MaxedOutMama
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Science vs. environmental religion
Before spending huge amounts of money to generate a negligible effect (such as would occur if we tried to conform to the Kyoto Treaty), we might want to figure out the science. Right now we are throwing darts, while blindfolded, at an imagined target we'll call the "stability zone". There is growing evidence that some of our attempts to control our effect on the climate via pollution may have generated effects opposite to those desired.
The first thing we have to remember is that the earth's climate has never been stable - it has been oscillating through cooling and warming cycles as far back as we can measure. And these were BIG swings. Very significant swings have been observed in historic times. In the last thousand years, the earth has been much cooler than it is now and warmer than it is now, by temperature ranges much higher than those experienced over the last century or anticipated over the next century. Why is this fact important? Because we can't eliminate man's effect on the climate, so we are attempting to mitigate it - yet we don't understand either the climate system without us in the equation or the effect we are having on the equation. It is, however, almost certainly possible to figure it out if we direct the money to hard-core scientific research. That's where we should be spending our dollars.
Here are some intriguing tidbits:
NASA on insect control and greenhouse gases.
"Scientists also have found outbreaks of plant-eating insects may be linked with periodic droughts and heat waves in North America, which can trigger large seasonal losses of carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere." Potter added.
Note: Most greenhouse gases are generated naturally, not by man. Lowering CO2 in the atmosphere is the target of the Kyoto Treaty, but it will be almost totally ineffective, even if everyone met their goal.
Global cooling, not global warming? The Vostok analysis has shown that greenhouse gases seem to increase after a temperature rise, not before:
Russian scientists have analyzed changes occurred within the past 5, 20, and 100 thousand years and established that each warming is associated with the same behaviour of greenhouse gases: temperature rises firstly, and the concentration of greenhouse gases begins to increase later, with a lag of several thousand years. The growth of gases concentration is faster than that of temperature and soon outruns the latter. With a turn from warming to the next phase of cooling, the concentration of greenhouse gases inertially grows for a while. Then their concentration begins to decrease, which soon gets faster than the temperature decrease. This tendency progresses until glaciation phase that closes each climatic cycle.
Another climate protocol which worked - one that most of us have never heard of:
Researchers suggest that reductions of trace gases may allow stabilization of climate so that additional global warming would be less than 1° C, a level needed to maintain global coastlines. Although carbon dioxide emissions, an inherent product of fossil fuel use, must also be slowed, the required carbon dioxide reduction is much more feasible if trace gases decrease.
and:
The Montreal Protocol has been very effective in reducing emissions of gases that destroy stratospheric ozone. Developed and developing countries have worked together harmoniously in this process, with the World Bank providing support for participation of developing countries.
"Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG), and slowdown of its emissions must have priority. It will be a growing issue in international relations for decades, if not longer," says Dr. Hansen. "However, that does not necessarily mean that 'Kyoto' is the best way to address the trace gases. 'Kyoto' gives too little or no weight to gases such as methane, the trace gas HFC-134a, ozone and the precursor gases that form ozone. We could get moving now on non-carbon dioxide gases with benefits such as improved human health, in addition to a slowing of global warming. The resulting international good will might also make discussions about carbon dioxide more productive."
But, BE CAREFUL - we may inadvertently cause global warming by limiting some trace gases in our effort to prevent it:
Climate researchers are warning that efforts to reduce air pollution could, if not well designed, make global warming worse. Limiting emissions of manmade nitrogen oxides, a strategy to control ozone in the lower atmosphere, would result in increased methane abundance and lead to additional greenhouse warming.
Nitrogen oxides, commonly abbreviated NOx, are shorthand for the combination of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NO plus NO2) that are produced by aircraft and automobile emissions, in biomass burning, and by some industrial processes, as well as by such natural events as lightning.
In cleaning up emissions, did we inadvertently disrupt a natural cooling effect from air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels? Probably:
Most evidence that increased levels of fossil fuel particles (aerosols) affects the reflectivity of clouds, thereby producing a cooling effect on the climate, has been indirect. "This made it difficult to determine the impact this phenomena, known as the indirect aerosol effect, has on the global climate," Penner said. "Our data makes the direct connection and opens new areas of study."
"This study is important for two reasons," Penner said. "First, it provides evidence that there is some cooling of the climate due to anthropogenic aerosols. Second, the simulation model we used has been shown to be a valuable tool in determining more directly the impact of aerosols on the climate."
