Comments dobermanmacleod has made

A moritorium on coal is unfeasible: get realistic

The world's emissions of the main planet-warming gas carbon dioxide will rise over 50 percent to more than 42 billion tonnes per year from 2005 to 2030 as China leads a rise in burning coal, the U.S. government forecast on Wednesday. China's coal demand will rise 3.2 percent annually from 2005 to 2030, the Energy Information Administration said in its International Energy Outlook 2008. --Reuters, 26 June 2008

China has one of the largest coal reserves in the world, and coal accounts for 67% of its primary energy use, compared with 24% for the world average. China is currently bringing two additional coal-fired power plants to the electric power grid every week. In a hypothetical scenario in which carbon intensity keeps pace with a GDP growth rate of 7%, by 2030, China would be emitting as much as the world as a whole is today (8 GtC/year) --Ning Zeng et al., Science, 8 February 2008

"Contrary to the conventional wisdom that China is outpacing the rest of the world in building coal plants, the International Energy Agency has projected that between 2011 and 2020 the OECD (most of Europe plus the  U.S.), with 150 million fewer people than China, will build 10 percent more coal capacity than China (184 GW for the OECD vs. 168 GW for China)." --"Schwarzenegger's folly," Gristmill, 16 Oct 2008

Building new coal-power plants in Germany means the country will miss government targets to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, the environmental ministry said, countering earlier claims by Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel.   --Jeremy van Loon, Bloomberg, 17 October 2008

"Chief engineer Aleksandr Marinich believes that coal could reduce Ukraine's energy dependence on neighbouring Russia. Ukraine, he reasons, does not have Russia's oil and gas wealth. But it does have coal. "Why," he asks rhetorically, "should I wait for Vladimir Putin to turn off his gas supply in the New Year? We have billions of tons of [coal] reserves. Our main aim is energy independence."" --"Dicing with danger in Ukraine mines," BBC, 23 Dec 08

Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

There is a simple and cheap way to cool the Earth immediately: just add a little sun dimming aerosol to the upper atmosphere. "The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity..." -Lovelock, Aug08
On Authors of economic collapse advise us to stick with coal posted 9 months ago 25 Responses

Avoid apocalypse how?

"I no longer care much about the science of global warming. To me, the central question, and the one that few are willing to discuss in depth, is: Then what? Fossil fuels now provide about 85% of the world's total energy needs. Even more important is this corollary: Increasing energy consumption equals higher living standards. Always. Everywhere. Given that fact, how can we expect the people of the world -- all 6.6 billion of them -- to use less energy? The short answer: we can't. The developed countries of the world can talk forever about the virtues of solar panels and windmills, but what the energy-poor need most are common fuels like kerosene, propane, and gasoline" --Robert Bryce, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.  It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low - even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia."  --"The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change," WSJ

"Japan, like the European Union, hasn't let its failure so far to meet Kyoto emissions-reductions targets stop it from setting even more ambitious goals, like a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. But how to do that? If getting within shouting distance of Kyoto's targets could cost Japan $500 billion, how much would it cost to cut emissions twelve-fold more?" --Keith Johnson, WSJ, 19 March 2008

Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

"Expecting China and India to make massive emission cuts for little benefit puts the Copenhagen meeting on a sure path to being another lost opportunity." --Bjorn Lomborg, Taipei Times, 17 February 2009

There is a cheap and simple method of immediately cooling the Earth: just add a little sun dimming aerosol to the upper atmosphere.

"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008On Climate change is here and now and getting personal posted 9 months, 1 week ago 3 Responses

'Geoengineering is inevitable'

"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008

Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

There is a cheap and simple way to immediately cool down the Earth: just add a little sun dimming aerosol to the upper atmosphere.  By the way, rather than sulfate (like volcanos spew), an engineered sun dimming aerosol could be much more efficient (according to "The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering").

Furthermore, there is a practical mechanical method of remove CO2 from the ocean (ocean acidification is another effect of elevated levels of CO2 in the air):

"Researchers at Harvard University and Pennsylvania State University have invented a technology, inspired by nature, to reduce the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human emissions.  By electrochemically removing hydrochloric acid from the ocean and then neutralizing the acid by reaction with silicate (volcanic) rocks, the researchers say they can accelerate natural chemical weathering, permanently transferring CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean. Unlike other ocean sequestration processes, the new technology does not further acidify the ocean and may be beneficial to coral reefs. The innovative approach to tackling climate change is reported in the Nov. 7 issue of the journal Environmental Science and Technology..." --"Engineered weathering process could mitigate global warming," EurekAlert, 7 Nov '07

The Greens' resistance to geo-engineering sits very uncomfortably with its message that the planet is screwed and we're all going to die. It suggests that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in human aspirations. It suggests that they don't actually believe their own press releases, and that they know the situation is not as dire as they would like the rest of us to think it is. And that Environmentalists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces - "we'll save the planet our way or not at all." It suggests that Environmentalists regard science and engineering as the cause of problems, and not the solution. --Climate Resistance, Mar '08On Geoengineering is risky but likely inevitable, so we better start thinking it through posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 10 Responses

Political not scientific

I find this whole discussion about emission cuts to be politically unrealistic:

"Ultimately, responding to global warming is a political issue." --Lorrie Goldstein, Sun, 16 March 2008

"I know of no realistic person who thinks carbon dioxide emissions are going to do anything but grow. Most European countries are not meeting their emissions goals, and of the ones that have, it's because their economies are collapsing. In the United States, this notion that we're going to reduce our emissions by 80 percent is pure fantasy." --Pete Geddes, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, 2 April 2008

"By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.  It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low - even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. "  --"The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change," WSJ

Furthermore, any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

In other words, it is doubtful that even the unrealistic cuts US President Obama committed to support in the campaign will significantly slow global warming.

"What I learned in the past few years is that politicians often adopt convenient policies that can be shown to be inconsistent with long-term success, given readily available scientific data and empirical information on policy impacts." --Dr Jim Hansen, NASA

"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008

"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008

For instance, there is a simple and cheap way to cool the Earth immediately: just add a little sun dimming aerosol into the upper atmosphere:

"The Panel (on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming) calculated that adding stratospheric aerosol dust to the stratosphere would cost just pennies per ton of CO2 mitigated."  --"The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering"On We need to cut emissions faster than 80 percent by 2050, but how fast? posted 10 months ago 39 Responses

How about white roads and parking lots too?

I thought of starting a company that painted asphalt parking lots and roads white, but the idea is ahead of it's time.On White roofs are the trillion-dollar solution posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Responses

A note to Chu

Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

By the way:

"Contrary to the conventional wisdom that China is outpacing the rest of the world in building coal plants, the International Energy Agency has projected that between 2011 and 2020 the OECD (most of Europe plus the  U.S.), with 150 million fewer people than China, will build 10 percent more coal capacity than China (184 GW for the OECD vs. 168 GW for China)." --"Schwarzenegger's folly," Gristmill, 16 Oct 2008

China is aiming to increase its coal production by about 30 percent by 2015 to meet its energy needs, the government has announced, in a move likely to fuel concerns over global warming. Beijing plans to increase annual output to more than 3.3 billion tonnes by 2015, said Hu Cunzhi, chief planner of the land and resources ministry, said on Wednesday. --AFP, 9 January 2009

Finally:

"We underestimated the risks ... we underestimated the damage associated with temperature increases ... and we underestimated the probabilities of temperature increases."  -- Sir Nicholas Stern, author of "The Stern Report," April 17, 2008

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07

If this material interests you, I can be reached at dobermantmacleod@aol.com

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."  -- Albert Einstein On Steven Chu's stances on key energy issues: a primer for his confirmation hearing posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 5 Responses

I have a short constructive question

When I encounter global warming deniers (there are plenty, and they are SURE they are correct), I always say politely that "time will tell."

My question is: at what time would anti-geoengineering forces agree to that carbon dieting is a failed strategy, and we need to employ a geoengineering scheme (whatever that is)?On Desperate enough to contemplate geo-engineering posted 11 months, 1 week ago 22 Responses

Two new suggestions

How about Dr Craig Venter (geneticist)?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/craig-venter-fuel ...

