[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone!

First, M* I don't have the name or particulars on the book on Jim Hansen in front of me. Do you? For Nancy and others, if you would like to have a whole book documenting this administration's foray into this over a long time, either Mike will provide it now or I will next week. However, be prepared for aggravation and frustration throughout the entire reading of the book.

In thinking about it and also because of my own time constraints, I decided to postpone alternate energy a bit and talk about the runaway greenhouse over the next few installments.

There are basically two stable climates for the inner planets, and Earth's present climate is neither of these! One of these is an Ice Age, personified by Mars and the Earth more than 95% of the time. The other is the Runaway Greenhouse personified by Venus (surface temperatures 880F, surface pressure 93 times ours, etc.).
Question 1: Why are these stable climates so far apart from each other? A planet has to radiate Infrared in an atmospheric window in order to radiate enough to have some hope of balancing the amount of sunlight coming in so that there will be thermal equilibrium and temperatures will stay the same over time. If a planet's temperature is such that it's Wien peak is not at a window, too much infrared will be absorbed, energy out will be less than solar energy in, temperatures will rise, and the planet's Wien peak will shift to shorter wavelengths until the next window can be found. In previous installments I have noted that the way CO2 and Water vapor absorb in the Infrared there are 2 IR windows: The one at 10 micrometers corresponding to present Earth-like temperatures (Earth, Mars, ice ages) and the one past the 6.3 micrometer Water vapor band and the 4.3 micrometer CO2 band at around 4 micrometers corresponding to present Venus-like temperatures (Venus, runaway greenhouse). The abovementioned absorption bands in between those windows simply won't allow stable climates at wavelengths (and temperatures) in between. There is a little bit of play in the wavelength (temperature) location of the windows so that the 10 micrometer window permits ice ages and also Earth's present (unstable) climate, known as an interglacial period (even before global warming) which are only a few degrees apart from Earth other (and negligible wavelength differences).
Question 2: Why are Interglacial Periods unstable? Mostly because their close cousins, the Ice Ages are so stable. Ice reflects the very sunlight necessary to melt the ice and raise temperatures before it gets a chance to do that. So once an ice surface forms, it is very difficult to get rid of - it is in essence self-preserving. The interglaical periods offer no such self-preserving features. This seems to be born out historically. over the last 12 million years, the Earth has had 7 major Ice Ages lasting more than 1 million years each followed by 7 iNterglacial periods. The previous Interglacial periods lasted about 18,000 years. We are 11,000 years or so into this latest one.
Several remarks: 1. The stable climates are "undesirable", while the unstable one is desirable. But of the two stable climates which would you prefer? 2. We were born into an unusual time climate time - wise - an interglacial period. It is so difficult to comprehend that Ice Ages are normal and the present climate is abnormal. 3. The 6 previous Interglacial periods we always returned to an Ice Age. But with our enhancement of the greenhouse effect on Earth by global warming this time around, is it our destiny to drive our climate in the direction of the runaway greenhouse? Before we address this issue, my next installment will be on how Venus got that way, because when it started forming its secondary atmosphere from volcanism its 140F surface temperature placed it on the short wavelength end of the 10 micrometer window. It evolved over time into the runaway greenhouse and a Wien peak at the 4 micrometer window.

To be resumed, hopefully, nest Thursday. Have a good week everyone!

My Best,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everybody

Continuing from Global Warming 15, the question of the hour is: Do we have enough fossil fuel inventory to initiate the runway greenhouse here?

At the moment, we cannot answer that question with any certainty because an exact study has not been done. I'll get into that next post (hopefully next week). This week I would like to give some preparatory remarks.

The concern comes from what I said in Global Warming 15 about 1 Earth being in an unstable climate at present (an interglacial period) with the 2 stable climates being an Ice Age on the one hand and a Runaway Greenhouse on the other. We have had 7 Ice Ages over the last 12 million years and this is our 7th subsequent interglacial period. The previous 6 all returned to Ice Ages. I asked last week, because of global warming, is it our destiny this time around to drive our climate toward the runaway greenhouse?

One thing that is important to note: Reaching 880F on Earrth would take millions, perhaps tens or hundreds of millions of years. But that is not the point. The irreversible road to that is reached far sooner. For example Venus reached it with an initial surface temperature of 140F. This would suggest that the odds are it could be reached with a surface temperature lower, perhaps far lower than that.

In terms of what we have discussed throughout previous posts, there is a critical choice at some point: As temperatures increase, from Stefan-Boltzmann's law, this will increase the Earth's Flux, i. e., the IR the Earth sends out to space. If the IR can get out to space, (called Stefan-boltzmann cooling) that will cool off the planet and allow it to come to a new equilibrium at a higher temperature than before. We cannot get our old temperatures back, but at least with a new equilibrium, temperatures would not increase any further. However, the key stipulation is that the increased IR can get out to space - that we have an open IR window to allow that to happen as we do surrounding 10 micrometers at the present time. However, if we increase temperatures and pressures, as we do in global warming, we increase the wavelength range over which absorption takes place and close atmospheric windows. If we add Water vapor, (as we will naturally from the oceans through the saturation vapor pressure law at the higher temperatures, we will particularly cause the 6.3 and 12.6 micrometer Water vapor bands to absorb over greater wavelength ranges and that will tend to close our present 10 micrometer window. If that does close, Stefan-Boltzmann cooling, our one cooling mechanism, will have become impotent and like what happened to Venus naturally, we will have initiated the runaway greenhouse here.
So the critical issue is this: Will we be able to leave the window open enough over time to allow Stefan-Boltzmann cooling to cool or will we close the window through the infinite Water vapor loop and initiate the runaway greenhouse?
It is from these considerations that I strongly recommend that we cannot afford to raise Earth's temperatures, by any means, any longer, because raising temperatures plays directly into the danger posed by the infinite Water Vapor loop. Obviously this would in turn strongly suggest changing our energy base from the fossil fuels to benign alternatives as fast as is feasibly possible.

As you can see, this is in our hands.

More next time.

Have a good week everybody!

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

I tried to post last week but couldn't do it. I'll make this brief. If it is working, I have Finals, but then I'll be off and I'll try from home.

To Joe: I agree with you but there are a whole host of benign alternatives. Solar (on the ground; in space) Wind (on the ground; tapping the jetstream) and others. By having a diversity, this protects against a terrorist attack against any one of them and it brings down the price when they are competing. More on this down the road.

To everyone: I am so happy the last weeks have brought much discussion on energy alteratives to this forum. For now, driven largely by the gas prices, (but I'd like to think by the environment as well) there are 2 schools of thought. These 2 schools seem to have innocent enough differences, but for my money they make all the difference in the health of the planet.

School 1 (espoused by the present administration and also by the publisher of the New York Daily News (and other papers), Mort Zuckerman, who wrote a special editorial himself to this effect in the newspaper about 10 days ago): Start drilling offshore and in Alaska to cut down imports of oil and bring down oil prices.

School 2 (esposed by Al Gore in his address a few weeks ago and seperately by Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times columnist who has won 3 Pulitzer Prizes over the years: Absolutely ignore new oil sources, go full throttle to look for benign alternatives to the fossil fuels.

Both schools envision a shift in our energy outlook and therefore appear similar. School 1 addresses the fact that importing oil under the present circumstances is costly and this strategy will lower fuel prices for the average consumer.

However, I vigorously advocate school 2 and I vigorously oppose school 1. Some of you who have come to know how I think will immediately see why.

More important than what I think, I would like to use this as dialogue to see what everyone else thinks and why. Also, if we all agree with each other, is there anything we can do? While I'm busy grading Finals over the next stretch of time, why not use the forum to voice your thoughts on school 1 or 2 or even other schools of thought.

Feel well, everyone.

Best wishes,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone

I'm OK - Sharon and I were away for awhile. Fridays seem to be a better day for me now than Thursdays so I'll be here on Fridays when I can.

