Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts

Monday, September 23, 2019

Carbon sequestration

It’s the year 2,500. Civilization has long recovered from the chaos years following the Trump regime.

Alas, even that catastrophe only transiently slowed CO2 accumulation. It continued for decades near the 2020 height of approximately 4*10^13 kg (40 gT) of CO2 a year.

Happily in 2,500 post-AI solar powered nanotech can extract atmospheric carbon and produce diamond sheets and glues. It’s possible to build a diamond wall to hold back the Atlantic and restore the lost cities of Manhattan and Miami.

How much CO2 would that take out of the atmosphere?

Diamond has a density of 3.5 gm/m or 3,500 kg/m3. If the wall is 1000km long by 50m high by 10m wide it will consume about 1.75*10^12 kg of carbon.

So we only have to build 22 such walls to undo a single year of CO2 emissions.

Update 9/24/2019

I put the numbers into a Google Sheet. Since the wall only required a few weeks of carbon output I decided to try the diamond base of a floating city modeled as a disc with a radius of 50km and a depth of 200m. That did the job!

A single floating city absorbed 145 years of 2018 carbon production.

It would be easier, of course, to build something attached to a landmass, but where’s the romance in that?

Tuesday, August 06, 2019

Warmer climate on the earth may be due to more carbon dioxide in the air. 1956.

Originally published in the NYT Oct 28, 1956 by Waldemar Kaempffert. Reprinted as Climate Science in 1956 and 2015 | HuffPost:

The general warming of the climate that has occurred in the last 60 years has been variously explained. Among the explanations are fluctuations in the amount of energy received from the sun, changes in the amount of volcanic dust in the atmosphere and variations in the average elevation of the continents.

According to a theory which was held half a century ago, variations in the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide can account for climatic change. The theory was generally dismissed as inadequate. Dr. Gilbert Plass re-examines it in a paper which he publishes in the American Scientist and in which he summarizes conclusions that he reached after a study made with the support of the Office of Naval Research. To him the carbon dioxide theory stands up, though it may take another century of observation and measurement of temperature to confirm it….

…. The atmosphere acts like the glass of a greenhouse. Solar radiation passes through to the earth readily enough, but the heat radiated by the earth is at least partly held back. That is why the earth’s surface is relatively warm. Carbon dioxide, water vapor and ozone all check radiation of heat.

Of the three gases that check radiation, carbon dioxide is especially important even though the atmosphere contains only 0.03 percent of it by volume. As the amount of carbon dioxide increases, the earth’s heat is more effectively trapped, so that the temperature rises.

... According to Dr. Plass, the latest calculations indicate that if the carbon dioxide content of the earth were doubled the surface temperature would rise 3.6° C and that if the amount were reduced by half the surface temperature would fall 3.8° C...

...Despite nature’s way of maintaining the balance of gases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being artificially increased as we burn coal, oil and wood for industrial purposes. This was first pointed out by Dr. G. S. Callendar about seven years ago. Dr. Plass develops the implications….

… Today more carbon dioxide is being generated by man’s technological processes than by volcanoes, geysers and hot springs. Every century man is increasing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by 30 percent — that is, at the rate of 1.1° C in a century. It may be chance coincidence that the average temperature of the world since 1900 has risen by about this rate. But the possibility that man had a hand in the rise cannot be ignored.

Whenever the cause of the warming of the earth may be there is no doubt in Dr. Plass’ mind that we must reckon with more and more industrially generated carbon dioxide. “In a few centuries,” he warns, “the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere will be so large that it will have a profound effect on our climate.”

Even if our coal and oil reserves will be used up in 1,000 years, seventeen times the present amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must be reckoned with. The introduction of nuclear energy will not make much difference. Coal and oil are still plentiful and cheap in many parts of the world, and there’s every reason to believe that both will be consumed by industry as long as it pays to do so.

I believe current predictions are on the order of 2C with doubling CO2 with longer term higher secondary increases. So bit less than 1956 model, but on the other hand the effects on climate have been obvious sooner than expected.

Overall, holds up quite well.

Saturday, May 04, 2019

Gordon's platform 2020

It is my privilege to announce that I will running for the Presidency of the United States of America.

I understand that, as a foreign born dual citizen of the United States and Canada I am technically not eligible for the Presidency. On the other hand, America elected Donald Trump. Compared to him I’m eminently qualified.

My Presidential Platform is achievable and focuses on our core challenges as a nation and wannabe world leader ...

