PIELKE and GREEN: The cure for carbon
Obama plan a good start for climate policy
By Roger Pielke Jr. and Christopher Green, Special to the Rocky
Published November 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
With the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States, debates over climate policy are going to get a much needed boost. The Obama plan for climate policy includes one very good idea - investment in new technologies and infrastructure - and one very bad one: cap-and-trade.
To understand why cap-and-trade is such a bad idea, we need only look to lessons from Europe's experiences.
Three lessons from Europe
The first lesson is that the public might accept higher energy prices, but their tolerance for higher prices is limited. When fuel prices spiked in recent months due to factors other than climate policies, France, Belgium and other European countries saw strikes and protests. It is safe to conclude that price increases of a similar magnitude due to climate policies would evoke a similar reaction.
Climate policies cannot have too large of an economic impact if they are to maintain public support.
A second lesson is that increasing the costs of fossil fuels has different effects. For instance, France, with less than 5 percent of its electricity generation from coal, has led the charge for aggressive mandates on coal. Not surprisingly, Poland, with about 95 percent of its electricity coming from coal, vigorously opposes these very same mandates. In the United States we can expect similar reactions from different states and sectors.
In Europe, the difference currently threatens to derail its climate policies. The lesson is that the effects of climate policies cannot create too stark a difference between relative winners and losers from those policies.
Third, decarbonizing the economy will be impossible without technologies that are ready for deployment in the marketplace at the scale needed. The International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook, released Nov. 12, argues that Europe's goal of limiting carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million may simply be technologically infeasible.
The lesson here is that progress in emissions reductions will be limited by technology.
Develop the technology
What can the United States do to advance climate policy and learn from the European experience?
We believe that soon-to-be-president Obama's proposal to spend $150 billion over the next 10 years on developing carbon-free energy technologies and infrastructure is the right first step. It is not only consistent with the main priority of economic renewal, but the development of new effective, scalable and transferable (especially to the developing world) energy technologies is crucial if there is to be any hope of achieving goals for stabilizing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Given America's current fiscal bind, an important issue is how to finance the Obama energy technology proposal.
We do not pretend that any fiscal solution will be politically easy, but we would note that a $5 charge on each ton of carbon dioxide produced in the use of fossil fuel energy would raise $30 billion a year. This is more than enough to finance the Obama plan twice over.
How much is $5 per ton from the perspective of U.S. consumers? Not that much. It would add less than 5 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas and would increase the average cost of electricity in the United States by a fraction of a cent per kilowatt hour.
Critics of our proposal will no doubt be quick to dismiss it because the impact of $5 per ton on consumer behavior is exceedingly small, and they wish to see large effects right away. But we believe that what these critics see as a weakness is in fact a strength of building U.S. climate policy around the Obama energy technology proposal financed by a small charge on carbon fuels.
A virtuous cycle
The problem with most proposals putting a price on carbon - whether through a carbon tax or through tradable emission permits (cap-and-trade) - is that they can never live up to their theoretical soundness, to say nothing of their likely political fallout.
We believe that the most important step is the first one. We would like to create the conditions for a virtuous cycle, whereby a small, politically acceptable charge for the use of carbon emitting energy, is used to invest immediately in the development and subsequent deployment of technologies that will accelerate the decarbonization of the U.S. economy.
The funds would be invested in a broad portfolio such as utility level storage for wind and solar energy, financing electricity (grid) infrastructure, retrofit technologies for coal-fired plants to allow carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide pipelines from coal plants to safe and secure storage sites, and more.
Stop talking, start solving
As the nation begins to rely less and less on fossil fuels, the political atmosphere will be more favorable to gradually raising the charge on carbon, as it will have less of an impact on businesses and consumers, this in turn will ensure that there is a steady, perhaps even growing source of funds to support a process of continuous technological innovation.
Putting a low price on carbon is thus perfectly consistent with ambitions to move the United States toward greater diversity and independence in its energy supply, toward revitalizing the economy by building new markets and jobs, and decarbonizing the economy, showing the world that the United States, once it puts its mind to it, can make rapid progress on even seemingly impossible challenges.
The problem with the climate debate has been that too much focus has been on how to solve the problem, and not on how to start solving the problem. We believe that the Obama energy proposal is the right place to start, and a low price on carbon will ensure that it can be financed with minimal impact on the economy.
Roger Pielke Jr. is a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Christopher Green is professor of economics at Montreal's McGill University.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
November 22, 2008
7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
There is NO carbon problem except in the tiny minds of environmentalists who are absolutists. Spending billions of dollars on feel-good projects is not a solution and never will be.
Carbon credits are a joke. Renewable engery is not cost effective. Global warming and cooling cannot be controlled by humans.
Take the emotionalism out of the climate debate and there is no debate because there are no facts supporting global warming is caused by man.
November 22, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
a_watcher writes:
China is building 100 new nuclear plants and we are building none. The two professors are suggesting that we spend $15 billion a year to figure out how to solve a problem that may or may not need to be solved and then, though they are careful not to say so, untold billions more to solve it.
Why not do what France has done--go nuclear?
November 22, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
luckyleif writes:
The only problem "cured" by Pielke and Green is how to maintain the public funding of their anti-scientific hoax. There hasn't been any global warming for the last ten years, carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming, the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial (< 5%), and we're now into a natural cycle of cooling - not warming.