I want to thank Tommy, Joe, Mike and others for the discussion in the interim. I was going to go on to something new today, but I happened to be watching Sen. McCain's speech in Wisconsin about 2 hours ago and, with reference to my last post (#2030), he has stated that he definitely belongs to school 1 and went on to criticize those (including Sen. Obama whose energy policies largely fit into school 2) for not including offshore drilling and nuclear (fission) as part of their future energy vision. As a scientist, I usually try to stay out of the political end of things. But the importance of this can make me silent no longer. He just doesn't get it. We cannot afford to raise atmospheric temperatures any longer, not even with "band aid" solutions like drilling for more oil. If he wants to defend nuclear fission, would he be willing to have the wastes buried in one of his 7 back yards? Joe may be right - I might be preaching largely to the choir here - but if any of you have doubts, may I remind you that the oil and nuclear fission industries have had long histories of financing the party Sen. McCain belongs to. Could that be the real reason why those industries are included in his future energy portfolio?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

To Mike: You asked of me a question (post 2040) I've long wanted to do research on, but my inquiry would be different for a reason you will quickly see. I'm paraphrasing you:

Do we have enough oil inventory on the planet so that by using it we could initiate the runaway greenhouse on Earth?

One of the reasons other than environmental that we must wean ourselves away from oil for transportation now is that the United States' proven reserves will last 20-30 years and worldwide reserves will last several decades beyond that (and these calculations don't really include the possible explosive impacts of China and India on these markets). So oil will not be in our future anyway in which case, why not start subtracting ourselves from oil now?
The real fear I have is from coal whose worldwide reserves are much longer.

So I would recast your question as: Do we have enough fossil fuel inventory on the planet so that by using it we could initiate the runaway greenhouse on Earth?

I have been wanting to do this problem for 25 years. At first I didn't have the computing resources or the time. Computers, even PCs, now can handle this, so it is just a question of time for me. I know how to build such a model, (it would be a 1-Dimensional Radiative Convective [1DRC] Model) but at the rate I could do it in my spare time while I am teaching, Venus would have an Ice Age before I finished. I feel that I cannot retire, because my voice is needed to get the word out on global warming and that is probably more important at this point.

I have even considered applying to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) for a Resident Research Associateship for 1 year to use their 1DRC model. But I would have to take a Sabbatical and right now there is no one who could replace me, particularly for teaching Climatology.

I don't know if I ever told you this, but after you left GISS, Reto (remember him in Gary Russell's group?) and I were throwing things around one night and he had some computer time and we decided to do a wild experiment with the 3-Dimensional General Circulation Model. We took the temperatures in a control run and added 100C (Celsius) [or K, Kelvin] to all of them and then just ran the model like that. That run was never published and not even much discussed internally at GISS, but it was a life-changing experience for me. Enough Water had evaporated from the "oceans" (keep in mind at that time there was no real atmospheric-ocean interaction in the models in those days) in 3 weeks to raise surface temperatures another 30-60C, and to significantly deplete the oceans (based on how much new Water Vapor was in the atmosphere). The model run ended because temperatures went outside the tables of some of the temperature-dependent quantities in the model and it didn't know what to do. Those same Tables are in their 1DRC model (I know since I was in charge of it for 2 years) and are probably there today, so I would have to "formulize" those tables, but to my knowledge, nobody has ever done this problem at GISS or elsewhere. The reason this was life-changing for me was because the model diagnostics showed that Water Vapor was responsible for almost the entire raise in temperatures and this solidified my perspective on its importance to the whole process. So if the ever Earth reached that point clearly the runaway greenhouse would be on (and probably well before that point).
I am also aware of an experiment (not done at GISS) where 1900 values of CO2 were quadrupled. That model struggled to reach equilibrium, but it did reach it, so Earth's prospective runaway greenhouse is beyond that point.
I know, I know, I'm making bookends of this with two different models with two quite different ways of assessing this. but to my knowledge, this is all we have to go by. Based on the above model's struggle to reach equilibrium at 4x 1900 CO2, I would conservatively guess that 5-7X would do the trick. Keeping in mind that a doubling of CO2 would be a 100% increase, we are at 39% more CO2 than 1900 now (389 ppm vs 280). But also keep in mind that because the saturation vapor pressure law has that quantity increasing explosively with increasing temperature that another 39% increase would result in a much higher temperature increase than we have had in these last 108 years, and so on. Moreover our rate of CO2 increase is increasing, as well: We will soon be at 3 ppm/year!

There is also another reason I've been dragging on the problem: I'm fearful the answer is yes. I am an optimist by nature, but there is a part of me that doesn't want to be the Paul Revere on this and I have been fighting internally with the other part of me that argues that it is my responsiblity to do this. This war has been going on internally within me for a long, long time.

Be that as it may, I hope to be going back to adding new material next week - unless the interim discussion complells me to do otherwise.

Have a good week everyone!

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone

I don't have time today for a new contribution so I'll respond to "Global Cooling".

I want to thank Mike, Joe, and others for arguing skillfully while I have been busy the last couple of weeks. Sorry for my absence.

OK, so this year might wind up being cooler than some recent others.

Four things:
1. Who made one year the critical time for this kind of statement?
2. Is this cooling within climate noise, that is, the natural variability of the climate system? Until around 20 years ago, the warming was within climate noise no less this "blip" over these months.
3. Whether cooling or warming is occurring in your particular neck of the woods means absolutely nothing to this problem. It is a global problem, requiring global data. I have argued that you cannot even use the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets as a proof of global warming - all it proves is those latitudes are warming. Global warming may cause it, but you cannot use it as a proof.
4. Please check the credentials of your sources on this. Examples: A. We have at Bergen Community College where I teach a Chemistry Professor (part-time; his full time job is in the plastics and oil industry as a consultant) who is a global warming naysayer. When I have asked questions of him after any talks he has given, I have never had to call him on those displaced credentials; his talks themselves have given me enough ammunition for arguaing against his thesis and I have won over any doubters in the audience in the bargain. However, I would never feign to become an expert on Chemistry, why does he do this with climate as a chemist? B. Michael Crichton the author and naysayer to global warming calls himself a scientist. But where is his degree in anything scientific? He is a writer of fiction, period. C. If anyone is going to bring the Farmer's Almanac into a reasonable discussion on this subject, I cannot take them seriously.

For those worried about "global cooling" if you want something to worry about, worry about the consequences of what we are doing to ourselves on this worldwide and let's join together to wean ourselves off the fossil fuels, find benign, non-costly alternatives, and replant our world's forests.

Have a good week.

Best wishes,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone,

I promised "Swoonergirl" and others some months ago about launching a discussion on alternative sources of energy. That seems a long time ago, but not so long ago that we are out of the fossil fuel era.

This post will of necessity be on generalities. I'll get specific starting with the next one.

Some random thoughts here:
1. My previous posts have taken us through the details of how global warming works: Water vapor added to the atmosphere in recent times through the atmosphere's warming by CO2 added to the atmosphere in recent times raises temperatures, with short and long term consequences for the planet and life on it. The dire nature of those consequences (agriculture, sea level rise short term; possibly the runaway greenhouse long term) forces the conclusion that we cannot afford to raise temperatures on the planet any further. We have also seen that for one thing, our worldwide use of coal and oil, which produce CO2 as by-products of their usage as sources of energy, have, timewise, perfectly coincided with the rise in temperatures so far.

I have discussed in previous posts how we can calculate the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere from these sources, but because the oceans take some of this up, the exact amount from coal and oil responsible for global warming cannot be calculated. However, it is nearly universally the opinion of climatologists that this is the major component driving global warming.
Worldwide, we use coal to generate electricity and oil for transportation. They are entrenched in being used for these purposes, which provide a gargantuan amount of energy (and with that energy CO2). If we are to stop global warming, it appears we have 2 choices: A. Stop generating electricity and also go back to horses for transportation. B. Look for benign alternatives to coal and oil.

Unfortunately, up until recent times the present administration and most of the world with it were advocating a choice C: Ignore global warming and keep on going the way we are going with the fossil fuels.


2. Choice A above is not going to happen, nor is anyone seriously advocating it. Finally, even George W. Bush appears to be giving some ground on choice C. So choice B will somehow be our strategy for the future.


3. In practice, because we are human, choice B has some overall wrinkles attached to it: At the moment it seems to be mostly driven by financial and not environmental concerns. That is, I mostly hear about how we must wean ourselves off foreign oil because of its financial down side (although I guess it is OK to still be in a costly war over it; [it leaves one to wonder - would we be in the financial mess we are in if we hadn't fought this war]) but not because of its environmental down side. But because the financial and environmental goals go in the same direction here, I can't really complain. However, the coincidence of the financial and environmental goals, while mostly in phase, are not always so.

Fuel cells will save us money, and will not emit CO2, but do emit Water vapor directly to the atmosphere. From what we have talked about could you ask for anything worse environmentally? And yet [U]The New York Times[U] had a whole section Wednesday on "The Business Of Green" with "Pumping Hydrogen" the lead article. I can see I have a long way to go to educate people on this!!!!!!!!!!!!


4. How did we fall into the fossil fuel web in the first place? I am not going to bore you with the history. However it's appeal will certainly be a model that benign future alternatives will have to meet. Around a century ago, when electricity was starting to become popular worldwide and cars and planes were starting to become popular worldwide, they had to be powered by reliable, available, inexpensive sources of energy. With untold worldwide sources of coal and oil at that time, and those fuels themselves convenient and reliable to use, and alternative energy technologies not in any way in the picture, these became natural choices.

The word environmental hardly had an entry in the dictionary and certainly greenhouse effect had not made it into the lexicons of studies of climatology, so from that point of view, there certainly was no resistance (although Arrhenius, in the 1890's was already concerned with this, but he stood quite alone). In the interim, however, things have certainly changed. The coal and oil businesses have become incredibly successful worldwide businesses for a number of concerns, which particluarly have "strong voices" in Washington. We have used these fuels at a rate no one could possibly conceive of a century ago and this has consumed our worldwide vast storages of them and made them much more expensive and to a certain extent less reliable. We have also learned more about climate and have become more attuned to environmental issues overall. But, until recently, none of this has silenced the "strong voices". Hopefully this very briefly takes us to where we find ourselves now.


5. So this means that any successful energy strategy to replace the fossil fuels will have to have the following attributes: 1. It has to be doable. 2. It has to be reliable (nuclear fusion is doable but not reliable; it works in fits and starts, but not continuously [yet, at least] which is what is needed if you are going to generate electricity wit it). 3. It has to be inexpensive. 4. It has to be benign to global warming and other environmental concerns (nuclear fission is doable, reliable, not too costly, benign to global warming, but obviously not other environmental concerns if we have to bury the guaranteed radioactive wastes from it for at least 10,000 years). 5. It has to be convenient to use. (one of the problems with Hydrogen is that there are few Hydrogen gas stations - and this is because there are few Hydrogen cars, which obviously poses a practical problem to increasing the number of Hydrogen cars). I personally hope this chicken and the egg problem for Hydrogen based fuels remains that way). 6. It has to eventually be able to be used worldwide.

These attributes will make such alternative energy strategies sellable to the world so that they can actively replace the fossil fuels. Right now most of them suffer particularly from number 1 as well as some others in the list above. However, the hope is that research and development can allow these new technologies to overcome these (now) obstacles. As I said in an earlier post, we need a "Manhattan Project" on developing these alternative energies, and we need it now.


6. I don't know how this will shake out ultimately and it may be different for each energy strategy, but an issue is: What size scale will the energy grid serve. Will it be individual (such as solar panels for individual houses and businesses), statewide (electric energy utilities), country-wide, world-wide, or some other scale? Of the latter two scales for example, does a U. S. owned business want to collect solar energy strictly for the U. S.? Sell this also to enemy countries who might use it against us in wartime (I know, I know, we do this now to ourselves with individual arms). However this needs to be thought out carefully from a number of different perspectives and it may have an important impact on how the technology develops or is able to develop.


7. If the energy strategy is on a country-wide basis, it needs to be protected from terrorist action. If our country depended on one source of energy, that would be the easiest way for an enemy to bring us to our knees. That is a hidden issue with oil, and isn't it already happeniing to an extent, considering the types of governments of countries where we import our oil from. (Is that a theorem of some sort? i. e., that if a country has oil it's government has to be non-democratic?). However that experience should teach us that we should be looking for a multiplicity of energy strategies to defend against that possibility and to also bring down prices by having them compete with one another.

Next time I have a chance - Global Warming 18 should be solar collected at the ground.

My best to everyone,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone!

First I was busy and then I had avatar trouble. Actually it was more picture-taking trouble. I broke more cameras trying to have pictures taken of my ugly mug than it is worth talking about. And all the flying glass! Finally with great help from Mike, a friend of his, Bob here, and Sharon, I am able to post again.

I hope to next turn the discussion to energy strategies for the future. It will have one agenda - the health of the planet and its inhabitants. However, the topic itself is so broad and engaging that if you have other priorities (cost, casual interest) there will be something there for you, too.

I want to thank Mike and countless others for carrying on the dialogue while I was out.

Today, however, I must devote to responding to Rick's remarks. Rick, I am not singling you out. I strongly suspect you will not change your mind after you read what I have to say. Nor is that really my aim. I simply want to clear up some things for the forum.

I never shove any of my ideas down anyone's throat. Years of teaching have taught me that you present things with as irresistable logic as you can and those who get touched by it can take it from there. When it comes to science, the irresistable logic is handicapped in certain ways: Scientists [I]are[I] human and prone to human mistakes. We are not God-like as many portray us. However, like practically everyone else in our chosen line of work we try our best and overall, over time, have a pretty good track record of accuracy. So on the other hand, not all of us are the bumbling stiffs as some portray us.

As you know, data and measurements are the cornerstone of scientific progress. In climatology, the data have merit, but are certainly not pristine. That also makes it difficult for me to present irresistable logic. and instead I have to present the best that I can. But does that make climate any different from medicine? You go to a Doctor for a diagnosis and the non-pristine nature of the data there make diagnoses correct a high percentage, but not 100% of the time. Yet that seems acceptable in medicine - going in, a patient understands that her or his success with an ailment is subject to data and the Doctor's interpretation of it - right or wrong. It is my experience that when climate gets sick, the circumstances are much the same - non-pristine data plus the professional's interpretation of it. Yet the tolerance level is far less. I'm not complaining about this; it is something I cannot help but notice having been in this business as long as I have.

1. Speaking of Doctors, Rick, if you were ill, would you see an atmospheric physicist like myself? Why not? Because I do not have the credentials. Even though I am a scientist, I don't pretend to be a Medical Doctor, nor would I want the responsibility of one. In your post 2113, you site opinions from a Geologist and an Analytical Chemist on climate. Where are their climate credentials? I certainly would not, unless it had to do with climate or planetary atmospheres, claim any expertise on Geology or Analytical Chemistry. Why is the reverse true?

2. You site a period of warmth also known as The Medieval Warm Period and otherwise known as The "Little Climatic Optimum". The standard argument from opponents of human causes of the present global warming has been that that warming, which could only be "natural" in its causes and resulting in limited worldwide devastation, has exceeded the present warming. In addition you present in post 2123 United States data showing overall cooling as evidence of a possible reversal in global warming. However, the problem with both are the nature of the breadth (and in the former case, the comparative accuracy) of the data. The data we have for the Medieval Warm period come from proxy data (natural Climate indicators, not thermometers, since they weren't invented yet) from Europe and the Americas.

The oceans (71% of the area of the Earth's surface) or other areas are void of data. Given the approximation of the accuracy of proxy data to the thermometers of today, how can we say anything about the warming of the planet from these data alone? There may have been warming, but how do we know from the data we do have?

Likewise, the United States is a very small percentage of the area of the globe and the time frame of months is in no way even a microcosm of the time frame of the present warming, so where is this evidence for the beginning of a cooling, as data by themseves? Having said that, a similar argument of the oceans can also be applied to the temperature data of today, although today we at least have data from island stations which at least do not render the oceans void of data. But in no way does it match the density of data from inhabited land areas either. This is a factor in the "non-pristine" nature of climate data.

Therefore, like in medicine, the data require expertise from someone with the appropriate credentials to interpret the data, so that the best picture possible emerges. My opinions, and I would say this represents the large majority of the consensus of my peers on this:

1. The medieval warming did exist, but in no way do the data represent a comparable scenario to compare to the present both in terms of data accuracy on worldwide breadth. Therefore, comparisons are, at best shaky.

2. To take the cooling of the United States, which might be perhaps 2% of the globe's area, over a period of months to represent any reversal of global warming, I will be kind and simply say, let's wait for more data in space and time for that kind of a statement and leave it at that. Global coverage is a particular concern for me in such a global problem.

I will give you an example, where I differ in a conservative way from many of my peers: While I have little doubt that global warming is responsible for the melting of the various ice sheets in both hemispheres, I have advocated that the reverse is not true - that this cannot be used as a proof of global warming, because the warming of the ice sheets is limited to a small range of latitudes and global warming is global. If one wants to include ice melting on tall mountains around the world (e. g. the disappearance of the snows of Kilomanjaro) along with the ice sheets, that is a better proof.

3. In post 2113 you state that the added CO2 represents 0.00064% increase in abosorption of the Sun's radiation (at visible wavelengths). That is absolutely true but that is not where the problem lies. The problem lies in that while the Sun's radiation is unchanged by an addition of CO2 as what you said points out, the Earth's radiation to space has become less than it was and this combination raises temperatures. At the higher temperatures, the atmosphere holds more Water vapor than it did before. Water vapor also does not absorb sunlight at visible wavelengths but absorbs infrared even more proifically than CO2 and that really raises temperatures.

I have often said that global warming should really be called global non-cooling because that is a more accurate description but I am a realist: Global warming, both in name and phenomenon is here to stay.

I have a busy stretch ahead, but hope to be back over Thanksgiving weekend, where I'll try to discuss solar energy collected at the ground as a possible alternative to the fossil fuels.

Feel well everyone. It's great to be back.

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone

Some varied responses to the excellent posts since I was last here:

To Rick: Thanks for your response. My aim here is to educate, not criticize or sell ideas. My approach is the way I do it in the classroom: I try to lay out the facts and have people make up their own minds. The beauty of a democracy is that we are individuals with our own backgrounds and thought processes and a democracy allows the ideas that emerge from those differing backgrounds and thought processes to live side-by-side on an equal footing with different ideas on the same topics that have come from others.

To Nancy: Trust me. Mike applied a brand new processing program to my picture (and used lots of computer time) to make my photo even acceptable. Thank you for your comment and thanks to Mike for the hard work but I continue to break mirrors and cameras when I look into them.

To everyone: Happy Thanksgiving! We have a lot to be thankful for. I could make a long list of what I have to be thankful for, but I will go straight to the end of the list and thank the forum for introducing me to an awesome group of loving, caring people who I consider my friends.

I know I have been postponing talking about solar collected at the Earth's surface. But the flurry of terrific posts since I was last here, and a broader energy topic force me to postpone it once more.

The remainder of my post will be divided into some thoughts and personal opinions in reactions to some of these posts and then to the broad energy topic.

1. I read the letter to Obama and the posts here surrounding it and I want to add some personal feelings and the reasons for them: 1. The fourth generation nuclear fission plants are better than the previous generation plants. Disagreeing with Dr. Hansen and Mike, I am still wary of them for several reasons: 1. Fission still always produces some nuclear waste which has to be dealt with. 2. Will this technology (and this fusion unfortunately shares) be applied to bombs? I worry greatly about the latter because we have entered an age where present nuclear technology (and the hardware for bombs) is now not only affordable to countries. Wealthy individuals are able have this in their possession, which makes fighting terrorism all the more difficult. This brings up the question of whether the technology should be even pursued. I suppose one could answer that if we don't do it it will be done elsewhere and there are some advantages to us doing it, but the question remains. In the letter to President-elect Obama, Dr. Hansen hints that this would be used only if other technologies over time don't prove fruitful. I hope it plays out that way, because I would like to see solar and wind, among other strategies, given priroity. They are there already, they don't pollute in any way, and while they may be expensive to set up, once they are set up their costs should be minimal.

2. In post 2082 (several months ago) I mentioned in passing about the energy grid and the size scales of energy reception. I'd like to talk more about that before we get into specific energy strategies. Really, as you see below, I have a number of questions to throw out for which I don't know the answers.
A. Right now, our electricity and transportation needs are met by purchasing from an intermediary: Electricity from a utility and oil from a gas station. But it doesn't have to be that way. For example there are many buildings around the world that capture solar directly and that energy meets their entire electrical (and sometimes even heating) needs. i. e., their tenants don't deal with a utility. As long as we are looking for new modes of energy, doesn't it make sense to also look into new modes of distribution? If possible, in particular, I for one could do without the costs of a "middleman". Since we were brought up on the present distribution system we tend to think of it as a given - even a fabric of our lives. But does it have to be that way? The present distribution systems were set up more than a century ago. I wonder if the "middleman" profit margin was a part of that thinking and that that aspect of it would thrust upon an unsuspecting public. Well that public is better educated today and in particular, is not afraid to ask questions... I wonder what everyone thinks about this.
B. As long as we are on this topic, our two Presidential candidates (more frequently our President-elect) as well as candidates for other offices, correctly mentioned that our electrical grid needs an overhaul. To paraphraze: "We are looking for 21st century technologies to be delivered over an early 20th century grid". I take this one step further: A new grid although necessary, is going to cost lots of money. As long as that is the case, we should ask the question: What about a different kind of grid? Now I don't know whether or not what I am proposing can actually be done, but I do know that I am writing this courtesy of remote Internet access. The house server is in another room. Wireless access is sprouting all over the place. OK, I'm well aware of the inverse-square law of light intensity and that prospective health problems would have to be studied carefully, but how about "wireless" electricity using the wireless Internet as a model. It might not be able to be done, but it costs nothing to ask and to think about. The money needed to rewire the grid could instead go into the technology to amplify the neccessary signals. Or, better yet, maybe each building, as per the Wireless Internet, could be its own source of such power and we divorce ourselves from the utilities! The distance loss factor would largely be eliminated in that case. Never again would we have to deal with power outages caused by weather or an outdated grid. I was thinking of elecromagnetic radiation replacing electricity as the source, but maybe it could be something else. When we are in one of these "crises" we don't have to be married to anything, not even electricity.

To Rick again: I guess a place where we differ is that I get a sense that you feel that humans will not be able to overcome such problems. I feel the opposite: It is in the times of crises that we humans are at our best. Not always, perhaps, but more often than not. I don't know your vocation, but mine, teaching, gives me the benefit of seeing that perspective first-hand and if I didn't teach, I might not feel that way. There is nothing more gratifying to me professionally than having students at the beginning of a semester who are math-afraid and otherwise uncertain and helping them to become productive individuals, confident that they can contribute to society. I am not able to do this for everyone, but once in awhile that happens and that night when I come home, if I look in the mirror, I know it won't break like it usually does.

Finals are around the corner for me, but I promise to be a more frequent contributor after Christmas, when I am off for a few weeks.

Happy Holidays everyone!

Love,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

M*:
I hope you don't feel too bad that we disagree on this. Five things:
1. We are not exactly on opposite ends of the fence on this.
2. I am not always 100% right and therefore no standard-bearer.
3. We are allowed to disagree respectfully; after all we are individuals.
4. As an example of #2 above, I was really gung-ho about Carbon Dioxide sequestering at coal-fired plants when it was first suggested but before it was actually tried. Being more expensive than was first thought and now with the economic crisis, it has been put on hold for funding. While I am still hopeful this will work, I am understandably gun-shy now of untested ideas like 4th generation fission plants.
5. But mostly it comes back to the following: One of the historical curses of humans is how we get in our own way. It often comes from a short term profit motive, or lack of understanding or simply carelessness. Witness the waste of most wars, The Ozone problem, global warming, and the current economic disaster and I could go on forever. As bad as crises are, they give us an opportunity sometimes to revisit the fundamentals and global warming permits us to do this with the way we generate energy and distribute it. Most energy generation processes like the fossil fuels, nuclear fission, biochemical and others, generate energy plus other products. Once the other products come along they often offer an opportunity for us to get in our own way and subsequently (if we even can) apply a fix to the getting in our own way (like we are trying to presently cover our ever-lovin' !@@@#@ from global warming with the fossil fuels). Solar and wind do not generate other products except heat, which is a by-product of all energy generation mechanisms. Thus they (and a few others) offer us the desired without the undesired. Shouldn't they then be given top priority for research and development? The same principle applies to distribution. Long distance wiring necessitates a middle man and power outage and weather-related problems. I don't know if this can be done, but using the wireless Internet as a model, couldn't we look into acquiring energy for electrical impliments in homes and buildings in a like way which avoids these issues and look into such a possibility before we blindly rewire the world just because that is the way it was done over 100 years ago?

In Dr. Hansen's letter I cannot of course speak for him, but I think he is referring to the rewiring, not alternatives. Some kind of overhaul is absolutely necessary.

I'll be back after Christmas. Must tend to lab reports, exams, and my students.

Happy, Healthy Holidays
R* to Mike, (Rog' to the rest of the universe)

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi everyone

I haven't forgotten the forum, I've just been busy even while off. I hope everyone has had a belated happy holiday and a happy New Year. Maybe I can give a brief remark tonight followed by more in depth next week.

Mike - Thanks for posting the annual global temperature data indicating 2008 was the 9th warmest year on record. This despite much conversation in the forum at the beginning of the year on local cooling trends and also despite a low sunspot number and a La Nina, both colder than normal effects that are weell within climate noise. As I am writing this, the temperature outside in the NY Metro area is threatening to go into the single digits. My point of all of this is global warming is a planet-wide phenomenon. It is composed of local relative highs and lows where the sum total of the highs exceeds the lows over the globe for the given time period. Just take a look at a globe and how much of it is composed of the Pacific Ocean. Then think about the relative size of your own neck of the woods a you will get some feel for how your neck of the woods is dwarfed by that ocean. At the same time, you begin to understand why El Nino-Southern Oscillation, which has the Pacific Ocean as its engine, can affect weather patterns worldwide, being weighted by an area which is such a large fraction of the Earth's area.

Moreover, despite the low temperature factors, 2008 was still in the top 10. This should strengthen the idea that global warming is for real. With sunspot number becoming average and La Nina disappearing I would not be surprised if we return to the even higher temperature years of recent times in 2009.

Best Wishes,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Because of the Antarctica Paper and some time constraints on my part, I figured I would join in the discussion rather than add something new. Bravo to everyone but particularly Ted, Nancy, Mike, Jake, and Ace on a great exchange the past few days. Some comments and observations:

1. To be fair, be aware that temperature data for Antarctica are sparse and satellite data, while helpful, are not as accurate as thermometer-measured temperatures. Moreover, in order to be statistically significant for climatological purposes, a station has to accumulate 30 years of data. Not too many Antarctic stations have that lon a data base and the satellite measurements certainly not. Despite these uncertainties, Antartica, not surprisingly, seems to be warming.

2. It is true that the melting of sea ice is largely (but not entirely) a volumetric tradeoff. There is sea level rise from the volumetric expansion of salt Water with increasing temperatures.

3. It is also true that the intermixing of cold meltwater with warm ocean currents has the potential of affecting current flow and even direction. I certainly do not think that climate models have the accuracy to predict what will happen yet in that case no less the attendant local climate changes they might bring.

4. A real black box in all of this would be if any or all of the Greenland, West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets could slide off their land attachments and into the ocean. That would cause a sudden sea level rise akin to taking a drink on a Summer day and adding ice cubes to it, with the attendant sudden rise in the level of the liquid in the drink. Satellite pictures over the years suggest such displacements of these ice sheets towards the oceans have occurred. The mechanism suggested for this that wasn't there before was the melting of the top of the ice sheet leads to liquid Water which can then flow horizontally until it hits a crack in the ice called a moulin. It now falls through the moulin to the bottom of the ice and provides a less frictionful layer between the ice bottom and the land it was previously securely attached to. The Greenland and West Antarctic ice Sheets would be worth some tens of meters and East Antarctic over 100 meters of sudden sea level rise. How sudden is sudden? Who knows? Would this trigger the equivalent of tsunami? Who knows? Would that be worse than the sudden rise in sea level? Who knows? Does this mechanism actually work? Who knows? I would say the ice experts don't even know because this is really inventing the wheel - we have not seen this in climate history and of course it cannot be simulated in the laboratory. However it has been discussed within climate for several years now and is the topic of a paper in the February 2008 issue of Scientific American called Unquiet Ice Speaks Volumes by Robin Bell.

I promise to talk about prospective alternate sources of energy soon. I know; I've been promising for months. Bad Rog'!!!

Feel well,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone

I must confess that the conversation has been heating up since I was last here faster than the planet.

Melissa (and others): Thank you for your patience with me. I hope to start talking about alternative energy next time, but instead of starting with solar, I'm going to subject coal then oil to the criteria for desirable energy I gave in post 2082 of 9/26/08. Then we'll do solar collected at the ground, in space, etc.

I am not about to defend global warming below. However, I will summarize what gives climatologists confidence that global warming, despite non-pristine climatological data, and non-pristene climatological methods, is for real. I will discuss the non-pristene aspects below as well, in an effort to be as fair and honest as possible. I have given lots of this in this forum before, in bits and pieces, but a summation is probably timely at this point. While I address Rick directly in places below, the discussion is intended for anyone interested.

First, however, also in the interest of being fair: Rick, among other things, you cite Richard Lindzen and Gerald North. These are both longtime naysayers to global warming. Lindzen is known to have ties to John Sununu and Sununu to oil. I am unsure if North has any specific agenda. The IPCC is also notriously conservative - in its position it has to be.
I am not necessarily echoing Dr. Hansen's results, but Mike is right on about him. I have known him for 39 years. His only agendae are the health of the planet and the quality of his work. He has no political affiliation. He has won awards such that money is not an issue for him. Has he made mistakes? Are scientists human beings first? That being said, his body of work is largely revered by his peers, folks like Lindzen, North, and a sparse few others notwithstanding.
Rick, you call climatology "not settled science". Science is never settled. That's what makes it a beautiful endeavor, especially for someone like me. Science is constantly testing; constantly trying to get a better handle on the truth with better experimental techniques and improved understanding over time. The fact is, the best science is never settled.
If you would instead consider my description for climatology - not pristene science, that also is a fact. A chemist (and this is of course not all that they do) can study their subject by mixing chemicals directly and reporting what the result is by direct observation. Let's consider applying this to global warming: Can a climatologist inject
CO2 into the atmosphere and watch as the world warms and report on what's happening? "Heresy" you say and indeed you would be right. So climatologists have to study their subject indirectly and this is the beginning of the non-pristene nature of the subject. By the way, judging on the lack of outcry until recently, it has been apparently OK for humans to inject CO2 into the atmosphere and perform this experiment, but not climatologists. Is there something wrong with this picture?
Climatologists recognize that their work has to be indirect. So what do they do? They simulate the climate system with climate models. These usually consist of the appropriate equations of Physics (and sometimes Chemistry) solved in a prognosticative form on a spatial and time grid of points, normally executed on a large computer. The points are necessary because the prognostic equations are not algebraic or continuous. They are numerical and have to be solved point by point. But actual climatic processes are atom to atom spatially and spatial grid points in models can be kms or 10's of kms apart. Climatic processes are also instant to instant in time and time scales in models can be over days or even months or years. One immediately sees what I mean by the non-pristene nature of modeling of the subject. One can miss out on what is really going on in between the grid points both in space and time. Fortunately, climate forecasts are for large spatial domains (possible even the whole planet) and long times so what might be missed in between the grid points is not as important to meet those objectives, but it isn't zero either.
Likewise, the simulation of physical processes is far from pristene. Let's consider the global warming process of the melting of ice sheets. An ice cube or thin veneer of ice on the ground will melt once the air temperature goes above the melting point of ice. Will a glacier or an entire ice sheet melt instantaneously once the temperature goes above the melting point of ice? Of course not. How fast will it melt? (a question obviously important to sea level rise). Has anyone taken an ice sheet into the laboratory and watched it melt? The best that can be done on this is an educated guess. I could be wrong about this, but I would imagine that Dr. Hansen has one set of "ice sheet experts" and IPCC has another. Having said all of this, the largest component to sea level rise, the rate of the themal expansion of salt Water with increasing temperature, is known pretty accurately. Thus, the science of this is not pristine but has some degree of merit nonetheless.