  1. Free community college. This was, I think, part of HRC’s platform. Didn’t get much media coverage but just makes sense. Unlike free college, which is dumb. Quebec basically does this and it has worked very well for them. A lot of health care workers can be trained in 3 years of community college.
  2. Restore ACA, including the individual tax penalties for non-participation, with a public option that leverages experience from Canada and Veterans Health Administration. Incorporate broad support for physical activity (aka exercise) in health care system. Attack agricultural subsidies for unhealthy foods and subsidize healthy foods. Move the dial on obesity and lifestyle diseases.
  3. Restore Obama’s carbon control framework, not including a carbon tax. I love the idea of a carbon tax, but I’ve seen my fellow citizens. Some costs are better buried.
  4. Increase employment income of the non-college. Reduce taxation incentives that favor automation (it will happen anyway, but slower is better). Create plug-and-play packages for small businesses that employ non-college. Provide subsidies for training in skills accessible to non-college. Extend the framework used for disabled employment to subsidize and support non-college work including public sector employment. Subsidize minimum wage. Tax breaks to employers that promote employment. This will be a core pillar of my administration.
  5. Strong antitrust; promote competition among corporations and consumer choice. May include breaking up several MegaCorp.
  6. Transit, bikes, walkability, parks, attractive infrastructure. Make car ownership optional. Require new motor vehicles to incorporate technology that makes pedestrians and cyclists safer. Require autonomous vehicles to meet strict standards for safety of the non-armored.
  7. Taxes. Of course. VAT. Restore the "death tax”. Various forms of wealth tax. Tax soda and the like. Fund my platform, start to beat back dysfunctional wealth concentration.
  8. Attack political corruption, particularly post-political employment, at every level. Public funding for elections including mandated free media time.

There’s more, but you get the idea.

Vote for me. 

Whatever my name is.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

How to give believers an exit from a cause gone bad

How do you give someone who has committed themselves to a bad cause a way out? You don’t do it by beating on how stupid they are …

From How to Build an Exit Ramp for Trump Supporters (Deepak Malhotra)

  1. Don’t force them to defend their beliefs … you will be much more effective if you encourage people to reconsider their perspective without saying that this requires them to adopt yours.
  2. Provide information, and then give them time … change doesn’t tend to happen during a heated argument.  It doesn’t happen immediately.
  3. Don’t fight bias with bias … the one thing you can’t afford to lose if you want to one day change their mind: their belief about your integrity.  They will not acknowledge or thank you for your even-handedness at the time they’re arguing with you, but they will remember and appreciate it later, behind closed doors.  And that’s where change happens.
  4. Don’t force them to choose between their idea and yours. … you will be much more effective if you encourage people to reconsider their perspective without saying that this requires them to adopt yours.  
  5. Help them save face…. have we made it safe for them to change course?  How will they change their mind without looking like they have been foolish or naïve?  
  6. Give them the cover they need. Often what’s required is some change in the situation—however small or symbolic—that allows them to say, “That’s why I changed my mind.” … For most people, these events are just “one more thing” that happened, but don’t underestimate the powerful role they can play in helping people who, while finally mentally ready to change their position, are worried about how to take the last, decisive step.
  7. Let them in. If they fear you will punish them the moment they change their mind, they will stick to their guns until the bitter end.  This punishment takes many forms, from taunts of “I told you so” to being labeled “a flip-flopper” to still being treated like an outsider or lesser member of the team by those who were “on the right side all along.” This is a grave mistake.  If you want someone to stop clinging to a failing course of action or a bad idea, you will do yourself a huge favor if you reward rather than punish them for admitting they were wrong…You have to let them in and give them the respect they want and need just as much as you.

If you’re a Vikings fan feuding with your brother-in-law from Green Bay feel free the break all these rules. If you’re worried about the future of civilization you might try this instead.

For #5, saving face, look for something they could have been right about. To a climate changer denier, agree that solar output varies. To a Trump follower, agree that the bleak future of the non-college adult wouldn’t have gotten attention without his focus.

I’m adding this recipe to the Notes collection I carry on my phone.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Keystone question: if US were to meet China accord goals, would Keystone be economically viable?

To widespread surprise, the US and China reached an agreement on carbon emissions:

U.S. and China Reach Climate Accord After Months of Talks - NYTimes.com

… United States would emit 26 percent to 28 percent less carbon in 2025 than it did in 2005 …

Which brings up a question that seems obvious, but also goes unasked.

If the US were to meet this accord, we’d have reduced carbon emissions by some combination of Pigovian taxation, regulation and technological innovations. However we achieve that end, wouldn’t this reduction make Keystone and similar projects economically unviable?

If so, then the Keystone project is a bet that the US will fail to meet this goal. Further, it will be a powerful sunk cost incentive to ensure that we fail.

If Keystone’s business case makes sense in a world where we reduce carbon emissions by 28% relative to our 2005 baseline then build it.

Otherwise, don’t.

I don’t think this is very complicated.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

How the US could get a real (big) carbon tax

The Philippines has been hit by a very powerful storm. Thousands are dead and more will die, suffering will be extensive and long lasting. (Yes, poverty matters, but remember Katrina killed 1,500-3,500 and devastated a wealthy country city.)

Science-based thinkers expect a grim outlook for the Philippines. Sea level will rise, storms are likely to be more powerful, this will happen again even if many move away from the current crowded coastal zones.