Geneticist Craig Venter Wants to Create Fuel from CO2

"Craig Venter is an interesting person. He seems to always be at the cutting edge of biotechnology: In 2001, he made headlines for sequencing the human genome. In 2003, he started mapping the ocean's biodiversity. Now he, with his firm Synthetic Genomics, is working on ways to produce energy with micro-organisms.

Still as ambitious as ever, he just announced at the TED conference: "We have modest goals of replacing the whole petrochemical industry and becoming a major source of energy, we think we will have fourth-generation fuels in about 18 months, with CO2 as the fuel stock." What's this fourth-generation fuel he's talking about? Biofuel alternatives to oil are third-generation. The next step is life forms that feed on CO2 and give off fuel such as methane gas as waste, according to Venter.

His team is using synthetic chromosomes to modify organisms that already exist, not making new life, he said. Organisms already exist that produce octane, but not in amounts needed to be a fuel supply. The genetics of octane-producing organisms can be tinkered with to increase the amount of CO2 they eat and octane they excrete, according to Venter."

Or Mark Goldes (CEO of Magnetic Power Inc.)

http://www.magneticpowerinc.com/summary.html

Magnetic Power Inc. Executive Summary
Energy Independence and a Powerful Economic Stimulus are on the Horizon

"MPI is developing breakthrough energy technologies. Based upon proprietary discoveries and a series of prototypes constructed in MPI's labs, motors and generators are being designed that operate continuously, without fuel, extracting electricity by converting an abundant, renewable, extremely dense, energy source that has never before been commercialized. The process will create no pollution. Variations will provide a permanent power supply that can recharge, and eventually replace, the need for batteries of all sizes. The cost of electricity from these technologies promises to be less than any competing form of power generation."

Both Craig Venter (turning CO2 into fuel biologically that for instance promise feasible clean coal) and Mark Goldes (producing solid state power generators that for instance promise clean self-charging batteries) are heros for thinking outside the box and promising us a solution for global warming (dare I say none of the other nominees on the above list meet that criteria).On Vote for the top eco-hero of 2008 posted 11 months, 1 week ago 22 Responses

'The alternative to geo-engineering is mass death'

"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008

"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008

"The Greens' resistance to geo-engineering sits very uncomfortably with its message that the planet is screwed and we're all going to die. It suggests that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in human aspirations. It suggests that they don't actually believe their own press releases, and that they know the situation is not as dire as they would like the rest of us to think it is. And that Environmentalists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces - "we'll save the planet our way or not at all." It suggests that Environmentalists regard science and engineering as the cause of problems, and not the solution." --Climate Resistance, 24 March 2008

"Recently some have begun to advocate engineered climate selection as a fallback or insurance policy, in case their preferred regulatory decarbonization approach does not solve the problem or an unforeseen event occurs that requires a rapid response. A more prudent and efficient strategy would appear to be to implement engineered climate selection first and then see what further needs to be done." --Alan Carlin, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, June 2007On Desperate enough to contemplate geo-engineering posted 11 months, 1 week ago 22 Responses

Methane emissions will soon overwhelm any cuts!

Current climate models don't take into consideration melting methane hydrate emissions, which will soon overwhelm any cuts we make:

For instance, there is an area six times the size of Germany containing about 540 billion tons of carbon off the Siberian coast. That submarine permafrost is perilously close to thawing. Three to 12 kilometers from the coast the sea sediment is just below freezing.  The permafrost has grown porous, there is a loss of rigor in the frozen sea floor, and the surrounding seawater is highly oversaturated with solute methane.

"If the Siberian (submarine) permafrost-seal thaws completely and all the stored gas escapes, the methane content of the planet's atmosphere would increase twelve fold. The result would be catastrophic global warming."  --"A Storehouse of Greenhouse Gases Is Opening in Siberia," Spiegel, 17 April '08

Thirty percent of the Earth's surface is land.  Twenty percent of the land is permafrost. There is over a trillion tons of carbon frozen and buried in the land permafrost.  More than half the land covered by the topmost layer of permafrost will probably thaw by 2050.

NASA's top climate scientist, James Hansen, says that the release of methane clathrates from permafrost regions and beneath the seabed will unleash powerful feedback forces that could produce runaway climate change that cannot be controlled - the so-called methane time bomb - a prediction of radical environmental transformation far worse than the worst-case scenarios theorised by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008

"Recently some have begun to advocate engineered climate selection as a fallback or insurance policy, in case their preferred regulatory decarbonization approach does not solve the problem or an unforeseen event occurs that requires a rapid response. A more prudent and efficient strategy would appear to be to implement engineered climate selection first and then see what further needs to be done." --Alan Carlin, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, June 2007On NASA: Another brutally hot year for the Siberian tundra posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

A second wake up call on coal

The use of coal in UK electricity production supplied to households, business and factories was up 10.1 per cent on the equivalent period in 2007, while the use of natural gas fell sharply against the backdrop of higher energy prices, government figures released on Thursday show. --Point Carbon, 28 August 2008

The world has limitless supplies of coal, most located in nations friendly to the West. But coal is an abomination in the eyes of environmentalists because of its alleged contribution to global warming. Nevertheless, it will be a key ingredient in the world's energy future: India and China between them have 700 plants planned or under construction; the Government has sensibly authorised a new plant in Kent; and European countries plan to build 50 new coal stations in the next five years. --Irwin Stelzer, The Daily Telegraph, 6 August 2008

"A dramatic warning that "all is lost on global warming" unless the world finds a new clean coal technology in the next few years has been made by the UK energy minister, Malcolm Wicks...World demand for coal is projected to rise by 70% by 2030, an average annual rate of 2.2%, and the bulk of the rise will come from India and China. "China is a nation built on coal, so the idea that if we showed some kind of lead and we in Britain say no to coal and China will say 'OK we will follow' is just daft."  --"Wicks: All is lost on global warming without clean coal," The Guardian, 8 Aug, '08

Abu Dhabi (largest of the seven UAE emirates) has announced that it will switch to coal-fired power plants. Dubai (the second largest) is already building four of them - with a combined output of 4,000 megawatts - as a first-phase investment in coal. Apart from the United Arab Emirates, Oman (widely regarded as "the next Dubai") has signed a contract with South Korea for the construction of several coal-fired plants. Beyond the Gulf, Egypt proposes to build its first coal-fired plant on the shores of the Red Sea. Russia has announced plans to build more than 30 coal-fired plants by 2011. --Neil Reynolds, The Globe and Mail, 18 July 2008

You know I could continue citing these type of quotes all day.  Frankly, if you don't "get it" now, then I give up.On Placing coal reserves into trust status would be a nice gift to our kids' future posted 1 year ago 6 Responses

A US moritorium on new coal is insufficient

Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

But:

Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."On EPA board freezes construction of new coal-fired power plants in U.S. posted 1 year ago 15 Responses

Doubtful that any carbon dieting scheme will work

"Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system -- and that of our response -- make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will (work). What is needed is a fundamental cure." --Dr James Lovelock, New York Times, 1 October 2007

"Way too little and way too late," runs the refrain, followed by the claim that nothing less than an 80% reduction in emissions by the year 2050 will suffice - what I call the "80 by 50" target. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed it. John McCain is not far behind, calling for a 65% reduction...By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.  It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low - even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia."  --"The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change," WSJ

"I know of no realistic person who thinks carbon dioxide emissions are going to do anything but grow. Most European countries are not meeting their emissions goals, and of the ones that have, it's because their economies are collapsing. In the United States, this notion that we're going to reduce our emissions by 80 percent is pure fantasy." --Pete Geddes, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, 2 April 2008

I would like to announce the arrival of a clean, cheap, abundant, and portable form of energy production that will make burning fossil fuel obsolete.  Wind a solenoidal coil around a magnet, and apply electricity.  The magnetic field is amplified, and the magnetic gradient can be exploited to yield more electricity than was used powering the solenoidal coil.  A private California company called Magnetic Power Inc ( www.magneticpowerinc.com ) exceeded breakeven (i.e. produced more electricity than it used) with a prototype in late 2004.  They plan to introduce their solid state power generator onto the market next year.  By the way, I'm NOT associated with MPI.On What I would like to say in the New York Times posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

Sorry to double post, but...

