The cold truth about climate change

[RedEarth]

The cold truth about climate change
Deniers continue to insist there's no consensus on global warming. Well, there's not. There's well-tested science and real-world observations.
By Joseph Romm

Feb. 27, 2008 | The more I write about global warming, the more I realize I share some things in common with the doubters and deniers who populate the blogosphere and the conservative movement. Like them, I am dubious about the process used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to write its reports. Like them, I am skeptical of the so-called consensus on climate science as reflected in the IPCC reports. Like them, I disagree with people who say "the science is settled." But that's where the agreement ends.

The science isn't settled -- it's unsettling, and getting more so every year as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.

The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact.

.........

The result, as a number of studies have shown, is that the sensitivity of the world's climate to human emissions of greenhouse gases is no doubt much higher than the sensitivity used in most IPCC models. NASA's Hansen argued in a paper last year that the climate ultimately has twice the sensitivity used in IPCC models.

The bottom line is that recent observations and research make clear the planet almost certainly faces a greater and more imminent threat than is laid out in the IPCC reports. That's why climate scientists are so desperate. That's why they keep begging for immediate action.



http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/print.html

[bbinacan]

1. So which is it?

Global warming or climate change? Which is it? I've grown tired of the fear mongering that reminds me of the terror fears. The world has just seen a large drop in temps that pretty much erases the data suggesting warming. So should I prepare to build an igloo or a nice airy patio to live on?

Maybe I should wait for a spike in Sunspots. Maybe we are reentering a mini ice age that lasted from the 1300s to about 1850. Maybe I should just slit my wrists. Good Grief!

[mihalevich]

3. It's global warming

and when the globe warms the climate changes. Trust the scientist, they are the experts. I would go with the patio.

[greenman3610]

5. these are bullshit skeptic talking points, and you are uninformed on the issue

I would recommend http://www.skepticalscience.com
to remedy that.


I think you can apply the Rush Limbaugh test to
this. If Rush says it, its bullshit.

[bbinacan]

7. And yet Arctic Ice has grown

from 10-20 cm in thickness. I'm sorry, I just think that what man does is small in proportion to the planet's and the sun's cyclical machinations. Yes we need to conserve, get off fossil fuels, and find alternative energy.

To bridge this gap, I'm proud to say I left the investment consulting business to do land acquisition for infrastructure. Right now, I'm working on an NGL line that will transport energy that taps into the Barnett Shale area of Texas. It's estimated that there are 39 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This is very clean fuel with virtually no green house consequences.

Edit to add: With the recent drop in temps, we have reverted to the mean. So 100 years of averages have been corrected in one year. Too much generalizing on both sides?

[kristopher]

10. What Arctic ice has increased thickness?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3199710

[bbinacan]

13. Here you go

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

[losthills]

19. Cool..... Green Gas!

We're saved!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. "very clean fuel with virtually no green house consequences" - what miracle compound is it?

Obviously not methane, which, when burned, produces carbon dioxide (and is a greenhouse gas itself, if any of it leaks unburnt). That's what's in normal natural gas. But yours is an amazing new discovery with "virtually no green house consequences". Such a scientific breakthrough should be worth a Nobel prize. Please enlighten us - your name needs to be sent to Sweden quickly!

[hatrack]

11. Maybe you should enjoy a piping hot mug of STFU while enjoying Glenn Beck's latest pile of cat logs

Maybe you should hide your ignorance, instead of shouting it from the digital rooftops, as you might were a sense of shame involved.

[bbinacan]

15. I will not stoop to your level of serious discourse

Yes that was sarcasm. When one attacks with foul language and name calling and invokes Beck, I know you have lost the argument. All hat and no cattle. Address my argument and don't take the coward's way out by linking to a DU discussion. I'd greatly appreciate it if you addressed me directly.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. And when one resorts to personal attacks on Hatrack on E/E...

...we know exactly how seriously to take you. Post some science to say the ice is thicker, or have some marshmallows in your mug of STFU.

Hint: What you thought a Canadian weatherman said isn't science.