Which makes this a good time to talk about a Carbon Tax. Not a trifling Carbon Tax, but a 'sell-the-SUV' and 'wear sweaters' and 'upgrade AC to smart adjust' carbon tax. A Carbon Tax that's politically impossible in 2013 China, USA, Australia, Canada or even Germany.

To be sure, a (Big) Carbon Tax (BCT) isn't about raising money for research - the funds would likely be offset by other tax reductions and by subsidies to people most hurt by cost shifts.. It's about keeping Carbon in the ground longer (maybe forever) by making extraction unprofitable, and accelerating transitions to low CO2 technologies (esp. solar, smart tech energy, etc) by making them cost-competitive ten years sooner than expected.

Nice idea, but impossible.

Except ... things change. Warfare happens. India suffers, and declares if it's going down it will take wealth western cities with it. Massive rogue geo-engineering projects have nasty side-effects that lead to more war, more threats.

Maybe a BCT becomes more palatable. Here's how it might happen -- the key is Border Tax Adjustment - "... import fees levied by carbon-taxing countries on goods manufactured in non-carbon-taxing countries...".

So what happens is China, India and Germany commit to a BCT -- for reasons of self-preservation and economic advantage. They tax American goods and services with the Border Tax Adjustment. The US can either suffer this or can add its own Big Carbon Tax -- and put various compensatory tax reductions/subsidies in place. The BTA goes away, the money stays in the US.

Once you have China, India, Germany and the US the rest of the world falls in line.

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Bicycling in a deluge

Many years ago I road through a mini-flood downpour. Not the nearly 5" that drowned Toronto, but a fun storm. That was it for a long time. In our old midwestern climate a genuine deluge was really not that common. They were easy to dodge, and with fenders and some gear routine rainfall is no problem.

Things are different now. In the post-400 ppm CO2 world my weather is warmer and wetter; we are told to expect really heavy downpours more often. Like the one I hit last week on my routine commute. Instead of waiting for it to pass I rode on, and so I  found out what gear worked and what gear didn't.

Didn't work
  • Old baggies: They degrade with age. The ones I had in my front bag were worthless
  • My brakes and my vision: Of course both brakes and vision degrade in rain, but in a deluge they really do nothing. This was a bit of a problem because in 3" of a groundwater collection my tires didn't have much traction, and I couldn't see a big pothole under the floodwater. So I went down.
  • My GoreTex shoe covers: They didn't work because I didn't put them on. That was dumb -- my shoes didn't dry off for a couple of days. Even though the rain was mostly fun, it would have been nice to have dry shoes for my return trip.
  • My panniers: They do well in routine rainfall, but I knew they weren't waterproof. I poured a half-inch of water out of my front bag. My wallet, keys (no electronic fob!) and several maps were soaked; I tossed the maps.

Worked

  • My waterproof iPhone 5 case: Best $15 I've ever spent. If not for that case my phone would have been ruined. I leave it in my bike bag.
  • A rubber lined "conference bag" that I was carrying my work laptop in the rear panniers. This was dumb luck, I had no idea that bag was so water resistant. If I'd been thinking I'd have waited out the heavy rain rather than chance losing the laptop.
  • Fenders: No wheel tracks, though in that amount of rain I suppose they'd have washed off.
  • My yellow rain jacket and lights; Not sure the lights were visible, but I think the jacket was. In any case I opted for the sidewalk when the road narrowed, figured drivers couldn't see at all. I wasn't that worried about staying dry, but the ancient Nashbar jacked did that too.
  • Helmet and helmet cover: I bonked the helmet when I went down, which made me feel better about having it. Helmet cover worked better than I'd expected.
  • Synthetic clothes: Wow, that stuff dries well.
Falling was a drag, but I wasn't hurt and now I know what to look for - road floods are trouble. I should have moved to the nearby sidewalk. I had to relube my bike, but that's not a big deal (yay sealed bearings) - so, overall, it was kind of fun. Next time I'll have a canoe bag in my rear pannier -- something to hold wallet, keys, garage door opener, maps and similar items during a real downpour.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

The Right will drop Climate Change Denialism within the next six months

My prediction for 2013 - the American Right will effectively drop Climate Change Denialism by April of 2013. They'll never admit it of course. They'll act as though they always accepted that human activity was warming the earth and that effete Liberals have been responsible for all inaction.

This is a good thing.

Some may wonder how this could happen so quickly. I used to think it would take longer myself but I've changed my mind.

A year ago I thought this would only happen after a crushing GOP victory, but since then we've seen the GOP make a complete policy reversal on immigration. We've seen Christian evangelicals purge all record of decades of anti-Mormon sentiment. We've seen a hard-right primary candidate morph into an Obama-clone, and his base act as though nothing had changed. We've realized that the GOP elite often believe what they say, and believe they've always believed whatever they now believe.

If you are not anchored to data, and to reality, then it's not hard to change direction. The  U.S. military's preparation for climate change disruption (and climate engineering wars) will be tied to budget requests, and it's hard for the GOP to say no to increasingly large sums of military money. The combination of military requests, electoral defeat, and Sandy are sufficient to precipitate radical realignment.

Don't be shocked if a Carbon Tax, in one form or another, makes it into the 2016 budget process.

Monday, August 06, 2012

Coin flips and climate

The weather is unusual, but is the climate truly different? How would we know?

I toss a fair coin 10 times. Which of these patterns is more likely than the other?

  • HTHTHTHTHT
  • HHHHHTTTTT
  • TTTTTTHHHH
  • HTTHHHTHTT

Now toss a fair coin nine times. I get HHHHHHHHH. What's the chance of getting T on the next toss?

The answer to the first question is that all of these outcomes are equally likely, though some seem odder to us than others. They all show five tails and five heads, the most common result of tossing a coin ten times. [1].

The answer to the second question is, of course 50%.

Now for the interesting question.

I toss a coin 100 times and I get 95 tails. What is the chance that the coin is fair [2]?

What if find one side of the coin is more magnetic than the other?

What if you inspect the rim and notice a color change from one side to the other?

Each of those three observations makes it less likely that the coin is fair. Taken together they strongly suggest the coin isn't fair.

We know that weather is not "fair". It is biased by climate.  If the distribution of weather events changes, we may infer that the climate bias is changing. If we have strong reason to suspect that atmospheric CO2 concentrations change climate, and we know CO2 is rising and weather events are changing, we have even more reason to suspect that climate is changing.

That's why we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that our climate is changing.

[1] Contemplation of these results doubtless leads to speculations on the arrow of time, Boltzman's brains, and the insanely unlikely probability of my certain existence. But that's not for today.
[2] Can I reject the null hypothesis of a fair coin, where a fair coin, tossed a very large number of times, will turn up heads and tails with equal frequency?

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Global Warming 2012 - Are the Denialists really winning?

This Telegraph article is primarily about a Hansen lecture on humanity's failure to think rationally about climate change, but I found the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" [1] funded response ironically interesting ...

Climate scientists are losing the public debate on global warming - Telegraph

... Dr Benny Peiser, director of sceptical think tank The Global Warming Policy Foundation, said governments and the public had "more urgent problems to deal with" than tackling climate change.

He said: "People have become bored by some of the rhetoric from the green movement as they have other things to worry about.

"In reality the backlash against climate change has very little to do with the sceptics. We will take credit for instilling some debate but it is mainly an economic issue. Climate change is not seen as being urgent any more."...

Over the past decade it seems the Denialist line has shifted from "it's not happening" to "it's not due to CO2 emissions" to "it's boring and not urgent".

That's a pretty radical retreat, even as public support for reducing emissions has collapsed in the face of the Lesser Depression (which is very severe now in the UK).

Contrary to the tone of the article, I call this progress. In the real world, the bad guys rarely fall on their knees and declare they were wrong. Yes, there were tobacco executives who did publicly repent, often after they or their loved ones developed lung cancer, but by then they weren't tobacco company executives any more. This denialist declaration of victory is, ironically, an admission of defeat.

Progress is very non-linear. The Lesser Depression will make action very difficult, even as it reduces carbon emissions far more than any tax ever could. Even so, I think we're moving into an era when the interesting debates begin. Debates about risks and costs, about climate engineering vs energy conservation, about who pays and who benefits and what is possible when. Those are debates about values and judgment as much as science.

[1] Funded by Michael Hintze, a hedge fund billionaire. Other funders are not known, but one assumes the usual suspects (Koch, Exxon, etc).

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Adapting to Minnesota's new winter

The streets were clear today, the sun was up, and the temperatures were the 20s (F). A fine day for a bicycle ride in Minnesota's year without winter.

Next winter I'll probably buy winter bike shoes and studded tires and plan to ride year round.

That's how short term adaptation works in Minnesota, where climate change is already personal. We'll be doing a lot more over the next few decades.

Beyond that, given current trends, the prognosis is poor.  I'm relatively sanguine about that. I mean, if we can't figure out something simple like CO2 emissions, then we weren't going to make it as a sentient species anyway. Might as well get it over with.

That's probably a century away though, lots of time for billions of us to experiment with short term adaptation. So, for the Twin Cities, what can we expect from our winters over the next decade? In particular, what can we expect in terms of Real Cold (RC, temp < 5F), Skiable Snow (SS, >8" base), and Skateable Ice (SI)?

Of course I don't really know. But that won't stop me from making some half-educated guesses. I expect winter in 2021 to be rather like this winter. That is no RC, no SS and no SI.

Between now and 2021 I expect 3-5 weeks total of Real Cold. We will complain bitterly -- because we'll be unused to it. I expect 3-4 winters of SS and 5-6 winters of SI.

That means we really can't rely on outdoor ice skating, sledding or nordic skiing. On the other hand, we can't dramatically reduce our snow clearing capacity because every year or two we'll still get dumped on. We can't plan on winter road work either, but some years it will be possible. Some years an exurban commute will be fine, other years it will be intolerable.  We'll still have to pay for alley snow clearance -- even for years when there isn't any snow to clear.

