater sites similar to Deepwater Horizon are still being explored and as technology continues to advance exploration of potential new sites will become more accurate and inexpensive. Most of the best deepwater sites are thought to be located off the Atlantic coast of South America and in the unfortunately fast-melting Arctic. Third, untraditional sources of oil have been identified (oil shale, oil sands, etc.) with very large deposits in Venezuela, Canada and even in the United States (Rocky Mountains). So with all of these additional acquisition opportunities around the world, not just in the Middle East why are there so many that believe the world has already entered the era of ‘Peak Oil’?
The simple answer is that each of these three types of resources have one major thing in common, oil extraction from these sources is more expensive than from current widespread traditional wells. Although many experts believe there are still large globally meaningful deposits that can be acquired through traditional wells, the countries that control the land containing this oil have been reluctant to allow foreign companies the opportunity to invest and conduct business under fair contracts. Thus, foreign companies do not view investment in these new undiscovered areas as profitable enough to warrant their time. Deepwater drilling has caught on in recent years as a viable alternative to unsuccessfully haggling with uncooperative foreign countries. However, as witnessed in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, deepwater drilling can be troublesome when things go wrong, environmentally and economically. Extraction from untraditional sources has been a hot topic in the petroleum industry for decades and as traditional sources become less and less available, the first serious wells are being developed, but mass production of these sources have stalled due to the high costs. Interestingly enough despite the belief of ‘Peak Oil’ it seems more likely than not that all three of these sources will be tapped to significant extent despite the significant cost obstacles because of the shear lack of alternatives and the necessity of oil in driving economic growth.
One of the chief elements to the cost obstacle is the classical volatility profile of oil prices. A general rule of thumb is that businesses love patterns and predictability. Some argue that the general volatility of oil price will keep petroleum companies from fully investing in these alternative sources types thus resulting in global production values that will fail to exceed current values. Basically a company needs to know if they are going to make profit on an investment a majority of the time and price volatility confuses the ability to make that prediction. Other potential unpredictability is what big consumption countries like the United States, China, India, etc. will do regarding carbon emission policy and how that new policy will influence oil price and consumption.
With falling ‘easy’ supply sources, future oil price volatility is somewhat reduced in that prices will steadily increase with few, if any, significant drop periods. Basically the future oil price curve will oscillate around a steadily increasing positive slope with the total period and amplitude of the oscillations dropping as the time progresses. An example of this concept is shown in below. The increase in oil price will eliminate a significant amount of trepidation for investment in more expensive sources. As long as a company can predict a profit to be made without a viable alternative, effort will be applied to make that profit.
Look at it this way: suppose you normally climb a 10 ft. tree to collect apples that you sell at a net profit of $30 per apple. Unfortunately almost all of the 10 ft. trees no longer have any applies available. However, there are 30 ft. trees will lots of apples, but the extra time and equipment required to collect apples from these higher trees will reduce the net profit per apple to $15. Some may question the will to continue to collect apples at half the profit, but if the individual cannot devote time to a more profitable venture (an option facing most oil companies) and people still want apples and can pay for them then apple collection will still occur. Right now the individual does not have the real viable option to sell oranges or some other fruit (biofuels) at $20 per unit, so apples it is.
Looking at possible environmental and energy regulations, some argue that changing dynamics in the United States will reduce demand for oil, thus reducing the total capacity for price increase thereby reducing investment incentive and total future supply. While it is true that average motor vehicle gas mileage will increase in the future with increasing design efficiencies of internal combustion engine driven vehicles along with further deployment of hybrid and 100% electric vehicles, there are some issues that are not addressed. While proponents are eager to mention these efficiency increases, they do not discuss the high probability of increasing fleet size. While motor vehicles will become more efficient, there will also be more of them on the road, which with the exception of 100% electric vehicles will increase oil demands. So when including changes in fleet size it is difficult to measure whether or not U.S. demand will actually drop and if it does, by what amount. Also increasing fleet size leading to increased oil demand is an especially large concern with developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil that may not have the infrastructure to support electrical vehicles and develop cleaner use power sources. Side note: some people cite China having 100-125 million electrical bicycles as a good thing, funny that they fail to mention that those bicycles are being powered by coal.
A quick detour to explain the importance of market forces. The two chief reasons why some believe the era of ‘Peak Oil’ has begun are that official oil discoveries have been declining significantly over the last 40 decades (most believe that the discovery peak was reached in the late 60s – early 70s) and significantly rising prices starting in the middle of 2005 which only dropped due to the global recession and an inability of large consumers to buy oil. Many believe that this ‘catastrophic’ price increase was due to rising demand finally breaking through outpacing of supply, thus ‘peak oil’ must be close. Unfortunately there may be a problem with this logic. As the average price of oil rose from approximately $41 (a barrel to approximately $60 a barrel, global oil production was maintained at a consistent 85 million barrels a day.
A steady-state production level despite rising prices (almost a 50% increase) initially implies an inability to increase production because basic economic theory anticipates some level of increase in supply to maximize the profit potential from a price increase that is not accompanied by a demand decrease. However, when oil prices really jumped through the roof in late 2007 to mid 2008 (exceeding over $130 a barrel) global production did slightly increase which implies a greater sense of control over the production value over basic economics. Without understanding the mindset of those in control of the principle rates of production (OPEC provides upper 30 to lower 40%) it is difficult to identify whether or not there is any production supply significance to the size of the increase. Note that in this radical oil price time frame, oil production reached a new global peak when prices were around their own maximum. When prices began to fall due to the global recession, production dropped as well.