Just another scheme to fund professorial parasites.
November 22, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
and the lie keeps on going...how about this, what there is proof of is that CO2 levels are rising as the average temperature falls, hence the 300 million dollar rebranding of global warming to climate change, call it what you want it simply isn't true, isn't proven, and the ridiculous legislation, regulations born from the lie should have people ready to march on DC.
.117% is the closest estimate science says that man contributes to the greenhouse effect, insignificant at best. Water Vapor is the largest greenhouse gas at 95%.
If the climate is changing, we can mostly thank the sun, its not CO2 which is plant food, absorbed by nature and the lie that the greens would have you believe.
November 22, 2008
4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
TomPaine writes:
It's a shame so many people have fallen for the junk science, exaggeration, suppression of dissent and political manipulation promoted by advocates of the antropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a minor greenhouse gas, making up about 1 in 2600 parts of the atmosphere. All global climate models have assumed a magnifying effect of the ability of the CO2 molecule to block radiation of heat back into space. More important - and dishonest - is the unsupported assumption in these models that water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, is also subject to the same kind of magnifying effect. Without this assumption, global climate models would be unable to project the claims of the modelers.
The hydrologic cycle (precipitation, runoff/recharge, cloud formation) is the earth's heating and cooling mechanism, tending to stabilize (not destablilize) the earth's temperature. Before running off half-cocked to implement political agendas, the science should be thoroughly debated in public, without the incestuous extremism of those whose careers depend on proving that man is the main cause of global warming.
J. Craig Green, P.E.
(TomPaine)
November 22, 2008
11:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
COAZ writes:
"utility level storage for wind and solar energy"
Which of course doesn't exist. In fact wind energy has a capacity value of 10% or less which means that the wind never seems to blow when we need it. Therefore when our politicans tell us that we have added 1000 MW of capacity to be credited to our 15 % renewable goal we are actually really creating only 100 MW. Get real Colorado.
November 23, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
dwanders writes:
Global warming is a big myth? Yea, and smoking doesn't cause cancer. Come on, people. At least learn the arguments then decide. Polar ice caps and glaciers are melting fast, hottest temperatures on earth recorded since the industrial age, extreme weather events, and thousands of scientists from around the world demanding CO2 emission changes. I hope you non-believers don't win this argument. We're already in bad shape by waiting. Sure, the planet can handle this, but humans can't. At least learn the science. If you don't like Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, watch the PBS FrontLine special called HEAT (pbs.org/frontline), I guess the even the Today show has fallen for the "myth" by devoting an entire week last week to this problem.
November 23, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
a_watcher:
"Why not do what France has done--go nuclear?"
Because France is a more socialist country and has socialized the risk to property owners should there be an accident (i.e. the property owners will be left high and dry). We, as a more individualist society, are less willing to do that. It is only with government-imposed limits on liability that nukes can be built. In France, with its collectivist mentality, that's a given, here it is not, and purchasing the liability coverage on the free market (the American way) makes nukes overwhelmingly cost ineffective.
November 23, 2008
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
COAZ - Denmark is more than 20% wind powered. You might want to let them know that that is impossible.
November 23, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
luckyleif writes:
Sorry, Dwanders, nothing you say is true. I'm going to presume you're honestly misinformed, rather than just one more of the liars. Though your remark about "...I hope you non-believers don't....." makes me wonder. This is science, Dwanders, not religion; "believing" has nothing to do with it.
Al Gore isn't a scientist (quite the opposite), but, since you seem to have seen his movie, let's start there. About 16 minutes in, Al stands in front of a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) content over 400,000+ years, inferred from Antarctic ice cores. Al points out the similarity of the two curves ("highly correlated", as he says) and leads you to conclude that CO2 causes temperature to change.
One small problem with that explanation.
The temperature curve - long periods of (very) cold - with short, regular, warm Interglacials - has a name; it's called the Milankovitch Cycle. Milankovitch was a mathematician, who predicted this sequence 80 years ago, in 1930. It's a natural cycle, due only to variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun. You can look it up.
The CO2, and its "correlation" with temperature. Yep, sure enough. Trouble is, the CO2 change lags - follows - the temperature change by 800 years. That's in the IPCC reports, in Chapter 6 ("Paleoclimatology"). The IPCC reports are on-line, at CU. Real hard for me to believe that CO2 causes temperature to change 800 years in advance.
The real explanation: oceans are the biggest short-response repository of CO2. Cool the oceans, and they absorb CO2; warm them, and they release CO2 (like a soft drink going "flat" as it warms).
There's a fundamental starting point, Dwanders - don't believe anybody - from Einstein on down - who starts out by lying to you. Al's a liar (beside being a hypocrite). I can give you more examples of his lies, if you care.
Write back if you DO care.
luckyleif (Ph. D. in Meteorology, specialization in radiative transfer theory)
PS: BTW, NBC, home of TODAY, is owned by GE - they sell wind turbines and Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs. That's not science either, Dwanders - that's MARKETING!
November 23, 2008
2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
luckyleif writes:
Sorry, Shakey, comparison of the US to Denmark is invalid, as far as wind generation of energy is concerned.