That's a big change. I can't estimate the economic impact, but I suspect the unpredictability will mean increased costs (but also more jobs?) from 2011 to 2023. After that, as snow accumulation becomes truly infrequent, costs will fall.

It's easier to predict what we'll need to do to adapt to an unpredictable winter. We'll do what Portland does. That means more community recreation centers with indoor soccer, indoor tennis, indoor golf and indoor swimming (all of which will increase our CO2 emissions). It means even more year round bicycling, perhaps with winter adapted bikes (corrosion-proof drive chains, internal gearing, wide studded tires, etc). Maybe more arenas ($$) and refrigerated ice rinks. St Paul and Minneapolis will invest more in clearing bike trails. Probably more of us will take holidays in other states ...

Any other thoughts on near term adaptations for Minnesota winter?

See also:

I particularly appreciated today's Salon article by Bill McKibben:

  • Salon: Climate change denial's new offensive

    "... the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by “16 scientists and engineers” headlined “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” The article was easily debunked...

    ... Of the 16 authors of the Journal article ... five had had ties to Exxon...

    ... If we spew 565 gigatons more carbon into the atmosphere, we’ll quite possibly go right past that reddest of red lines. But the oil companies, private and state-owned, have current reserves on the books equivalent to 2,795 gigatons — five times more than we can ever safely burn. It has to stay in the ground. 

    ... in ecological terms it would be extremely prudent to write off $20 trillion worth of those reserves. In economic terms, of course, it would be a disaster, first and foremost for shareholders and executives of companies like ExxonMobil (and people in places like Venezuela)..."

Monday, January 30, 2012

World without winter - Minnesota edition

Our yearly nordic ski event has run aground. Today's City of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation newsletter wins the brave face prize...

... With minimal snow and warm temperatures last week, today and more predicted for this week, the Loppet has moved all festival events to Theodore Wirth Park...

... Obviously, everyone involved wishes that this winter was more winter-like.  But we at the Nordic Ski Foundation are truly excited for this weekend.  With a shorter loop, spectators will have ample opportunity to cheer on their favorite skiers.  All the action will be in close walking distance - with all the things you love about the Loppet right at Wirth Park. This will be the one weekend when the community can celebrate a real Minnesota winter...

... a hiking Luminary Loppet allows for more interesting terrain and a more woodsy and intimate experience. Hikers will enjoy over one thousand ice luminaries, the Ice Pyramid, the enchanted forest, fire dancers, hot cocoa, maple leaf cookies from Canada, s’mores, and, new this year, a ten ounce pour of Surly beer...

I imagine weeping Loppeters pounding Surly while drafting this email.

Not coincidentally, NASA has released a wonderful and terrible animation of 130 years of global temperature variation. It's easy to see how I caught the Nordic bug in the 1970s -- a colder than average time in North America. Temperatures rise and fall around the world -- cold during WW I, warm during the Great Depression. Then, in the last 30 years, the world changes.

We'll still get snowy winters of course. Last year was fairly warm in The Twins, but it was wonderfully snowy. This year is warmer, and much drier. Maybe next year will be in between.

We'll be adapting in ways big and small. Last week my family took a 3 day Nordic ski vacation at Mogasheen Resort on Lake Namekagan near the home of the Birkebeiner and the resurrected Telemark Lodge. We picked the optimal date for snow cover -- and we got what might the only 4 days of top-grade skiing they'll have. This week it's melting.

So next year we'll look at making two reservations. One at Mogasheen, and a fallback near the Keweenaw Peninsula's Swedetown trails or up Minnesota's far Gunflint Trail. We're also going to have to learn how people in Iowa and Missouri make it through their long, dull winters. Tennis anyone?

Thursday, December 29, 2011

GOP 2.0: What rational climate change politics might look like

"With great power comes great responsibility." Gingrich's inner geek smiled at that one. Certainly they had the power. The Democrats had been crushed by the 2012 elections. President Romney now controlled the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court -- and the filibuster had been eliminated in early 2013.

Gingrich was philosophical about the Vice Presidency; Cheney had taught him what could be done. Romney was happy enough to hand off the big one to him.

Not health care of course. That had been a trivial problem; it took only a few months to tweak ObamaCare, throw in some vouchers and a few distractions, and launch RomneyCare. The GOP base was fine with rebranding, and the dispirited remnant of the Democrats saw little real change.

No, the big one was climate change. Romney and Gingrich had never truly doubted that human CO2 emissions were driving global climate change, but pivoting the base took a bit of work. They'd begun with ritual purges; Hansen was quickly exiled to the lecture circuit. Then came the American Commission on Truth in Science. There wasn't even much tormenting of old enemies; the size of the GOP victory had taken the fun out of that. In short order the "weak mindedness" of the Democrats was exposed and the "honest and rigorous" examination of the Romney administration was completed. It was time, Murdoch's empire declared, for strong minded Americans to face hard (but not inconvenient) facts.