I thought you might find the following insightful (and hopeful minimize the feeling from the first post that I was a nut job):

"Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash! -- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference." --David Roberts, The Nation, 24 February 2008

"The pro-carbon lobby is looking for gaps in climate science the way creationists are questioning Darwinian evolution. These people are no "skeptics". Real skepticism, inherent in science, makes no prior assumptions and is evidence based. The view of the atmosphere as a legitimate open sewer for human-generated carbon gases, makes the prior assumption no anthropogenic global warming takes place, then proceeds to look for errors, real or imaginary, in climate science." --Dr Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleoclimate scientist, Australian National University

I make it a point never to argue with a drunk (or a person with diminished judgment)  --Brad Arnold, author of this posting

P.S.

Without clean coal, any carbon dieting scheme is doomed:

Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

Greens frequently underestimate the cost of carbon dieting:

"Japan, like the European Union, hasn't let its failure so far to meet Kyoto emissions-reductions targets stop it from setting even more ambitious goals, like a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. But how to do that? If getting within shouting distance of Kyoto's targets could cost Japan $500 billion, how much would it cost to cut emissions twelve-fold more?" --Keith Johnson, WSJ, 19 March 2008

I could go on like this all day.  Without that solid state power generator by MPI it is very unlikely we will avoid either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming.  The global warming deniers just add insult to injury.On 'Global warming comes from within'--Is heat at the Earth's core the real cause of global warming? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

It won't matter soon

Frankly, I don't blame you for being skeptical, but there is a revolutionary new clean cheap abundant and portable energy source that will be on the market soon:

Wind a solenoidal coil around a magnet, and apply electricity.  The magnetic field is amplified, and the magnetic gradient can be exploited to yield more electricity than was used powering the solenoidal coil.  A private California company called Magnetic Power Inc ( www.magneticpowerinc.com ) exceeded breakeven (i.e. produced more electricity than it used) with a prototype in late 2004.

In my opinion, this is very like legimate, and I am not prone to magical thinking.  I strong suggest you listen to the first 15 minutes of the radio interview with the Chairman of MPI posted on their website.  By the way, I'm not associated with the company, but believe it is very unlikely mankind will cut emissions so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming will be avoided without these solid state power generator. On How the new European carbon standard could backfire posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

A new paradigm in clean energy production

I would like to announce the arrival of a clean, cheap, abundant, and portable form of energy production that will make burning fossil fuel obsolete.

The German physicist Heinrich Freidrich Lenz stated in 1833 the direction of an electromagnetically-induced current (generated by moving a magnet near a wire or by moving a wire in a magnetic field) will be such as to oppose the motion producing it.

Today, most of our electricity is produced by "electromagnetic induction," where a magnet is moved in and out of a coil of wire in a closed circuit.

In other words, we now have to power the motion of either the magnet or the wire to produce electricity.
Instead, wind a solenoidal coil around a magnet, and apply electricity.  The magnetic field is amplified, and the magnetic gradient can be exploited to yield more electricity than was used powering the solenoidal coil.

In other words, we avoid having to power the motion of either the magnet or the wire, and can instead have a solid state power generator.

It has been reported that previous attempts to commercially exploit this simple principle failed.  Not because such solid state power generators failed to produce a net gain in electricity production, but because the source of the net gain in electricity couldn't be explained.

A private California company called Magnetic Power Inc ( www.magneticpowerinc.com ) exceeded breakeven (i.e. produced more electricity than it used) with a prototype in late 2004.  Here is an abstract of their patent application:

US Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0163971 A1

Solid State Electric Generator

A solid-state electrical generator includes at least one permanent magnet, magnetically coupled to a ferromagnetic core provided with at least one hole penetrating its volume; the hole(s) and magnet(s) being placed such that the hole(s) penetrating the ferromagnetic core's volume intercept flux from the permanent magnet(s) coupled into the ferromagnetic core.  A first wire coil is wound around the ferromagnetic core for the purpose of moving the coupled permanent magnet flux within the ferromagnetic core.  A second wire is routed through the hole(s) penetrating the volume of the ferromagnetic core, for the purpose of intercepting this moving magnetic flux, thereby inducing an output electromotive force along wire(s) passing through the hole(s) in the ferromagnetic core.  The mechanical action of an electrical generator is thereby synthesized without use of moving parts.

I strongly suggest you listen to the first 15 minutes of the radio interview with Chairman Goldes posted on the MPI website.  Soon burning fossil fuel for energy will be obsolete, and replaced with a clean, cheap, abundant, and portable form of energy production.On CARB shoots down the 'economy vs. environment' myth ... again posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Follow up

"...Researchers were investigating "alarming" reports in the last few days of the release of methane from long frozen Arctic waters, possibly from the warming of the sea..." --"Arctic sea ice drops to 2nd lowest level on record," AP, 27 Aug '08

I would like to call your attention to an area off shore from Siberia six times the size of Germany containing about 540 billion tons of carbon. That submarine permafrost is perilously close to thawing. Three to 12 kilometers from the coast the sea sediment is just below freezing. The permafrost has grown porous, there is a loss of rigor in the frozen sea floor, and the surrounding seawater is highly oversaturated with solute methane.

"If the Siberian (submarine) permafrost-seal thaws completely and all the stored gas escapes, the methane content of the planet's atmosphere would increase twelve fold. The result would be catastrophic global warming." --"A Storehouse of Greenhouse Gases Is Opening in Siberia," Spiegel, 17 April '08

How could you be so stupid as to assume that the vulnerable submarine methane hydrate was stable and won't melt for hundreds of years.  I am ashamed of the ossification in the scientific community. On Methane hydrates: What's the worst -- and best -- that could happen? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Complex systems

Complex systems (like our climate), when forced (like by elevated levels of greenhouse gas in the air causing increased accumulation of heat), tend to initially resist change, then when they pass a tipping point, abruptly change to a new stable state.

"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds. As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored. We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)

In other words, the complex system that is our climate is moving to a new stable hot state.  Soon, due to the rapid rate of warming, ecosystem will rapidly collapse (i.e. abrupt climate change):

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07

There is a very inexpensive simple way to immediately cool the Earth: just put a small amount of aerosol into the air to dim the sun. We won't be able to stop abrupt climate change (i.e. rapid ecosystem collapse) without geoengineering.On Greenland can warm 2-4°C in one year posted 1 year, 4 months ago 2 Responses

Economics, policy, vision be d@mned-feasibility!!!

Without clean coal, avoiding abrupt climate change or runaway global warming by cutting emissions is unfeasible:

"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

But:

Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

"Way too little and way too late," runs the refrain, followed by the claim that nothing less than an 80% reduction in emissions by the year 2050 will suffice - what I call the "80 by 50" target. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed it. John McCain is not far behind, calling for a 65% reduction...By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.  It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low - even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia."  --"The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change," WSJ

"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008.

There is a very inexpensive simple way to immediately cool the Earth: just put a small amount of aerosol into the air to dim the sun. We won't be able to stop rapid ecosystem collapse without geoengineering.On Economics, policy, and vision for fighting global warming posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses

Iraq was going to pay for their own reconstruction

Remember when supports of the Iraq invasion said that Iraq would be able to pay for their own reconstruction?  Now we have proponents of fast and drastic emission cuts saying that they will cost little or nothing:

"Japan, like the European Union, hasn't let its failure so far to meet Kyoto emissions-reductions targets stop it from setting even more ambitious goals, like a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. But how to do that? If getting within shouting distance of Kyoto's targets could cost Japan $500 billion, how much would it cost to cut emissions twelve-fold more?" --Keith Johnson, WSJ, 19 March 2008

Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."On Ten industry arguments against action on global warming ... and why they are wrong posted 1 year, 6 months ago 2 Responses

Too little, too late

It is amazing to me that Congress would legislate emission cuts that are not only wildly expensive, but which also don't fix the problem.

As the Earth warms, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters (meaning natural greenhouse gas emissions will overwhelm any cuts we make-and also significantly diminish the amount of CO2 nature removes from the air each year!).  Furthermore, it is inevitable that developing countries will dramatically increase their emissions, also overwhelming any cuts we make (for instance, China is increasing their emissions at a rate equivalent to Germany's total emissions each year!).