Denmark is a narrow peninsula - i.e., lots of coastline relative to area. The US isn't - though it has peninsulae, such as Florida and Cape Cod. The wind always blows along the coast - it's called land breeze, sea breeze.
Gee, that reminds me - there's a group trying to build a set of wind turbines off Cape Cod. Those great, green patriots, the Kennedys, won't let them (and Kennedys control poor MA) - it would spoil the scenic view of Nantucket Sound. (The turbines would be visible 1 inch above the horizon.)
I think COAZ was referring to "utility level storage for wind and solar energy" - one of several non-esistent technologies required by the Pielke-Green "cure."
luckyleif
November 23, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
LL - CO2 both causes and is caused by warming. It's what's known as a positive feedback loop. Your ocean example points to this very phenomemon. Hence an increase in one will cause (lead) an increase in the other, and that will feed on itself until a new equilibrium point is reached. Either one can be the leader. Gore was remiss in not being more explicit about that, but he's, as you like to note, not a scientist. What's your excuse for obfuscating/denying the warming/CO2 link???
November 23, 2008
5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Neese writes:
Why is no one talking about natural gas as the answer to our energy needs - regardless of whether you are a Gorite or not.
Natural gas is a clean, affordable, abundant domestic fuel source that results in only 40% of the CO2 emmissions releative to coal and less than half of that of gasoline when used as a vehicle transportation fuel. Why is natural gas not part of the answer being debated by our "leaders" in DC?
November 23, 2008
6:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Neese - NG is just the least bad fossil fuel. It is still finite, still emits CO2. It should be part of the bridge to renewables and energy "un" dependence, but it is no panacea.
November 23, 2008
7:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
luckyleif
>>The temperature curve - long periods of (very) cold - with short, regular, warm Interglacials - has a name; it's called the Milankovitch Cycle.<<
No, Milankovitch Cycles (plural, not singular) are the name for cyclical eccentricity in the earth's orbit and tilt & precession in the earth's axis. What you are describing is the theory that they are the cause of the ice age cycles, not the name of the ice age cycles.
>>It's a natural cycle, due only to variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun.<<
No, it includes changes in the earth's axis
>>You can look it up.<<
You might want to as well here's a pretty basic explanation -
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol...
Milankovitch Cycles were discounted as causes of the ice age cycles when they were first proposed because the amount of forcing is too small to account for the temperature variation over an ice age cycle. Milankovitch Cycles are still considered to weak to account for the magnitude of variation, but the timing of the Milankovitch Cycles does correspond to the timing of the ice age cycles - eccentricity has a period of 100,000 years and corresponds to ice age cycles for the last million years and axial tilt's period of 41,000 years corresponds to ice age cycles before 1 million years ago.
Milankovitch Cycles also don't explain the pattern of an ice age cycle as shown here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xc...
because the warming phase is much more rapid than the cooling phase. To account for this pattern as well as account for the magnitude, you have to include effects from feedbacks - ice sheets receding and expanding alter the amount of solar radiation that gets reflected and the greenhouse gasses (including CO2) that absorb infrared radiation.
>>Yep, sure enough. Trouble is, the CO2 change lags - follows - the temperature change by 800 years. That's in the IPCC reports, in Chapter 6 ("Paleoclimatology"). The IPCC reports are on-line, at CU. Real hard for me to believe that CO2 causes temperature to change 800 years in advance.<<
That's because you don't understand AGW theory - it doesn't say that CO2 initiated past warming cycles, but that it exacerbated it once a warming cycle started.
November 23, 2008
8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
TomPaine -
>>The hydrologic cycle (precipitation, runoff/recharge, cloud formation) is the earth's heating and cooling mechanism, tending to stabilize (not destablilize) the earth's temperature.<<
No, the hydrologic cycle mainly affects the distribution of heat on the earth. For it to heat or cool the earth, it would have to alter the amount of energy the earth receives from space (ie solar radiation) and/or the amount of energy it radiates back into space.
November 23, 2008
8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Nuclear power is the solution. It is technologically proven, and its implementation could LOWER our cost of electricity enough to make electric cars the most sensible solution. The only thing stopping it is a bunch of hippie socialists who think they can "imagine" their way into some holy grail solution.
STOP FIGHTING NUCLEAR FOR YOUR PETTY FEARS AND EVERYTHING WILL BE SOLVED.
November 23, 2008
9 p.m.
Suggest removal
dwanders writes:
luckyleif, I DO care. I DO hope people will start to believe there's a problem industrialized humans have caused and the problem has extreme consequences if we don't fix it now!
Are you talking about page 9 from the most recent 2007 report - Climate Change 2007 The Physical Science Basis - from the IPCC?
(for those asking what the IPCC is...
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - at www.ipcc.ch
I found the most recent assessment report by searching for "IPCC AR4"
Since you seem to be disputing CO2 and warming, and you are quoting the IPCC, here's are some quotes from that report:
Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were signifi cantly
warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.
...
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including
ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns .
So, my "misinformation" is coming from the worldwide organization of scientists you quoted.
