Blinded by Progress
By Dave Latoche
Dave3001@hotmail.com
With the ongoing fixation on carbon dioxide being the cause of “possible global warming,” I think we may be “fiddling while Rome burns.” With all the talk of the dangerous build-up of CO2, nary a word is mentioned of “waste heat,” of which every BTU of energy that we consume becomes “waste heat.” The laws of thermodynamics say this is so, and cannot be rescinded. Eons ago, individual people discovered that fire was a source of power. The idea spread and eventually made modern civilization possible. In the more modern era, engineering as a discipline, already rooted, now flourished. But at some point, an assumption for the sake of convenience was made. This assumption was that the surroundings are an infinite heat sink. Bear in mind that for the purpose of designing, for example internal combustion engines, etc, then this assumption is perfectly valid, for a designer generally focuses only on the design of his or her particular project and not on any larger implication. The problem is that this early assumption, meant only for the purpose of designing various things that used energy, gradually grew into an assertation of fact about the larger world; a completely unquestionable tenant of modern engineering in relationship to the environment of the globe. Maybe it’s time to re-examine that assumption.
While the effect of large cities on the local climate is recognized, perhaps we should take a more inclusive all encompassing view of our energy usage. We are using gargantuan quantities of energy from oil, coal, gas, etc. all around the globe. A great deal of these fossil fuels is converted to electricity at huge generating plants. During the conversion stage, much of the heat energy is given off to the atmosphere either through the chimney along with the flue gases, or dissipated through cooling towers, or discharged as warm water into a nearby river. Also combustion releases water vapor, which has a greater “green house effect than carbon dioxide.” Further more, once the energy of combustion is converted to electricity, the trail of waste heat continues. As the electricity is transmitted, heat is given off along the transmission lines and at the transformers. When the electricity is converted into light energy or mechanical motion, most of this energy ultimately ends up as heat again. Although most of this heat loss is not noticeable, it is measurable, and added up. The amounts are very great indeed.
We have many millions of internal combustion driven vehicles around the world. They convert the energy given off by combustion into motion. Again, the total amounts of energy that these vehicles consume and give off as waste heat is staggering. These automobiles, trucks, trains, boats, and airplanes lose a good portion of the heat of combustion through their exhaust and then more again through their cooling systems. All engines need a cooling system: with land vehicles the cooling system gives off its heat to the air. With ships, that cooling system gives off its heat to the rivers and oceans upon which they travel. The amount of heat given off into the rivers and oceans by the giant barges, tankers, and military vessels would be considerable. Also energy of motion is lost through friction with the medium through which they travel, whether that is the tires against the road, the air against the surface of the vehicle, or the water against the surface of the boat.
The fact that heat losses from the transmission of electricity and from vehicles is spread out over a wider area and not usually noticeable or easily measurable, does not make it insignificant. In total, the amounts are very large.
All of our dwelling places, large and small, over large portions of the globe, must be heated. If they are heated with fossil fuels, a portion of this heat goes into the atmosphere through the flue gases and the rest is merely delayed in the dwelling place. All this heat is dissipated to the surrounds through the walls, sooner or later, depending upon how well the place is insulated. If the dwelling is heated by electric resistance heat, the trail of heat lose begins at the generating plant and ends at the dwelling, with every BTU released into our environment.
All of societies mechanized activities including travel and industrial processes give off a certain amount of heat. The sum of all this waste heat forms a more or less constant baseline which is added to the Earth’s solar gain, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The magnitude of this baseline while large is growing ever larger.
Besides the magnitude of the heat that we are releasing into the biosphere perhaps there are also synergistic effects that come into play. Synergy can be defined as the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. For example we will commonly go into an area, raze the trees and bulldoze the greenery, which both had previously had a cooling effect, and then build blacktopped parking lots and roads and erect black-roofed buildings. Often we will do this in parts of the world that are already very hot. In addition we will then add internal combustion engines, fossil fueled power plants, etc. to the locale. It might be reasonable to assume that there would be a net warming effect from those changes. Perhaps this warming effect extends further and perhaps is greater than the sum of its components.
Not only do we add heat to the environment at all times due to travel, trade, and industry but we also exert feedback into the natural environment due to residential and business heating and cooling needs. During the “heating season” man’s consumption of all types of fuel and electricity increases in direct proportion to how cold the outside environment is. By necessity, the colder the weather, the more energy we infuse into our homes and businesses, and of course this all leaks “out.” Now an ever-increasing amount of electricity consumption is used for cooling both for air conditioning homes and businesses and to run the ever-increasing number of food and beverage coolers. These cooling processes consume more energy in direct proportion to how high the outside temperature is. By increasing the generation of electricity we also infuse even more energy into the surroundings as it gets hotter outside. Just to repeat, we are adding a positive baseline of heat to the environment at all times, which alone would tend to raise peak temperatures and also raise low temperatures from the previous average. Then again we are adding feedback to the environment for the colder it gets, the more heat we release and the hotter it gets the more heat we release. This process would also tend to raise peak temperatures and low temperatures as well.
And what effect do the vast military, commercial, and pleasure craft navies of the worlds nations have on the ocean temperature or on just the surface temperature. It is said that various types of ships have their own unique heat signatures, making them readily identifiable by infrared imaging via satellite. For all the waste heat of the engines of gigantic battleships, cargo ships, tankers, and cruise liners is released into the surface of the ocean as they travel. Furthermore, ships that require cooling of product or people would use cooling methods that would result in the release of even more heat into the oceans. Although the oceans are vast, is it not possible that there is some effect, especially where marine traffic is large and/or where surface temperatures are already warm. Warm water tends to stay on the surface, and stay warm especially during times of little wave action and when days and nights are warm. Is it not possible that synergistic effects would be seen on sections of the world’s oceans?
There is theory of chaotic behavior, which states that the behavior of very complex systems can be perturbed by relatively small changes from within or outside the system. For instance, supposedly the beat of a butterfly’s wings in South Africa could trigger a blizzard in the Arctic. The point is that chaotic behavior is unpredictable. The weather is widely regarded as a chaotic system and we are making more than small changes to the “outside” world.
Some mental images maybe be appropriate to try to comprehend the scale of the changes that mankind is causing. If the early image of mankind was of scattered bands of people crouched around camp fires, then we have reached a point where a far different scene can be imagined.
If we were naturally endowed with sensitive infrared vision the modern world would be an eye-opening experience. It may help to conceptualize this by imagining this in our local area, perhaps as we drive to work. Picture every source of energy consumption as an open fire. In regards to the laws of thermodynamics it matters not that the energy conversion is contained within a car engine, a home heating system, or an electrical generating plant. It matters not that the conversion from potential energy to kinetic takes place in an open fire or within any of our numerous power devices. All of that heat is sooner or later released to the great outdoors.
Now on this drive to work we would see vehicles of every size, each represented by a fire within, some smaller and some truly large. A busy highway would appear as a continuous stream of fire, for we are burning streams and rivers of oil. A power plant would appear as a gigantic bonfire. Buildings of every sort would glow with fires within.
Meanwhile the scientific debate appears to regard all of this heat as negligible. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t but it does seem worth mentioning when the numbers have become so large! Figures vary but one source puts the conservative total yearly solar input at 7.577x1020 BTUs or 757,000 quads1. Another source puts man’s total energy consumption for 2004 at 412 quads2. Thus man’s total yearly energy consumption seems to be 1/1000 of the total yearly solar gain. We find in the on line encyclopedia, Wikipedia3, that the total solar energy reaching Earth is 1.74x1017 watts, and that the tidal energy amounts to 3x1012 watts. The same source puts mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption at 1.3x1012 watts. Thus it seems that mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption alone represents 4 times the power of the world’s tides.