There are two possibilities regarding existing tapped oil supplies with respects to supply changes occurring in response to the radical price changes. First, oil supplies have become rather inelastic thus it is difficult for supply to increase significantly in accordance to a price increase like basic economic theory anticipates. Second, increasing oil supply is more difficult than economic theory predicts due to an existing set of rules created by OPEC. There is reason to believe that the dramatic price shift was caused in part by oil speculation in the free market due to the past free-flowing credit market where anyone could get credit even if he/she did not have the necessary assets. The entry of purchasers that previously would be unable to purchase oil could easily spike prices. Such price reaction, and even manipulation, may have been viewed as ‘short-term’ in the minds of the producers, thus the corresponding increase in production was slower than theoretically anticipated. Overall a combination of both of the reasons make-up the rationality behind the production response with a greater weight on the inelasticity issue.
In the United States further questions regarding the inability of possible buyers to acquire credit will reduce demand for oil in the United States not from lack of want, but from lack of ability to pay. However, regardless of the change in the U.S. it is almost impossible to consider a drop in global demand driven entirely by market forces, because of rapidly expanding demand in the developing world and a vast amount of available credit for purchase. Therefore, despite higher production costs petroleum companies should not be deterred due to questions about demand.
Although it appears that the future marketplace will not drive a decrease in global demand, new global environmental regulations and new widespread electrical grid design fostered by government law and/or directives could. Administration of a carbon tax, cap and trade system and/or streamlining grid construction would have a positive effect on lower oil demand by either adding cost to oil exploration and production or reducing the costs for oil alternatives allowing them to be more competitive in the marketplace. Unfortunately all of the large oil consuming countries appear to only be slowly advancing to adding additional costs to oil and other carbon sources, if moving at all, thus as it stands it appears that very little demand shift will come from the one element that could create a significant short-term shift.
Even though oil will still be required in the global community and this requirement will continue to drive investment and exploration, historical evidence and economic theory predict that dealing with higher oil prices will be financially difficult for most societies, especially the United States. Historical evidence set a magic price of $80-85 per barrel before the probability of financial recession in the United States increases significantly. In fact a majority of the time that oil has been in or above this price threshold the economy has been officially in a recession. The two most important industries that are influenced by oil prices are transportation and food production (harvesting equipment for large factory farms). Therefore, if the reality of more expensive oil is almost guaranteed then new strategies need to be executed to improve the ability to maintain quality of life in the United States and probably later in the developing world as well.
Unfortunately the development and deployment of oil alternatives do not appear ready in the near-future to play any significant substitution role for oil. The popular refrain for this deficiency is the claim of economics, but the real reason is scale. While algae and cellulous-based bio-fuels may eventually churn out 10-20 million barrels of oil a year by 2020 when the global demand is 80-100 million barrels of oil a day that amount is rather worthless regardless of how much it costs to produce that bio-fuel. If ethanol-based fuel ever even got close to the current demand for oil a vast majority of the population would starve because of the land use competition between bio-fuel and foodstuffs. With regards to electrical and hybrid vehicles, despite heavy optimism from proponents heavy deployment is unlikely. Even if such a revolution occurred, it remains to be seen if the evolution of the electrical grid would keep pace with the new demand or uncertainty and brownouts would become the norm. So without the ability to depend on the brute force of viable alternatives the global community as a whole needs to decide on a course of action.
For example consider global trade and its dependence on shipping. A higher oil price increases the overall costs associated with shipping requiring an increase in the price paid by the businesses importing the good, a cost that will later be passed on to customers. Eventually the oil price will increase to a point where the consumer will be unable to purchase the good, which will end trade of the particular good in that particular region. Therefore, a new strategy must be implemented in the transportation sector to counteract the negative effects of the oil price increase. Shipping in general is rather efficient in maximizing capacity in order to save money (ships are loaded to near full capacity), so the change must come on the propulsion end. Reverting back to ‘no active force’ (a.k.a. wind power) is not a suitable solution because of the wait times between departure and arrival, especially for perishable goods. The development of an electrical motor powerful enough for a ship of any reasonable size seems unlikely and inherently inefficient.
Realistically bio-fuels and nuclear are the two most plausible alternatives for ship travel where due to supply issues nuclear has the advantage. However, how safe would it be to have thousands of nuclear vessels transporting goods across the ocean on a daily basis? Such a ship-based population would be much larger and more exposed to danger than ‘proof-of-concept’ nuclear submarines.
Overall when discussing ‘Peak Oil’ it seems silly to discuss a lack of available oil or even a lack of drive to access oil in more expensive and/or difficult locations. Instead the most ironic feature of ‘Peak Oil’ is that government and individual decision-making will most likely bring on its occurrence. Reduction of demand through increasing efficiency or use and further development of alternatives are the only real ways to enter the ‘Peak Oil’ era in the short-term. Maybe it would be more appropriate for ‘Peak Oil’ converts to talk about entering the ‘Expensive Oil’ era or the end of ‘Cheap Oil’. Sadly the era of ‘Expensive Oil’ may be better than the era of ‘Peak Oil’, but not by much. If society is to effectively manage the era of ‘Expensive Oil’ significant changes need to be made with regards to travel and food production.
Friday, February 19, 2010
A Hypothetical Q & A with a Climate Rookie
Q: How did the concept of global warming originate?
A: Global warming is largely derived from the science surrounding the Greenhouse Effect. The Greenhouse Effect operates in the following manner. When sunlight enters the Earth’s atmosphere it eventually strikes some portion of the Earth’s surface. When making contact with the Earth’s surface it is either absorbed or reflected back into space. Note that the term ‘reflected’ is not technically correct, but is an effective way of separating the different scales of what happens to the energy from sunlight when making contact with the surface.
The reflected energy attempts to return to outer space through the Earth’s atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation, but can be deterred by molecular obstacles, most notably greenhouse gases. If these molecules absorb the returning radiation it excites the molecules causing them to collide with other molecules and release that energy. Unfortunately that energy release is not one-directional (i.e. surface to atmosphere), but in all direction including back down to the surface. This redirection of reflected surface radiation results in a greater level of energy retention and thus a warmer temperature. The higher the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, the higher the probability that reflected energy is returned to the surface and the higher the resultant temperature increase in the atmosphere. Note that the above explanation is just a quick overview of the Greenhouse Effect the overall physics involved are much more specific and complicated.
Overall the issue surrounding global warming is not in the science itself; to reject the Greenhouse Effect is akin to suggesting that 2 + 2 = 1,000,000, but instead the issue is in the question of whether or not human action, largely involving the combustion of fossil fuels, is the principle reason behind the acute temperature increases in recent decades. Those who believe human action is the driving force behind the current warming trend typically refer to the warming as anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Q: So what are the known greenhouse gases?
A: In order of their perceived influence –
Water Vapor (H2O);
Carbon Dioxide (CO2);
Methane (CH4);
Ozone (O3);
Nitrous oxide (N2O);
Black carbon (black soot);
Hydrofluorocarbons (HCF)/Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC);
Q: How can humans be significantly influencing the climate patterns of the Earth when there are so many factors involved and the carbon cycle operates on a much larger scale than the CO2 emitted by humans?
A: There are two important factors to consider when addressing this question. First, although the natural carbon cycle is considerably larger than what human activity emits, the issue is that the carbon cycle is not adding a significant new CO2 concentration to the environment. Over 99% of the new CO2 that is being added to the environment is derived from human activity. Although this addition is small relative to the total amount in the carbon cycle the climate is delicate enough that the addition of CO2 without the appropriate counter-balance (the ability to remove CO2 from the environment) a rapid change in climate can easily result.
Think of it this way imagine a snowball narrowly balancing on the top of a cliff with steep hills on both sides. There are opposing, but equal forces pushing on the snowball. Because the forces are equal the snowball does not move; however, add a force to one side, even if it is a small force relative to the pre-existing forces, and the snowball will begin tumbling down one side of the cliff because the drop-off point is so close to the original starting point of the snowball.
Second, the speed at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere is much faster than more natural changes that have occurred in the past. Some like to make the statement that some number of years ago CO2 concentrations were much higher than they are now, which is true; however, it took a lot longer to move from one concentration point to another during that time period relative to the speed of the current concentration change now. That time delay gave the environment an opportunity to slowly adapt reducing potential damage.
Overall although the carbon cycle may be much larger, it is a dynamic, but generally stable cycle that operates over a much slower time frame than the CO2 that is being emitted into the atmosphere by human activities. The issue is not size, but speed and change, both of which are being primarily driven by the actions of humans and not through natural processes.
Q: What are the consequences of global warming?
A: Overall the immediate specifics of any consequences are difficult to accurately specify due to the complex nature of the climate. Basically it is difficult to accurately state with an real level of confidence that due to global warming region x will receive 45% less rain versus the average year a decade ago. However, general statements regarding predictive climate patterns can be made. For example one of the most important consequences is an increase in average global sea levels due to an increased rate and amount of melting of glaciers and sea ice. Such a sea level increase will threaten many coastal cities throughout the world and also pose a legitimate threat to bury a number of island nations underwater.
Also an increase in ocean acidity will be a significant problem leading to a reduction in the biodiversity of the ocean. This reduction in oceanic biodiversity will impact multiple food chains including the amount of fish and other sea life that humans will be able to catch, sell and consume. Overall increasing ocean acidity represents the greatest short-term threat to mass species extinction brought on as a direct cause of global warming.
Third, the increase in average global temperatures and change in precipitation patterns (largely rain) will increase the total stress on drinkable water supplies. Current precipitation patterns seem to be shifting in an extreme manner. Basically wet regions (regions that receive lots of rain) will receive even more rain and dry regions will receive even less rain. Unfortunately such a result is not favorable for either side because more rain will increase the chance of events like flash floods and mud slides and less rain will length droughts and possible famines.
There are other significant consequences such as permafrost melting, possible ocean out-gassing, new cloud synthesis or disappearance at different altitudes, latitude shift in certain animal populations and migratory patterns and many more, but the purpose of this discussion is not to list all of the potential detrimental consequences.
Also on a side note although some claim that there will be benefits to global warming such as more rapid and robust plant growth due to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is true, any benefits derived from global warming will be buried under all of the negative consequences making the benefits moot. Also those benefits only function under a certain temperature window, once global temperatures exceed that window then they become detriments instead of benefits.
Q: Why are individuals who do not believe in AGW labeled as ‘deniers’ or worse by the environmental community? Isn’t such action unproductive and pretentious?
A: In the scope of a debate it rarely is a good idea to apply a negative label to your opponent from a logical standpoint. However, the term ‘denier’ has its origins in simple frustration by those that believe global warming has a principle human driver over a natural or unknown driver. These individuals believe that there is more than enough evidence to prove AGW beyond a reasonable doubt and that those who do not acknowledge this reality are ‘denying’ reality. Although the use of such a label is unfortunately, the important thing to acknowledge is that the individuals being labeled as ‘deniers’ have done little to disprove such a label.
In science it is very difficult to prove something beyond any doubt (100% guarantee) because humans typically lack all available knowledge about a given subject and have observational and measurement tools with inherent error. Therefore, scientists work hard to identify the most probable solution to correspond with the information available. Similar to the legal system, science looks to devise theories that explain concepts and observations beyond a ‘reasonable’ doubt, not beyond any doubt. One can be skeptical if it is believed that certain assumptions or calculations that comprise a theory are both in error and sufficiently important enough to the theory. However, if one of these conditions is not met, then it is inappropriate to reject the hypothesized solution unless one can devise a theory that better explains the available data.