The hardest challenge came from a contingent that felt global warming was a good thing, even God's plan. American drought was weakening that group, but they were a constant headache.

Now though it was time for policy, and Gingrich couldn't be happier. He'd been meeting with Bill Clinton of course; the two rogues loved the evening debates. Clinton's engagement wasn't just for fun, despite the GOP's dominance there was still room for politics. America's wealthy had been irrationally terrified of Obama, but they were also afraid of runaway warming -- and they had considerable power. Trillions of dollars were at stake in any real attack on global warming, and every corporation in America was at the door. The Military was pushing for aggressive management. Lastly, Gingrich knew that power can shift. He'd seen it before.

He wrote out the options, and labeled them by their natural political base ...

  • Climate engineering: solar radiation reduction, massive sequestration projects (R)
  • CO2 pricing (by hook or crook) (R/D - political debate is how revenues are used)
  • Subsidies for public transit (D)
  • Urban planning measures (D)
  • Military strategy to manage anticipated collapse of African nations (R)
  • Military strategy to manage anticipated climate engineering conflicts with China (climate wars) (R)
  • Tariff's on Chinese imports to charge China for their CO2 emissions (R/D - but probably tied to American CO2 pricing)
  • Massive investments in solar power and conservation technologies (D)
  • Massive investments in fusion power (R)

The Climate Wars were particularly troublesome. There were simple things China could do, like pump massive amounts of sulfuric acid, that would alleviate the disaster their scientists had predicted. These measures, however, would be disastrous for the US. On the other hand, war with China was unthinkable.

Gingrich new he had to put a price on Carbon and he had to get China to avoid the most dangerous (for the US) forms of climate engineering. The rest was in play. This was what Great Men were made for ...

See also:

Gordon's Notes

Others

Friday, November 18, 2011

Science, the media and the Himalayan glacier. What's wrong?

This morning's NPR Marketwatch summarized the latest IPCC climate change report. They included the mandatory scornful reference to the first IPCC's "error" on Himalayan glaciers ...

AR4 WGII Chapter 10: Asia - 10.6.2 The Himalayan glaciers:
... Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)...

Of course since the first IPCC report the world has exceeded the worst case scenarios for carbon emission; despite the first American depression since the 1930s.

So when do today's mainstream climate scientists expect those Himalayan glaciers to vanish?

I thought this would be easy to discover, even though far too much science is still behind paywalls - despite some uncelebrated but huge progress in the waning days of the Bush II.

It wasn't easy at all.

This was the best recent survey I could find, but it's abstract only [1] ...

Himalayan glaciers: The big picture is a montage PNAS Kargel et al

... The gaffe by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change helped to trigger a global political retreat from climate change negotiations, and it may prove to have been one of the more consequential scientific missteps in human history. An equally incorrect claim, on a different timescale, was that large Himalayan glaciers may be responding today to climate shifts 6,000–15,000 y ago (2). However, both mistakes (1, 2) and some solid scientific reporting on Himalayan glacier dynamics (4–10) highlight large gaps in the observational record. In PNAS, Fujita and Nuimura (11) competently reduced the knowledge gap....

I thought with the clues in the abstract I could find new disappearance predictions, perhaps for more specific regions of the Tibetan/Indian glaciers.

I couldn't -- at least not in my 20 minute time budget.

There's something wrong here. Something wrong with science, the media, us, Google, or all of the above. I'm positive there are mainstream predictions, but scientists aren't marketing them -- and the media isn't digging.

We need scientists with more spine, because nobody else has any.

[1] The abstract overstates the significance of the "gaffe". Humanity was, and is, profoundly unready to think about global climate change. We would have found another reason to defer thought.

Update 11/19/2011: After writing up notes to help my son with his 9th grade history, I realized why this particular bit of climate change is so sensitive. The Indus River is fed from the Himalayan snowpack. India is named after that river ...

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Thai floods - microcosm of global climate change

Three years ago Corinne Kisner wrote ...

Climate Change Case Study: Thailand July 2008

... Climate change threatens all three important sectors of Thailand’s economy: agriculture, tourism, and trade...

... The effects of climate change, including higher surface temperatures, floods, droughts, severe storms and sea level rise, put Thailand’s rice crops at risk and threaten to submerge Bangkok within 20 years.  The damage to agriculture, coastal tourism, and the capital city as consequences of climate change will have enormous economic, cultural and environmental impacts: one degree of warming will destroy the rice crops that are central to the economy, and a few centimeters of sea level rise will submerge the capital city and devastate coastal tourism...

Today Cringely reviews some of the impacts of the 2011 Thailand floods ...

I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Intel is fit to be Thai’d - Cringely on technology

... The industrial park that’s sitting underwater still in Thailand will be out of action for at least four months, I’m told, and possibly as long as 12 months. And what happens then? Why another monsoon, of course!  The flooded industrial park, built in an old rice paddy on a historic flood plain with little added drainage will go under water during the next big storm, too.