Note: This is an utterly intriguing observation, because we know that the practice of brush-burning seems to extend back over 10,000 years in human history. Were we setting fires large enough to change the climate? It may be that we were changing the climate in the Stone Age and before. Brush-burning, for instance, was a technique used by Australian aborigines.
The first thing we have to remember is that the earth's climate has never been stable - it has been oscillating through cooling and warming cycles as far back as we can measure. And these were BIG swings. Very significant swings have been observed in historic times. In the last thousand years, the earth has been much cooler than it is now and warmer than it is now, by temperature ranges much higher than those experienced over the last century or anticipated over the next century. Why is this fact important? Because we can't eliminate man's effect on the climate, so we are attempting to mitigate it - yet we don't understand either the climate system without us in the equation or the effect we are having on the equation. It is, however, almost certainly possible to figure it out if we direct the money to hard-core scientific research. That's where we should be spending our dollars.
Here are some intriguing tidbits:
NASA on insect control and greenhouse gases.
"Scientists also have found outbreaks of plant-eating insects may be linked with periodic droughts and heat waves in North America, which can trigger large seasonal losses of carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere." Potter added.
Note: Most greenhouse gases are generated naturally, not by man. Lowering CO2 in the atmosphere is the target of the Kyoto Treaty, but it will be almost totally ineffective, even if everyone met their goal.
Global cooling, not global warming? The Vostok analysis has shown that greenhouse gases seem to increase after a temperature rise, not before:
Russian scientists have analyzed changes occurred within the past 5, 20, and 100 thousand years and established that each warming is associated with the same behaviour of greenhouse gases: temperature rises firstly, and the concentration of greenhouse gases begins to increase later, with a lag of several thousand years. The growth of gases concentration is faster than that of temperature and soon outruns the latter. With a turn from warming to the next phase of cooling, the concentration of greenhouse gases inertially grows for a while. Then their concentration begins to decrease, which soon gets faster than the temperature decrease. This tendency progresses until glaciation phase that closes each climatic cycle.
Another climate protocol which worked - one that most of us have never heard of:
Researchers suggest that reductions of trace gases may allow stabilization of climate so that additional global warming would be less than 1° C, a level needed to maintain global coastlines. Although carbon dioxide emissions, an inherent product of fossil fuel use, must also be slowed, the required carbon dioxide reduction is much more feasible if trace gases decrease.
and:
The Montreal Protocol has been very effective in reducing emissions of gases that destroy stratospheric ozone. Developed and developing countries have worked together harmoniously in this process, with the World Bank providing support for participation of developing countries.
"Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG), and slowdown of its emissions must have priority. It will be a growing issue in international relations for decades, if not longer," says Dr. Hansen. "However, that does not necessarily mean that 'Kyoto' is the best way to address the trace gases. 'Kyoto' gives too little or no weight to gases such as methane, the trace gas HFC-134a, ozone and the precursor gases that form ozone. We could get moving now on non-carbon dioxide gases with benefits such as improved human health, in addition to a slowing of global warming. The resulting international good will might also make discussions about carbon dioxide more productive."
But, BE CAREFUL - we may inadvertently cause global warming by limiting some trace gases in our effort to prevent it:
Climate researchers are warning that efforts to reduce air pollution could, if not well designed, make global warming worse. Limiting emissions of manmade nitrogen oxides, a strategy to control ozone in the lower atmosphere, would result in increased methane abundance and lead to additional greenhouse warming.
Nitrogen oxides, commonly abbreviated NOx, are shorthand for the combination of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NO plus NO2) that are produced by aircraft and automobile emissions, in biomass burning, and by some industrial processes, as well as by such natural events as lightning.
In cleaning up emissions, did we inadvertently disrupt a natural cooling effect from air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels? Probably:
Most evidence that increased levels of fossil fuel particles (aerosols) affects the reflectivity of clouds, thereby producing a cooling effect on the climate, has been indirect. "This made it difficult to determine the impact this phenomena, known as the indirect aerosol effect, has on the global climate," Penner said. "Our data makes the direct connection and opens new areas of study."
"This study is important for two reasons," Penner said. "First, it provides evidence that there is some cooling of the climate due to anthropogenic aerosols. Second, the simulation model we used has been shown to be a valuable tool in determining more directly the impact of aerosols on the climate."
Note: This is an utterly intriguing observation, because we know that the practice of brush-burning seems to extend back over 10,000 years in human history. Were we setting fires large enough to change the climate? It may be that we were changing the climate in the Stone Age and before. Brush-burning, for instance, was a technique used by Australian aborigines.
