How Legitimate Is the Research into Climate Change ?
Earlier today, a reader suggested that my data on renewable energy and climate change had come from various unverified and unproven sources, not unlike a game of “whisper down that lane” that you may (or may not) recall from your childhood. At a certain level, of course, he was correct.
I remember getting a similar email from a lady when we first started 2GreenEnergy in 2009. She said that my viewpoints on climate change had no validity because I hadn’t done the research personally, and bless her heart, recommended that I get started on the project immediately.
I was flattered, and I thanked her for her faith in my abilities, but I needed to explain:
The subject of climate change first came to the world’s attention in the 19th Century, when a small group of mathematicians and scientists began to formulate theoretical projections of what the world would be likely to expect if a greater concentration of gases trapped more of the sun’s heat close to the Earth. But, as I’m sure you know, in the last 20 years, scholarly reports have proliferated, and now occupy literally billions of pages.
Today, the real factor that prevents me from entering the fray is money. There are tens of thousands of salaried researchers, countless lines of software code, and many billions of dollars of research equipment spread all over the world. Much of that material is airborne right this minute taking measurements of the Earth’s atmosphere.
In short, the prospect of my duplicating this effort isn’t possible. To get an understanding of this extremely complex subject, I’ll have to trust someone somewhere, and so will you.
The good news is that I do happen to be far closer to all this than the average Joe. For example, I had an extended conversation with the fellow at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, CA whose life’s work is the satellite mission that monitors in real-time the density (and thus the rate of melting) of the Greenland ice sheet. He told me that 51 cubic miles of ice has melted into liquid water in the last 12 months, and that this rate is steadily rising, just like clockwork, every single year.
Another colleague, Dr. Alex Cannara, who holds five degrees in physics and engineering, clarifies this:
51 cubic miles of melted Greenland ice absorbed about 92 trillion kilowatthours of energy, from summer sun, air or sea, just to melt and not get warmer (this is water’s “heat of fusion”). Humans on the planet now consume 15 trillion watts of power, or 0.36 trillion kilowatt hours per day. So that 51 cubic miles of just Greenland ice needed about 92/.36 = 255 days of all humanity’s energy generation to melt into the sea. Scaled up, this gives us an idea of how astronomically much energy we must prevent from entering all the pole ices, from any sources, whether from waste heat, GHG absorption, oceanic warming, etc.
If the Greenland ice sheet melts, the sea levels of Earth will rise 200 20 feet, and the new eastern seaboard of the U.S. will be shown on the map below, i.e., we’ll lose the part in yellow, in which many of our largest cities are currently located.
Again, I have to believe in someone if I am to learn anything of value here. The two people named above have spent their lives in search of the truth in this subject, and have earned my trust. I hope to earn yours.
Craig,
It’s ~20 feet, or ~6 meters.
If all of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and the Antarctic Ice Sheet all melt, we’ll be ~50-60 meters (assuming some heating throughout the ocean depths causing expansion as well).
But just Greenland is ~20 feet.
That said, at our current CO2e emission levels, it’s certain that we’ll lose the Greenland Ice Sheet over the next couple of centuries (probably by ~2150), and it’s uncertain whether the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain intact… But I don’t think the core Antarctic Ice Sheet is threatened yet. If we can get our emissions down to under ~15 billion tons/year by the mid-century mark, I doubt the Antarctic Ice Sheet will budge over the next few centuries.
I just noticed that your map seems correct for 20 feet, so your “200 feet” was probably a typo. Sorry for the un-needed lecture.
🙂
Thanks, Glenn. I’ll make that change.
Yes, thanks. You’re correct as usual. It goes without saying that Boston, NY, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. will be under water in either case, i.e., 20 or 200 feet.
I am going to use the concept of real world thru my eyes. In 1991 I moved from Cols, Ohio to Sw Fla. Working in N. ft. myers and basically residing in Naples. At that time beach renourishment was an occasional thing(5-8 years ? Per area), I would travel to a place called Plantation Isle at the nw tip of the Everglades and rarley( storm related) see water above the road, and on Marco Island the same for the canal walls they only had water at their caps at storm events. NOW, beach renourishment is an ongoing maintenance event, high tide in Plantation Isles puts water across the access roads, and the same high tides is bringing gulf water to the caps of the canal walls on Marco. This is all a gradual event over my close to 24 years in this area that like science being a refection of their research, is a reflection of the real world thru my eyes.The view from science, as well as our duties as stewards to face up to this event is also what the real world should do. For Climate Change to be a politcal football in the media world is an embarresment to our civilization which happens to exist in the real world.
I believe we will do better if we can show the world a much more viable means of enabling greenhouse emissions reductions globally, and a way to power society on extraction of greenhouse gases already emitted into the atmosphere. My small firm is seeking support from any and all who care to support us. I’m claiming to be the ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking inventor of the “jackhammer” needed to break us all out of the reinforced concrete box fossil fuel firms and government dithering and inaction have humanity boxed up in.
For further details please contact:
Les Blevins, President
Advanced Alternative Energy
1207 N 1800 Rd., Lawrence, KS 66049
Phone 785-842-1943
Email LBlevins@aaecorp.com
For more info see
http://aaecorp.com
http://advancedalternativeenergy.com
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=45587557
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advanced-Alternative-Energy/277213435730720
The melting is accelerating already. Permafrost is melting as are methane hydrates. That will greatly accelerate the warming. I believe if everything melts the sea will rise 200-250 feet.
Good planets are hard to find.