The hard disks manufactured in the flooded region are nearly all 3.5-inch drives, so those will be most immediately affected. Since 2.5-inch drives are in ascendancy with 1.8-inch almost out of business and 3.5-inch in decline, the global product mix is likely to change even more, with 3.5-inch drives possibly reaching end-of-life earlier than expected.

But wait, there’s more!  Among the Thai plants currently under water is a Western Digital factory that makes 80 percent of hard drive stepper spindle motors in the world. So while the 3.5-inch drive supply will be most immediately affected, 30-60 days later every other type of drive will be in as short supply...

Are these the floods Kisner predicted? I don't know of course. In 1981 I remember wading through Bangkok's PraduNaam (water/fish market) on the way to the office. The city has flooded before. Thailand will flood again.

Still, this is what we expect -- bigger events happening more often. Most people, however, didn't expect the world supply of computer components to be restricted. Thailand has come a long way since I lived there.

What lessons can we learn? What lessons are technology companies learning?

They're learning that in the "whitewater world" risk has to be distributed. Manufacturing cannot be concentrated in one region, one country, or even one climate zone. We will have to learn redundancy and flexibility. The companies that learn that first will have a large competitive advantage.

Today is a good day to have a functioning disk drive factory.

Monday, November 07, 2011

Keystone XL, carbon sequestration, and the tax in the closet

The Keystone Pipeline XL (Keystone Expansion) is a part of  a multi-billion dollar project to "transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from the Athabasca Oil Sands in northeastern Alberta, Canada to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma, and further to the U.S. Gulf Coast".

There is debate about the project, but the media coverage is hard to follow. That's because there is an "elephant in the room". (see - unspoken).

The elephant is carbon. If we taxed CO2 to offset the externalities of global climate change the Keystone XL would not be built and the existing Keystone pipeline would be dismantled. Of course if we had a Carbon tax the price of energy would rise about 10%, though that would be offset by the increasingly low costs of solar power.

It's easy to see why the media is missing the Keystone XL story. Without a Carbon Tax, or the regulatory equivalent, the Keystone XL makes business sense. A Carbon Tax, however, is a wee bit unpopular. It's easier for XL opponents to talk about other environmental impacts such as oil spills, water contamination and the like.

Of course once Keystone XL is built, instituting a carbon cost would mean dismantling a suddenly irrational multi-billion dollar investment. So maybe we should be talking about the real issue now.

It's a similar story with coal plant carbon sequestration. To the surprise of nobody whose paying attention, it's not happening. Shareholders would fire the CEO of a corporation that invested in carbon sequestration without either a carbon tax or the regulatory equivalent.

There's more than one elephant in this (too small) room. The other is Peak Oil, defined as the beginning of the end of the good stuff. It's gotten lost in the so-far-lesser depression, but our fracking and Keystone investments are consistent with Gwynne Dyer's 2008 prediction. We are now post-peak-oil.

Does it all make more sense now?

Yeah, I thought so.

There's a twist to this story though.

Is a Carbon Tax really all that unpopular? Governments need money to provide services an aging and increasing disabled population needs. There's no happy way to increase taxes. Compared to the alternatives, a Carbon Tax may not be as unpopular as we imagine. Maybe that's why nobody is talking about it. When politicians are forced to deal with big problems, they prefer to keep the real solutions behind closed doors.

Friday, September 30, 2011

Global warming: Doonesbury and China

This Doonesbury is a keeper, but it's incomplete.

It's not just that corporations and their investor owners (me, you, etc) value 10 year returns more than 100 year outcomes.

It's also that our best data suggests expected 50 year temperature and sea level changes will be manageable within the US. Bad news for Arizona, but not so bad for Minnesota. Sure some cities get flooded, but Venice managed. Yes, there is the little problem of massive worldwide conflagration, but Americans expect that anyway.

So don't expect leadership on global warming from Americans or, for that matter, Canadians (go tar sands).

China and India though; they have a problem. Global warming looks very bad for China in particular.

China is going to have to lead.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Denialists in favor of a warmer earth

Talking Points attended a denialist gathering and brought back this poster photo ....

Climatechange8wide

What caught my attention is that the flat earthers no longer deny that the earth is warming. Their new member-mandatory beliefs are:

  • Global warming isn't due to human activity
  • A warmer earth is a good thing

This is a slightly more interesting flavor of nonsense. Even though these beliefs spring from tribal identity rather than science, they can be evaluated in a scientific framework.

The first thesis is the weakest. If anything, solar output may be transiently declining. The sun certainly does not appear to be increasing its temperature output. If anything natural variation is mitigating human warming.

The second is more interesting. A slow warming of the earth would shift ecosystems. Tropical animals, like low population pre-industrial humans, would probably benefit from a mild, slowish, warming.  Rapid warming in a world of 8+ billion post-industrial humans is another matter entirely. I can't see that going well, though some countries (Oh, Canada) may do better than others (China, coal is not your friend).

We may yet envy the polar bears.

See also:

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Tornados and global warming - how do we judge predictions?