To me these are huge numbers and I find it incredible that mankind’s consumption of energy represents more power than the power of the tides (if the figures are truly accurate). Then again, perhaps it is the where and the when of our heat releases, synergistic effects and feedback that are bigger factors than simply the magnitude of our waste heat. I am not a climatologist but have some science background and read a lot. I also work a job in which I directly experience the heat energy that we are releasing into the environment. If this waste heat has become a factor in our weather, it doesn’t help to ignore the issue.
Sources
1. Solar Radiation Budget. Bonnet, Bernard Yves, http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3621/SOLAR.HTM
2. International Energy Outlook 2005 – Highlights. U.S. Government, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/
3. Earth’s Energy Budget. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget
QUOTE
Meanwhile the scientific debate appears to regard all of this heat as negligible. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t but it does seem worth mentioning when the numbers have become so large! Figures vary but one source puts the conservative total yearly solar input at 7.577x10^20 BTUs or 757,000 quads1. Another source puts man’s total energy consumption for 2004 at 412 quads2. Thus man’s total yearly energy consumption seems to be 1/1000 of the total yearly solar gain. We find in the on line encyclopedia, Wikipedia3, that the total solar energy reaching Earth is 1.74x10^17 watts, and that the tidal energy amounts to 3x10^12 watts. The same source puts mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption at 1.3x10^12 watts. Thus it seems that mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption alone represents 4 times the power of the world’s tides.
To me these are huge numbers and I find it incredible that mankind’s consumption of energy represents more power than the power of the tides (if the figures are truly accurate). Then again, perhaps it is the where and the when of our heat releases, synergistic effects and feedback that are bigger factors than simply the magnitude of our waste heat. I am not a climatologist but have some science background and read a lot. I also work a job in which I directly experience the heat energy that we are releasing into the environment. If this waste heat has become a factor in our weather, it doesn’t help to ignore the issue.
To me these are huge numbers and I find it incredible that mankind’s consumption of energy represents more power than the power of the tides (if the figures are truly accurate). Then again, perhaps it is the where and the when of our heat releases, synergistic effects and feedback that are bigger factors than simply the magnitude of our waste heat. I am not a climatologist but have some science background and read a lot. I also work a job in which I directly experience the heat energy that we are releasing into the environment. If this waste heat has become a factor in our weather, it doesn’t help to ignore the issue.
The amount of waste heat compared to the earth's energy budget is insignificant, as your figures show.
The PRIMARY effect though, not only of our waste heat, but also land use changes, is to distort our attempts to measure the temperature of the earth through land based monitoring stations over time.
Simple problem is most of these stations have been in place for many years. Many of them started out at airports, but at the time, airports were in rural areas and used grass strips. Now urban sprawl has surrounded the airports and they paved the airports over. Add to this all the pavement and buildings in cities, which act as heat sinks, and what we have is an Urban Heat effect. It has systematically distorted our ability to measure surface temps over time. Current mapping of surface temps over time have attempted to factor out the impact of Urban Heat Islands on measuring equipment, but you will find that this is still a point of great argument over methods and amounts that are factored out. Recent studies have shown that even what we consider "rural" stations, also suffer from human heat effects, though these are not factored out because they ARE rural.
Similarly, we used to measure ocean temps by dropping a bucket into the ocean from sea vessels and recording the temp of the water when it was hauled up, but early in the last century we started using the temp of water being pumped up for engine cooling. This was measured at the inlet to the engine, but we found recently that the temps would have increased slightly from the point of pickup by the time it got to the engine inlet. We also found that as ships got bigger, the increase got bigger. Hmmm? Wonder what that will do to our record of Sea Surface Temps?
You wouldn't think that such small errors would matter. But they do. Remember the TOTAL increase in Global Temps over the last Century was ONLY 1 degree F. So yes, even 1/2 degree F represents the same as 50 years of "Global Warming".
Finally, one has to consider, HOW do we determine the AVERAGE temperature of the planet at any one time? HOW is this summed up to come up with a GLOBAL AVERAGE? And more importantly, How ACCURATE can we measure the ANNUAL AVERAGE temperature of the globe?
The first question is quite interesting, as there are over 100 different METHODS of determining the average daily temp at any particular monitoring site. Why so many? Well it has to do with HOW OFTEN the temp is read and secondly WHEN the temp is read.
Ask yourself, how would YOU determine the Average Temp at YOUR location over a year? Post how you would do it and we'll see how good an AVERAGE that would generate.
To the second question, let me ask you, with ALL the focus on Global Warming, would you think the number of monitoring stations is Going UP, DOWN or staying about the same, over the last 50 years? The answer is DOWN, and not just down but WAY DOWN. Go figure.
Similarly would you think that if we are trying to get a GLOBAL AVERAGE, should these stations be relatively uniform in coverage or would we get a better reading if the vast majority were near large human population centers, thus leaving out MOST of the Earths surface?
Finally, if you had satellite coverage that did in fact cover the over 98% of the Earth's surface, satellites that read the temperature at each location ~ every 90 minutes and whose temperature readings were validated against weather balloons for accuracy and these satellite measurements spanned multiple decades would you consider these to be a superior or inferior measurement of the AVERAGE GLOBAL Temperature to the existing land based measuring system?
The reason I ask is because the IPCC believes the land based measurements to be superior and IGNORED the conflicting Satellite data.
Arthur
QUOTE
Blinded by Progress
By Dave Latoche
Dave3001@hotmail.com
With the ongoing fixation on carbon dioxide being the cause of “possible global warming,” I think we may be “fiddling while Rome burns.” With all the talk of the dangerous build-up of CO2, nary a word is mentioned of “waste heat,” of which every BTU of energy that we consume becomes “waste heat.” The laws of thermodynamics say this is so, and cannot be rescinded. Eons ago, individual people discovered that fire was a source of power. The idea spread and eventually made modern civilization possible. In the more modern era, engineering as a discipline, already rooted, now flourished. But at some point, an assumption for the sake of convenience was made. This assumption was that the surroundings are an infinite heat sink. Bear in mind that for the purpose of designing, for example internal combustion engines, etc, then this assumption is perfectly valid, for a designer generally focuses only on the design of his or her particular project and not on any larger implication. The problem is that this early assumption, meant only for the purpose of designing various things that used energy, gradually grew into an assertation of fact about the larger world; a completely unquestionable tenant of modern engineering in relationship to the environment of the globe. Maybe it’s time to re-examine that assumption.
While the effect of large cities on the local climate is recognized, perhaps we should take a more inclusive all encompassing view of our energy usage. We are using gargantuan quantities of energy from oil, coal, gas, etc. all around the globe. A great deal of these fossil fuels is converted to electricity at huge generating plants. During the conversion stage, much of the heat energy is given off to the atmosphere either through the chimney along with the flue gases, or dissipated through cooling towers, or discharged as warm water into a nearby river. Also combustion releases water vapor, which has a greater “green house effect than carbon dioxide.” Further more, once the energy of combustion is converted to electricity, the trail of waste heat continues. As the electricity is transmitted, heat is given off along the transmission lines and at the transformers. When the electricity is converted into light energy or mechanical motion, most of this energy ultimately ends up as heat again. Although most of this heat loss is not noticeable, it is measurable, and added up. The amounts are very great indeed.
We have many millions of internal combustion driven vehicles around the world. They convert the energy given off by combustion into motion. Again, the total amounts of energy that these vehicles consume and give off as waste heat is staggering. These automobiles, trucks, trains, boats, and airplanes lose a good portion of the heat of combustion through their exhaust and then more again through their cooling systems. All engines need a cooling system: with land vehicles the cooling system gives off its heat to the air. With ships, that cooling system gives off its heat to the rivers and oceans upon which they travel. The amount of heat given off into the rivers and oceans by the giant barges, tankers, and military vessels would be considerable. Also energy of motion is lost through friction with the medium through which they travel, whether that is the tires against the road, the air against the surface of the vehicle, or the water against the surface of the boat.
The fact that heat losses from the transmission of electricity and from vehicles is spread out over a wider area and not usually noticeable or easily measurable, does not make it insignificant. In total, the amounts are very large.