So how does a climatologist have faith in these non-pristine models? If they can under present conditions, produce the present climate to an accepted degree of accuracy, that is license to argue that they can be extended to forecast other conditions in the future, such as global warming. Is it possible that the present climate's accuracy is fortuitous and that it is the outcome of compensating errors? Of course that is possible. However, 1. many of these models now also forecast (really hindcast) paleoclimates to acceptable degrees of accuracy and 2. the climate model forecasts for the same experiments to a certain degree agree with each other. This reduces (but not to zero) the possiblity of fortuitous compensating errors being responsible for a model's accuracy.

It comes down to this choice: In the name of pristine science would you rather wait for more accurate models and data while the world warms possibly with dangerous consequences and passes you by or make the best of these imperfect tools combined with a climatologists experience in forecasting a potentially dangerous climate scenario? I would say that well over 99% of climatologists choose the latter. There is an unwritten moral responsibility that scientists have to the public - to warn them of a dangerous circumstance in their particular scientific domain. These climatologists take that responsibility seriously. Is there a possibility of crying wolf? No question. However bear with me in what follows and then see how you feel about this.

Why do climatologists have confidence that global warming is for real despite the non-pristince nature of the science?
Fact 1: Worldwide temperatures have increased nearly 3F in the last 100 years, nearly 2F in the last 10 years. These are measurements.
Fact 2: CO2 abundances have gone up from 280 ppm to the current value of 390 ppm in the last 100 years. These also are measurements.
Fact 3: Our planet is almost 69F warmer than it would be, given our distance from the Sun, if we didn't have an atmosphere. We are able to do precise model calculations on this issue: All but 0.4F of the 69F are because of CO2 and especially H2O vapor which are trace gases in our atmosphere. From this you conclude that small changes in either or both of these can produce large changes in temnperatures - as is observed in global warming.
Fact 4: This unusual, even anomalous warming and historical CO2 increase coincides precisely timewise with our usage of the fossil fuels and killing off of green plants, both of which add CO2 (and with it
H2O) to our atmosphere.
Fact 5: Venus' runaway greenhouse is based on the same physics, taken to its ultimate extreme.

But CO2 has had increases in the past, why is this seemingly different? The [I]rate[I] of CO2 increase (and with it temperature increase) is absolutely unparalleled in the annals of climate history measurements.

Ladies and gentlemen, there you have it, to the best of my ability. Now make up your own minds.

Best wishes,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Rick

With all due respects, I believe the Gore camp acknowledges the non-pristene nature of the science, but they don't articulate it very well. In their position, because of their desire to spread the word they may well choose to gloss over this. I have a different position in this forum. I make the time (not very frequently, unfortunately) and have the pulpit to fully educate people on the subject and have them draw their own conclusions, as I do in my classrooms. If Al Gore hadn't done this for the world at large, I confess I might feel more pressure to do it more his way because I feel very strongly professionally that if we don't change our way of doing energy soon, we will be in deep trouble.

I am not sure what you mean about CO2 and heating, but I'll give it a try:
Everything starts with the Sun. That is why it is important to have the solar constant measurements we have that I have discussed earlier to rule out the Sun as a prospective cause of global warming and seek some internal factor like CO2 increase. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that temperatures 100 years ago were neither increasing or decreasing (true to within natural climate variability or "climate noise"). This means energy in from the Sun is equal to energy the Earth is radiating to space so there is no net gain or loss of energy. We now add CO2 to the atmosphere, which does not absorb the visible wavelengths that are sent out by the Sun, but is an effective absorber of the infrared radiation the Earth tries to send out to space. With the added CO2, sunlight now gets to the Earth's surface like before, but the Earth sends out less infrared to space because the added CO2 is absorbing it. Energy in is now greater than energy out because energy in has stayed the same but energy out is less. Ultimately that extra energy must raise temperatures.
Do you see why global warming should really be called global non-cooling? That will obviously never happen however, accurate as that might be.

I hope that was what you were after, if not, try me again. I have to sign off for now, however.

Best wishes,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Rick

You have to much better if you are going to successfully criticize global warming. Since I was here last, you presented a contrary statement from geologist Harrison Schmidt and a climate map of the US for last year from NOAA showing cooling.

On Harrison Schmidt: Rick, I wish you nothing but good health and happiness, but God forbid if you should have a heart attack, would you seek the expert opinion of a botanist just because the botanist, like a heart specialist, has studied the "life sciences"? I'll go you one the better: Would you seek the opinion of a Chiropodist? Both are MDs. Of course not, you would seek the opinion of a heart specialist. The climate system is very very sick right now and you value the opinion of Geologist who is an expert on the solid Earth (although, true, Geologists and Climatologists are both Earth Scientists) over the nearly unaimous opinion of climate experts. Why? It makes no sense. To be consistent, you would have to seek the opinion of a chriopodist for a heart attack. Would you rather be consistent or alive? If you are calling on Schmidt's experience as an Astronaut to make him an authority on Climate, the equivalence here is with Sarah Palin's claim that she is an expert on Russia because she can see it from Alaska. Perhaps its my fault for not making this clear the last time: That this climate issue is far from settled is in the pristine science aspect of subject. That the models or mechanical tools are less than pristine forces the human component of the tools to bear more than their usual burden in the overall sceintific enterprise being a success and this screams out even more for the opinion of people who are in the field, rather than out of it. Based on all the available resources, including the human component, there is overwhelming agreement among Climatologists about the nature of the global warming problem and at least the temperature sides of the forecasts for the future, which is of course the most important of the Climate elements in terms of its effects on life. The biggest uncertainty now in these forecasts is energy policy for the world for the future in terms of forecasting a future rate of temperature increase. That no one knows.

On the map: In the loosest definition of climate vs weather, your map qualifies as a Climate map because its spatial domain is larger than a weather forecast area and its time of one year is certainly longer the several day longest time domain of a weather forecast. In no way does it represent the required space and time domains for a discussion on global warming. Spatially, global warming is what it says: Global. The United States occupies less than 2% of the world's area. Mike's data are presented in terms of running averages of years because one anomalous year, warm or cold, shouldn't statistically overweight the spirit of the observations which now span a number of decades. Therefore, one year is not considered enough evidence, even if the data were for the whole globe. In fact, we now have a base of data showing the Earth warming over a number of decades. For you to use cooling maps as an anti argument, you would now have to supply a similar mutli-decadal time base, on a global scale, of cooling for anyone to take you seriously. Even if you could, that means that you and I would be commencing this debate in our next lifetime.

Best wishes,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone

Coal, of course, is not the answer. It is probably the biggest part of the problem. But I'm going to run through a series of alternative fuels for the future and their attributes and problems are more easily seen with the fuels of today as meter sticks. Oil will be discussed next time.

In post 2062 of 9/26/08 I identified 7 aspects of a fuel that are important in its (potential global) use to be an alternative to the fossil fuels whose use is largely reponsible for our atmosphere's recent CO2increase. This is the trigger (Water Vapor is the bullet) for our attendant planetary temperature increase.

The 7: 1. Doablity. Coal has proven to certainly be doable. 2. Reliable. No doubt about that. In the distance we have a cloud, however. Because there has only been a finite amount of life in the history of planet, there is only a finite amount of coal. Projections vary but a reasonable estimate is that United States proven reserves of coal will last another century or so. Worldwide reserves somehat more than that. But those statements are very difficult to assess because if we find a suitable alterative, not all reserves will be depleted (but then coal becomes a moot point anyway) and if we don't find a suitable alternative, the demands of countries that don't have it will ask it for trade and that will greatly complicate these predictions from that point of view. 3. Inexpensive. Relatively, at this time, although not enough for people who would like to see their electric bill reduced. Of course, as it becomes more scarce over time, prices will go up. However, since it is the main protaganist in global warming, which has already cost us large amounts of money and promises to place a much greater financial burden on future generations because of it, we really should include that in its cost, even though it is rarely talked about. 4. Benign to global warming? So far, coal and oil are thought to have contributed historically about 50-50 to gloval warming. But with oil's lifetime far less, future warming will see a higher and higher percentage contributed by coal, unless we sequester it. A number of years ago, a method was proposed to encase electric energy plants in a structure such that
CO2 from coal burning was emitted but within the outer structure whereupon it was then sequestered into the ground under the plant and not emitted into the air. Studies would have to be done of the potential effects of the sequestered CO2 on soil ecosystems and ground Water and the like, but the method seemed extremely promising. However Federal funding for some experimental plants has for some reason run dry with some indications that the process might be more expensive than originally thought. Considering its promise, especially in view of lack of viable alternatives at the moment, this should definitely be looked into further. In no way have I been made to understand that the cost is prohibitive. In the United States, we double our demands for electric energy (most of which is produced from coal) every 10 years. If sequestering came online, that means over 10 years half of the coal plants (in practice more, because some would be replacing older ones that didn't sequester) would sequester and our CO2 contribution to the climate system from them would quickly level off and ultimately decrease, even without alternative fuels. With the demise of oil added to this, we would add the excess CO2 that is "in the pipeline" (in the oceans and land but not in the atmosphere yet) but after that, very little. And with it, perhaps this could elimate some of the worst food and sea level consequences forecast now, based on no sequestering. 5. Convenient to use. In one sense, obviously. The reader may think I'm being unnecessarily harsh in what follows, but coal cars on railroads are dinosaurs as are ships run on coal. Therefore in our 2 large energy usages (electricity and transportation) coal is confined to one of them (electricity) today. Normally one doesn't give that a second thought, but remember that if solar and/or wind energy come on line on a large scale, either could be used for both electricity and transportation, as well as heating buildings. 6. Size Scale - We don't even touch coal ourselves. We touch the electrcity the coal burned at the electric palnt generates. Therefore, it is distributed from power plants, and is not individually or globally scaled. As long as we use coal, in no way can I envision us not paying a middle man (the power plant company) for our electricity. 7. Freedom from terrorist action. This regional power plant grid as well as the nature of coal itself protects it from any terrorist action bringing it to a grinding halt.

So indeed the major problem with coal is its contribution to global warming. Secondarily its long-term running out, which does argue that we are going to have to find (a) replacement(s) anyway.

In ending I would like to correct a misconception. There is no clean coal. There are grades of coal than are somewhat cleaner. But they cost more.

Oil next time.

Best wishes,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone.

We continue looking at fuels with oil. Oil is to transportation at present what coal is to generating electricity.

The 7 Remarks for oil: 1. Doable. Certainly. 2. Reliable. Absolutely. Except when you get "dirty gas". I say this because when I was 12 years old, we went on a family vacation to New England, unknowingly got dirty gas in Providence, RI, which caused our car to break down in Provincetown, Mass and forced us to stay overnight in the only place open - an Old Age Home. The only night I ever slept in the same room with my father (in a single bed yet). I wound up on the floor. 3. Inexpensive? Enjoy it while it lasts. The United States' proven reserves of oil have about 2 decades remaining; worldwide supplies last somewhat longer. Global Warming or not we have to find alternative(s) to oil, and fast. Like coal, did I mention the cost to future generations for more expensive food and defenses against sea level rise because of the global warming it causes? Did I mention the cost and more importantly the lives cost in the wars we have fought over oil that were sold to us as wars over other things? 4. Benign to global warming. 50/50 with coal so far in the fossil fuel contribution to global warming. As it becomes more depleted, its percentage, perforce will go down. Again, it is the problem, not the solution. 5. Convenient to use? The whole world just drives their cars to gas stations. By the way, this act, entrenched in the fabric of everyday life worldwide will have to be replaced by an entirely different way of fueling our cars, and soon. Daunting, but it has to be done. 6. Size scale - Gas stations as middlemen distributors. Does that have to be true of future sources of fuel for our cars? 7. Freedom from terrorist action. This scale distribution, on the surface, seems to protect from that. But is that the whole story? Remember Sadaam Hussein's setting fire to oil wells during the first Gulf War? And oh, another thing - is it an axiom that any country that possesses oil in quantity has to have a rogue government? Even those in the Americas? This brings up the issue: If we stay with oil too long without replacement(s) , are we going to be on our knees to these rogue governments for it so that our free society is threatened just so that we can have the ever-more-scarce oil?
That's oil tonight. Good health until next time when we finally discuss solar collected at the ground.

Best wishes,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone,

I'm sorry I've been busy. I very nearly was able to post something a week and a half ago, but got busy again. I was going to disengage myself from Rick after a final statement or two but in the interim that has apparently not become necessary as there have been a number of "subtractions" by participants.

I'm only going to say a few things. I'm off this week so I should be able to contirbute something about Solar Energy collected at the ground later this week.

Rick, I'm not going to respond to every one of your contributions. I have said many times in this forum that climate models are far from perfect. So should Climatologists inject CO2 into the atmosphere, watch the planet warm and report on the results?
Some remarks:
1. On Climate Models: While Climate models are not perfect, I would also say they are a positive, improving tool. I have been working with these kinds of models for nearly 40 years so I feel I can give an honest appraisal of their ins and outs. My professional opinion is that we can use them to quite accurately predict temperatures decades into the future. I am less sanguine about other climate parameters, such as precipitation, but I think we are getting ever better with those.
Climate models are tested by asking them to produce present climate with present boundary conditions, to some stated degree of accuracy. Only if they meet that accuracy are they extended to forecasts of other conditions (such as increased CO2 and global warming). The standards are discussed in a critical, peer-reviewed paper on the model. It is laid out in the open for the reader to then decide whether or not the model is worthy for extension. Dr. Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has a series of such papers because they have been among the longest in the business and the model has undergone substantial improvements over the years (not that it was terrible to begin with). The papers can be downloaded by going to the GISS website and clicking the "Research" link, to look year by year. Dr. Hansen is the lead author on most of the key papers. Instead of getting someone else's quotes on the work, why not go straight to the source yourself?
But please keep in mind: In the absence of being able to study the subject directly (i. e., injecting CO2 into the atmosphere), what choice do Climatologists have other than models? Are they perfect? No. Is it pristine science? No. Does it have value? With the understanding of their limitations, I would say definitely Yes. It is certainly a lot better than doing nothing.
2. You are constantly quoting geologists and chemists. I don't know each individual's work situtaion, but both geologists and chemists could work for the oil companies and therefore could have an obvious anti-global warming agenda. Therefore to quote them, in particular, is suspect, and really to quote anyone other than a Climatolgist is unwise. Again, that would mean you would be willing to go to a Podiatrist to treat a heart problem. As an Atmospheric Physicist I have an agenda too and I will freely admit it: The health of the planet and the life on it. We are in the worst economic crisis of my lifetime. How can we let the necessity of agriculture zones moving poleward to meet the demands of increased temperatures cause food prices to go up uneccessarily, especially in this economy? How can we make so many people pay more for defenses against sea level rises caused by increased temperatures, especially in this economy? How can we cause so many temperature dependant lifeforms to be threatened to be endangered species because of the sudden increase in world temperatures that they had no part in causing? I happily have a grandson now. How can I stand still knowing our inaction will adversely affect him and his generation?
On the other hand, benign alternatives to the fossil fuels will create millions of jobs worldwide, while those people with jobs in the fossil fuel industries will lose their jobs by attriction.
It's not just Climate. I only argue from that point of view because that is my profession.
3. One of your arguments, intending to be against global warming, since the argument wasn't global, actually proves it!
I haven't checked out your source for this, but you cited a study which states that sea ice is increasing (and I suppose, by extension, this means sea level is not). This doesn't surprise me in the least. The ice component of sea level rise (about 20% of it) largely comes from ice sheets on land that melt, with the runoff adding to the volume of sea Water. Sea ice converted to sea Water volumetrically is just about a wash. (The other 80% is the thermal expansion of salt Water with increasing temperatures). When ice sheets warm as a by-product of global warming, a product of this is the increased calving of armadas of icebergs, which then migrate away from the ice shelves to less polar latitudes. This results in an increase of sea ice with global warming. This situation persists until ice lost by melting in warmer temperatures exceeds ice gained by calving from warmer polar temperatures so that eventually sea ice will decrease also. This hasn't happened yet.
So thanks, Rick, for the proof that the planet, especially near the poles, is warming.
I hope this illustrates the importance of global examples needed to argue a global problem.
To summarize, with that last statement as a point of focus, Climatologists have decades of data showing measured worldwide temperature increases, and the same decades of measured CO2 increase. I have previously in this forum showed how the two are inexorably linked, the importance of increased Water Vapor in this as a positive feedback in this problem and how the same Physics with a different scenario for it ultimately resulted in Venus' runaway greenhouse while that same scenario spared the Earth (to this point). Unless you present me with the refuation of any part of this, and it would start with a similar base (that is decades) of cooling data while CO2 is still increasing, I'm afraid you don't have a case. As I pointed out the last time I was here, even if such data presented itself, by the time you had enough of it, you and I would either not be here (heaven, I hope) or be in another lifetime.