We need to global understanding, cooperation, and action like the allies did in WW2, but as many countries as possible. Maybe a web site with correct information for people to economically be energy efficient, reduce birth rates, and use renewables, have sister cities and sister churches for peace….That way we don’t have to wait for dysfunctional governments…..
“Good planets are hard to find.” That’s excellent, Craig.
Though duplicating all of the research on climate change is not feasible, most people can do the key calculation, the temperature of the earth without the greenhouse effect. (This is often seen as a problem in classes in physics, differential equations, or heat transfer.)
Without any greenhouse gasses in the air, the earth would be about -18 Celsius. With the historic level of 280 ppm we have the temperature we see now. We are headed to 350 or more ppm, so the easiest guess is actually way above anything we could stand.
This doesn’t predict exactly what is going to happen, but we are in the position of Willey the Coyote, having just run over the cliff and looked down.
The solutions are multiple and the best approaches will vary as much as the variety in our climates, economies and cultures but the essential first step is ending the subsidies to fossil fuel producers. Our provincial government in Alberta, has spent $13 billion in electrical transmission upgrades(which all electrical users will pay for) to ship electricity south from steam assisted gravity tar sands mines whose bottom lines will be improved by being able to sell electricity while using the heat from generation. This same government is spending millions advertising how green the industry is while paying small solar electricity producers about 1/2 the wholesale rate that coal burners get during daylight hours.
Wow, that’s really awful. That very well may be even more deceitful that what we have down here.
How legitimate is most research? We do hear about research that seems specious or just silly. Any research must be judged on its own merits. That said, recognize the need researchers feel to chase funding as a source of income. We recognize conflict of interest in other fields.
What happens to research after it is done and published is another issue and we have seen various outcomes there as well. Reading or listening to media accounts of issues with which I am familiar, I have long been struck by the difference between what is presented and what I have experienced. The media is governed by ‘narrative’ and have acknowledged it, quietly. By necessity, it is also governed by ‘continuity’ which is common to Hollywood in most of our experience. Research is also subject to political use. While none of this should come as a surprise, some will object, so be it.
Hi Gents,
I remember having watched the youtube video below. It is all about the IPCC climate change models having been either conservative or disregarded other effects. I ask you all to pay special attention to a plot displaying to act, not to act against climate change indeed, no climate change at all…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjOP3Y_JUX8&feature=youtu.be&list=PLeFUYlB1QLSEOeLBSJwbXfQpA1ZH1PU2T
Best,
Vicente Fachina
Here’s one very rational way to examine this human climate disruption debate:
Let’s say that there are two possible conditions, and two possible responses…
Condition 1: The overwhelming majority of all our climate scientists are quite correct about the disruption that modern human activity is now causing in global temperatures, and are conservatively understating aspects of the actual threat.
Condition 2: The weight of science is totally misplaced, and the disruptive climate effects produced by modern human fossil-fueled activity are negligible and highly overestimated.
Response A: We do all that we can to reduce our output of all the contributing pollutants, and to increase our energy efficiency, and we do our best to scrub the atmosphere by considerable reforestation with carbon-retaining trees, etc.
Response B: We do nothing at all, and simply continue with accelerating our present inefficient and polluting behavior.
So four scenarios become possible, depending on the reality and our behavior…
Scenario 1A: The science is quite sound, and we act to lessen the impact considerably, by changing our behavior so that we pollute far less – this makes us, our children, and future generations far safer and much more comfortable.
Scenario 2A: The science is all wrong, and we lose some money and effort changing our behavior, but reduce pollutants and increase efficiency (things that would be good anyway).
Scenario 1B: The science is quite sound, but we fail to act and we condemn ourselves and our offspring to shattering worldwide turmoil and severe and enduring harm to the biosphere for many centuries, and conceivably for millennia.
Scenario 2B: The science is all wrong and we change nothing, stay inefficient, and keep on polluting our world.
This strikes me as very much like buying insurance – if you dodge a bullet and nothing happens, then you lose some money in exchange for peace of mind – but then if something does happen, and you’re not insured, then may God help you.
Question: Do you have insurance, or do you prefer to dodge bullets?
Good analysis. Of all the terrifying aspects of climate disruption, sea level rise is the one that scares me most, because the new shorelines aren’t permanent. Imagine that Boston is underwater. Where are you going to rebuild it? Framingham? http://bit.ly/1xpFRSg Worcester? Springfield? The Berkshires? It depends on how much ice you think is going to melt.
Thank you, Craig – I’m not alone in that observation, of course. Others have been making that point for years.
Also, for me, the evidence for the perceived climate threat is not the only consideration. I feel it’s additionally valuable to factor in the benefits that would accrue that are needed anyway.
These would include increased efficiency, increased energy independence, increased health and productivity of human populations (especially in urban areas), and decreased direct impact on the biosphere upon which we all depend for nutrition and potable water.
Aside from those clear benefits, already, the governments of industrial nations are hearing from those business interests – such as asset management firms, insurance firms and investment houses – that are most likely to be adversely impacted by climate disruption.
These interests – none of which are normally inclined toward a fondness for government interference in any arena – are now, with rising urgency, calling for regulations requiring significant emissions reductions. It’s worth noting that their business models depend on an accurate and prudent interpretation of all available data.
By the way, here are some other maps worth perusing…
http://www.citylab.com/weather/2013/02/these-scary-maps-explain-what-sea-level-rise-will-mean-boston/4591/
http://www.citymetric.com/horizons/these-maps-show-us-cities-once-ice-caps-have-melted-545