All of our dwelling places, large and small, over large portions of the globe, must be heated. If they are heated with fossil fuels, a portion of this heat goes into the atmosphere through the flue gases and the rest is merely delayed in the dwelling place. All this heat is dissipated to the surrounds through the walls, sooner or later, depending upon how well the place is insulated. If the dwelling is heated by electric resistance heat, the trail of heat lose begins at the generating plant and ends at the dwelling, with every BTU released into our environment.
All of societies mechanized activities including travel and industrial processes give off a certain amount of heat. The sum of all this waste heat forms a more or less constant baseline which is added to the Earth’s solar gain, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The magnitude of this baseline while large is growing ever larger.
Besides the magnitude of the heat that we are releasing into the biosphere perhaps there are also synergistic effects that come into play. Synergy can be defined as the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. For example we will commonly go into an area, raze the trees and bulldoze the greenery, which both had previously had a cooling effect, and then build blacktopped parking lots and roads and erect black-roofed buildings. Often we will do this in parts of the world that are already very hot. In addition we will then add internal combustion engines, fossil fueled power plants, etc. to the locale. It might be reasonable to assume that there would be a net warming effect from those changes. Perhaps this warming effect extends further and perhaps is greater than the sum of its components.
Not only do we add heat to the environment at all times due to travel, trade, and industry but we also exert feedback into the natural environment due to residential and business heating and cooling needs. During the “heating season” man’s consumption of all types of fuel and electricity increases in direct proportion to how cold the outside environment is. By necessity, the colder the weather, the more energy we infuse into our homes and businesses, and of course this all leaks “out.” Now an ever-increasing amount of electricity consumption is used for cooling both for air conditioning homes and businesses and to run the ever-increasing number of food and beverage coolers. These cooling processes consume more energy in direct proportion to how high the outside temperature is. By increasing the generation of electricity we also infuse even more energy into the surroundings as it gets hotter outside. Just to repeat, we are adding a positive baseline of heat to the environment at all times, which alone would tend to raise peak temperatures and also raise low temperatures from the previous average. Then again we are adding feedback to the environment for the colder it gets, the more heat we release and the hotter it gets the more heat we release. This process would also tend to raise peak temperatures and low temperatures as well.
And what effect do the vast military, commercial, and pleasure craft navies of the worlds nations have on the ocean temperature or on just the surface temperature. It is said that various types of ships have their own unique heat signatures, making them readily identifiable by infrared imaging via satellite. For all the waste heat of the engines of gigantic battleships, cargo ships, tankers, and cruise liners is released into the surface of the ocean as they travel. Furthermore, ships that require cooling of product or people would use cooling methods that would result in the release of even more heat into the oceans. Although the oceans are vast, is it not possible that there is some effect, especially where marine traffic is large and/or where surface temperatures are already warm. Warm water tends to stay on the surface, and stay warm especially during times of little wave action and when days and nights are warm. Is it not possible that synergistic effects would be seen on sections of the world’s oceans?
There is theory of chaotic behavior, which states that the behavior of very complex systems can be perturbed by relatively small changes from within or outside the system. For instance, supposedly the beat of a butterfly’s wings in South Africa could trigger a blizzard in the Arctic. The point is that chaotic behavior is unpredictable. The weather is widely regarded as a chaotic system and we are making more than small changes to the “outside” world.
Some mental images maybe be appropriate to try to comprehend the scale of the changes that mankind is causing. If the early image of mankind was of scattered bands of people crouched around camp fires, then we have reached a point where a far different scene can be imagined.
If we were naturally endowed with sensitive infrared vision the modern world would be an eye-opening experience. It may help to conceptualize this by imagining this in our local area, perhaps as we drive to work. Picture every source of energy consumption as an open fire. In regards to the laws of thermodynamics it matters not that the energy conversion is contained within a car engine, a home heating system, or an electrical generating plant. It matters not that the conversion from potential energy to kinetic takes place in an open fire or within any of our numerous power devices. All of that heat is sooner or later released to the great outdoors.
Now on this drive to work we would see vehicles of every size, each represented by a fire within, some smaller and some truly large. A busy highway would appear as a continuous stream of fire, for we are burning streams and rivers of oil. A power plant would appear as a gigantic bonfire. Buildings of every sort would glow with fires within.
Meanwhile the scientific debate appears to regard all of this heat as negligible. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t but it does seem worth mentioning when the numbers have become so large! Figures vary but one source puts the conservative total yearly solar input at 7.577x1020 BTUs or 757,000 quads1. Another source puts man’s total energy consumption for 2004 at 412 quads2. Thus man’s total yearly energy consumption seems to be 1/1000 of the total yearly solar gain. We find in the on line encyclopedia, Wikipedia3, that the total solar energy reaching Earth is 1.74x1017 watts, and that the tidal energy amounts to 3x1012 watts. The same source puts mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption at 1.3x1012 watts. Thus it seems that mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption alone represents 4 times the power of the world’s tides.
To me these are huge numbers and I find it incredible that mankind’s consumption of energy represents more power than the power of the tides (if the figures are truly accurate). Then again, perhaps it is the where and the when of our heat releases, synergistic effects and feedback that are bigger factors than simply the magnitude of our waste heat. I am not a climatologist but have some science background and read a lot. I also work a job in which I directly experience the heat energy that we are releasing into the environment. If this waste heat has become a factor in our weather, it doesn’t help to ignore the issue.
By Dave Latoche
Dave3001@hotmail.com
With the ongoing fixation on carbon dioxide being the cause of “possible global warming,” I think we may be “fiddling while Rome burns.” With all the talk of the dangerous build-up of CO2, nary a word is mentioned of “waste heat,” of which every BTU of energy that we consume becomes “waste heat.” The laws of thermodynamics say this is so, and cannot be rescinded. Eons ago, individual people discovered that fire was a source of power. The idea spread and eventually made modern civilization possible. In the more modern era, engineering as a discipline, already rooted, now flourished. But at some point, an assumption for the sake of convenience was made. This assumption was that the surroundings are an infinite heat sink. Bear in mind that for the purpose of designing, for example internal combustion engines, etc, then this assumption is perfectly valid, for a designer generally focuses only on the design of his or her particular project and not on any larger implication. The problem is that this early assumption, meant only for the purpose of designing various things that used energy, gradually grew into an assertation of fact about the larger world; a completely unquestionable tenant of modern engineering in relationship to the environment of the globe. Maybe it’s time to re-examine that assumption.
While the effect of large cities on the local climate is recognized, perhaps we should take a more inclusive all encompassing view of our energy usage. We are using gargantuan quantities of energy from oil, coal, gas, etc. all around the globe. A great deal of these fossil fuels is converted to electricity at huge generating plants. During the conversion stage, much of the heat energy is given off to the atmosphere either through the chimney along with the flue gases, or dissipated through cooling towers, or discharged as warm water into a nearby river. Also combustion releases water vapor, which has a greater “green house effect than carbon dioxide.” Further more, once the energy of combustion is converted to electricity, the trail of waste heat continues. As the electricity is transmitted, heat is given off along the transmission lines and at the transformers. When the electricity is converted into light energy or mechanical motion, most of this energy ultimately ends up as heat again. Although most of this heat loss is not noticeable, it is measurable, and added up. The amounts are very great indeed.
We have many millions of internal combustion driven vehicles around the world. They convert the energy given off by combustion into motion. Again, the total amounts of energy that these vehicles consume and give off as waste heat is staggering. These automobiles, trucks, trains, boats, and airplanes lose a good portion of the heat of combustion through their exhaust and then more again through their cooling systems. All engines need a cooling system: with land vehicles the cooling system gives off its heat to the air. With ships, that cooling system gives off its heat to the rivers and oceans upon which they travel. The amount of heat given off into the rivers and oceans by the giant barges, tankers, and military vessels would be considerable. Also energy of motion is lost through friction with the medium through which they travel, whether that is the tires against the road, the air against the surface of the vehicle, or the water against the surface of the boat.