Until so proven otherwise, I have a planet that needs my attention.

Best wishes,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone

The first of our alternatives to the fossil fuels will be Solar Energy Collected At The Ground. Let's put it through our 7 parameters: 1. Doable? Yes, but with asterisks. The asterisks will rear their heads throughout the rest of the discussion. 2. Reliable? When and where the Sun is shining. There are 3 unreliability issues: a. Nighttime (which is predictable) b. Sun angle affecting intensity at the ground. This depends on latitude, time of day, season, N-S tilt of surface, etc. (These are predicatble, albeit complicated; the algorithms that calculate this for climate models could be applied here.) The problem is that certain locations, especially as you head poleward, are not going to receive enough sunlight to make this feasible, regardless of the efficiency of the collectors. On the face of it this favors collection away from the poles (and gives those countries an advantage over more poleward-located countries similar to the advantage countries having oil have at present) c. Cloudiness (not predictable) blocks sunlight from the surface. When I say predictable/not predictable above it is in the spirit of a calendar. Clouds are predictable in the sense that they accompany Low pressure systems, but you cannot in any way calendarize (and prepare for) Lows and their clouds. Since equatorial regions tend to be cloudy, prefereable would be the Subtropical desert regions of the world to collect this. Do they have enough area? Is this even desirable? If these questions cannot be addressed, then solar collected at the ground will have to be stored/transported/augmented by other energy sources. 3. Inexpensive? The Sun is for free. The costs will be in setting it up and eventually maintenance. But herein lies a flock of asterisks next to doable above. 4. Benign to Global Warming? Absolutely. 5. Convenient To Use? If and where it can be set up, yes. 6. Size Scale? If a location gets enough sunlight, or is willing to supplement it with alternative fuels, it could be collected individually. Otherwise, brought in from "solar farms". 7. Freedom from terrorist action? Yes.

Some remarks:
a. The efficiency of solar collectors is up to about 40%. By efficiency is meant that 40% of the sunlight falling on such collectors is able to be converted to another form of useful energy (usually electric). There is a recent claim of an 80% efficient collector. This needs more time to be digested and tested further. Clearly, the more efficient the collector, the less area need for collection. But more efficient collectors are usually more expensive. So an overall concern is cost effectiveness i. e., will the lesser area necessary for collection compensate for the more efficient collector's greater inherent cost.
b. By using the solar energy collected to initiate vairous chemical interactions, this can allow "storage" of it at night (or for persistant cloudiness). Of the many promising ways of doing this proposed in recent years, using salt is the most recent such proposal, posted on the Scientific American Website February 18, 2009. The article suggests this would curently roughly double the cost of generating electricity from coal. But perhaps with mass production and/or more efficient production, the cost could be brought down.
c. It should also be noted that unlike the fossil fuels, which, from their origins, are finite, when the Sun dies or changes its intensity sufficiently in the future, we are going to die anyway.

Can we conclude anything? Solar collected at the ground certainly has both appeal and problems. However, given our current energy state of affairs, it should be given a thorough, serious look.

Next time: Solar Collected in Space. What??????????????????

See you then.

Best wishes and Good health,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone!

How do you collect solar in space? Why would you do it there? How do you deliver it to the ground where we need it?

All fair questions.

One (or more) large solar collector(s) would be launched into space. It (They) would orbit the Earth in such a way that it (they) would never block out the Sun and the collector would always face the Sun. The energy collected would be converted to microwaves (radar) at wavelengths that are not harmful yet can penetrate clouds. The microwaves would be sent to a large array of microwave collection stations at the Earth's surface where the energy from them would be dispersed from there. If one orbiting collector would be in a polar orbit with the Earth rotating underneath, it would pass over pretty much all areas of the Earth once per day.

Let us put this to our tests: 1. Doable? Of course, it has never been tried. However, it was first proposed more than 40 years ago. I would say we have the technology to do it. 2. Reliable?
Assuming it is doable, it would be far more reliable than solar collected at the ground - no nighttime, no clouds, no latitudinal effects - collection takes place 24/7. In addition, the Ultraviolet and Infrared Components of Sunlight which get absorbed by Ozone and Water Vapor respectively on their way down could also be collected in space. 3. Inexpensive? Obviously, to launch something into space, plus develop the ground collection stations, would be a large initial expense. As far as the ground collection stations are concerned, perhaps money allocated to update the electrical grid could be used here. Once it is set up, you have just maintenance fees, and the cost of sending up replacement collectors when they are required. However, who is to say that this will be more expensive than setting up arrays of solar collectors and farms and delivery mechanisms from these on the ground? 4. Benign to global warming? Absolutely. 5. Convenient to Use? For cars: Instead of driving to a gas station you drive to one of these stations or distributors from these. Your car will be outfitted with the way of using the global warming-benign energy from these the same way it uses oil now. However if you pay as you go, it will probably cost a lot less. For electricity: That too will be distributed from the ground collectors or distributors from these. Notice that both of the world's present large energy needs, that is, electricity and transportation, can be met with this one energy strategy. 6. Size Scale? This is interesting. Could every family and business have one of these? Maybe. That will eliminate middlemen and the appropriate utilities and save even more money for the consumer. 7. Freedom From Terrorist Action? Unfortunately no. Suppose this was the only source of energy for the United States. If a terrorist group wnated to bring us down, all they would have to do is figure out a way to blow this up. This immediately suggests: 1. This be a part of our energy strategy and the more collectors we can put up the more difficult it is to bring the whole system down. 2. We should not put all of our eggs into any one energy basket for this reason. Besides, competition minimizes costs to the consumer.

Conclusion: Out of the box thinking as this might be, it should be studied carefully. As each step in the process toward it is developed, cost effectiveness and technological effectiveness must be very seriously demonstrated. But if it can fly, one hidden benefit is that whoever has this can offer it to the rest of the world not by the luck of having oil under their ground or being located away from the ground (solar at the ground) but because of the triumph of hard work and technological sophistication.

Next (I don't know when) Wind Energy At The Ground

Best wishes and good health,

Rog'

[Roger Opstbaum]

Hi Everyone

You are seeing them all over the place - Nancy even remarked about this recently - wind turbines (is this a better name than windmills?).

Let's put this through our tests: 1. Doable? As I said, you see them all over the place. 2. Reliable? -The big rub - Where there is sufficient and frequent wind. Which means not too many places, which translates into the necessity for storage and/or increase in cost. 3. Inexpensive? Depending on reliability at the location and also whether it is done individually or with "wind farms". However, like everything else, if turbines can be mass produced, their costs will go down. Not to be lost is that like solar, the wind as a fuel itself costs nothing but the necessary peripheries could be wildy varying in their expense.
4. Benign To Global Warming? Absolutely, unless associated with the storage mechanism or if it would have to be supplemented by fossil fuels to, in essence make it more reliable. 5. Convenient To Use? For electricity yes. This could provide energy for transportation, but that would involve conversion to another enegy form of a more portable nature and loss of energy through the typical inefficiency of that energy transformation in the process. 6. Size Scale: Each building could prosepectively have its own wind turbine(s); alteratively a "wind farm" would be located in a reliably windy area and the reultant energy distributed from there, a la coal-fired electric utility plants now, thereby involving "middlemen" and higher costs for the consumer that way. In wind-starved areas, that might be less expensive overall than individual building-by-building wind turbines. But all that remains to be seen. If this technology really catches on, it will be interesting to see what size scale evolves. 7. Freedom from terrorist action. If we depend on a few large wind farms, they become a terrorist's target. The more it is collected individually the more targets there would have to be and the more discouraging they would be to a prospective terrorist.

I do propose that those people in favor of wind energy rally under the banner of a song: Summer Wind - one of my favorites!!!!

Next time: Wind energy collected from the jet streams.

'Till then (and I don't know when that will be because I am getting busy again).

Love and good health,

Rog'