November 23, 2008
10:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
TomPaine writes:
CL-
>>No, the hydrologic cycle mainly affects the distribution of heat on the earth. For it to heat or cool the earth, it would have to alter the amount of energy the earth receives from space (ie solar radiation) and/or the amount of energy it radiates back into space.<<
The hydrologic cycle cools warmer areas of the earth by evaporating water and warms cooler areas by water condensation (forming clouds and other water vapor). This varies by location and the amount of solar radiation, which, of course, is the driving force of the climate.
Water vapor in the atmosphere is at least one to two orders of magnitude more abundant than CO2, even at today's increased levels from natural and man-made causes (cow farts, deforestation and fossil fuels). Also, water vapor absorbs infrared radiation from the earth in a much broader spectrum than CO2.
It is preposterous for the IPCC to claim that man-made CO2 alone is responsible for 90-plus percent of recent global warming (forgetting the last 10 years of cooling).
November 24, 2008
5:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
TomPaine -
>>The hydrologic cycle cools warmer areas of the earth by evaporating water and warms cooler areas by water condensation (forming clouds and other water vapor). This varies by location and the amount of solar radiation, which, of course, is the driving force of the climate.<<
Which, as I said, is distributing the heat. All it's doing is cooling the warmer places and warming the colder places but this distribution isn't changing the earth's overall temperature.
>>Water vapor in the atmosphere is at least one to two orders of magnitude more abundant than CO2, even at today's increased levels from natural and man-made causes (cow farts, deforestation and fossil fuels). Also, water vapor absorbs infrared radiation from the earth in a much broader spectrum than CO2.<<
Since water vapor absorbs IR, how then can the hydrologic cycle stabilize the earth's temperature? Higher temperatures would result in more evaporation meaning more water vapor in the atmosphere which in turn means more IR absorption meaning even higher temperatures. Likewise, lower temperatures would mean less evaporation and less water vapor and less IR absorption meaning even lower temperatures. That's a positive feedback, not a negative feedback, or stabilizing effect.
November 24, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
TomPaine writes:
CL-
>>Which, as I said, is distributing the heat. All it's doing is cooling the warmer places and warming the colder places but this distribution isn't changing the earth's overall temperature.<<
TomPaine now-
Then why do the IPCC models assume that water vapor does precisely that, as CO2 levels rise? The answer is, they haven't got a clue what water vapor does, because the models aren't based on a small enough grid to do it. A better reason is nobody knows how to model cloud formations, or test the results, so the IPCC models just assume it is a magnifying force. Those poor little CO2 molecules just can't seem to get the job done by themselves.
CL-
>>Since water vapor absorbs IR, how then can the hydrologic cycle stabilize the earth's temperature? Higher temperatures would result in more evaporation meaning more water vapor in the atmosphere which in turn means more IR absorption meaning even higher temperatures. Likewise, lower temperatures would mean less evaporation and less water vapor and less IR absorption meaning even lower temperatures. That's a positive feedback, not a negative feedback, or stabilizing effect.<<
TomPaine now-
You have just stopped the hydrologic cycle by separating the cooling effects from heating effects, assuming each escalates out of control. If your description were accurate, the earth would have burned up or frozen long before there was life. It's a stabilizing effect because these two opposing things tend to cancel each other out. But, it can be overwhelmed by changes in solar radiation, which is what causes daily temperature variations, the seasons, and caused the ice ages and interglacial periods that were much warmer than today.
November 24, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
TomPaine, part 1 -
Me - >>All it's doing is cooling the warmer places and warming the colder places but this distribution isn't changing the earth's overall temperature.<<
Then why do the IPCC models assume that water vapor does precisely that, as CO2 levels rise?<<
No, the IPCC models do NOT say precisely that (nit - they aren't IPCC models either, rather models cited by the IPCC). You are confusing moving heat from one place on earth to another place on earth - via the hydrologic cycle - with increasing or decreasing the net heat content of the earth - which the hydrologic cycle does not do.
November 24, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
TomPaine, part 2 -
Me - >>...Likewise, lower temperatures would mean less evaporation and less water vapor and less IR absorption meaning even lower temperatures. That's a positive feedback, not a negative feedback, or stabilizing effect.<<
You have just stopped the hydrologic cycle by separating the cooling effects from heating effects, assuming each escalates out of control<<
I have not stopped the hydrologic cycle at all nor have I separated the cooling effects from heating effects - it all still takes place. What you are failing to comprehend is that all the hydrologic cycle does is move heat from one place to another on the earth, but moving the heat around does not increase or decrease the net heat of the earth as a thermodynamic system. To do that you have to alter the heat influx and or outflux of the system.
>>If your description were accurate, the earth would have burned up or frozen long before there was life.<<
No, there are factors - some of which you even mention - that prevent that from happening (more in a bit).
>>It's a stabilizing effect because these two opposing things tend to cancel each other out.<<
But your so-called "stabilizing effect" isn't one - in order to counter a global increase in temperature (for whatever reason) the hydrologic cycle would have to cause either an increase in the amount of heat leaving the earth or decrease the amount of heat reaching the earth and visa-versa to counter a decrease in global temperature. Moving the heat from one place on earth to another does not do this - the heat still remains on earth, just relocated.