"With the country in the grips of near-hysteria over soaring gasoline prices, Congress begins debate Monday on landmark climate legislation that critics say will substantially increase energy costs - and not produce any of the intended environmental benefits."  --Kenneth Stiier, CNBC News, 30 May 2008

"I know of no realistic person who thinks carbon dioxide emissions are going to do anything but grow. Most European countries are not meeting their emissions goals, and of the ones that have, it's because their economies are collapsing. In the United States, this notion that we're going to reduce our emissions by 80 percent is pure fantasy." --Pete Geddes, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, 2 April 2008

"Japan, like the European Union, hasn't let its failure so far to meet Kyoto emissions-reductions targets stop it from setting even more ambitious goals, like a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. But how to do that? If getting within shouting distance of Kyoto's targets could cost Japan $500 billion, how much would it cost to cut emissions twelve-fold more?" --Keith Johnson, WSJ, 19 March 2008

"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot."  --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008On Friends of the Earth not all that jazzed about Lieberman-Warner posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

People need to know that the climate changes

It is great to educate people about past climatic transitions and mass extinctions.  Too many people choose to believe that the climate will stay the same, because it significantly changing is outside their experience.

"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds. As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored. We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)

"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot."  --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008On A History Channel production on climate is worthwhile posted 1 year, 6 months ago 6 Responses

Latest news: methane level in 2007 soars!

Carbon dioxide, methane up sharply in 2007-US govt
Reuters, April 23, 2008

...The amount of methane increased by 0.5 percent, or 27 million tonnes, after nearly a decade of little or no change, according preliminary figures to scientists at the government's Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado...

The increase in methane emissions after years of little change may indicate that methane locked for thousands of years in frozen Arctic soil known as permafrost is being emitted into the atmosphere as the soil melts.  "What used to be in the deep freeze is now being taken out in the warming," Tans said.  It is also possible that the 2007 rise in methane emissions is due to some other cause. Methane emissions rose sharply between 1978 and 1998 and then leveled off.
On Methane hydrates: What's the worst -- and best -- that could happen? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 7 Responses

You don't understand-catastrophe is close

What isn't brought up in this article on methane hydrate (clathrate) is that a sizable amount is located in shallower ocean water vulnerable to small increases in temperature.  Furthermore, a "small amount" (about 400 billion tons, when a sudden release of less than 30 billion tons would be like doubling the CO2 level in the air) is located in permafrost, and half of the surface permafrost is expected to melt by 2050.

But, what is really important is the positive feedback loop, where a "small amount" of hydrate melts, releasing the methane (CH4 is about 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2), warming the climate, melting more hydrate, and so on.  What is really scary about this senario is we are already increasing greenhouse gas levels more than 30 times faster than the last severe global warming episode (which resulted in the PETM).

The idea that mankind could mine enough methane from hydrate to blunt the natural release when melted is preposterious.  Already there are reports of "explosions" offshore (when the methane emerges from the ocean, the water first parts, then collapses noisily), and rotten egg smell (that methane is thousands of years old and stinks like a natural gas leak).

Finally, you can read my blog at www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod for more information, but there is a cheap and simple method of immediately cooling the Earth and avoiding catastrophic warming: add a small amount of aerosol to the upper atmosphere to dim the sun a little.  Frankly, I doubt many people understand how bad how fast it will get without that geoengineering mitigation strategy.

As the Earth warms, carbon sinks (like methane hydrate, which contains more carbon than all the oil, coal, and natural gas) will become carbon emitters bigtime.  Furthermore, the Earth is expected to aborb 30% less CO2 by 2030.  So, any reasonable cuts we make in greenhouse gas emission will be overwhelmed by nature as we warm (and it takes 50 years for the CO2 already in the air to fully warm us, so we've incurred a very large warming committment already, with a whole lot more to come since we are dramatically increasing emissions now, not decreasing them).On Methane hydrates: What's the worst -- and best -- that could happen? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 7 Responses

Clean coal will not be soon technically feasible

There is a method of removing the CO2 from the air profitable, and a very inexpensive and simple method of mitigating warming until the excess CO2 is removed, but first:

If only 10% of the CO2 was removed from current coal emissions, it would be more volume than all the oil consumed in a year!  Furthermore, it is doubtful that the coal-fired plants now operating can be retrofitted to be clean.  Finally, coal is at least 1/3 the cost of any other energy source, and it is reliably available domestically.  A moritorium on dirty coal-fired power plant construction is politically unfeasible, and mankind is currently opening about 3 coal-fired plants a week.

Soon 4th generation fuel production will be technologically feasible, where CO2 from the air is biologically converted into fuel ( http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2008/week14/T ... ).  Furthermore, warming can be immediately reversed by dimming the sun slightly with a small amount of aerosol injected into the upper atmosphere.

In other words, CO2 in the air is a potential asset (fuel stock), and the warming it produces can be easily mitigated cheaply in the short run (  http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brad_arn_080408_t ... ).

"I no longer care much about the science of global warming. To me, the central question, and the one that few are willing to discuss in depth, is: Then what? Fossil fuels now provide about 85% of the world's total energy needs. Even more important is this corollary: Increasing energy consumption equals higher living standards. Always. Everywhere. Given that fact, how can we expect the people of the world -- all 6.6 billion of them -- to use less energy? The short answer: we can't. The developed countries of the world can talk forever about the virtues of solar panels and windmills, but what the energy-poor need most are common fuels like kerosene, propane, and gasoline" --Robert Bryce, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence

www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod  On Cheap clean coal now dirty, expensive posted 1 year, 7 months ago 9 Responses

Organism eats CO2, and produces fuel

Cutting emissions is ridiculous, because the CO2 will soon be used as fuel, and we can remove the CO2 from the air profitably.  Sound like science fiction?  Try science fact:

"Still as ambitious as ever, (Craig Venter) just announced at the TED conference: "We have modest goals of replacing the whole petrochemical industry and becoming a major source of energy, we think we will have fourth-generation fuels in about 18 months, with CO2 as the fuel stock." What's this fourth-generation fuel he's talking about? Biofuel alternatives to oil are third-generation.

The next step is life forms that feed on CO2 and give off fuel such as methane gas as waste, according to Venter."

- "Geneticist Craig Venter Wants to Create Fuel from CO2," TreeHugger.com

Naturally evolved organisms already exist that eat CO2 and excrete fuel, but the limiting factor is getting enough CO2 from the air.  Air is much less than 1% CO2 now.  The efficiency can be improved using genetic engineering, and a suicide gene added to assure the GMO couldn't live outside a lab.

Or,

Expensively cutting our emissions fast and drastically is ridiculous, because sulfate particles can be injected into the upper atmosphere, reducing the amount of solar radiation that strikes the Earth:

"The Panel (on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming) calculated that adding stratospheric aerosol dust to the stratosphere would cost just pennies per ton of CO2 mitigated."

-"The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering"

The total cost would be around 10 billion dollars a year, and using engineered particles could lower the cost 90%!

Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations requires a 60-80% cut in CO2 emissions worldwide, a wildly expensive prescription.  Ironically, CO2 in the air could be an asset.  Besides, there is a very inexpensive alternative mitigation strategy.

It is an unfeasible strategy to cut world-wide emissions so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming are avoided.

Besides, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters as it warms, not only significantly reducing the amount of CO2 nature removes from the air, but dramatically increasing the amount of natural greenhouse gas emissions that go into the air, overwhelming any cuts we make.

Now, I'll add another reason:  it is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous to make expensive emission cuts to remove a potential asset from the air.

Brad Arnold
www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod
On Climate change will make Ireland less green, says well-timed report posted 1 year, 8 months ago 2 Responses

The Warner-Lieberman bill is doable but useless

Read my blog at www.myspace.com for elaboration on the following:

We will have 3 watts of forcing by 2015, which means about a 2 C rise in temperature by 2040, even if the whole world cuts their greenhouse gas emissions to zero in ten years.