We can't forecast a tornado, and we can't predict how a tornado will behave. We can, however, characterize tornadogenic climates and geographies. As CO2 accumulates and the earth warms virtually all terrestrial climates will change. Because climates will change they will all become more or less tornadogenic. This seems self-evident; I don't think there's any controversy here.

There is lots of controversy, however, when we try to understand the causes of the great American Tornados of 2011. There is controversy too, when we try to predict what will happen over the decades to come. Will, for example, geographic regions experience an increase in tornados as the earth warms, only to see a decrease when it warms still more? Will "Tornado zones" migrate north, so that Arkansas will have fewer, but Minnesota more?

Insurance companies would dearly love to know. So would homeowners contemplating installation of a basement emergency shelter. Given the purported limitations of historic data, how can insurance companies and homeowners make decisions?

Consider the case of a fair coin. Flip the coin ten times and you get this: TTTTTTTTTT - ten Tails. What's the chance of a Head on the next toss?

It's a trick question. I said it was a fair coin. The chance of Heads is 1/2, just as it was for the previous 10 tosses. Reverend Bayes does not apply.

Now consider that the coin has been altered; it's no longer a fair coin. Flip the coin ten times and you get this: TTTTTTTTH. What's our best estimate of the chance of a Head on the next toss?

It's 1/10.We don't know anything about the coin, so our best estimate of future performance is past performance.

So we can measure tornados like biased coin tosses and, in 30 years or so, we'll get some reasonable answers.

We can do better than that though. I wrote recently ...

... The process of iterating on internally consistent models that make testable predictions, and revising those models when predictions fail, has transformed human history. It is the only guide we have to developing better medicines, understanding the universe, or predicting the consequences of CO2 accumulation...

Consider our biased coin. We might speculate that a variable gravitational field is causing bias. We may predict that if gravity is varying, then local clocks should diverge from distant clocks. Clocks seem unrelated to coin toss, but if we do find clock drift, then our varying gravity explanation for both coin bias and clock drift is strengthened. We can use that new understanding to make more accurate predictions of future coin toss outcomes.

In a connected system, like a climate, a model can be validated by shorter series of multiple measures. So a model that predicted tornadogenic weather might take decades to validate, but a model that predicts summer storms, winter snow and average temperatures might be validated in a shorter time.

At least that's what insurance companies must be banking on. There's a vast amount of money at stake, a good model would be worth a lot. Particularly if it were private ...

See also

Friday, May 13, 2011

Separated at birth: alternative medicine and climate change denial

As a colleague and I corresponded about my support for the scientific consensus on CO2 driven climate change, I realized I was replaying fifteen year old conversations about the alternatives to science-based medicineHomeopathy consumers have a lot in common with cosmic ray climate enthusiasts.

One common thread is a skepticism about the value science, and particularly the value of the scientific establishment.

Some believe that science simply doesn't apply. "Healing fields", they say, cannot be detected by science; indeed scientific analysis may destroy them. Herbal remedies are safe because Nature loves us. Yahweh promised us the Earth, so it's impossible for us to render it (transiently) inhospitable.

This version of anti-science is uninteresting. These arguments can't be refuted for the same reasons that we can't disprove the existence of unicorns and leprechauns.  There's no measure for resolving disagreements; these are theological disputes.

Another form of argument grants that the scientific method is effective, but claims that the scientific establishment is corrupt and untrustworthy. This is more interesting because it's at least partly true. Over the past twenty years we've learned about the effects of publication bias, particularly when corporations with strong financial interests (ex: Pharma) control the publication of research results. We've seen some spectacular scientific frauds, and we've seen a trend to "me too" research that gets safe grants but produces small results. During the Bush years, we saw loyalists suppress scientific results their bosses disliked.

Alas, there's no evidence the amateurs are reliable; most seem driven by the same passions that power crank cosmologists. Even if they were angels, furthermore, by their nature these amateurs bypass scientific evaluation and challenge. They cannot be judged because they're not in the game.

Sure, the scientific program is imperfect, but, when it comes to understanding the world, there are no alternatives. The process of iterating on internally consistent models that make testable predictions, and revising those models when predictions fail, has transformed human history. It is the only guide we have to developing better medicines, understanding the universe, or predicting the consequences of CO2 accumulation.

The denialists do have a point, even if they don't fully recognize it. We can and should improve the machinery of science. Requirements to publish data obtained through public investments, registries of studies to ensure negative and unfavorable results are published,  and (more challenging) reforms to grant programs and academic tenure are some of the improvements seen over the past decade.

Science tells us Homeopathy's effects are mediated by belief, not molecules. Science tells us that CO2 accumulation will change the earth's climate; and that these changes will be extremely disruptive for a crowded planet with fixed borders.

Maybe in ten years science will tell us that solar cycles are more important for our 21st century climate than CO2 accumulation. Maybe science will tell us that spinal manipulations do change the immune system. Maybe, but probably not.

Update 5/14/11: I've rewritten parts of the first few paragraphs.