>>But, it can be overwhelmed by changes in solar radiation, which is what causes daily temperature variations, the seasons, and caused the ice ages and interglacial periods that were much warmer than today<<
But a bit ago you said increasing water vapor would create a runaway affect but now you are saying there are factors that can overwhelm it. Well, there certainly are other factors. They also can overwhelm the increased absorption of IR from increased levels of water vapor - preventing the runaway affect you mentioned earlier. Also, these are all short-term phenomena. Water vapor has a very short residence time in the atmosphere (only about 10 days) meaning that it cannot be either a long-term forcing agent nor can it be a long-term feedback, it simply responds too quickly to these and other short term phenomena. CO2, however, has a much longer residence time - about 100 years - so it can be both a long term forcing mechanism as well as a long term feedback mechanism - it's effects will be in addition to whatever short-term fluctuations occur.
November 24, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
luckyleif writes:
"What's your excuse for obfuscating/denying the warming/CO2 link???" (SheikYurBooty)
I'm not obfuscating the link, Shakey. I'm trying to make it clear - unlike Al Gore, who confuses cause and effect. I don't even deny it; CO2 causes a VERY small amount of warming in comparison with water vapor.
The important point - usually ignored by people who think that every molecule of CO2 causes MORE warming - is that the result of adding greenhouse gas is logarithmic.
Let's get the fundamental point on the table first, since I often hear it mis-stated: warming by greenhouse gasses is passive, not active. A greenhouse gas (water vapor[H2O], carbon dioxide [CO2]) acts like a blanket on the bed; it prevents heat from escaping. It doesn't generate heat. The important point in what may seem obvious and trivial is, there's a limit (asymptotic) to the effect. One blanket, fine; two blankets, maybe better; three blankets, well, maybe it's awfully cold; four blankets......probably not much more help. You can only get to 98.6 F.
In terrestrial warming, the greenhouse gas slows the loss of heat emitted from the surface and lower atmosphere. That heat is emitted in the form of infrared (~ 5 - 15 micrometers, um) photons. There are only so many photons to be had, just as the human body in the bed is only so warm (~98.6F). If the 800 pound gorilla, H2O, is already getting 95% of the photons, CO2 has very little effect. ALL CO2.
For every molecule or mole or whatever of greenhouse gas that I add to the atmosphere, if it causes X warming, the next such increment - the same amount - will add only X/2 warming - half as much. It has to compete with the greenhouse gas already there. The next one causes only half as much again. It doesn't matter what kind of greenhouse gas it is. So adding CO2 greenhouse gas to an atmosphere already nearly saturated with H2O greenhouse gas runs into the wall of diminishing returns very fast. The bottom line of this is that H2O has 800 years to saturate the atmosphere before CO2 comes into play. 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16......is a converging series, which is not very much.
MORE TO COME…3000 character limit
LL
November 24, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
TomPaine writes:
CL-
<<What you are failing to comprehend is that all the hydrologic cycle does is move heat from one place to another on the earth, but moving the heat around does not increase or decrease the net heat of the earth as a thermodynamic system.>>
I haven't failed to comprehend your point. What I fail to comprehend is how you can know whether water vapor does this or not.
In the link below, NASA found that climate models overestimate the increased amount of water vapor predicted from increased atmospheric temperatures attributed to CO2:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/n...
QUOTE: "Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases."
This link explains that warming from water vapor is much greater than that of CO2:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feat...
QUOTE: "Although carbon dioxide gets most of the bad publicity these days as the critical greenhouse gas, the warming effect of carbon dioxide is minuscule compared to that of water vapor."
This link explains the uncertainty of how water vapor affects temperature:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feat...
QUOTE: "Possibly no part of the climate system is more unpredictable than the interaction between atmospheric water and radiation emitted by the Sun and the Earth."
November 24, 2008
1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
luckyleif writes:
Continuing LL (24 Nov, 1:15 pm)
Try to also remember we're talking about MAN-MADE global warming. I think you've implicitly agreed with me that most carbon dioxide released in the "feedback loop" you cite is NATURAL - not man-made. It can be seen in the asymmetry of the Milankovitch Cycle curves - the earth, coming out of a glacial age warms much faster than it cools (~3:1 in years). You're mixing up manmade CO2 (less than 5% of the total) with the 95% we don't - can't - control. Just as we don't - can't - control the H2O, which is far more important. I think CL made the point also that greenhouse gas adds to the Milankovitch effect. However, he ignores the important gas, H2O, and gives all the credit to CO2.
Another important point to consider is that greenhouse gas molecules absorb infrared (IR) radiation selectively.......gas molecules are "tuned" to particular frequencies, like little tuning forks.....except for H2O, which absorbs every photon it gets its little hands on, across the IR (Earth emission) spectrum. That makes it very efficient in keeping heat from leaking out. CO2, on the other hand, is very selective, at about 14 um. Ouch. There's a radiative transfer law, Wien's Displacement Law (Nobel Prize in Physics, ~ 1907, I think), that says the product of temperature (K) and wavelength (um) is a constant, 2898 K-um. That means CO2 molecules absorb photons whose temperature is 2998/14 = 207 K. Those are awfully cold photons, since the freezing point is 273 K; Earth's mean temperature is 255 K. CO2 greenhouse effect, in catching and releasing 207 K photons, is not much help in keeping Earth warm.
And, of course, the final point is that - whatever we do - there isn't much CO2 in the atmosphere. 385 parts per million by volume - the present count - is 38 or 39 molecules out of 100,000, in comparison with 2,000 or 3,000 H2O molecules. There are few CO2 molecules, they don’t absorb much energy spectrally, and the logarithmic effect makes them very unimportant.
Those are the qualitative reasons CO2 is an unimportant greenhouse agent. Let me give you a quantitative example of how important it isn’t. The total greenhouse effect – the energy radiated back to Earth by all greenhouse gasses – is 324 watts/square meter (w/sq m). That warms the earth by 34 deg C. The total greenhouse effect caused by all MAN-MADE greenhouse gas is 1.6 w/sq m. That’s a ratio of 200:1. The warming caused by all manmade greenhouse gas is 0.16 deg C, or 0.3 deg F. (Numbers from the IPCC)
MORE TO COME LL
November 24, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
luckyleif writes:
Continuing LL (24 Nov, 1:22 pm)
Does CO2 cause some warming? Yes. The amount of H2O in the atmosphere is very (exponentially) dependent on air temperature. In a Winter, high-latitude atmosphere, already cold, there is little H2O. Whatever CO2 there is has a better chance of catching the photons. CO2 has a warming effect in cold, Winter atmospheres - the Arctic and Siberia. Great; more power to it. Crisis? I don't think so. CO2 also adds some warming overnight, as the sun goes down, temperature decreases, water vapor condenses into dew, and CO2 catches more photons. In fact, observationally, that's what the effect of increasing CO2 over the last 30 years has been. The diurnal temperature range has decreased - days have remained the same, but nights have become a tiny bit warmer. OK with me.
My final irritation with the "global warming crisis" folks is the lack of numerical specificity. Over the 20th Century, world temperature increased - max - 1 deg C (1.6 F). During 1940 – 1977, in the postwar “boom”, temperature decreased while CO2 increased. In the two years (Jan 2007 - now), world temperature has crashed. We're now down to where temperature (measured worldwide, systematically, by satellite) was in the 1970's - when crackpots like James Hansen were warning of a Coming Ice Age.
This time, it may be real. Since more and more evidence supports the primacy of solar activity as the determinant of climate, and solar activity (measured by sunspot activity and NASA solar probes) is decreasing, we can expect worldwide cooling - perhaps for 200 years. Meanwhile, people – politicians after money - like Pielke, Green, Obama, and Ritter will try to "help us" by reducing CO2 - when it may be what we need.
luckyleif
Last of three parts, 24 Nov
November 24, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
TomPaine -
>><<What you are failing to comprehend is that all the hydrologic cycle does is move heat from one place to another on the earth, but moving the heat around does not increase or decrease the net heat of the earth as a thermodynamic system.>>
I haven't failed to comprehend your point. What I fail to comprehend is how you can know whether water vapor does this or not.<<
I didn't say *water vapor* does this, but that the *hydrologic cycle* does (the two are NOT the same) - recall that you said:
"The hydrologic cycle (precipitation, runoff/recharge, cloud formation)"
and not "water vapor ...."
>>"Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.<<
Irrelevant - I never said anything about climate forecasts of future temperatures. I will point out that the article *you* cited says:
>>Their work verified water vapor is increasing in the atmosphere as the surface warms. They found the increases in water vapor were not as high as many climate-forecasting computer models have assumed. "Our study **confirms the existence of a positive water vapor feedback in the atmosphere**, but it may be weaker than we expected," Minschwaner said.<<
Which jibes with what I wrote earlier:
>>Higher temperatures would result in more evaporation meaning more water vapor in the atmosphere which in turn means more IR absorption meaning even higher temperatures. Likewise, lower temperatures would mean less evaporation and less water vapor and less IR absorption meaning even lower temperatures. That's a positive feedback, not a negative feedback, or stabilizing effect.<<
>>This link explains that warming from water vapor is much greater than that of CO2:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feat...
<<
I've never disputed that water vapor absorbs more IR than CO2. As for the Iris effect described in your link, the *same source* has another page describing evidence against it:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feat...
So, at best, I would call the Iris Effect disputed. Besides - I challenged you with:
>>No, the hydrologic cycle [*note I didn't say water vapor*] mainly affects the distribution of heat on the earth<<
You have yet to contradict this.
>>QUOTE: "Possibly no part of the climate system is more unpredictable than the interaction between atmospheric water and radiation emitted by the Sun and the Earth."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feat...
<<
Shrug - I never said water vapor and the sun don't play a role - besides, your article ALSO says that:
>>Along with greenhouse gases, such clouds and water vapor contribute to keeping the average temperature of the Earth’s surface from dropping to Arctic levels year round.<<
November 24, 2008
3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
luckyleif -
>>I think CL made the point also that greenhouse gas adds to the Milankovitch effect. **However, he ignores the important gas, H2O, and gives all the credit to CO2**.<<
No I didn't give all of the credit to CO2 - I said:
>>To account for this pattern as well as account for the magnitude, you have to include effects from feedbacks - ice sheets receding and expanding alter the amount of solar radiation that gets reflected and the **greenhouse gasses (including CO2)** that absorb infrared radiation.<<
I was addressing your earlier post where you said:
>>The temperature curve - long periods of (very) cold - with short, regular, warm Interglacials - has a name; it's called the Milankovitch Cycle. Milankovitch was a mathematician, who predicted this sequence 80 years ago, in 1930. It's a natural cycle, due only to variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun. You can look it up.<<
I see you are now saying that the Milankovitch Cycles were exacerbated by feedbacks (I agree the feedbacks were natural - we weren't around most of the time) and moved on to H2O.