Furthermore, that isn't even including carbon sinks becoming carbon emitters, which will signficantly reduce the amount of CO2 nature removes from the air, and dramatically increase natural greenhouse gas emissions.

By the way, the Warner-Lieberman bill only cuts emissions 50% from 1990 levels by 2050.  Even if we were to do that (which is too little too late), China is increasing CO2 emissions each year as much as Germany's entire annual total.  By 2030, at the present growth rate, China will be polluting as much as the entire world is now (and don't forget about India, which is going down the same path as China).

According to Dr James Hansen of NASA, any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing CO2 from the air.  I suggest the low cost method of biosequestration. Cutting emissions and waiting for a damaged Earth to remove the excess CO2 from the air is a weak (and very expensive) mitigation strategy.

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Bagdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them. " Dr James Lovelock, Climate Change on a Living Earth On Bush administration quietly acknowledges climate plan is doable posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

What a waste!

It is very unlikely that mankind will cut their emissions so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming is avoided.  A rapidly growing population and world economy is expected to grow emissions.

Besides, US emissions would have to be cut much more than the Lieberman-Warner bill mandates because Asian countries with very low per capita carbon footprints are expected to rapidly increase their emissions regardless of any future Koyoto protocol.

Furthermore, soon climate change is expected to reduce resources available around the world to honor mandated drastic emission cut goals.

In other words, any money spent trying to rebuild our energy infrastructure will almost certainly be too little too late.

Instead, any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing some of the excess CO2 in the air.  I suggest the low cost method of biosequestration (see my blog at www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod for more information).  Otherwise, there exists a practical mechancial method of removing CO2 from sea water.

Soon a warming earth will cause carbon sinks to become carbon emitters, increasing natural emissions and overwhelming any feasible cuts we will make.  Unless a method is deployed to remove a significant amount of CO2 from the air, our climate will return to the hothouse state of 55 million years ago when most life died.

Instead, our legislators are trying to mandate unrealistic drastic emission cuts that will waste valuable resources that could be used to engineer and deploy a much less costly strategy that will have a far greater probability of success.On Boxer statement posted 1 year, 11 months ago 1 Response

Cutting emissions an unfeasible strategy

The climate is TWICE as sensitive to carbon in the air as current climate models assume, per Dr James Hansen of NASA.  Therefore, we passed the threshold of dangerous warming about four decades ago, and we need to remove that excess carbon from the air as soon as possible, not wait for a damaged earth to do it for us.

I suggest a low cost method called "biosequestration"-seed an extensively tested GMO into the ocean to remove tremendous quantities of carbon from the air, and put it back into the ground where it came from.

All ecosystems are quickly destroyed at 0.4 C/decade (per Leemans and Eickhout 2004).  The IPCC says the rate of warming is now 0.2 C/decade, caused by carbon put into the air decades ago (due to the time lag between emissions and temperature rise).  We've put alot more into the air since then, and when some ecosystems are quickly destroyed soon, it will result in abrupt climate change and a rapid lowering of the carrying capacity of the earth.

It is highly unlikely that a growing population rapidly developing its economies will cut their emissions so fast and so drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming will be avoided.  Any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing carbon from the air.

Read my blog at http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleodOn Photos of species threatened by climate change posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

Advocating an unfeasible scheme is as bad

Most people are still stuck on the paradigm of cutting human greenhouse gas emissions as THE scheme to beat global warming.

It is very unlikely that mankind will cut their greenhouse gas emissions so fast and drastically that abrupt climate change or runaway global warming will be avoided.

Rather than give you loads of reasons why, I suggest you read my blog at http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod and this quote from the Oct. 1st NY Times:

But getting billions of humans to make serious cuts in CO2 emissions anytime soon may be even less realistic politically. As Dr. Lovelock and Dr. Rapley write:

Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system -- and that of our response -- make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will restore the status quo. What is needed is a fundamental cure.

Is there any difference between Dr Lomberg (or S&N), and those who advocate an unfeasible scheme to beat global warming?  In my opinion, those who advocate cutting emissions as THE scheme will get the same result as Dr Lomberg's scheme (or S&N's).

I suggest the low cost method of removing the CO2 from the air called "biosequestration."  Dr Hansen of NASA says that any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing the excess carbon from the air.

I suggest seeding an extensively tested GMO into the ocean, to remove tremendous quantities of carbon from the air and add it to the earth (sea bottom) where it came from.On Authors of recent climate books tell us not to worry so much about global warming posted 2 years, 1 month ago 9 Responses

Ecosystem collapse

Even if every country in the world reduced their emissions to Koyoto levels (1990), I think it would be too late to avoid either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming:

Leemans and Eickhout (2004) found that ecosystem adaptive capacity decreases rapidly with an increasing rate of climate change.

If the rate should exceed 0.4 C/decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global average temperature today is increasing by 0.2 C/decade.

This incease is caused by greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere decades ago, due to the lag time between emission and temperature rise.

We have emitted nearly double the greenhouse gas since then, and are increasing our emissions at a rate of over 3% per year.

Therefore, in the next couple of decades we are facing the quick destruction of all the world's ecosystems, which will result in abrupt climate change (I suggest reading the Pentagon's alarming report on this subject).

Reference: Leemans og Eickhout, 2004, Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change, Global Environmental Change 14, 219-228.

Instead, the any feasible strategy for planetary rescue must include a method of removing the excess CO2 from the air.On After delaying action against climate change, Big Coal is now scheming to cash in posted 2 years, 2 months ago 1 Response

Why does it matter?

I'm having a hard time understanding why it matters what the masses think.  According to George Monbiot, we will have to cut our greenhouse gas emissions over 100% to avoid 1.5 to 1.7 C warming, and an ocean rise of 25 meters this century.

Furthermore, all eco-systems will rapidly collapse if the temperature rise is above .4 C/decade (according to Leeman and Eickhout 2004).  Our current warming (.2 C/decade) is from greenhouse gas put into the air decades before, which we've just about doubled, with ALOT more on the way.

As an analogy, does it matter if you know you have cancer, if the disease has progressed too far to treat?

The following is a quote I've been extensively citing:

"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds.  As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored.  We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves.  In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)

What I don't include is the sentence that followed:

"Once started, the move to a hot state is irreversible, and even if all the good intentions expressed at the Kyoto and Montreal meetings were executed immediately, they would not alter the outcome."

Rather than alarm people and con them into a too little too late attempt, maybe they should just be allowed to continue partying like it is close to midnight, because it is. On A new study gathers 20 years of public opinion about global warming posted 2 years, 3 months ago 5 Responses

A more immediate tipping point

NASA defines abrupt climate change as the inability of the earth's eco-systems to keep pace with rapid climate change.  In other words, it is predictable that soon, as the earth rapidly heats up from historically unprecidented increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, the eco-systems that maintain the carbon balance will go into death spirals, resulting in abrupt climate change.

Furthermore, as carbon sinks will become carbon emitters BIG TIME, it will also result in runaway global warming.

In my opinion, the IPCC severely underestimated the rate of ocean rise due to melting ice caps and glaciers, but still that will be a slow motion tipping point.  Instead, we should be very concerned about the carrying capacity of the earth abruptly dropping in the next couple of decades.

There are historical examples of more mild abrupt climate changes, and they resulted in famine, war, pestilence, and death (the Four Horsemen).  The difference is we now have a thousand times more people, and weapons of mass destruction.

Frankly, worrying about the ice caps and glaciers melting is rather naive, when the eco-systems that regulate the carbon budget are collapsing.  This is just like the false assumption that mankind will be able to so drastically cut their emissions so fast as to be able to avoid either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming.

Unless you find a cost effective way to start removing the excess CO2 from the air soon, it is all over.  The gigantic cost of completely rebuilding our energy infrastructure is predictably causing political gridlock.  Developing countries will continue to rapidly increase their emissions to "catch up" with developed countries.  Besides, nature will predictably reduce her ability to remove the CO2 from the air (a decline of 30% by 2030 has been forecast).

Yeah, go on believing that the tipping point to fear most is the rise of ocean levels-ha!  One faulty paradigm after another...perhaps mankind is too stupid to be sparred the approaching bottleneck?On And at what temperature Greenland's ice sheet will melt posted 2 years, 3 months ago 5 Responses

No, we want less CO2 in the air.

