The IPCC Report
A summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007" was released in early 2007. The IPCC was established by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to undertake periodic assessments of the physical science of climate change. The IPCC Summary For Policymakers concluded the Earth is warming and human activities have very likely caused most of the warming of the last 50 years.
America’s contribution included multiple scientists, software developers, and technicians, as well as facilities, mainframe computers, and millions of taxpayer dollars. The U.S. effort included climate scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Twenty of the computer model runs were done by the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.
Unfortunately, the IPCC report remains a controversial document. There are those who believe the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has many deficiencies. Errors of methodology. Questionable conclusions. But one failure stands out. Of the original published, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), none are valid. For one very simple reason. They all ignore fossil fuel resource depletion. All of the published SRES scenarios assume there are no resource constraints on the consumption of coal, oil and natural gas.
That is most unfortunate. And just plain wrong.
Why has the IPCC failed to include this critical data in their calculations? If, as the IPCC claims, human fossil fuel consumption drives global warming, then the depletion of oil, natural gas and coal resources will automatically force a decrease in the production of CO2 and other Green House Gases (GHG). Current projections indicate total fossil fuel consumption will peak around 2040. After that, we humans will have less to burn each year. If that’s the case, then there is no problem. Right? By 2100 GHG production will be down to 2000 levels (or less) because we will have less fossil fuel to burn. There is no need to take any draconian measures to curb global warming.
Sorry. It’s not that simple.
From the IPCC report: “Climate carbon cycle coupling is expected to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as the climate system warms, but the magnitude of this feedback is uncertain. This increases the uncertainty in the trajectory of carbon dioxide emissions required to achieve a particular stabilization level of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Based on current understanding of climate carbon cycle feedback, model studies suggest that to stabilize at 450 ppm carbon dioxide, could require that cumulative emissions over the 21st century be reduced from an average of approximately 670 [630 to 710] GtC (2460 [2310 to 2600] GtCO2) to approximately 490 [375 to 600] GtC…”
It would appear total carbon from the consumption of oil and natural gas during the remainder of the 21st century is well below this number (490 GtC). It is the rapid increase in the consumption of coal within the Asia Pacific region that puts us over the IPCC’s objective, most notably China and India. Inadequate environmental controls, along with high rates of economic growth, promise to bring about a sharp increase in CO2 emissions from the region until coal production “peaks” sometime later in this century.
By contrast North American, European and EurAsian CO2 production has declined slightly since 2007, in part because the recession has decreased the demand for fossil fuels. Technology, fuel and demographic trends already in place within the nations of western Europe and North America will limit near term increases in CO2 emissions. Longer term, however, coal will become an attractive alternative to increasingly expensive propane and heating oil for domestic heating.
Although CO2 emissions within African, Central American and South American nations are expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years, they will be well below the volumes produced elsewhere on our planet.
Or maybe not.
We need to consider global warming within the context of fossil fuel depletion. And vice versa. Otherwise our calculations of global warming are – by characterization – deficient.
Is Global Warming Real?
Absolutely. There is plenty of real data and empirical evidence to support the contention our planet is going through one of its natural, normal, climate cycles. According to NOAA, over the last 420,000 years temperatures on our planet have ranged from plus 4 degrees C (five periods of very warm weather) to minus 10 degrees (four periods of very cold weather) versus a prescribed baseline. If we go back 600 million years, temperature variations are even larger. In fact, according to available scientific information, average temperatures have been significantly higher (over 18 degrees C) than today (about 14 degrees C) for much of the earth’s history. No one knows if our current warm period will include temperatures as high as 18 degrees C., or if the recorded temperature volatility of this natural cycle means we are about to enter a period of global cooling. Scientists disagree.