The group labeled as ‘deniers’ has yet to find peer-reviewed empirical evidence that is not significantly flawed to support the contention that there is another cause beyond human activities, which explains the increasing temperatures over the last 3 decades. Also the errors that have been suggested in empirical evidence that support AGW have not been identified as critically important to the AGW theory itself. Therefore, nothing exists to counter the claims made by those that support AGW outside of small unimportant portions of the overwhelming evidence that support AGW.
Another reason for such labeling is that in modern society the best way to get attention for a particular message, be it positive or negative attention, is to create sound bite worthy labels. The label ‘individuals that do not believe in anthropogenic global warming’ does not have the same emotional bite as ‘denier’. Others also use these tactics such as the label ‘spend thrift liberal’ instead of ‘individual that is thought to believe in the power of government over the marketplace and expends inordinate amounts of money on government programs to promote economic and social growth’.
Unfortunately the world has drifted more towards emotional arguments than logical arguments, thus labels are used more often to categorize certain viewpoints. Overall although inherently unnecessary, the use of the label ‘denier’ should have no influence on whether or not an individual accepts AGW. For example does it make sense for Person A to reject the premise offered by Person B of 2 + 2 = 4 solely because Person B called Person A an idiot in a prior interaction? Of course not.
Q: What about those flaws in the IPCC report or those climate emails that the media talked so much about? Don’t they disprove AGW?
A: No. As mentioned above neither of those incidents nor anything else that opponents of AGW cite weakens the overall empirical evidence that support AGW. The climate emails can be viewed as damaging before realizing that they are taken out of context and that they do not change the published information available on AGW. The emails simply demonstrate researcher frustration and semantics. Any accusations of collusion between climate scientists are irrational due to the lack of money that would be generated from such collusion. Despite what some opponents say, climate science is not a lucrative profession regardless of whether or not global warming was perceived as a legitimate threat. Also climate scientists do not get into climate science for monetary gain.
The IPCC flaws have nothing to do with whether or not AGW exists, but instead focus on the extent and rate of damage that can be expected in the future due to progressing climate change and global warming. Again the best argument opponents of AGW can make regarding the IPCC flaws is that prediction of certain events in the future was incorrect, but the general nature of the core damage that will occur is not affected by these errors. Also it must be understood that a vast majority of the information contained in the reports produced by the IPCC is mutually exclusive. That is one predictive error does not statistically influence another prediction. Thus even if a predictive error is made, it does not invalidate other predictions, so a small number of errors cannot invalidate separate conclusions derived from the report. Basically if one would think of the IPCC report as a sweater and the current errors as a loose string, pulling on the string does not unravel the sweater, but instead just removes a loose string.
Overall empirical evidence clearly demonstrates a warming climate, both through glacial ice and permafrost melting at a much faster rate than normal and increasing surface air and ocean temperatures derived from satellite measurements, regardless of what any emails say or any errors in the most recent IPCC report.
Q: If global warming means the Earth is getting warmer how come during the winter snow is falling in places that have not gotten or gotten very little snow in the past?
A: The main reason for the occurrence of such events is that although average global temperatures are increasing, the influence of global warming is not isolated to temperature. Due to the breach in balance that has characterized the climate for thousands of years the probability of occurrence of certain weather events has changed. Basically in a climate system influenced by global warming certain weather has a higher or lower probability of occurrence at certain places due to changes derived from a response to the higher temperatures. For example due to global warming it may rain more in one region of a country, but rain less in another region versus historical data. In short global warming increases the probability for and intensity of more extreme weather events, be it floods or droughts, thus it is more probable for the State of Georgia to have a winter blizzard versus three decades ago.
Q: There is so much information out there, especially among blogs. How do I know if someone is lying to me, is just stating an opinion or actually knows the stuff?
A. The simplest way is to look for any citations or mentions of any papers. If none exist and statements do not seem to make sense or come to exotic conclusions then such statements can be dismissed. If citations were made then it would be prudent to check the information (abstracts of each of the papers, etc.) to ensure that the author is interpreting the general results correctly. Another option is to email one of the authors of a cited paper with the link of the blog post and simply ask if the blogger is interpreting the information properly.
Q: If all of the empirical evidence suggests AGW as the principle cause for climate change why do people still reject AGW?
A: Good question. There are three principle reasons why with the current available empirical evidence one would still be skeptical of AGW. First, an individual does not have the experience to effectively analyze the available evidence and come to a firm conclusion regarding the validity of AGW. Unfortunately without this experience these individuals tend to turn to others to fill in the blanks and most of those individuals do so improperly either due to a lack of understanding themselves or purposeful deceit due to personal motives. The problem with this situation is that most of the people who fill in the blanks are television, radio or other media personalities and not climate scientists because these media personalities have a greater opportunity to present their opinion. Clearly the probability that these media personalities misunderstand/manipulate the available information is higher than a climate scientist and is demonstrated on almost a daily basis.
Second, some individuals do not believe that it is in their and/or their country’s best interest for the public to acknowledge AGW, regardless of whether or not they do so in private. These individuals believe that a government issued price on carbon, elimination of fossil fuel subsidies and other strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions hurt their own interests. For these individuals the total amount of evidence supporting AGW is meaningless. These individuals work to support a political and scientific environment of, at best confusion, and at worst outright dishonesty to reduce the probability that governments act to stem the threat of AGW.
Third, some people realize that they should change their viewpoint and acknowledge the threat of AGW, but unfortunately these individuals have not separated their personal judgments and beliefs from each other. Basically these individuals believe that if questioning their initial opinion of denying the validity of AGW leads to a change in that opinion, then they will have to challenge every single one of their beliefs and such a scenario scares them. Therefore, they avoid that scenario by never changing any of their initial beliefs, including those surrounding the validity of AGW, regardless of what type of new information may be available since coming to their original conclusion.
Those individuals falling into categories 1 and 3 can still change their minds as long as the elements influencing their decision outside of the evidence are properly addressed within the confines of the argument for AGW. Unfortunately those within category 2 have already decided upon which side of the line to stand regardless of what the evidence reports.