"...we know we want drastically reduced carbon emission, but the devil is in the details."

You are wrong.  We want lower trace greenhouse gas levels in the air.  You are conflating unlike things.

Nature now removes about half of mankind's CO2 emissions each year, but that is expected to reduce 30% by 2030.  Furthermore, a warming earth means carbon sinks will become carbon emitters, releasing tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases into the air.

If mankind drastically reduced carbon emissions (a less than likely achieved goal), it is still likely that nature will absorb much less of mankind's emissions, and nature will emit tremendous amounts of greenhouse gas too.

On the other hand, the goal should be to lower the level of excess CO2 in the air.  This might be achieved by drastically reduced carbon emissions (although I think it is unlikely, and therefore an unreasonable goal), or it could be achieved by extracting the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.

Biosequestration is a low cost, highly scalable, and technically feasible method of removing CO2 from the air.  I suggest improving nature's ability to extract the CO2 from the air, and seeding a GMO into the ocean.

In my opinion, you are wasting your time advocating the unreasonable goal of drastically reducing mankind's greenhouse gas emissions.  Developing nations will predictable continue to dramatically increase their emissions.  Plus, nature will be removing less, and emitting much more in the future.  Besides, the US is unlikely to make very expensive cuts when dramatic increases in emissions from developing countries erase them.

The first step to solving global warming is by changing your thinking, and stop advocating drastic unrealistic unlikely emissions cuts, and start advocating biosequestration to remove the CO2 from the air at low cost.On To act not to act posted 2 years, 5 months ago 20 Responses

Global warming and social justice

It is hard to equate global warming and social justice, because one is a catastrophe and the other is just an inconvience.  Perhaps when the carrying capacity of the earth drops dramatically, it will take people's minds off equality and on survivial.

Yeah, it must be hard to visualize what will happen when the climate rapidly goes south-the only thing to compare it to is that time the electricity went out for a couple of hours.  Oh well, buy a hybrid car and purchase electricity generated by windmills-then you are doing your part.

On the other hand, if you really visualized the catastrope that is about to occur due to rising greenhouse gas levels, you would do more to save billions of people's lives:

It is unrealistic that mankind will cut their greenhouse gas emissions so fast and so severely that runaway global warming will be avoided.

Instead, I suggest improving nature's ability to remove the CO2 from the air using genetic engineering-perhaps seeding a GMO into the seas.  Biosequestration is a low cost and technically feasible solution to global warming.

Or, you can continue to devote your attention to the subject of social justice and corporate greed.  Soon, that won't matter much anymore.On Who knew? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 70 Responses

Imagine there's no money...

Yeah, I'm still trying to visualize world peace.

Seriously, until people get it through their superstitious minds that developed countries cutting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by over 90% by 2050 (for a 50-50 chance at avoiding dangerous warming) is unrealistic, no serious discussion is possible on the subject.

I could quote you a bunch of numbers, but appearently "nothing turns people off like a bunch of numbers."  Instead, I'll use concrete images.  Imagine a WWII Concentration camp with the Nazi prisoners skin and bone starving, hollow eyes dully staring at you.  But, this group spreads out as far as the eyes can see-there is an ocean of eyes staring at you, blaming you for their pain and misery.

Why?  Because you could not imagine any solution but the unrealistic and weak mitigation strategy of cutting GHG emissions.  You couldn't advocate any other solution, because you thought any price was worth paying to stop what has caused this horror.  The problem is that the people who had to pay for the only "solution" you advocate refused, causing gridlock.  Because of your stubborn, inflexible, and foolish refusal to consider a realistic solution, those people are doomed to their pain, misery, and despair.

The only solution for global warming is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.  Nature has to be improved using genetic engineering-perhaps seeding a GMO into the ocean.  Imagine opening the gates of that Concentration camp and letting those tortured people out to enjoy the bountiful fruits of a healthy climate.  There is still time to get realistic. On Concrete images of a greener society posted 2 years, 6 months ago 27 Responses

It is OK to question the steep cuts you advocate!

I have personally published global warming articles, and had "trolls" write graffiti masked as comments.  Since the IPCC said there was over a 90% likehood that global warming was occurring, and mankind's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were the cause, it is irrational to dispute that fact.  You are totally correct to advocate censoring that.

On the other hand, the devil is in the details.  To blindly insist the only way to address global warming is to cut mankind's GHG emissions dramatically is fair game for dispute as far as I'm concerned.  The cuts you advocate are unreasonable.

The IPCC is calling for 80% GHG emission cuts from 2007 levels by 2050, to achieve a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous global warming.  Don't you see how unrealistic that is?

That means developed nations have to cut their GHG emissions over 90% because developing nations get a free pass until their per person emissions catch up to developed nations.

China's net growth in GHG emissions is more than three times the annual increase of all industrialized nations combined.  Their GDP growth rate is 11.1, and their energy intensive industries are growing at 20% per year.  Their electricity consumption rose is rising 15% yearly, and 60% is generated by burning coal in inefficient coal-fired generators.

China has offically declared they will not accept any binding limits on GHG emissions until at least 2050!  

Do you really think any sane US politican will commit our nation to over a 90% cut in GHG emissions by 2050, for only a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous warming, while China/India/developing nations continue their unrestrained GHG emission growth?

Instead, I suggest using genetic engineering to improve nature's ability to remove the CO2 from the air.  This is a low-cost, highly scalable, and technically feasible solution (per experts I've consulted).On Churchill, not Chamberlain posted 2 years, 6 months ago 58 Responses

A rise of 15C will probably not bring extinction

To be fair, if (when if business-as-usual) a runaway global warming chain reaction (melting the methane hydrate) is triggered by mankind's greenhouse gas emissions, then the carrying capacity of the earth will be greatly diminished, and mass extinctions will ensue.  BUT, just because existence on the surface of the world will be extremely difficult, it doesn't mean that mankind will all die.  It WILL mean that most people will die, and it also means that for the (relatively) small number left, life will be much more controlled and sparse.

Sometimes I think that a controlled and sparse life-style is more moral than the free-for-all that now takes place on the surface of the earth.  Then I think about the unimaginable misery and pain that will take place as the earth's carrying capacity shrinks, and billions of people slowly die, and all those people yet to born that won't be able to enjoy the life I enjoy, and it makes me want to redouble my efforts to sell a realistic solution to our policymakers.

Because we will surely suffer a bottleneck if people continue to insist upon the unrealistic srategy of stifling human emissions to avoid runaway global warming.  It is too little, too late.  The only solution is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.On Environmentalists need to fundamentally change their climate change strategy posted 2 years, 7 months ago 7 Responses

Unrealistic

How can anyone think that mankind will cut their greenhouse gas emissions so fast and so severely that runaway global warming and abrupt climate change will be avoided?  We are set to DOUBLE CO2 emission by mid-century, not cut them.  Nature's ability to aborb man's CO2 emissions will HALVE by mid-century.  Methane from melting permafrost and CO2 from forest/peat fires will dramatically increase.  WAKE UP!  You are advocating a weak mitigation strategy, not a solution.

The only solution is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.  Nature already does this but we are overwhelming her ability to cope. I suggest improving nature's ability to absorb CO2 with genetic engineering (perhaps seeding a genetically modified organism into the ocean).On Robert Redford chats about the new green programming on the Sundance Channel posted 2 years, 7 months ago 7 Responses

Has a political tipping point been reached?

Mr Redford declares that a political tipping point has been reached, and as evidence cites "There have been dozens of different climate-related bills introduced in recent months."

The CO2 level in the air is 380ppm, and it rose 2.6ppm last year.  None of those bills would significantly reduce the rate of CO2 increase.  Dr Hanson (NASA) has opinionated the tipping point is 450ppm, while some think it is 550ppm, or even 650ppm.

Mankind burns about 10 million tons of coal a day, and is putting about 70 million tons of CO2 into the air each day.  That is expected to increase dramatically in the next couple decades, while nature ability to remove the CO2 from the air is expected to decline dramatically (30% by 2030).

Frankly, I think Mr Redford is delusional.  Perhaps global warming has been more widely recognized as a threat, but there is no way that the political will exists to power the kind of economic and social revolution necessary to take the draconian steps that would avoid runaway global warming and abrupt climate change.On Robert Redford chats about the new green programming on the Sundance Channel posted 2 years, 7 months ago 7 Responses

A compromise

I have a compromise: let's do both!

Let's try to cut our greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible, and

Let's try to construct a GMO that improves nature's ability to remove CO2 from the air.

That way, when attempting to dramatically cut mankind's emissions falls flat on it's face (to no satisfaction of mine), we are ready to deploy the GMO.

Upps, I forgot, there isn't the time to do both, because by the time the idealists finally give up on the unrealistic notion that abrupt climate change and runaway global warming can be solved by emissions cuts, it will be too late to deploy the GMO and give it time to remove enough CO2 to prevent catastrophe.

Yeah, let's play chicken with those polluters, because they won't make draconian emissions cuts unless we use our climate as a hostage.  Even developing a GMO would take the pressure off them.

Of course the most elegant solution is to stop digging the hole, but that presupposes that stop digging is a realistic strategy.  You are advocating a revolutionary change in economics and sociology: are you willing to gamble the fate of civilization on that revolution taking place fast and dramatically?On The basic approach of the Bright Lines project posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

450ppm, not 350ppm (my mistake)

I am sorry, I should have said it is unrealistic that mankind will cut their CO2 emissions so fast and rapidly that we will not get above 450ppm (not 350ppm, because we are over 380ppm now).

By the way, the rate of CO2 increase in the air has been climbing very fast, and scientists are at a loss to explain why.  It went up 2.6ppm last year; if it only went up by that much in future years, we would have a little over 25 years.

Obviously, it will continue to climb at a faster rate, so we very likely have less than 20 years before it is 450ppm (and Dr Hansen conceeds that the upper limit may well be lower than 450ppm before abrupt climate change and runaway global warming is triggered).On The basic approach of the Bright Lines project posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

Great book review, but...

I too loved the Mars trilogy, and look forward to reading the Capital Code trilogy, but the facts are that mankind has invested BIG TIME in machines that burn fossil fuel.  In other words, the greenhouse gas committment to use those machines puts us past the tipping point.

I beg people to get past the paradigm of cutting mankind's greenhouse gas emissions (it ain't gonna happen in the short run, and they probably will continue to grow-not shrink bigtime-in the medium term), to the real solution of removing the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.

Nature already does this, but we are overwhelming her.  I suggest the biological solution of engineering, constructing, and releasing into the ocean a GMO.

I can imagine Senator Chase in "Sixty Days and Counting" trying to convince the citizens of the US to cut greenhouse gas emissions after they are experiencing the effects of global warming.  An economy harmed by rapid climate change, in demand of more energy for powering climate control, trying switch to a low emissions economy rapidly (when the effects of emitting less greenhouse gas won't be felt for a lifetime).  Yeah, that's the ticket!

Instead, after designing a GMO and seeding it into the ocean, the CO2 is removed cost free.  Nature already removes about half of mankind's CO2 emissions, but that is expected to reduce 30% by 2030, while mankind's emissions are expected to double around mid-century.On A review of Kim Stanley Robinson's Sixty Days and Counting posted 2 years, 7 months ago 3 Responses

It is much worse than you think

To understand what is about to happen, look toward Siberia (a land mass as big as Germany and France combined).  There the permafrost is beginning to melt, releasing tremendous quantities of trapped methane.  As the methane is emitted, the added warmth speeds up the rate of melt, in a vicious circle.  Already the methane level there is 30 times normal, and the temperature rise is 3C, the highest in the world.

Hydrate (ice with trapped methane) contains TWICE the carbon as all fossil fuels combined.  Unlike fossil fuels which emit greenhouse gas (GHG) when burned, hydrate releases GHG when it melts.

This hydrate has melted before with catastrophic results.  A trigger upsets the carbon budget, and a chain reaction of melting hydrate causes a vicious circle of runaway global warming.  Mankind's GHG emissions are much larger than past triggers to severe runaway global warming episodes, so we can expect the chain reaction to start much quicker, unfold much much faster, and therefore be much, much, much more severe.

The IPCC didn't include either melting hydrate or the vicious circle because Siberia is a relatively new development (but is unfolding rapidly, and proving what I've written above).  Mankind doesn't have decades to slowly get their GHG emissions under control, and thus probably will not be able to avoid triggering a severe runaway global warming episode that will kill most people by the end of the century.

The only hope is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.On Global warming is going to f*ck us all kinds of up posted 2 years, 8 months ago 8 Responses

Cutting emissions that much is unrealistic

In my opinion, it is unrealistic to expect a growing human population and developing economies to so dramatically cut their greenhouse gas emission so fast as to avoid abrupt climate change.

Instead, I suggest we remove the greenhouse gases from the environment after they are emitted.  Nature already removes about half of mankind's CO2 emissions (although that reduce 30% by 2030).  I suggest using biosequestration to improve nature's ability to soak up CO2 and CH4.On A new path forward for climate change campaigners posted 2 years, 9 months ago 11 Responses

Unfortunately, the extremist has is correct

I remember when cigarettes were being debated.  I guess the "extremists" were those who denied smoking was bad for health, and those who thought quitting was the answer.  Here comes Revkin again with the extremist/centrist model: he would probably advocate just smoking a little.  Sometimes the extremist is correct.

In the case of global warming: the alarmists are correct.  Climate change is going to happen a lot quicker and more severe than people think (our emissions "trigger" is going to set off a chain reaction called "runaway global warming," more severe than past episodes, because our trigger is much stronger).  Sorry if this doesn't fit in Revkin's extremist/centrist model.

Perhaps Revkin isn't familiar with the saying: you are entitled to your opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.  I can only wish Revkin lives long enough to see the product of his philosophy.  Just like the cigarette companies fuzzied the health science of smoking, the science of global warming is getting fuzzied.  Those journalists like Revkin who gives equal weight to each side in the global warming debate will eventually learn that somethings are too dangerous to play stupid with.On The supposed 'middle way' is debunked posted 2 years, 11 months ago 39 Responses

Or just wait and see...

It has been calculated (again, no proof), that without CO2, the earth would be a chilly minus 18 degrees C.

CO2 is only 1/3 of one percent of the air.  We've already increased the CO2 level 1/3 since the Industrial Revolution, and are due to double it mid-century.

One other REALLY BIG THING:  there are reserviors of carbon below the surface of the earth, and when the earth warms, they will predictably be released into the air.  Worse, as they slowly enter the atmosphere, it warms, causing them to emit faster (a feedback loop).  NASTY.

If those "global warming skeptics" don't believe the earth is sensative to increases of CO2, then they can just wait a few decades as the pot starts to boil.  Visit them during one of our future severe heatwaves and ask them if they've reconsidered.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 11 months ago 78 Responses

Global warming faster than expected

Environmentalists are calling for a cut of 50% in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050.  Even that grandious goal is too little too late.

With a business as usual scenario, mankind is expected to double emissions between by 2050.  How can you expect mankind to half their emissions, when we are on track to double them?

Furthermore, nature is expected to reduce her ability to absorb mankind's CO2 emissions.  Now, of the 8 billion tons of CO2 mankind emits each year, nature absorbs about half.  That figure is expected to decrease by 30% (to 2.7 billion tons) by 2030.

Finally, a warming earth predictably will start emitting far more GHG than humans.  Carbon sinks will become carbon emitters bigtime.  For instance, permafrost is estimated to contain 400 billion tons of methane, and a sudden release of just 17 billion tons would be like doubling the CO2 in the air.

I suggest "reputable climatologists" write those bogus papers and cash in while they still can.  The laughs will be on those funding such bogus science-they are in the same sinking boat as the rest of us.  Global warming is going to sink our boat within their lifetimes, and their il-gotten fortunes won't help them or their children.On Oceanographer Tim Barnet reveals the dollar amount, and other fascinating points posted 3 years ago 3 Responses

Why rapid climate change is probable

First, GCMs (global climate models) are bias toward predicting gradual linear change.  On the other hand, ice cores prove that climate change is abrupt.  Simplistically, when forced the climate at first resists change, then rapidly skips to another stable state.

Second, when creating GCMs, scientist edit their predictions.  If a GCM predicts unconventional or unexpected results, it is changed to reflect consensual predictions.  In other words, a GCM predicting abrupt climate change would never get out of the lab without being altered.

Third, it is remarkably difficult to integrate different components.  Glaciers melting, deforestation, desertification, permafrost melting, marine life dying:  all have to be integrated in such a way that they interaction.  Separately, they might behave in a linear fashion, but when they interact their behavior should be enhanced ("the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts").

Finally, it is near impossible to accurately model feedback loops, which amplify change.  When a microphone is held close to a speaker, it starts to feed the speaker output into the microphone which feeds it out the speaker, setting in motion a feedback loop, which rapidly escalates.

For instance, the melting of Arctic snow uncovers earth, which soaks up the heat of the sun better.  As the permafrost melts, it emits carbon dioxide and methane which blankets the land in a heat reflecting blanket.  The more it melts, the worse the global warming, the more it melts.  Until recently, melting permafrost has been ignored by GCMs because it was hard to model mathematically.

Judging by past GCM predictions, evaluated by observed melting, GCMs are way to conservative in their predictions.  As warming accelerates, the gap between GCM predictions, and actual warming will widen.  Finally, when forced past a tipping point, our climate will abruptly change from the stable state of the past 10,000 years (the Holocene, which has made high technology societies possible) to a more hot dry climate that has resulted in mass extinctions many times in the past-just like Dr Lovelock predicts.On A new essay posted 3 years, 1 month ago 15 Responses

Not fast enough

Mankind only emits 3% the CO2 nature does.  Nature now reabsorbs all of its CO2, and about half of mankind's.  It is estimated that nature will only absorb 70% of the CO2 by 2030 that it does today.

Dr Hansen of NASA estimates that a further warming of about 1C will rapidly melt permafrost, starting a runaway global warming chain reaction.  The earth has warmed .2 C each of the last 3 decades.  Due to the greenhouse gas in the air, we are committed to 30 years of further melting even if we stopped emitting CO2 today.

Frankly, I think only a hopeless optimist would think that lowering human emissions can prevent a climate catastrophe.  Unfortunately, those that prescribe reduced emissions as the strategy to prevent global warming think that being a hopeless optimist is a necessary part of being a Public Policy Advocate.

"Changes around global warming and sustainability are happening at a dizzying pace. Momentum is building. I suspect that five years from now, on these issues at least, we'll live in a political landscape that none of us today would even recognize."

Don't you see that a changed political landscape is mute?  Solutions won't come from people changing their behavior, because caps on emissions is only a mitigation strategy (and a poor one at that, since it is unrealistic that a growing population and growing per capita energy demand will result in dramatic enough cuts fast enough to stop runaway global warming).

What is needed is a program to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.  This isn't a political landscape, it is a technological landscape.  If the CO2 isn't removed from the air soon, the earth will have less than one billion people on it by the end of the century. On Two announcements next week will advance the ball on global warming and sustainability posted 3 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

CO2 caps not realistic nor a solution

I'm afraid that the main prescription to address global warming isn't realistic nor is it a solution.

First, with a growing population and with growing per capita greenhouse gas emissions, dramatically cutting emissions is unrealistic.  Currently, policymakers seem content to only prescribe a freeze in overall emissions, because India and China have to catch up to the Western per capita greenhouse gas emissions.

Second, cutting emissions is a mitigation strategy, not a solution.  We are already committed to almost a 1C increase, and some say it is unlikely that there is the political will to stop warming below 3C.

Finally, when forced, the climate doesn't warm gradually and linearly.  Instead, it changes abruptly, going from one stable state to another with little time in between.  Caps is a strategy that is intended to gradually wean us off of burning fuels that emit greenhouse gases.  Yet, it is probable that abrupt climate change will occur in the next decade or two-completely nullifying any attempt to gradually tapper off our carbon emissions.

The only solution is biosequestration, where nature removes the carbon from the air after it has been emitted.  Nature already does this, but we are overwhelming her ability to cope.  Yet, it is predictable that runaway global warming and abrupt climate change will destabilize human civilization, and there will be less than a billion people alive by the end of the century.On Not how it works posted 3 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

Abrupt climate change

Climate models are bias against abrupt climate change events, instead forecasting gradual changes.

The climate goes from one steady state to another without warning.  Our current Holocene steady state of warm wet weather will be replaced by a hotter dryer state which historically resulted in mass extinction.

With CO2 levels higher than at least in the last 800,000 years, and they continue to increase dramatically, it is predictable that we will soon, suddenly, experience expotential temperature rises.

I suggest listening to Dr Lovelock, who says the earth will reset it's thermostat 10C in the next decade or two.

To reiterate-it is probable that soon we will experience abrupt climate change-a normal and historically reasonable event.On A Q&A posted 3 years, 2 months ago 4 Responses

The only solution to global warming

Soon the warming earth will emit considerably larger amount of greenhouse gas than humans.  In other words, carbon sinks will soon become carbon emitters big time.

Mankind slowing their growth of greenhouse gas emissions is moot, since natural emissions will overwhelm any human cuts in emissions.  Besides, population growth and per capita emission growth makes dramatic cuts in human emissions unrealistic.

The only solution is to remove the greenhouse gas from the air after it has been emitted.  This sounds like magic, but nature already does this.  Unfortuately, we are overwhelming her ability to cope.

I suggest we improve zooplankton or phytoplankton with genetic engineering, and seed it into the ocean.  Don't like the idea of releasing GMOs into the environment?  How about the idea of the climate returning to the hot, dry state which has caused mass extinctions in the past?

Until people stop prescribing emission caps as a solution for global warming, the sooner we can start a program to improve nature's ability to remove the greenhouse gas from the air.On Thawing permafrost, oh my. posted 3 years, 2 months ago 24 Responses

Methane will soon flood the air

The past 500 million years have recorded a number of runaway global warming episodes: the end-Permian, the end-Triassic, the Paleocene-Eocene, and two in the Jurassic.

Humans are emitting CO2 up to a hundred times faster than the volcanic eruptions that likely triggered past runaway global warming episodes (and 30 times faster than the trigger for the end-Permian, which resulted in the death of most life because of oxygen deprived ocean depths).

I guess if runaway global warming has only happened 5 times in 500 million years, the odds of it happening this century are remote, huh?On Disasters posted 3 years, 5 months ago 1 Response

Methane from melting permafrost clathrate

Fact 1:

*    There is an estimated 400 billion tons of methane trapped in permafrost ice.

Bacteria digest carbon in the soil, and a by-product is methane.  As the gas rises to the surface, some got trapped by permafrost ice rather than entering the air slowly over tens of millions of years.

Fact 2:

*    An estimated 50% of permafrost will melt by 2050, and 90% by 2100.

As a little permafrost ice melts, methane is emitted into the air, leading to more warming and more melting.

Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2.

Fact 3:

*    A large peat bog in western Siberia is proving this positive feedback loop.

The peat bog is the size of France and Germany together, and is estimated to contain 70 billion tons of carbon.  It has already warmed 3C, and the methane level is 25 times higher there.

Conclusion:

*    An estimated 5 times more greenhouse gas will be emitted by the earth in the next 50 years than mankind throughout the entire Industrial Revolution.

An estimated 200 billion tons of methane will flood the atmosphere in the next 50 years (50% of the estimated methane in permafrost ice).  Mankind has emitted an estimated 800 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

200 billion tons of methane is equivalent to 4000 billion tons of CO2 (because methane is 20 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2), so 5 times as much greenhouse gas is expected to be emitted by the earth than mankind has emitted during the entire Industrial Revolution.

Analysis:

*    The effect of methane flooding the atmosphere is runaway global warming.
*      It is a potential bottleneck for mankind and an existential threat to the US.

I will furnish additional information upon request.  Furthermore, I believe I have the only solution to this threat.

Suggested reading:

http://planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6724&Itemid=69

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0222-27.htm

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/02/26/news/opinion/opin820.txtOn TIME cover story on global warming posted 3 years, 8 months ago 15 Responses