[bbinacan]

24. Do you have a link

to the source of this graph? The graph you provided looks to me like ice coverage has increased. Am I reading the graph incorrectly? And please note, I refrained from the nasty comments.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. You did indeed...

Try http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu for these and other data: Follow the "Cryosphere today" link for that particular chart, but the others are well worth a look. A discussion (or at least, running commentary) on it is here: Still not sure if the notch at the end is an artefact or a weird event, but since most of the ice up there is now thin, seasonal ice I think it's going to be long wet summer either way...
And still some open water over 80 degrees North. That's fucked up.

I'd also recommend the AMSR-E imagery from Bremen University at http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html

[bbinacan]

30. Thanks for the link. n/t

[kestrel91316]

28. This may come as a surprise to you, but ice DOES increase in the Arctic

DURING THE ARCTIC WINTER. This does not in any way refute overall global warming. It's a very predictable SEASONAL change.

[mihalevich]

2. Yes, IPCC

Is very careful not to over state the problem. The real science gets closer, but is still conservative. I've read that the Arctic will be ice free (summer) by 2013 not 2080.

[pscot]

4. In the February Discover magazine there is a photo

of a young woman, a climate researcher, burning snow. She's laughing, as though she has done something rather clever. The text reveals that the source of the flame is methane. There is a suggestion that methane could help replace oil, since there are 55 billion tons of the stuff locked up in Siberia's perma-frost. A less begnign prospect, that of enormous methane firestorms raging across the tundra, is not mentioned. And yet I worry.

[kristopher]

6. Permian-Triassic Extinction Event

The largest mass extinction event (95% of land ans sea species went extinct) ever is believed to be intricately related to the methane hydrates sequestered on the ocean floor by low temperatures and high pressure. The theory is that there was an extraordinary period of volcanic activity that released massive quantities of greenhouse gases. This caused warming of the surface and oceans (earth's heat sink). About half of the terrestrial species went extinct, then the methane hydrates were released by the warmed ocean. This very rapidly caused extinction of aquatic life and caused more surface warming that resulted in the extinction of most of the rest of the terrestrial species.

We don't know the at what point this process will occur. We do know the oceans are doing their job and soaking up most of the excess heat that is being trapped with by the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by our greenhouse gas emissions.


The quantity locked up in the permafrost is a literally a drop in a very large bucket that is full of the stuff.

[bbinacan]

8. Are you sure it was 55 billion tons?

Gas is usually gauged in cubic feet.

[mihalevich]

9. In the atmosphere they often use tons

We have put over 36 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

[bbinacan]

12. Yes, but when the gas

is underground, it's measured in cubic feet. Once in the atmosphere, it is still a gas. Before it reaches the atmosphere it will be refined and burned. 36 billion tons is a non event. Hell, the dinosaurs probably farted more gas then that.

[pscot]

14. It's not underground

At low temperatures methane and water form a crystaline structure that can hold huge amounts of methane. This methane ice is stable as long as temperatures in the permafrost stay low. The methane is produced by decaying plants and animals beneath the ice. There are also vast amounts of the stuff beneath the sea bed. AS the oceans warm these methane clathrates dissolve, releasing the gas.

[bbinacan]

16. Thanks for the education,

we need to figure out how to harvest this. Very clean fuel.

[pscot]

17. Did I mention

that methane is also a Highly efficient greenhouse gas? If you really want to educate yourself, read Fred Pearce's book, With Speed and Violence. It'll make your hair stand on end.

[Nihil]

21. You obviously need it

From your posts:
> we need to figure out how to harvest this. Very clean fuel.
+
> This is very clean fuel with virtually no green house consequences.
=
bbinacan has no clue about the environmental impact of methane.

Hint: It is NOT good.

[mihalevich]

18. Gases have weight

There is literally 36 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere that we put there. Do you have any evidence on the solar cycles? I have never seen any evidence of that. Everyone needs to know the science behind global warming. Wiki good link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[izquierdista]

22. Chemistry tutorial

I can't help it, the ignorance on this thread is overwhelming. Grab a notepad children and Dr. Izq will cover a few points you should learn (or re-learn) before you continue posting.