The fact that heat losses from the transmission of electricity and from vehicles is spread out over a wider area and not usually noticeable or easily measurable, does not make it insignificant. In total, the amounts are very large.
All of our dwelling places, large and small, over large portions of the globe, must be heated. If they are heated with fossil fuels, a portion of this heat goes into the atmosphere through the flue gases and the rest is merely delayed in the dwelling place. All this heat is dissipated to the surrounds through the walls, sooner or later, depending upon how well the place is insulated. If the dwelling is heated by electric resistance heat, the trail of heat lose begins at the generating plant and ends at the dwelling, with every BTU released into our environment.
All of societies mechanized activities including travel and industrial processes give off a certain amount of heat. The sum of all this waste heat forms a more or less constant baseline which is added to the Earth’s solar gain, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The magnitude of this baseline while large is growing ever larger.
Besides the magnitude of the heat that we are releasing into the biosphere perhaps there are also synergistic effects that come into play. Synergy can be defined as the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. For example we will commonly go into an area, raze the trees and bulldoze the greenery, which both had previously had a cooling effect, and then build blacktopped parking lots and roads and erect black-roofed buildings. Often we will do this in parts of the world that are already very hot. In addition we will then add internal combustion engines, fossil fueled power plants, etc. to the locale. It might be reasonable to assume that there would be a net warming effect from those changes. Perhaps this warming effect extends further and perhaps is greater than the sum of its components.
Not only do we add heat to the environment at all times due to travel, trade, and industry but we also exert feedback into the natural environment due to residential and business heating and cooling needs. During the “heating season” man’s consumption of all types of fuel and electricity increases in direct proportion to how cold the outside environment is. By necessity, the colder the weather, the more energy we infuse into our homes and businesses, and of course this all leaks “out.” Now an ever-increasing amount of electricity consumption is used for cooling both for air conditioning homes and businesses and to run the ever-increasing number of food and beverage coolers. These cooling processes consume more energy in direct proportion to how high the outside temperature is. By increasing the generation of electricity we also infuse even more energy into the surroundings as it gets hotter outside. Just to repeat, we are adding a positive baseline of heat to the environment at all times, which alone would tend to raise peak temperatures and also raise low temperatures from the previous average. Then again we are adding feedback to the environment for the colder it gets, the more heat we release and the hotter it gets the more heat we release. This process would also tend to raise peak temperatures and low temperatures as well.
And what effect do the vast military, commercial, and pleasure craft navies of the worlds nations have on the ocean temperature or on just the surface temperature. It is said that various types of ships have their own unique heat signatures, making them readily identifiable by infrared imaging via satellite. For all the waste heat of the engines of gigantic battleships, cargo ships, tankers, and cruise liners is released into the surface of the ocean as they travel. Furthermore, ships that require cooling of product or people would use cooling methods that would result in the release of even more heat into the oceans. Although the oceans are vast, is it not possible that there is some effect, especially where marine traffic is large and/or where surface temperatures are already warm. Warm water tends to stay on the surface, and stay warm especially during times of little wave action and when days and nights are warm. Is it not possible that synergistic effects would be seen on sections of the world’s oceans?
There is theory of chaotic behavior, which states that the behavior of very complex systems can be perturbed by relatively small changes from within or outside the system. For instance, supposedly the beat of a butterfly’s wings in South Africa could trigger a blizzard in the Arctic. The point is that chaotic behavior is unpredictable. The weather is widely regarded as a chaotic system and we are making more than small changes to the “outside” world.
Some mental images maybe be appropriate to try to comprehend the scale of the changes that mankind is causing. If the early image of mankind was of scattered bands of people crouched around camp fires, then we have reached a point where a far different scene can be imagined.
If we were naturally endowed with sensitive infrared vision the modern world would be an eye-opening experience. It may help to conceptualize this by imagining this in our local area, perhaps as we drive to work. Picture every source of energy consumption as an open fire. In regards to the laws of thermodynamics it matters not that the energy conversion is contained within a car engine, a home heating system, or an electrical generating plant. It matters not that the conversion from potential energy to kinetic takes place in an open fire or within any of our numerous power devices. All of that heat is sooner or later released to the great outdoors.
Now on this drive to work we would see vehicles of every size, each represented by a fire within, some smaller and some truly large. A busy highway would appear as a continuous stream of fire, for we are burning streams and rivers of oil. A power plant would appear as a gigantic bonfire. Buildings of every sort would glow with fires within.
Meanwhile the scientific debate appears to regard all of this heat as negligible. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t but it does seem worth mentioning when the numbers have become so large! Figures vary but one source puts the conservative total yearly solar input at 7.577x1020 BTUs or 757,000 quads1. Another source puts man’s total energy consumption for 2004 at 412 quads2. Thus man’s total yearly energy consumption seems to be 1/1000 of the total yearly solar gain. We find in the on line encyclopedia, Wikipedia3, that the total solar energy reaching Earth is 1.74x1017 watts, and that the tidal energy amounts to 3x1012 watts. The same source puts mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption at 1.3x1012 watts. Thus it seems that mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption alone represents 4 times the power of the world’s tides.
To me these are huge numbers and I find it incredible that mankind’s consumption of energy represents more power than the power of the tides (if the figures are truly accurate). Then again, perhaps it is the where and the when of our heat releases, synergistic effects and feedback that are bigger factors than simply the magnitude of our waste heat. I am not a climatologist but have some science background and read a lot. I also work a job in which I directly experience the heat energy that we are releasing into the environment. If this waste heat has become a factor in our weather, it doesn’t help to ignore the issue.
Couldnt have said it better. We need to start taking root action against the polluters.
Ok, you hold 'em down, I'll beat them.
Arthur
Arthur
Does it really matter that much if global warming is happening or not?
We should reduce dependence on fossil fuels because of their finite supply, pollution and dependence on foreign countries. Much of the statistical models for global warming show that it is inevitable. The US, China and the developing world will not act to significantly reduce greenhouse gasses unless it is economically productive. If global warming is fact we all will see the effects in our life time. It will cause drastic changes in the climate, many people will die. But many people die all the time. It wouldn’t take too many millions of deaths until everyone believed in global warming. Society will survive, mass extinctions have happened before; the Earth’s been though worse. And maybe humanity will be a little smarter for the whole ordeal.
We should reduce dependence on fossil fuels because of their finite supply, pollution and dependence on foreign countries. Much of the statistical models for global warming show that it is inevitable. The US, China and the developing world will not act to significantly reduce greenhouse gasses unless it is economically productive. If global warming is fact we all will see the effects in our life time. It will cause drastic changes in the climate, many people will die. But many people die all the time. It wouldn’t take too many millions of deaths until everyone believed in global warming. Society will survive, mass extinctions have happened before; the Earth’s been though worse. And maybe humanity will be a little smarter for the whole ordeal.
QUOTE
Does it really matter that much if global warming is happening or not?
not if you are ok to live in an ice age. When the ice melts it dilutes the ocean's salt concentration and after a crtical level it would stop the thermic cells from functioning; the result of this would be that water would no longer mediate the transformation of heat. Days would be hot and nights cold. In equatoral regions, a sudden increase of temperature might be observed and in northern hemisphere specially US, Canda, and Europe an ice age scenario is very likely. So I guess with oil that is running out, and ice all around you, it sure would be fun...not.
Nice theory.
Zip support for that theory though.
Consider this, at the end of the last Ice Age a VAST area of the Northern Hemisphere was COVERED with Ice.
Each year, as the Ice Age came to an end, VASTLY MORE fresh water would have run off than today, yet a much smaller contribution now is supposedly going to create an Ice Age.
We DON'T know what causes an Ice Age and We DON'T know why they end.
We have LOTs of hypotheses but everyone is pretty simplistic, and while they often deal with a scenario that theoretically could 'trigger' an ice age, they generally fail the logical test of how the mechanism would reverse. Which leads to the conclusion that there may be no single "trigger" but instead a much more complex process or a as yet undiscovered event which the Earth goes through periodically, quite possibly dealing with our movement through the galaxy (areas of dust for instance).
Arthur
Zip support for that theory though.
Consider this, at the end of the last Ice Age a VAST area of the Northern Hemisphere was COVERED with Ice.
Each year, as the Ice Age came to an end, VASTLY MORE fresh water would have run off than today, yet a much smaller contribution now is supposedly going to create an Ice Age.
We DON'T know what causes an Ice Age and We DON'T know why they end.
We have LOTs of hypotheses but everyone is pretty simplistic, and while they often deal with a scenario that theoretically could 'trigger' an ice age, they generally fail the logical test of how the mechanism would reverse. Which leads to the conclusion that there may be no single "trigger" but instead a much more complex process or a as yet undiscovered event which the Earth goes through periodically, quite possibly dealing with our movement through the galaxy (areas of dust for instance).
Arthur
QUOTE
Nice theory.
Zip support for that theory though.
Consider this, at the end of the last Ice Age a VAST area of the Northern Hemisphere was COVERED with Ice.
Each year, as the Ice Age came to an end, VASTLY MORE fresh water would have run off than today, yet a much smaller contribution now is supposedly going to create an Ice Age.
We DON'T know what causes an Ice Age and We DON'T know why they end.
We have LOTs of hypotheses but everyone is pretty simplistic, and while they often deal with a scenario that theoretically could 'trigger' an ice age, they generally fail the logical test of how the mechanism would reverse. Which leads to the conclusion that there may be no single "trigger" but instead a much more complex process or a as yet undiscovered event which the Earth goes through periodically, quite possibly dealing with our movement through the galaxy (areas of dust for instance).
Arthur
Arthur
Zip support for that theory though.
Consider this, at the end of the last Ice Age a VAST area of the Northern Hemisphere was COVERED with Ice.
Each year, as the Ice Age came to an end, VASTLY MORE fresh water would have run off than today, yet a much smaller contribution now is supposedly going to create an Ice Age.
We DON'T know what causes an Ice Age and We DON'T know why they end.
We have LOTs of hypotheses but everyone is pretty simplistic, and while they often deal with a scenario that theoretically could 'trigger' an ice age, they generally fail the logical test of how the mechanism would reverse. Which leads to the conclusion that there may be no single "trigger" but instead a much more complex process or a as yet undiscovered event which the Earth goes through periodically, quite possibly dealing with our movement through the galaxy (areas of dust for instance).
Arthur
Arthur
Arthur&Arthur
the aformentioned theory of thermal salt units, is a proven experimental fact.
The FACT is the behavior of Cold Fresh Water in the ocean.
The HYPOTHESIS is what X amount of cold fresh water will do to the prevailing ocean currents.
The SECOND HYPOTHESIS is what changes, theorized by the first hypothesis to the prevailing ocean currents, COULD then do to the Global Climate.
One of the BIGGEST problems with the theory is that the Atlantic Ocean is somewhat "small potatoes" when dealing with the Earth's climate.
For instance, the entire thermal transport of the Atlantic currents is DWARFED by just the volume and magnitude of the Pacific Ocean, so one has to ask, are changes within the just the Atlantic Ocean SUFFICIENT to generate an ICE AGE?
Since we don't KNOW how Ice Ages start, and we don't KNOW what sustains them for their very lengthy periods and we don't KNOW what causes them to end, all of the above are interesting, but remain unproven. Experimentally or otherwise.
Arthur
The HYPOTHESIS is what X amount of cold fresh water will do to the prevailing ocean currents.
The SECOND HYPOTHESIS is what changes, theorized by the first hypothesis to the prevailing ocean currents, COULD then do to the Global Climate.
One of the BIGGEST problems with the theory is that the Atlantic Ocean is somewhat "small potatoes" when dealing with the Earth's climate.
For instance, the entire thermal transport of the Atlantic currents is DWARFED by just the volume and magnitude of the Pacific Ocean, so one has to ask, are changes within the just the Atlantic Ocean SUFFICIENT to generate an ICE AGE?
Since we don't KNOW how Ice Ages start, and we don't KNOW what sustains them for their very lengthy periods and we don't KNOW what causes them to end, all of the above are interesting, but remain unproven. Experimentally or otherwise.
Arthur
What we REALLY need is the ability to leave the Earth in case we screw it up too bad. We've got all our eggs in one basket, a VERY complicated basket, and we're taking too many chances.
Or less pessimistically, the globe APPEARS to be in a period of similar orbital mechanics and orientation of land masses that suggest that the current warm climate should persist for another 15,000 to as much as 50,000 years.
It HELPS to understand that, by DEFINITION, we are ~40 million years INTO an Ice Age, when Antarctica became covered with ice.
Then ~3 million years ago it got worse with extensive glaciations occurring in the Northern Hemisphere as well.
The last Ice Age before this one lasted 100 MILLION years, the one before it was much shorter, lasting only ~30 Million years, the one before that though lasted ~200 Million years.
We KNOW we are in an Ice Age because we have standing Ice at the poles along with non-arctic glaciers.
Through MOST of Earth's history there has NOT BEEN standing ice at the poles and no mid latitude glaciers.
Remember these charts when you see charts produced by people selling Global Warming. The ONE arbitrary thing on all of these charts is the ZERO line. If you look at the charts posted here, you will note that the ZERO line in the GW charts is arbitrarily set quite LOW and that is justified as it is supposed to represent "modern times". What is left out is that all of modern times have occurred in a relatively COLD period for the planet.
This period of Ice Ages first started about 1 Billion years ago. Though there is some evidence that there was an ice age over 2 Billion years ago.
The last 3 million years of the current Ice Age, has seen over 20 periods of Ice covering much of the Northern Hemisphere and then retreating. The SHORT periods of retreat are known as INTERSTITIALS.
We are IN an INTERSTITIAL. i.e a short WARMER period during a much longer COLD period and we are in the COLDEST period of a much larger Cold period.
It is hard to tell on this last chart, but CO2 rise LAGS temp change, not precedes it. The globe warms causing the oceans to release CO2. When the switch comes the cooling oceans reabsorb the CO2. CO2 does not show the traits of a 'triggering' event. Though there is good evidence that Ice ages only started when CO2 levels fell to their current VERY LOW levels.
The GOOD NEWS is man, even in his primitive state, survived these glacial advances and will again.
Similarly it is clear that MODERN man evolved during this same COLD period and has coped with Glaciations before, but without the advantage of modern science.
If we did it before with nothing but flint, we should cope a tad better now.
If its any consolation, Ice Ages and glaciations etc are such huge cycles that the only thing they seem related to is plate tectonics coupled with orbital dynamics. We only have large Glaciations when land masses are at the poles, at present we have only ONE land mass at a pole which might be why this cycle appears different than some others, and the latest round of glaciations seem related to the closing of the isthmus of Panama ~3 million years ago.
Whatever man does or doesn't do, in comparison to these global/orbital changes, is minor at best.
As far as leaving this planet, that might be an option for a small handful, but the rest of us are here for the duration.
Arthur
It HELPS to understand that, by DEFINITION, we are ~40 million years INTO an Ice Age, when Antarctica became covered with ice.
Then ~3 million years ago it got worse with extensive glaciations occurring in the Northern Hemisphere as well.
The last Ice Age before this one lasted 100 MILLION years, the one before it was much shorter, lasting only ~30 Million years, the one before that though lasted ~200 Million years.
We KNOW we are in an Ice Age because we have standing Ice at the poles along with non-arctic glaciers.
Through MOST of Earth's history there has NOT BEEN standing ice at the poles and no mid latitude glaciers.
Remember these charts when you see charts produced by people selling Global Warming. The ONE arbitrary thing on all of these charts is the ZERO line. If you look at the charts posted here, you will note that the ZERO line in the GW charts is arbitrarily set quite LOW and that is justified as it is supposed to represent "modern times". What is left out is that all of modern times have occurred in a relatively COLD period for the planet.
This period of Ice Ages first started about 1 Billion years ago. Though there is some evidence that there was an ice age over 2 Billion years ago.
The last 3 million years of the current Ice Age, has seen over 20 periods of Ice covering much of the Northern Hemisphere and then retreating. The SHORT periods of retreat are known as INTERSTITIALS.
We are IN an INTERSTITIAL. i.e a short WARMER period during a much longer COLD period and we are in the COLDEST period of a much larger Cold period.
It is hard to tell on this last chart, but CO2 rise LAGS temp change, not precedes it. The globe warms causing the oceans to release CO2. When the switch comes the cooling oceans reabsorb the CO2. CO2 does not show the traits of a 'triggering' event. Though there is good evidence that Ice ages only started when CO2 levels fell to their current VERY LOW levels.
The GOOD NEWS is man, even in his primitive state, survived these glacial advances and will again.
Similarly it is clear that MODERN man evolved during this same COLD period and has coped with Glaciations before, but without the advantage of modern science.
If we did it before with nothing but flint, we should cope a tad better now.
If its any consolation, Ice Ages and glaciations etc are such huge cycles that the only thing they seem related to is plate tectonics coupled with orbital dynamics. We only have large Glaciations when land masses are at the poles, at present we have only ONE land mass at a pole which might be why this cycle appears different than some others, and the latest round of glaciations seem related to the closing of the isthmus of Panama ~3 million years ago.
Whatever man does or doesn't do, in comparison to these global/orbital changes, is minor at best.
As far as leaving this planet, that might be an option for a small handful, but the rest of us are here for the duration.
Arthur
Hi adoucette,
QUOTE (adoucette Posted on Dec 24 2005+ 12:23 AM)
The GOOD NEWS is man, even in his primitive state, survived these glacial advances and will again.
The changes that are occurring today are on a quite different time scale than they were in prehistoric times. Yes... man will survive but not so all the wildlife on the planet. They need time to adapt. What once happened over a hundred thousand years now will happen over a few decades. They will not have that opportunity. You are writing off millions of species as if they were worthless. The majority is acknowledged to be as yet undiscovered. They may prove to be of greater ultimate worth than "us" in the fullness of time. At least they are related to us in our genes and while man is yet to prove himself as a long term survivor these species collectively do have a "track record" of survival if they are given a chance. We should give them that chance.
We are a species that is "all hat and no cattle".
Cheers
The changes that are occurring today are on a quite different time scale than they were in prehistoric times. Yes... man will survive but not so all the wildlife on the planet. They need time to adapt. What once happened over a hundred thousand years now will happen over a few decades. They will not have that opportunity. You are writing off millions of species as if they were worthless. The majority is acknowledged to be as yet undiscovered. They may prove to be of greater ultimate worth than "us" in the fullness of time. At least they are related to us in our genes and while man is yet to prove himself as a long term survivor these species collectively do have a "track record" of survival if they are given a chance. We should give them that chance.
We are a species that is "all hat and no cattle".
Cheers
Wonderful posting, Adoucette.
Perspective is helpful when discussing cyclical phenomena of such long periodicity.
Unfortunately you are dealing with politicized and emotional interties that generally prevent rational discussion.
Climate Audit is an objective discussion of the technical issues, divorced from most of the politics.
Perspective is helpful when discussing cyclical phenomena of such long periodicity.
Unfortunately you are dealing with politicized and emotional interties that generally prevent rational discussion.
Climate Audit is an objective discussion of the technical issues, divorced from most of the politics.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 28 2005, 11:16 PM)
Hi adoucette,
QUOTE (adoucette Posted on Dec 24 2005+ 12:23 AM)
The GOOD NEWS is man, even in his primitive state, survived these glacial advances and will again.
The changes that are occurring today are on a quite different time scale than they were in prehistoric times. Yes... man will survive but not so all the wildlife on the planet. They need time to adapt. What once happened over a hundred thousand years now will happen over a few decades. They will not have that opportunity. You are writing off millions of species as if they were worthless. The majority is acknowledged to be as yet undiscovered. They may prove to be of greater ultimate worth than "us" in the fullness of time. At least they are related to us in our genes and while man is yet to prove himself as a long term survivor these species collectively do have a "track record" of survival if they are given a chance. We should give them that chance.
We are a species that is "all hat and no cattle".
Cheers
Good Elf,
I am not writing off millions of species any more than you are.
IF man has set in motion climatic changes through use of Fossil Fuels there is NOTHING that can be done to stop it. Even the IPCC points out that IF all nations adhered to Kyoto, it would have at most a fraction of a degree impact over the next 50 years. Given the 100+ year lifetime of atmospheric CO2, there is no way to change what has already been done. Given that Kyoto left out some of the largest (and fastest growing) emitters of CO2 (and other GHGs), they obviously felt that MAN was more important than CLIMATE. Finally there is NO WAY to suddenly change from a Fossil Fuel based GLOBAL economy and suddenly make CO2 production take a nose dive. Well, not without a LOT of human suffering and deaths.
But besides the point that we really can't adjust the Earth's thermostat at our whim, I think the PREMISE you start with is a gross exaggeration.
Most of the species alive today made it through any number of the last glaciations. Life is more adaptable than you give it credit for.
As far as projected climate change, we can ignore the tropics because even in a severe glaciation, the tropics will STILL be the tropics. If GW continues, the tropics are still not affected because MOST of the warming associated with GW is in the higher latitudes and IN THE WINTER.
As far as the northern latitudes, we've been reading (frequently) about the "plight" of the Polar Bear, so it might be somewhat of a surprise to realize it is NOT endangered and in fact, they UPPED the limit of Polar bears which could be hunted this year.
Most temperate climate animals and plants live within ranges. Think of this as a Northern most limit and a Southern most limit. If the climate warms or cools than the limits rise or fall together so the net range stays relatively the same size. Now unless the changes are so fast that the LIMITS CROSS, then the species will still be able to live within its existing range and over time migrate into the newly available areas. There are few species that are that narrow ranged and also that sesile that they won't be able to move.
So, no millions of species are NOT in danger.
What happened over a hundred thousand years that will now occur over a few decades?????
I hope you don't mean Glaciations as its impossible for that much water to be transported to the North (minus Summer melting) to speed up the process to decadal time scales.
What's more is you are going totally counter to the IPCC as NONE of their models show ANY cooling at all within the next century.
Not that I believe their models but I am curious as to why you seem to disagree with their projections.
Arthur
I must apologize for being absent from these discussions., although i hope to return
asap. I appreciate the reasoned and logical answers that I have seen posted here.
But really ,it has to do with the laws of thermodynamics.
I really have no idea if the figures on the Earth's heat budget, and the watts per
meter of solar energy gain are correct,,as i simply pulled them from "sources'.
But does anyone have absolute assurance that these numbers are correct?
I have seen factors of uncertainty of at least 10 maybe more.
The numbers on mankinds heat released energy may be correct although possibly
understated .
If we take a semi-closed system such as the Earth and then add unto it all the amounts
of energy that mankind is releasing from stored potential energy ,which had hitherto
been buried deep underground,,and pretend that this heat is insignificant,,then perhaps that is wishfull thinking---and not very scientific at all!
The changes that are occurring today are on a quite different time scale than they were in prehistoric times. Yes... man will survive but not so all the wildlife on the planet. They need time to adapt. What once happened over a hundred thousand years now will happen over a few decades. They will not have that opportunity. You are writing off millions of species as if they were worthless. The majority is acknowledged to be as yet undiscovered. They may prove to be of greater ultimate worth than "us" in the fullness of time. At least they are related to us in our genes and while man is yet to prove himself as a long term survivor these species collectively do have a "track record" of survival if they are given a chance. We should give them that chance.