I'm short on time so I'll have to be brief
first see my post to TomPaine - H2O in the atmosphere has a very short residence time of about 10 days while CO2 has a very long residence time of about 100 years. Because of that, H2O cannot act as a long term forcing agent nor a long term feedback agent because of the considerable fluctuations of atmospheric levels of H2O on a time scale as small as two weeks. CO2 meanwhile with it's considerably longer residence time, does not have such short term variation (it does have a seasonal fluxuation though).
Secondly, H2O and CO2 do not absorb the same IR wavelengths equally so H2O will not out compete CO2 at all IR wavelengths.
November 24, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
TomPaine writes:
CL:
>>Irrelevant - I never said anything about climate forecasts of future temperatures.>>
TomPaine:
If it weren't for catastrophic future forecasts requiring questionable solutions with questionable science claimed to be "settled," the article we began discussing wouldn't have been written.
***
CL:
I will point out that the article *you* cited says:
>>Their work verified water vapor is increasing in the atmosphere as the surface warms. They found the increases in water vapor were not as high as many climate-forecasting computer models have assumed. "Our study **confirms the existence of a positive water vapor feedback in the atmosphere**, but it may be weaker than we expected," Minschwaner said.<<
TomPaine:
The cited article also said, "This effect is known as "positive water vapor feedback. Its existence and size have been contentiously argued for several years" and "Some climate scientists have claimed atmospheric water vapor will not increase in response to global warming, and may even decrease."
***
CL:
...I would call the Iris Effect disputed.
TomPaine:
...and I would agree.
CL:
...I challenged you with:
>>No, the hydrologic cycle [*note I didn't say water vapor*] mainly affects the distribution of heat on the earth<<
You have yet to contradict this.
TomPaine:
The hydrologic cycle moves water vapor, other greenhouse gases, air, heat and sometimes debris by convection currents driven by solar radiation. All greenhouse gases absorb heat from the earth and atmosphere while some, like water vapor, reflect solar radiation back into space. Whether and how much "positive forcing" (instability) exists is open to scientific debate, which one side of this issue refuses to acknowledge.
I don't fully understand the energy 'balance' of the earth, or the hydrologic cycle, which have existed for at least hundreds of millions of years. Neither does James Hansen at NASA nor anyone affiliated with the IPCC. This is why science is NEVER settled - only able to come up with the best (or worst) working assumptions at the time.
If the IPCC were more scientific and less political, it would not have to ram its agenda down the public's throat. I could say the same thing about some organizations dedicated to the skeptic's position.
I dispute neither global warming nor global cooling - both of which have existed since long before man. What I dispute is the validity (and results) of a process where politics drives science, instead of the other way around.
November 25, 2008
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
TomPaine -
>>Whether and how much "positive forcing" (instability) exists is open to scientific debate, which one side of this issue refuses to acknowledge.<<
Where did I say it wasn't?
I will note that this point is supported by a single article that is over six years old and therefore probably doesn't represent the current state of debate on the matter.
I'll also point out that water vapor's absorption of IR results in the retention of heat is not disputed in the article you cited - even on this thread luckyleif argues that this effect of water vapor is much more significant than that of CO2. The article you cited raises the question of whether more clouds from more water vapor in the atmosphere reflects more energy back into space (the Iris Effect) than the amount of energy absorbed by the same water vapor.
Which means that what is "open to scientific debate" is the basis of your argument, and yet you say matter of factly that:
>>The hydrologic cycle (precipitation, runoff/recharge, cloud formation) is the earth's heating and cooling mechanism, tending to stabilize (not destablilize) the earth's temperature.<<
And...
>>All greenhouse gases absorb heat from the earth and atmosphere while some, like water vapor, reflect solar radiation back into space.<<
Even though you also said that:
>>CL:
...I would call the Iris Effect disputed.
TomPaine:
...and I would agree.<<
So which is it? Matter of fact or disputed and "open to scientific debate"?
It appears, by your own admission, your statement that the hydrologic cycle stabilizes the earth's temperature is, at best, "open for scientific debate".
November 25, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
TomPaine writes:
>>CL:
...I would call the Iris Effect disputed.
TomPaine:
...and I would agree.<<
CL:
So which is it? Matter of fact or disputed and "open to scientific debate"?
It appears, by your own admission, your statement that the hydrologic cycle stabilizes the earth's temperature is, at best, "open for scientific debate".
TomPaine:
Poor Aristotle - he saw the extremes (all or nothing), but couldn't see the vast middle where most human knowledge dwells.
Science doesn't produce "facts" that remain true always. Science is an ongoing process by which old theories are replaced with newer, better ones.
Without debate, there is no science; only dogma, which is often the state of "science" where open inquiry and dispute are rejected.
Anyone who has worked in the earth sciences very long knows that geologic, hydrologic and meteorologic data in our own century are fraught with uncertainty, much less proxy data from prior centuries.