1) All gases obey some type of equation of state which relates pressure, volume, temperature and mass. The simplest of these is the Ideal Gas Law, PV=nRT (P=pressure; V=volume; n= number of moles, R=Gas Constant, and T= Temperature (in degrees Kelvin).

It's important to note that these are valid for GASES. When methane is dissolved in water, or present in a geologic formation, other equations of state have to be used. You can't measure gas in cubic feet until it comes to the surface and is in the gas phase. Measuring it in tons (a mass unit) gets away from having to specify P and T as you would if you measured it in cubic feet (a volume measurement).

2) It is possible for gases to be supersaturated in a liquid or solid media. Think of CO2 in a soda bottle. Much of the methane in swampy tundra and in clathrates in the ocean is in this unstable state and some triggering event could cause a release of said methane into the atmosphere.

There was an event in Africa a few years back (in Cameroon, I believe) where a lake that was supersaturated with CO2 released it in a catastrophic manner. Many people and animals living close to the lake suffocated when the CO2 displaced the O2 in the area.

3) Methane (CH4) is worse as a greenhouse gas because it is a tetrahedral molecule whereas CO2 is a linear molecule. This means that methane has many more molecular vibration modes than CO2 and is MUCH more efficient in turning infrared energy into heat.

Methane that is trapped either in the ocean or in a geological formation ADDS to the greenhouse gas problem when it is mined and burned. It is equivalent to coal or oil, because it was sequestered carbon that is now being released. Methane that comes from degradation of biomass on the surface of the earth is different, in that it is part of the continuous cycling of carbon between the biosphere and the atmosphere. The goal of using biomass is to increase this cycling, thereby reducing the need to dig up carbon that has been sequestered out of the biosphere.

If anyone has any other questions about atmospheric chemistry, post them and I will continue the tutorial.

[bbinacan]

23. Very interesting tutorial,

so what's the SHORT TERM and the LONG TERM solution?

[izquierdista]

26. Solutions

Long Term: Reverse the process of extracting sequestered carbon and putting it into the atmosphere. This means a planetary scale promotion of plant growth on the order of turning Australia and the Sahara back into a fertile green grasslands or getting the tropical oceans to be as abundant in algae as the temperate oceans. To those who blanch at the thought of planetary scale engineering on the order of Star Trek, it's too late. Since the Industrial Revolution began, man has been engineering the atmosphere, slowly but surely stepping up the CO2 concentration more than nature left to its own can absorb. That change was an unintended consequence, but the solution has to be a thought out plan that involves large changes to the earth's natural systems.

Short term: Realize that fossil fuels were a one time gift to mankind to make a leap to a higher state of development. Don't ignore the problem and blow that chance. Develop the technology that will have to be in place once extracting fossil fuels is no longer possible: biofuels, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc.

There might even be a place for nuclear IF all the issues with spent fuel and wastes can be worked out. We don't want to get into a situation with nuclear where careless emissions of radionuclides over the next two or three centuries leads to a buildup in the background radiation akin to the buildup we have caused with CO2. At least there are natural mechanisms to sequester CO2; with radioisotopes, it would be much, much worse. I have thought for a while that if nuclear power is necessary, build the nuke plants in abandoned mines deep within the earth, with a long extension cord to the surface. That way, when something goes wrong, just cut the cord and fill in the hole.

[mihalevich]

29. what about SO2

Have you noticed the cooling trend in the 1960s and early 1970s. That was before the clean air act which reduced SO2 emissions. SO2 whitens clouds, and thus increasing albedo. We have the fix, but not for ocean chemistry and the likely sulfuric acid rain that this would produce. Scientist don't want to talk about this, because they realize we would still need to reduce CO2 emissions. If the public knew we had a way to cool the plant, they would not care about reducing GHGs.

[izquierdista]

31. Second order effect

Oxides of sulfur are less important than CO2 simply because there isn't as much of them. If you look at the amount of sulfur that cycles through the biosphere, it is much less than the amount of carbon. Sulfur is present in a couple of amino acids, but carbon is an essential component of all of them.

If you are implying that massive releases of SO2 would cool the planet, maybe so, but as you point out, the side effects are intolerable.