We are a species that is "all hat and no cattle".
Cheers
Good Elf,
I am not writing off millions of species any more than you are.
IF man has set in motion climatic changes through use of Fossil Fuels there is NOTHING that can be done to stop it. Even the IPCC points out that IF all nations adhered to Kyoto, it would have at most a fraction of a degree impact over the next 50 years. Given the 100+ year lifetime of atmospheric CO2, there is no way to change what has already been done. Given that Kyoto left out some of the largest (and fastest growing) emitters of CO2 (and other GHGs), they obviously felt that MAN was more important than CLIMATE. Finally there is NO WAY to suddenly change from a Fossil Fuel based GLOBAL economy and suddenly make CO2 production take a nose dive. Well, not without a LOT of human suffering and deaths.
But besides the point that we really can't adjust the Earth's thermostat at our whim, I think the PREMISE you start with is a gross exaggeration.
Most of the species alive today made it through any number of the last glaciations. Life is more adaptable than you give it credit for.
As far as projected climate change, we can ignore the tropics because even in a severe glaciation, the tropics will STILL be the tropics. If GW continues, the tropics are still not affected because MOST of the warming associated with GW is in the higher latitudes and IN THE WINTER.
As far as the northern latitudes, we've been reading (frequently) about the "plight" of the Polar Bear, so it might be somewhat of a surprise to realize it is NOT endangered and in fact, they UPPED the limit of Polar bears which could be hunted this year.
Most temperate climate animals and plants live within ranges. Think of this as a Northern most limit and a Southern most limit. If the climate warms or cools than the limits rise or fall together so the net range stays relatively the same size. Now unless the changes are so fast that the LIMITS CROSS, then the species will still be able to live within its existing range and over time migrate into the newly available areas. There are few species that are that narrow ranged and also that sesile that they won't be able to move.
So, no millions of species are NOT in danger.
QUOTE
What once happened over a hundred thousand years now will happen over a few decades.
What happened over a hundred thousand years that will now occur over a few decades?????
I hope you don't mean Glaciations as its impossible for that much water to be transported to the North (minus Summer melting) to speed up the process to decadal time scales.
What's more is you are going totally counter to the IPCC as NONE of their models show ANY cooling at all within the next century.
Not that I believe their models but I am curious as to why you seem to disagree with their projections.
Arthur
There have been many cases of severe instantaneous climate change in the past. Whether it is volcanoes or meteors that blocked out the sun, life survives. The Earth is not a perfectly balanced ecosystem on the verge of collapse. Mass extinctions are a tragedy, but it could be easily argued that humans would not exist today if it where not for mass extinctions.
We should try to do what we can to slow GW, but it is too late. If it where not for fossil fuels, we wouldn’t be civilized enough to have any answers to this problem. Actually that brings a great question about the possibility of other civilized life in the Universe. Could we have ever become technologically advanced without fossil fuels?
We should try to do what we can to slow GW, but it is too late. If it where not for fossil fuels, we wouldn’t be civilized enough to have any answers to this problem. Actually that brings a great question about the possibility of other civilized life in the Universe. Could we have ever become technologically advanced without fossil fuels?
Hi adoucette,
Consider alpine species for instance in Australia. They live in a cool band at altitude. As global temperatures warm this "alpine" condition will vanish from the Australian Continent altogether because the alpine zone will be "above" the maximum altitude of our highest peaks. Complete extinction of thousands of specialized species.
I also would like to say many island communities are only a couple of meters above present ocean levels and the ecosystems on some of those islands are unique and of World Heritage value. Global Warming will drown those ecosystems.
These biologies are potentially of great "use" to mankind in the future aside from their innate right to exist.
The problem is not that this occurs but the speed it is occurring at. I would also say that "instantaneous" changes have not occurred in the past. The periods appear "instantaneous" to us but the actual boundary times of the great extinctions were hundreds of thousands of years. Even the Dinosaurs did not disappear overnight... latest research.
I am no pessimist on these matters... our technology is improving and if something should happen that gives us the technical ability we should be poised to use it.
Cheers
Consider alpine species for instance in Australia. They live in a cool band at altitude. As global temperatures warm this "alpine" condition will vanish from the Australian Continent altogether because the alpine zone will be "above" the maximum altitude of our highest peaks. Complete extinction of thousands of specialized species.
I also would like to say many island communities are only a couple of meters above present ocean levels and the ecosystems on some of those islands are unique and of World Heritage value. Global Warming will drown those ecosystems.
These biologies are potentially of great "use" to mankind in the future aside from their innate right to exist.
The problem is not that this occurs but the speed it is occurring at. I would also say that "instantaneous" changes have not occurred in the past. The periods appear "instantaneous" to us but the actual boundary times of the great extinctions were hundreds of thousands of years. Even the Dinosaurs did not disappear overnight... latest research.
I am no pessimist on these matters... our technology is improving and if something should happen that gives us the technical ability we should be poised to use it.
Cheers
I'm curious, how long has Australia had Alpine forests?
The reason I ask is that if you look at the following graph:
Then unless the Alpine forests are relatively recent (~3 million years), then they have survived warmer temps than are LIKELY in this century.
If they are more than ~15 million years old then they have survived vastly higher temps than then present.
Taking a look at the literature I find little to support your argument, save one scientist, but it will take more research to see if his conclusions are based on the fraudulent "worst case" scenario cooked up by the IPCC.
This from the :Submission to the Alpine Grazing Taskforce, Victoria
June 2004
Professor David Gillieson
Chair, National Committee for Geography
Australian Academy of Science
Climate change
Global warming has a great potential capacity to cause unwanted change in the Australian Alps. Warming of the alpine landscapes is very likely, yet the potential impacts are very poorly understood. Globally, the potential impact of rising temperatures is predicted to be strongest at both higher altitude and latitude (IPCC 2001). The alpine vegetation zone in Australia is small in extent compared with that of most high mountain areas of the world, with limited high altitude refugia (Costin et al. 1999). Hence, the impact of climate warming on Australian alpine ecosystems could be greater than elsewhere, as the alpine zone may retract substantially, or simply disappear (Hughes 2003). A plausible climate change scenario for south-eastern Australia is a 1-2o C rise in mean annual temperature, and decreased winter precipitation (Hughes 2003). This will cause the snowline and the upper treeline to retreat upwards by several hundred metres (Galloway 1988), and alpine grassy vegetation will be more susceptible to invasion by woody species.
There is some evidence that climate change and associated ecological responses have already commenced in the Australian Alps. Snow cover has declined in the past 10 years (Osborne et al. 1998). Seedlings and saplings of snowgum (E. pauciflora) from the subalpine woodland zone are encroaching on alpine and subalpine treelees herbfields (Wearne & Morgan 2001), and there have been significant contractions in the range of some rare and threatened vertebrates such as the Corroboree Frog (Green & Pickering 2002).[/B]
Now what I find most interesting is the IPCC has ignored the excellent Satellite record of Global temp, and the most interesting DEVIATION from projected climate models is the Satellites DON'T find the PROJECTED rise in upper atmospheric temperatures, in fact they find that they are falling. So if the previous projections are based upon the IPCC models, it is quite likely that they will be found to be erroneous as they are NOT tracking with measured atmospheric temperatures.
This chart shows the monthly temperature changes for the lower troposphere - Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km up. The overall trend in the tropospheric data is +0.08 deg. C/decade (through 2004). On the other hand, Surface thermometer measurements indicate that the temperature of the Earth is warming at an average rate close to +0.20 deg. C/decade.
The IPCC ignored the satellite data which shows a warming trend of less than half of the surface based measurement, even though the Satellite measurements are the only true global measurements and were validated for accuracy by comparing the sensed temps with direct weather ballon measurements. In contrast, the IPCC surface warming trend is only seen when 3rd world measuring stations are added in. For instance neither North America nor Europe stations agree with the IPCC "global average" but are in fact much closer to the Satellite temps.