Q: OK suppose global warming is being caused by humans; what can I do, I’m just one person?
A: True, you are just one person and regardless of what some in the environmental movement would like to believe, you really cannot make a difference by yourself. However, just because you cannot solve the problem by yourself, does not mean that you should not make practical and intelligent decisions to help the environment. There are some very easy things that you can do to not only reduce the amount of greenhouse gases you emit into the atmosphere, but also save a significant amount of money.
Most notably if you own your own home or are planning on living in your current home for at least another five years, investments in energy efficiency are definitely worthwhile. For example getting a professional to evaluate points of heat loss in your home will provide the appropriate information relating to what efficiency improvements will be most effective and save you the most money in the long-term. Typically most homes are under-insulated and adding loft and/or wall cavity insulation will significantly reduce heat loss saving energy and money. Also windows with double-glazing will reduce heat loss and can be relatively inexpensive. Any appliances older than six years can be replaced with Energy Star certified appliances, especially dishwashers, refrigerators and washers/dryers. Finally even if the prospect of going through the process of adding solar panels to the roof may not be your liking, the addition of a solar power hot water heater can still be practical, relatively inexpensive and useful.
With regards to transportation, the old motto of ‘don’t drive when you can walk or ride’ should be followed whenever possible. Unless your motor vehicle is over a decade old, replacing it with a new more fuel efficient model may not be prudent for another year or two when the fate and popularity of 100% electric vehicles is better understood. Finally although said many a time it should be repeated, when you have to drive see if you and others in your family or friends can effectively combine tasks and only take one vehicle instead of multiples.
The following blog post identifies some useful websites that will provide more detailed information:
http://bastionofreason.blogspot.com/2009/09/energy-efficiency-individual-deployment.html
Q: I will definitely look into those things, but if government action is required, what should the government do?
A: Encouraging certain government action is easy in a general sense and difficult in a specific sense. For example one of the most important things to reduce carbon emissions is to place an additional price on carbon. However, the complicated part of issue is what is the best way to accomplish such a price. Methods for attaching this carbon price have culminated into support for either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. Both have strengths and weaknesses, although not surprisingly supporters tend to avoid the weaknesses of their preferred method. Although such a topic demands more in-depth analysis than will be provided in this answer, in short a carbon tax is theoretically more economically efficient and expedient in its execution, but unlike the cap-and-trade system does not generate guaranteed cuts in emissions.
Diversifying alternative/trace emission energy choices is another important government action. At the moment most of the construction of trace emission energy is focused on wind power. Unfortunately there could be significant problems with wind power down the line due to dropping wind speeds ironically as a result of global warming as well as the simple fact that wind power will never provide enough energy by itself. Thus, the government also must encourage investment in solar power (which is progressing very nicely in theory and planning, but going almost nowhere so far in reality), geothermal power (a new geological survey would be beneficial) and biomass to ensure a balanced power grid that does not rely on burning significant amount of fossil fuels.
Nuclear power is a sticky wicket in that it has polarized supporters and opponents a lot like AGW. Both sides seem to agree that when talking rationally meeting future energy requirements without new nuclear power plants will be difficult, but is the cost of their construction worth it? Currently most price estimates for new nuclear power plants paint a picture of unnecessary expense for the benefit derived from their construction. However, those price estimates only involve 2nd generation nuclear plants. Overall it is rational to anticipate that 3rd and 4th generation nuclear power plants would provide much lower cost reality over the long run; however, whether or not research and development will establish a viable long-term nuclear plant beyond 2nd generation remains to be seen.
Another important action is to generate a more streamlined and efficient procedure to approve or deny (on legitimate grounds) new power line construction plans. Most of the trace-emission energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. have their origins away from dense populations, largely because they require lots of land for construction. Therefore, new transmission lines will be required to ensure that electricity travels efficiently from source to consumer. Unfortunately transmission line construction is a tricky business when constructing between states. Thus an updated system that hastens approval or denial will be effective to ensure more rapid construction and problem identification reducing waste and expense.
Finally the government needs to pass a general federal standard for building efficiency (basically establish a national building energy code). The amount of energy lost through powering buildings just due to their inherent inefficiencies is remarkable. Mixed cost structures and a wide variety of state building codes have lead to a hodgepodge of building requirements creating inefficiency and waste. Creating a standard for current and new buildings would prove to be an important step in increasing overall energy efficiency as a nation and reducing the amount of electricity that needs to be generated from trace emission sources when replacing fossil fuel based sources.
Of course there is still more that the government can do, but most of the important stuff has been mentioned in the above paragraphs.
Q: Thank you for the breakdown regarding global warming, why action has yet to be taken and what actions would be useful. If I want to learn more about the science behind global warming where would I go?
A: It is true that this Q and A was light on the citations largely because there are many sites available that do a high-quality job summarizing the scientific specifics behind global warming and reprinting large swathes of that information here was unnecessary. Also how enjoyable of a conversation would it have been if you were inundated with citations all over the place? It is reassuring that you are interested in expanding your understanding. Good places to start would be:
Union of Concerned Scientists Website:
http://www.ucsusa.org
Union of Concerned Scientists FAQ regarding Global Warming:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html
Skeptical Science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The Copenhagen Diagnosis (PDF):
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration:
http://www.noaa.gov/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Also there are a number of posts on this blog that could be helpful to better understanding global warming, its consequences and what to do about it.
A: Global warming is largely derived from the science surrounding the Greenhouse Effect. The Greenhouse Effect operates in the following manner. When sunlight enters the Earth’s atmosphere it eventually strikes some portion of the Earth’s surface. When making contact with the Earth’s surface it is either absorbed or reflected back into space. Note that the term ‘reflected’ is not technically correct, but is an effective way of separating the different scales of what happens to the energy from sunlight when making contact with the surface.
The reflected energy attempts to return to outer space through the Earth’s atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation, but can be deterred by molecular obstacles, most notably greenhouse gases. If these molecules absorb the returning radiation it excites the molecules causing them to collide with other molecules and release that energy. Unfortunately that energy release is not one-directional (i.e. surface to atmosphere), but in all direction including back down to the surface. This redirection of reflected surface radiation results in a greater level of energy retention and thus a warmer temperature. The higher the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, the higher the probability that reflected energy is returned to the surface and the higher the resultant temperature increase in the atmosphere. Note that the above explanation is just a quick overview of the Greenhouse Effect the overall physics involved are much more specific and complicated.
Overall the issue surrounding global warming is not in the science itself; to reject the Greenhouse Effect is akin to suggesting that 2 + 2 = 1,000,000, but instead the issue is in the question of whether or not human action, largely involving the combustion of fossil fuels, is the principle reason behind the acute temperature increases in recent decades. Those who believe human action is the driving force behind the current warming trend typically refer to the warming as anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Q: So what are the known greenhouse gases?
A: In order of their perceived influence –
Water Vapor (H2O);
Carbon Dioxide (CO2);
Methane (CH4);
Ozone (O3);
Nitrous oxide (N2O);
Black carbon (black soot);
Hydrofluorocarbons (HCF)/Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC);
Q: How can humans be significantly influencing the climate patterns of the Earth when there are so many factors involved and the carbon cycle operates on a much larger scale than the CO2 emitted by humans?
A: There are two important factors to consider when addressing this question. First, although the natural carbon cycle is considerably larger than what human activity emits, the issue is that the carbon cycle is not adding a significant new CO2 concentration to the environment. Over 99% of the new CO2 that is being added to the environment is derived from human activity. Although this addition is small relative to the total amount in the carbon cycle the climate is delicate enough that the addition of CO2 without the appropriate counter-balance (the ability to remove CO2 from the environment) a rapid change in climate can easily result.
Think of it this way imagine a snowball narrowly balancing on the top of a cliff with steep hills on both sides. There are opposing, but equal forces pushing on the snowball. Because the forces are equal the snowball does not move; however, add a force to one side, even if it is a small force relative to the pre-existing forces, and the snowball will begin tumbling down one side of the cliff because the drop-off point is so close to the original starting point of the snowball.
Second, the speed at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere is much faster than more natural changes that have occurred in the past. Some like to make the statement that some number of years ago CO2 concentrations were much higher than they are now, which is true; however, it took a lot longer to move from one concentration point to another during that time period relative to the speed of the current concentration change now. That time delay gave the environment an opportunity to slowly adapt reducing potential damage.
Overall although the carbon cycle may be much larger, it is a dynamic, but generally stable cycle that operates over a much slower time frame than the CO2 that is being emitted into the atmosphere by human activities. The issue is not size, but speed and change, both of which are being primarily driven by the actions of humans and not through natural processes.
Q: What are the consequences of global warming?
A: Overall the immediate specifics of any consequences are difficult to accurately specify due to the complex nature of the climate. Basically it is difficult to accurately state with an real level of confidence that due to global warming region x will receive 45% less rain versus the average year a decade ago. However, general statements regarding predictive climate patterns can be made. For example one of the most important consequences is an increase in average global sea levels due to an increased rate and amount of melting of glaciers and sea ice. Such a sea level increase will threaten many coastal cities throughout the world and also pose a legitimate threat to bury a number of island nations underwater.
Also an increase in ocean acidity will be a significant problem leading to a reduction in the biodiversity of the ocean. This reduction in oceanic biodiversity will impact multiple food chains including the amount of fish and other sea life that humans will be able to catch, sell and consume. Overall increasing ocean acidity represents the greatest short-term threat to mass species extinction brought on as a direct cause of global warming.
Third, the increase in average global temperatures and change in precipitation patterns (largely rain) will increase the total stress on drinkable water supplies. Current precipitation patterns seem to be shifting in an extreme manner. Basically wet regions (regions that receive lots of rain) will receive even more rain and dry regions will receive even less rain. Unfortunately such a result is not favorable for either side because more rain will increase the chance of events like flash floods and mud slides and less rain will length droughts and possible famines.
There are other significant consequences such as permafrost melting, possible ocean out-gassing, new cloud synthesis or disappearance at different altitudes, latitude shift in certain animal populations and migratory patterns and many more, but the purpose of this discussion is not to list all of the potential detrimental consequences.
Also on a side note although some claim that there will be benefits to global warming such as more rapid and robust plant growth due to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is true, any benefits derived from global warming will be buried under all of the negative consequences making the benefits moot. Also those benefits only function under a certain temperature window, once global temperatures exceed that window then they become detriments instead of benefits.
Q: Why are individuals who do not believe in AGW labeled as ‘deniers’ or worse by the environmental community? Isn’t such action unproductive and pretentious?
A: In the scope of a debate it rarely is a good idea to apply a negative label to your opponent from a logical standpoint. However, the term ‘denier’ has its origins in simple frustration by those that believe global warming has a principle human driver over a natural or unknown driver. These individuals believe that there is more than enough evidence to prove AGW beyond a reasonable doubt and that those who do not acknowledge this reality are ‘denying’ reality. Although the use of such a label is unfortunately, the important thing to acknowledge is that the individuals being labeled as ‘deniers’ have done little to disprove such a label.
In science it is very difficult to prove something beyond any doubt (100% guarantee) because humans typically lack all available knowledge about a given subject and have observational and measurement tools with inherent error. Therefore, scientists work hard to identify the most probable solution to correspond with the information available. Similar to the legal system, science looks to devise theories that explain concepts and observations beyond a ‘reasonable’ doubt, not beyond any doubt. One can be skeptical if it is believed that certain assumptions or calculations that comprise a theory are both in error and sufficiently important enough to the theory. However, if one of these conditions is not met, then it is inappropriate to reject the hypothesized solution unless one can devise a theory that better explains the available data.
The group labeled as ‘deniers’ has yet to find peer-reviewed empirical evidence that is not significantly flawed to support the contention that there is another cause beyond human activities, which explains the increasing temperatures over the last 3 decades. Also the errors that have been suggested in empirical evidence that support AGW have not been identified as critically important to the AGW theory itself. Therefore, nothing exists to counter the claims made by those that support AGW outside of small unimportant portions of the overwhelming evidence that support AGW.
Another reason for such labeling is that in modern society the best way to get attention for a particular message, be it positive or negative attention, is to create sound bite worthy labels. The label ‘individuals that do not believe in anthropogenic global warming’ does not have the same emotional bite as ‘denier’. Others also use these tactics such as the label ‘spend thrift liberal’ instead of ‘individual that is thought to believe in the power of government over the marketplace and expends inordinate amounts of money on government programs to promote economic and social growth’.
Unfortunately the world has drifted more towards emotional arguments than logical arguments, thus labels are used more often to categorize certain viewpoints. Overall although inherently unnecessary, the use of the label ‘denier’ should have no influence on whether or not an individual accepts AGW. For example does it make sense for Person A to reject the premise offered by Person B of 2 + 2 = 4 solely because Person B called Person A an idiot in a prior interaction? Of course not.
Q: What about those flaws in the IPCC report or those climate emails that the media talked so much about? Don’t they disprove AGW?
A: No. As mentioned above neither of those incidents nor anything else that opponents of AGW cite weakens the overall empirical evidence that support AGW. The climate emails can be viewed as damaging before realizing that they are taken out of context and that they do not change the published information available on AGW. The emails simply demonstrate researcher frustration and semantics. Any accusations of collusion between climate scientists are irrational due to the lack of money that would be generated from such collusion. Despite what some opponents say, climate science is not a lucrative profession regardless of whether or not global warming was perceived as a legitimate threat. Also climate scientists do not get into climate science for monetary gain.
The IPCC flaws have nothing to do with whether or not AGW exists, but instead focus on the extent and rate of damage that can be expected in the future due to progressing climate change and global warming. Again the best argument opponents of AGW can make regarding the IPCC flaws is that prediction of certain events in the future was incorrect, but the general nature of the core damage that will occur is not affected by these errors. Also it must be understood that a vast majority of the information contained in the reports produced by the IPCC is mutually exclusive. That is one predictive error does not statistically influence another prediction. Thus even if a predictive error is made, it does not invalidate other predictions, so a small number of errors cannot invalidate separate conclusions derived from the report. Basically if one would think of the IPCC report as a sweater and the current errors as a loose string, pulling on the string does not unravel the sweater, but instead just removes a loose string.
Overall empirical evidence clearly demonstrates a warming climate, both through glacial ice and permafrost melting at a much faster rate than normal and increasing surface air and ocean temperatures derived from satellite measurements, regardless of what any emails say or any errors in the most recent IPCC report.
Q: If global warming means the Earth is getting warmer how come during the winter snow is falling in places that have not gotten or gotten very little snow in the past?
A: The main reason for the occurrence of such events is that although average global temperatures are increasing, the influence of global warming is not isolated to temperature. Due to the breach in balance that has characterized the climate for thousands of years the probability of occurrence of certain weather events has changed. Basically in a climate system influenced by global warming certain weather has a higher or lower probability of occurrence at certain places due to changes derived from a response to the higher temperatures. For example due to global warming it may rain more in one region of a country, but rain less in another region versus historical data. In short global warming increases the probability for and intensity of more extreme weather events, be it floods or droughts, thus it is more probable for the State of Georgia to have a winter blizzard versus three decades ago.
Q: There is so much information out there, especially among blogs. How do I know if someone is lying to me, is just stating an opinion or actually knows the stuff?
A. The simplest way is to look for any citations or mentions of any papers. If none exist and statements do not seem to make sense or come to exotic conclusions then such statements can be dismissed. If citations were made then it would be prudent to check the information (abstracts of each of the papers, etc.) to ensure that the author is interpreting the general results correctly. Another option is to email one of the authors of a cited paper with the link of the blog post and simply ask if the blogger is interpreting the information properly.
Q: If all of the empirical evidence suggests AGW as the principle cause for climate change why do people still reject AGW?
A: Good question. There are three principle reasons why with the current available empirical evidence one would still be skeptical of AGW. First, an individual does not have the experience to effectively analyze the available evidence and come to a firm conclusion regarding the validity of AGW. Unfortunately without this experience these individuals tend to turn to others to fill in the blanks and most of those individuals do so improperly either due to a lack of understanding themselves or purposeful deceit due to personal motives. The problem with this situation is that most of the people who fill in the blanks are television, radio or other media personalities and not climate scientists because these media personalities have a greater opportunity to present their opinion. Clearly the probability that these media personalities misunderstand/manipulate the available information is higher than a climate scientist and is demonstrated on almost a daily basis.
Second, some individuals do not believe that it is in their and/or their country’s best interest for the public to acknowledge AGW, regardless of whether or not they do so in private. These individuals believe that a government issued price on carbon, elimination of fossil fuel subsidies and other strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions hurt their own interests. For these individuals the total amount of evidence supporting AGW is meaningless. These individuals work to support a political and scientific environment of, at best confusion, and at worst outright dishonesty to reduce the probability that governments act to stem the threat of AGW.
Third, some people realize that they should change their viewpoint and acknowledge the threat of AGW, but unfortunately these individuals have not separated their personal judgments and beliefs from each other. Basically these individuals believe that if questioning their initial opinion of denying the validity of AGW leads to a change in that opinion, then they will have to challenge every single one of their beliefs and such a scenario scares them. Therefore, they avoid that scenario by never changing any of their initial beliefs, including those surrounding the validity of AGW, regardless of what type of new information may be available since coming to their original conclusion.
Those individuals falling into categories 1 and 3 can still change their minds as long as the elements influencing their decision outside of the evidence are properly addressed within the confines of the argument for AGW. Unfortunately those within category 2 have already decided upon which side of the line to stand regardless of what the evidence reports.
Q: OK suppose global warming is being caused by humans; what can I do, I’m just one person?
A: True, you are just one person and regardless of what some in the environmental movement would like to believe, you really cannot make a difference by yourself. However, just because you cannot solve the problem by yourself, does not mean that you should not make practical and intelligent decisions to help the environment. There are some very easy things that you can do to not only reduce the amount of greenhouse gases you emit into the atmosphere, but also save a significant amount of money.
Most notably if you own your own home or are planning on living in your current home for at least another five years, investments in energy efficiency are definitely worthwhile. For example getting a professional to evaluate points of heat loss in your home will provide the appropriate information relating to what efficiency improvements will be most effective and save you the most money in the long-term. Typically most homes are under-insulated and adding loft and/or wall cavity insulation will significantly reduce heat loss saving energy and money. Also windows with double-glazing will reduce heat loss and can be relatively inexpensive. Any appliances older than six years can be replaced with Energy Star certified appliances, especially dishwashers, refrigerators and washers/dryers. Finally even if the prospect of going through the process of adding solar panels to the roof may not be your liking, the addition of a solar power hot water heater can still be practical, relatively inexpensive and useful.
With regards to transportation, the old motto of ‘don’t drive when you can walk or ride’ should be followed whenever possible. Unless your motor vehicle is over a decade old, replacing it with a new more fuel efficient model may not be prudent for another year or two when the fate and popularity of 100% electric vehicles is better understood. Finally although said many a time it should be repeated, when you have to drive see if you and others in your family or friends can effectively combine tasks and only take one vehicle instead of multiples.
The following blog post identifies some useful websites that will provide more detailed information:
http://bastionofreason.blogspot.com/2009/09/energy-efficiency-individual-deployment.html
Q: I will definitely look into those things, but if government action is required, what should the government do?
A: Encouraging certain government action is easy in a general sense and difficult in a specific sense. For example one of the most important things to reduce carbon emissions is to place an additional price on carbon. However, the complicated part of issue is what is the best way to accomplish such a price. Methods for attaching this carbon price have culminated into support for either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. Both have strengths and weaknesses, although not surprisingly supporters tend to avoid the weaknesses of their preferred method. Although such a topic demands more in-depth analysis than will be provided in this answer, in short a carbon tax is theoretically more economically efficient and expedient in its execution, but unlike the cap-and-trade system does not generate guaranteed cuts in emissions.
Diversifying alternative/trace emission energy choices is another important government action. At the moment most of the construction of trace emission energy is focused on wind power. Unfortunately there could be significant problems with wind power down the line due to dropping wind speeds ironically as a result of global warming as well as the simple fact that wind power will never provide enough energy by itself. Thus, the government also must encourage investment in solar power (which is progressing very nicely in theory and planning, but going almost nowhere so far in reality), geothermal power (a new geological survey would be beneficial) and biomass to ensure a balanced power grid that does not rely on burning significant amount of fossil fuels.
Nuclear power is a sticky wicket in that it has polarized supporters and opponents a lot like AGW. Both sides seem to agree that when talking rationally meeting future energy requirements without new nuclear power plants will be difficult, but is the cost of their construction worth it? Currently most price estimates for new nuclear power plants paint a picture of unnecessary expense for the benefit derived from their construction. However, those price estimates only involve 2nd generation nuclear plants. Overall it is rational to anticipate that 3rd and 4th generation nuclear power plants would provide much lower cost reality over the long run; however, whether or not research and development will establish a viable long-term nuclear plant beyond 2nd generation remains to be seen.
Another important action is to generate a more streamlined and efficient procedure to approve or deny (on legitimate grounds) new power line construction plans. Most of the trace-emission energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. have their origins away from dense populations, largely because they require lots of land for construction. Therefore, new transmission lines will be required to ensure that electricity travels efficiently from source to consumer. Unfortunately transmission line construction is a tricky business when constructing between states. Thus an updated system that hastens approval or denial will be effective to ensure more rapid construction and problem identification reducing waste and expense.
Finally the government needs to pass a general federal standard for building efficiency (basically establish a national building energy code). The amount of energy lost through powering buildings just due to their inherent inefficiencies is remarkable. Mixed cost structures and a wide variety of state building codes have lead to a hodgepodge of building requirements creating inefficiency and waste. Creating a standard for current and new buildings would prove to be an important step in increasing overall energy efficiency as a nation and reducing the amount of electricity that needs to be generated from trace emission sources when replacing fossil fuel based sources.
Of course there is still more that the government can do, but most of the important stuff has been mentioned in the above paragraphs.
Q: Thank you for the breakdown regarding global warming, why action has yet to be taken and what actions would be useful. If I want to learn more about the science behind global warming where would I go?
A: It is true that this Q and A was light on the citations largely because there are many sites available that do a high-quality job summarizing the scientific specifics behind global warming and reprinting large swathes of that information here was unnecessary. Also how enjoyable of a conversation would it have been if you were inundated with citations all over the place? It is reassuring that you are interested in expanding your understanding. Good places to start would be:
Union of Concerned Scientists Website:
http://www.ucsusa.org
Union of Concerned Scientists FAQ regarding Global Warming:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html
Skeptical Science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The Copenhagen Diagnosis (PDF):
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration:
http://www.noaa.gov/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Also there are a number of posts on this blog that could be helpful to better understanding global warming, its consequences and what to do about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)