We can associate warm periods with lush plant life, dinosaurs, swamps, expanding deserts, overflowing oceans, and high concentrations of carbon dioxide. Our treasure trove of coal, oil and natural gas (all are forms of carbon) was created during these warm cycles. Low temperature cycles, on the other hand, have been associated with expanding glaciers, ice ages, struggling animal populations, limited vegetation, and low concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Current temperature events are not all that different from those experienced in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) ~900 – 1250 AD. Evidence of global warming can be found in studies from Australia, Europe and America, as well as bore holes from all over the world (“Late Quaternary Temperature Changes Seen in Worldwide Continental Heat Flow Measurements. Huang, Shaopeng, Henry N. Pollack and Po Yu Shen, 1997.) It was warm enough to permit the Vikings to colonize Greenland where they found grass and trees. Higher tree lines and droughts are an indication of higher temperatures for an extended period. The MWP was accompanied by intense weather events, retreating glaciers, decreasing ice packs, rising oceans, long growing seasons, and very warm summers. Just like today. There is, of course, an active debate about just how warm it became during the Medieval Warm Period, and whether or not its effects may have been more regional than universal. But however one debates that point, the MWP did enable a relatively rapid expansion of the human population.
The Medieval Warm Period was followed by an abrupt decrease in temperatures to the Little Ice Age (LIA) ~ 1250 – ~ 1860. These frigid temperature events have been recorded in contemporaneous literature and ship log data. The Little Ice Age was accompanied by frequent and intense weather events, glacial expansion, ice pack advances, heavy snowfall, bitter cold, floods, crop failures (because the growing season was wet, cool and short), bread riots, famine, and death. Frigid weather forced the Vikings to leave Greenland (some perished there). Millions died from exposure and frigid temperatures. Millions more died from disease because famine weakened their natural defenses against infection. There are those who believe the Black Death, for example, (which wiped out approximately one third of Europe’s population), can be linked to malnutrition brought on by LIA privation and famine. Although there were intervals of modest global warming during the LIA, these alternated with periods of extreme cold beginning in ~1650, ~1770 and ~1850. During winter, most of the upper Northern Hemisphere rivers were all or partially frozen. In 1780, for example, people walked across the ice from Manhattan to Staten Island. There was an annual ice carnival on Great Britain’s Thames River 1608 - 1814. Napoleon’s disastrous losses in Russia were primarily due to bitter winter weather in 1812. Although the connection is still the subject of debate among scientists, some of these coldest periods were associated with decreased sun spot activity. Volcanic activity – which fills the atmosphere with ash that reflects the sun’s rays – was probably responsible for New England’s year without a summer in 1816. It was so cold, it snowed in July.
We also have reasonably reliable worldwide temperature records going back to 1880. As our planet emerged from the LIA, temperatures began to ratchet upward, stalling briefly in their upward climb from ~ 1929 to 1978, and then resuming their upward drift. No one knows how high these averages will go before our planet enters a prolonged period of global cooling.
The following graph tracks actual world temperature data against the consumption of primary fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) from 1880 through 2009. Assuming global warming advocates are right, and assuming a continuing growth in the demand for fossil fuels, it would appear these two data sets will continue to track through 2030. By 2040, however, production restrictions will force us to decrease our consumption of primary fuels. This presents us with a conundrum. If global warming advocates are right (increased fossil fuel consumption is responsible for a continuing increase in global temperatures), then a decrease in global consumption should bring about a corresponding decrease in world temperatures by 2050. If, on the other hand, global warming skeptics are right (there is little or no relationship between human fossil fuel consumption and global temperatures), then global warming could come to an end at any time.
Based on my research, it would appear that a shift from warming to cooling will occur during this century. In any event, global temperature change will definitely create lifestyle challenges for people in every nation.
To Summarize.
Global warming and cooling are natural events. It would be incredibly naive to believe our global ecosphere has always had a benevolent environment. That is simply not true. In addition, many scientists believe our prolific generation of green house gases adds to our planet’s global warming trend. Whether we agree with this conclusion or not, it is clear that both global warming and global cooling are real events that will happen in this century. Our weather and environmental conditions currently mimic the MWP. Will a new version of the LIA come next?
Key Point
Legislative action for hydrocarbon resource depletion and global warming must be done as a package.
Else. We will make foolish mistakes.
Those who are concerned about global warming and those of us who are worried about hydrocarbon depletion have much in common. We all want to reduce the consumption of hydrocarbon resources. For global warming, that means a reduction of greenhouse gases. For depletion, it means transforming ourselves to an energy detensive lifestyle. The devil is in the details. For example, the use of natural gas for power generation may yield a temporary reduction in greenhouse gases, but on a long term basis the depletion of natural gas means consumers will be forced to burn coal and wood for heating and cooking.
That would be an ecological disaster.
Ron
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment