A facebox friend of mine, an old coworker, asked today "remember acid rain?" As an air quality researcher, I do, in fact, remember acid rain. It comes up fairly regularly in my work and in discussions with other people at the university. But the point he was trying to make was that acid rain was a big, big deal for a long time. I remember the news and the people talking at my grade school. But now, the news never (hardly ever) talks about it anymore. My friend then asked if there was any other thing which seems to be following the same pattern. I assume he meant climate change.
Acid rain occurrence in the developed world has been greatly reduced through regulation. I think a lot of that was because people are inherently afraid of acid. It sounds dangerous. Another part is that people didn't really have to do anything. Regulations were made and cars, gas and industrial processes changed, but most people didn't have their daily routine changed.
CO2, on the other hand, is not something that most people would think of as bad. It's plant food, right? Everyone makes it, therefore it can't be bad. And global warming, well, I mean, who wouldn't want things a bit warmer? And the solutions require major, major changes in the way the developed world runs. Instead of saying you have to improve the catalytic converter on your car, you need an electric car, or a hydrogen car, or no car at all. Instead of scrubbing the effluent from industrial processes, it's an end to industrial farming. On top of that, it's a very slow process. It's basically a recipe for people to avoid dealing with it:
So, while acid went away in the media, it was in large part because regulations have helped decrease it to a point where other stuff is more important / interesting. We can only hope that climate change goes away from the media for the same reasons.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
With "Friends" Like This...
I have never been more disappointed in my species than at this moment, or at least my country.
The Globe and Mail has brought to my attention a non-profit organization called the Friends of Science. I don't have time to go over the entire website, nor to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge of the Earth's climate and the effects of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, but I happen to have some background in the subject, so I would like to take this time to discuss the "6 Things Everyone Should Know About Climate Change"
1. The Earth Is Cooling
Go look at their graph. Their own graph. Then tell me that you can see a cooling trend there. I can't even imagine how long it took them to cherry pick their regression line to get a negative slope. Only for two brief periods during the past decade does the average global temperature anomaly drop into the negative. And at this exact moment, according to their graph, we are on one of the sharpest temperature increases since the '70s.
2. The Sun Causes Climate Change
Well, I can't actually refute this one because I don't even know what it is they are trying to prove. Any kind of scientific reference would be nice, here.
Solar irradiance typically means sunlight at the surface of the Earth. So, I mean, yeah, the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the Earth is going to have a huge effect on the surface temperature. The question of why more or less solar energy reaches the surface of the Earth is a pretty big one and still under active debate.
3. Al Gore Was Wrong About Carbon Dioxide
So, this graph actually has a reference. Unfortunately, it is not from a scientist. I checked her out in Web of Science; there are four entries under Nova J and none of them are about climate or even geophysics.
This graph appears to be another case of cherry picking data. Does it seem strange to anyone else that the picked the period from 100,000 to 150,000 years ago to present? When in fact, there is 400,000 years worth of Vostok core data and 800,000 years worth of combined ice core data.
Now does it seem so cut and dried? The fact of the matter is that yes, the ocean is less able to take up CO2 when its temperature increases, so CO2 levels will increase at a greater rate as temperature increases. And since we're talking about basic science, the greenhouse effect of CO2 (and CH4 and H2O and various and sundry other trace gases) is something you can test in a lab. You, personally, can buy some equipment (or devise it yourself if you feel so inclined) and generate those exact curves. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere affects the Earth's radiation balance. The real question is: what positive and negative feedback mechanism exist?
4. Violent Weather Isn't Getting Worse
"Climate alarmists claim the[sic] global warming may increase severe weather events."
May. May. May increase severe weather events. Boy, that sure sounds alarmist to me. I haven't personally heard a single scientist use this in an alarmist manner and I suspect I won't until there is more evidence one way or the other.
5. It's Been Hotter Than This
I can't find any data that looks like this cartoonish graph. I can't find the Schönwiese paper online. I'd like to promise I'll go dig it out of the stacks, but I can't, so if anybody can send me that, I'll gladly add it to the post.
6. Climate Computer Models Are Proven Wrong
These are, presumably, the same climate computer models which this very website was using in all the above points (except 4, I think it was solely from observation).
I like the first graph. It looks very sciency. Unfortunately, I can't find that graph in any peer reviewed journals. Lindzen's website lists 2 submitted publications and 1 in preparation with Choi on the author list. It's possible that the graph is exactly what they say it is, but it seems more likely to me that they're taking it completely out of context.
If we move down to the second set of graphs, we can see that the difference we're talking about here is around 0.5ºC. I am also very curious about where these sondes were taken and whether the model averages were taken at those locations or not. They are a little sparse on methodology.
So, I hope I've shed some light on the "skeptics" arguments. I don't know what it is they're playing at. I can only guess that someone is giving them a lot of money to run a bad science propaganda machine, but who knows. I encourage you to go through the rest of the site, particularly their Climate Change Science Essay, and see what else you can find.
The point I'm trying to make here is that it's not nearly so cut-and-dried as the "Friends of Science" would have you believe. The atmosphere is a big, complicated place. I study it every day. I have seen mountains of data on all sorts of things. And the truth is, we don't know much about how it all works. But one thing I can say for sure is that our industrial society has now put the atmosphere into a state which hasn't been seen since before the advent of agriculture. Where we go from here is anybody's guess, but I don't think it's going to be status quo.
The Globe and Mail has brought to my attention a non-profit organization called the Friends of Science. I don't have time to go over the entire website, nor to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge of the Earth's climate and the effects of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, but I happen to have some background in the subject, so I would like to take this time to discuss the "6 Things Everyone Should Know About Climate Change"
1. The Earth Is Cooling
Go look at their graph. Their own graph. Then tell me that you can see a cooling trend there. I can't even imagine how long it took them to cherry pick their regression line to get a negative slope. Only for two brief periods during the past decade does the average global temperature anomaly drop into the negative. And at this exact moment, according to their graph, we are on one of the sharpest temperature increases since the '70s.
2. The Sun Causes Climate Change
Well, I can't actually refute this one because I don't even know what it is they are trying to prove. Any kind of scientific reference would be nice, here.
Solar irradiance typically means sunlight at the surface of the Earth. So, I mean, yeah, the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the Earth is going to have a huge effect on the surface temperature. The question of why more or less solar energy reaches the surface of the Earth is a pretty big one and still under active debate.
3. Al Gore Was Wrong About Carbon Dioxide
So, this graph actually has a reference. Unfortunately, it is not from a scientist. I checked her out in Web of Science; there are four entries under Nova J and none of them are about climate or even geophysics.
This graph appears to be another case of cherry picking data. Does it seem strange to anyone else that the picked the period from 100,000 to 150,000 years ago to present? When in fact, there is 400,000 years worth of Vostok core data and 800,000 years worth of combined ice core data.
Now does it seem so cut and dried? The fact of the matter is that yes, the ocean is less able to take up CO2 when its temperature increases, so CO2 levels will increase at a greater rate as temperature increases. And since we're talking about basic science, the greenhouse effect of CO2 (and CH4 and H2O and various and sundry other trace gases) is something you can test in a lab. You, personally, can buy some equipment (or devise it yourself if you feel so inclined) and generate those exact curves. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere affects the Earth's radiation balance. The real question is: what positive and negative feedback mechanism exist?
4. Violent Weather Isn't Getting Worse
"Climate alarmists claim the[sic] global warming may increase severe weather events."
May. May. May increase severe weather events. Boy, that sure sounds alarmist to me. I haven't personally heard a single scientist use this in an alarmist manner and I suspect I won't until there is more evidence one way or the other.
5. It's Been Hotter Than This
I can't find any data that looks like this cartoonish graph. I can't find the Schönwiese paper online. I'd like to promise I'll go dig it out of the stacks, but I can't, so if anybody can send me that, I'll gladly add it to the post.
6. Climate Computer Models Are Proven Wrong
These are, presumably, the same climate computer models which this very website was using in all the above points (except 4, I think it was solely from observation).
I like the first graph. It looks very sciency. Unfortunately, I can't find that graph in any peer reviewed journals. Lindzen's website lists 2 submitted publications and 1 in preparation with Choi on the author list. It's possible that the graph is exactly what they say it is, but it seems more likely to me that they're taking it completely out of context.
If we move down to the second set of graphs, we can see that the difference we're talking about here is around 0.5ºC. I am also very curious about where these sondes were taken and whether the model averages were taken at those locations or not. They are a little sparse on methodology.
So, I hope I've shed some light on the "skeptics" arguments. I don't know what it is they're playing at. I can only guess that someone is giving them a lot of money to run a bad science propaganda machine, but who knows. I encourage you to go through the rest of the site, particularly their Climate Change Science Essay, and see what else you can find.
The point I'm trying to make here is that it's not nearly so cut-and-dried as the "Friends of Science" would have you believe. The atmosphere is a big, complicated place. I study it every day. I have seen mountains of data on all sorts of things. And the truth is, we don't know much about how it all works. But one thing I can say for sure is that our industrial society has now put the atmosphere into a state which hasn't been seen since before the advent of agriculture. Where we go from here is anybody's guess, but I don't think it's going to be status quo.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Part of the Precipitate
I came up with a plan, last week, to solve both the economic crisis and the climate change crisis. Climate change is caused by an imbalance between the energy coming into the earth-atmosphere system and the energy exiting that same system. Almost all of the energy coming into the system is in the form of light from the sun. Almost all of the energy exiting the system is radiation, the amount of which is dependent on the temperature of the earth-atmosphere system.
At present there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been for a very long time. CO2 effectively blocks some of the radiation that is trying to leave the system: there is now more energy coming in than there is going out. The result is that the temperature of the earth-atmosphere system will go up, shedding more energy in the form of radiation.
If the problem will correct itself as the temperature of the system changes, who cares? Well, there are a few important things to consider:
Solutions to this imbalance come in two flavours: decrease radiation entering the system; increase radiation leaving the system. Actually all of the currently proposed solutions that I know of are of the first flavour. So why, thought I, aren't there any of the second flavour?
My proposed solution is this: We build an enormous geothermal power plant. Normally this would result in no net change in the radiation of the system. But, what if we use the electricity generated by this system to power a giant laser which is tuned to the atmospheric window? Bam, we have now increased the amount of energy leaving the planet. And, since building a giant laser and a massive geothermal generation facility is no mean feat, we will have to employ thousands of labourers, thus sovling the world's current economic woes.
No plan is perfect, of course. Drawbacks of this plan include a defacto no-fly zone in the beam of the laser (I propose we place the laser in an area with a high seagull or pidgeon population) and the possibility that we will accidentally hit a distant planet, thus precipitating an interplanetary war thousands of years in the future. But really, that is some future generation's problem.
At present there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been for a very long time. CO2 effectively blocks some of the radiation that is trying to leave the system: there is now more energy coming in than there is going out. The result is that the temperature of the earth-atmosphere system will go up, shedding more energy in the form of radiation.
If the problem will correct itself as the temperature of the system changes, who cares? Well, there are a few important things to consider:
- We keep adding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which means the temperature has to increase at an even higher rate to keep up.
- As the temperature of the system increases, more water will evaporate, which will block radiation from leaving the system, which will increase the temperature, which will cause more water to evaporate.
- Coral reefs are sensitive to temperature. If we let the temperature rise too quickly we could find that 70% of our planet's surface is covered by septic tank rather than ocean.
Solutions to this imbalance come in two flavours: decrease radiation entering the system; increase radiation leaving the system. Actually all of the currently proposed solutions that I know of are of the first flavour. So why, thought I, aren't there any of the second flavour?
My proposed solution is this: We build an enormous geothermal power plant. Normally this would result in no net change in the radiation of the system. But, what if we use the electricity generated by this system to power a giant laser which is tuned to the atmospheric window? Bam, we have now increased the amount of energy leaving the planet. And, since building a giant laser and a massive geothermal generation facility is no mean feat, we will have to employ thousands of labourers, thus sovling the world's current economic woes.
No plan is perfect, of course. Drawbacks of this plan include a defacto no-fly zone in the beam of the laser (I propose we place the laser in an area with a high seagull or pidgeon population) and the possibility that we will accidentally hit a distant planet, thus precipitating an interplanetary war thousands of years in the future. But really, that is some future generation's problem.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Shooting the Moon
A lot of my computer gaming came, unfortunately, before there were very many cool computer games and before I could afford the few cool computer games that existed. As a result of this, as a teenager, I played a lot of hearts in Windows 98.
Hearts is scored like golf: lower is better. Each heart you hold at the end of a hand is a point against you. The goal of the game is to wind up with as few hearts in your pile as possible. Except there's this thing called "shooting the moon," whereby you collect all the hearts in a hand and instead of adding 26 points to your score, you subtract 26 points from your score. Obviously this is quite a risky move, since, if you miss a single heart you are screwed.
I sort of feel this way about the idea of using technology to "fix" the environment. This planet has had a few billion years to work out the kinks. Humans, on the other hand, have had a scant few hundred thousand years to get themselves together and an even shorter time to figure out all this science and technology stuff.
Don't get me wrong: all this science and technology stuff is fabulous. I have been studying both quite hard for quite some time now and I still find them fascinating. I think using science and technology as a way to improve human life is a great boon to the generations surrounding mine. But technology is rarely without its consequences, frequently unintended, sometimes harmful to the environment.
The idea of piling one technology on top of the other in an attempt to curb these deleterious effects while maintaining our own comfort brings me back to the game of hearts: if we are successful in chaining all those technologies together to cancel out their negative side effects, if we succeed at shooting the moon, then everybody wins. But if we miss just one link in the chain, we risk making the world very uncomfortable or even uninhabitable for humans.
Hearts is scored like golf: lower is better. Each heart you hold at the end of a hand is a point against you. The goal of the game is to wind up with as few hearts in your pile as possible. Except there's this thing called "shooting the moon," whereby you collect all the hearts in a hand and instead of adding 26 points to your score, you subtract 26 points from your score. Obviously this is quite a risky move, since, if you miss a single heart you are screwed.
I sort of feel this way about the idea of using technology to "fix" the environment. This planet has had a few billion years to work out the kinks. Humans, on the other hand, have had a scant few hundred thousand years to get themselves together and an even shorter time to figure out all this science and technology stuff.
Don't get me wrong: all this science and technology stuff is fabulous. I have been studying both quite hard for quite some time now and I still find them fascinating. I think using science and technology as a way to improve human life is a great boon to the generations surrounding mine. But technology is rarely without its consequences, frequently unintended, sometimes harmful to the environment.
The idea of piling one technology on top of the other in an attempt to curb these deleterious effects while maintaining our own comfort brings me back to the game of hearts: if we are successful in chaining all those technologies together to cancel out their negative side effects, if we succeed at shooting the moon, then everybody wins. But if we miss just one link in the chain, we risk making the world very uncomfortable or even uninhabitable for humans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)