My description of the hydrologic cycle is an opinion, subject to change when better information comes along.
November 26, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
TomPaine -
>>Poor Aristotle - he saw the extremes (all or nothing), but couldn't see the vast middle where most human knowledge dwells.<<
Nice try, but no cigar. Go back and read my last post - I was pointing out that both you and luckyleif were trying to argue both sides of the coin AND that you misrepresented what was in dispute in the article you cited (which was the Iris Effect and NOT water vapors absorption of IR).
Recall your two statements that I questioned:
>>The hydrologic cycle (precipitation, runoff/recharge, cloud formation) is the earth's heating and cooling mechanism, tending to stabilize (not destablilize) the earth's temperature.<<
And...
>>All greenhouse gases absorb heat from the earth and atmosphere while some, like water vapor, reflect solar radiation back into space.<<
Were's this "vast middle" in these statements? It was only after MY questioning of these that we found out that they are actually (at best) disputed.
>>My description of the hydrologic cycle is an opinion, ...<<
Which was stated as fact, which as we have seen, they are not.
>> ...subject to change when better information comes along.<<
Really? So there hasn't been any better information to come along since the 6+ year old article you cited?
Welcome to the middle Aristotle.
November 26, 2008
9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
luckyleif writes:
Quote CL: "first see my post to TomPaine - H2O in the atmosphere has a very short residence time of about 10 days while CO2 has a very long residence time of about 100 years."
Ouch. Leaving aside the assertion about the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (nobody knows, but plants and trees and algae actively absorb CO2), HUH? Perhaps an individual H2O molecule has a residence time of 10 days (I'll buy that), but the H2O content of the atmosphere has some long-term (very) average value. CL's argument on this point makes no sense.
Maybe I missed it in the discussion between CL and Tom Paine about the hydrologic cycle - in dispute, as both said - but one of the clear facts is that water vapor (H2O) is also the source of clouds in our atmosphere. CO2 has no such effect. Clouds are even better than vapor-form H2O in the catching photons business. Unfortunately, they also reflect incoming sunlight. Bottom line - subject to much uncertainty about cooling vs. warming - is that clouds, another form of atmospheric water, are much more important than CO2 in modifying the climate. Clouds, like H2O vapor and most (95%) of atmospheric CO2, are not under human control.
So, Messrs Obama, McCain, Ritter, Salazar, Pielke, and Green - quit trying to destroy the economy in the effort to control the climate - which depends on solar activity, water vapor, clouds, and natural carbon dioxide that we can't control. Man-made carbon dioxide is trivial in its climate effect, and you can't even control that.
Lucky Leif
November 26, 2008
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
TomPaine writes:
TomPaine:
>>My description of the hydrologic cycle is an opinion, ...<<
CL:
Which was stated as fact, which as we have seen, they are not.
TomPaine:
You continue to make up stuff you think I said, or implied, then jump on these red herrings.
Nothing one human says to another is "fact," if by that word you mean something that is "true." It can only be opinion or belief. While any person can be completely certain about his/her knowledge about the real world, that knowledge is always subject to limitations and uncertainty.
It is critical in scientific thinking that one not get too carried away with one's ideas, which are not the things they claim to know. Science is replete with "true believers" who reject anything that does not conform to their existing beliefs. Until Einstein and others demonstrated the inadequacies of Newton's laws of motion and gravitation, the predominate belief among scientists and philosophers (post Newton) was that the world is predictable, like a giant clock. Werner Heisenburg, among others, destroyed this belief.
So, no, when I say the hydrologic cycle does this or that, it is an opinion based on my experience with it. If you think your claims or those of any computer modeler who tries to represent a complex natural system is "fact," (assuming you mean "true, certain or without question"), you are deluding yourself.
By the way, the City of Aurora spent $1 million on a groundwater computer model in a water court case I was in several years ago. Their engineers and groundwater modelers were "reasonably certain" (the legal standard) that the model was accurate, but it turned out they only used two or three deep wells as data to define an aquifer over thousands of square miles. Aurora's million bucks went down the drain, because the model did not meet the court's standard of proof after a critical review by other parties to the case. It's too bad somebody can't cross examine the climate modelers, because their "certainty,' would evaporate as quickly as fog on a sunny day.
If you are seeking (or think I seek) "facts" about the natural world that are "true," not subject to change, you are seeking religion, not science.
November 28, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
Obama's government will make the same stupid mistakes other governments make selecting the winners and losers for alternative energy. We will get more grain for alcohol fuel with unexpected food cost escalation consequences.
If alternate fuel sources were viable they would have no problem raising the capital privately and without govt. help.
November 30, 2008
1:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
darwin777 writes:
Maybe I'm stating the obvious, or something that has already been said. To the first 6 comments. Is pollution good for the environment? Like mountaintop removal for coal, sulfur dioxide and mercury in the air you and I breathe. Or the problems with nuclear mining and waste disposal? Are these good things? Whether Global warming is man made or not does it really matter? I understand questioning authority, but in this case it sounds like you are cutting off the nose to spite the face. Oil can be drilled responsibly. But really how much is there? And how clean is it when you burn it? Just think about why you are arguing against something that will benefit generations to come.
God bless