Of course the impact of the IPCC ignoring the Satellite temps is actually quite profound, as they indicate that the actual forcing of CO2 is less than the IPCC estimates. Lower CO2 forcing limits would require re-calibrating the GCMs and most importantly the models which produce the headline grabbing estimates just happen to be the ones which are MOST sensitive to CO2 forcing. The reason this is important to the Australian Alpines is that if Hughes (above) used the upper ranges to make the projection that they "might disappear" then the premise is likely based on faulty models, not reality. I won't know unless I can find the Hughes paper, so if anyone has a link to it, please post it.
As to Pacific Islanders, living on islands but several meters above sea level, their days are numbered regardless of what we do. The oceans have been rising ever since the end of the last Glaciation, and will continue to do so as long as this Interstitial lasts. The rate has been a relatively constant ~9mm per decade for well over 100 years and is not expected to change that much over the next 100 years. The problem for the Tuvolians though is that LOCAL PACIFIC warming, caused by ENSO is MORE extreme than global ocean levels. When you couple that with the extremes caused by Solar/Moon cycles coupled with unfavorable winds and barometric pressure, flooding of these Islands will likely occur well before they are threatened by the gradual rise of the oceans if steps aren't taken to prevent it.
If you look at the IPCC analysis, most of the rise is not predicted until after mid century. Prior to that, the median rise of the models (including the hopelessly pessimistic scenarios) is but 0.1m or roughly 3.5 inches. If you project outward to the end of the century the Median rise is only 0.3m or roughly 1 ft.
But consider, this is but 0.2m above the LONG TERM TREND. Thus IF GW is responsible for sea level rise, then over the next 100 years the projection is GW will add ~7 inches to the natural level.
In any case, if you are living on some land threatened by less than 1 foot of GW induced sea level change, one should start thinking of taking action NOW to prevent eventual flooding. It appears to me though, that as opposed to abandoning these places, flood barriers would be a relatively simple solution, since it ISN'T mean high water that will be the problem, it will be the occasional cyclical high water caused by other natural phenomena.
Arthur
The reason I ask is that if you look at the following graph:
Then unless the Alpine forests are relatively recent (~3 million years), then they have survived warmer temps than are LIKELY in this century.
If they are more than ~15 million years old then they have survived vastly higher temps than then present.
Taking a look at the literature I find little to support your argument, save one scientist, but it will take more research to see if his conclusions are based on the fraudulent "worst case" scenario cooked up by the IPCC.
This from the :Submission to the Alpine Grazing Taskforce, Victoria
June 2004
Professor David Gillieson
Chair, National Committee for Geography
Australian Academy of Science
Climate change
Global warming has a great potential capacity to cause unwanted change in the Australian Alps. Warming of the alpine landscapes is very likely, yet the potential impacts are very poorly understood. Globally, the potential impact of rising temperatures is predicted to be strongest at both higher altitude and latitude (IPCC 2001). The alpine vegetation zone in Australia is small in extent compared with that of most high mountain areas of the world, with limited high altitude refugia (Costin et al. 1999). Hence, the impact of climate warming on Australian alpine ecosystems could be greater than elsewhere, as the alpine zone may retract substantially, or simply disappear (Hughes 2003). A plausible climate change scenario for south-eastern Australia is a 1-2o C rise in mean annual temperature, and decreased winter precipitation (Hughes 2003). This will cause the snowline and the upper treeline to retreat upwards by several hundred metres (Galloway 1988), and alpine grassy vegetation will be more susceptible to invasion by woody species.
There is some evidence that climate change and associated ecological responses have already commenced in the Australian Alps. Snow cover has declined in the past 10 years (Osborne et al. 1998). Seedlings and saplings of snowgum (E. pauciflora) from the subalpine woodland zone are encroaching on alpine and subalpine treelees herbfields (Wearne & Morgan 2001), and there have been significant contractions in the range of some rare and threatened vertebrates such as the Corroboree Frog (Green & Pickering 2002).[/B]
Now what I find most interesting is the IPCC has ignored the excellent Satellite record of Global temp, and the most interesting DEVIATION from projected climate models is the Satellites DON'T find the PROJECTED rise in upper atmospheric temperatures, in fact they find that they are falling. So if the previous projections are based upon the IPCC models, it is quite likely that they will be found to be erroneous as they are NOT tracking with measured atmospheric temperatures.
This chart shows the monthly temperature changes for the lower troposphere - Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km up. The overall trend in the tropospheric data is +0.08 deg. C/decade (through 2004). On the other hand, Surface thermometer measurements indicate that the temperature of the Earth is warming at an average rate close to +0.20 deg. C/decade.
The IPCC ignored the satellite data which shows a warming trend of less than half of the surface based measurement, even though the Satellite measurements are the only true global measurements and were validated for accuracy by comparing the sensed temps with direct weather ballon measurements. In contrast, the IPCC surface warming trend is only seen when 3rd world measuring stations are added in. For instance neither North America nor Europe stations agree with the IPCC "global average" but are in fact much closer to the Satellite temps.
Of course the impact of the IPCC ignoring the Satellite temps is actually quite profound, as they indicate that the actual forcing of CO2 is less than the IPCC estimates. Lower CO2 forcing limits would require re-calibrating the GCMs and most importantly the models which produce the headline grabbing estimates just happen to be the ones which are MOST sensitive to CO2 forcing. The reason this is important to the Australian Alpines is that if Hughes (above) used the upper ranges to make the projection that they "might disappear" then the premise is likely based on faulty models, not reality. I won't know unless I can find the Hughes paper, so if anyone has a link to it, please post it.
As to Pacific Islanders, living on islands but several meters above sea level, their days are numbered regardless of what we do. The oceans have been rising ever since the end of the last Glaciation, and will continue to do so as long as this Interstitial lasts. The rate has been a relatively constant ~9mm per decade for well over 100 years and is not expected to change that much over the next 100 years. The problem for the Tuvolians though is that LOCAL PACIFIC warming, caused by ENSO is MORE extreme than global ocean levels. When you couple that with the extremes caused by Solar/Moon cycles coupled with unfavorable winds and barometric pressure, flooding of these Islands will likely occur well before they are threatened by the gradual rise of the oceans if steps aren't taken to prevent it.
If you look at the IPCC analysis, most of the rise is not predicted until after mid century. Prior to that, the median rise of the models (including the hopelessly pessimistic scenarios) is but 0.1m or roughly 3.5 inches. If you project outward to the end of the century the Median rise is only 0.3m or roughly 1 ft.
But consider, this is but 0.2m above the LONG TERM TREND. Thus IF GW is responsible for sea level rise, then over the next 100 years the projection is GW will add ~7 inches to the natural level.
In any case, if you are living on some land threatened by less than 1 foot of GW induced sea level change, one should start thinking of taking action NOW to prevent eventual flooding. It appears to me though, that as opposed to abandoning these places, flood barriers would be a relatively simple solution, since it ISN'T mean high water that will be the problem, it will be the occasional cyclical high water caused by other natural phenomena.
Arthur
I must apologize for being absent from these discussions., although i hope to return
asap. I appreciate the reasoned and logical answers that I have seen posted here.
But really ,it has to do with the laws of thermodynamics.
I really have no idea if the figures on the Earth's heat budget, and the watts per
meter of solar energy gain are correct,,as i simply pulled them from "sources'.
But does anyone have absolute assurance that these numbers are correct?
I have seen factors of uncertainty of at least 10 maybe more.
The numbers on mankinds heat released energy may be correct although possibly
understated .
If we take a semi-closed system such as the Earth and then add unto it all the amounts
of energy that mankind is releasing from stored potential energy ,which had hitherto
been buried deep underground,,and pretend that this heat is insignificant,,then perhaps that is wishfull thinking---and not very scientific at all!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.