BARVENNON.COM
AUSTRALIAN
DIARY
ARCHIVES 1997-2007 --- ARCHIVES 2007 +
SEPTEMBER
2014
WARMIST
ALARMISTS
Every
generation various portions of the human race appear to suffer a mass
hallucinatory event. Most are quite innocuous like the South
Sea Island Bubble, Tulip Mania or Reds under the bed. Even to
the Malthusian Catastrophe prediction of the Reverend Thomas Malthus
circa 1800AD. Some are tragic, like burning witches.
Others can prove expensive, especially to the most vulnerable members
of our society. That is how I consider the Warmist
absurdity.
Take note. I am not talking about pollution
by organic substances like pesticides or herbicides. Those
pollutants should be heavily taxed. I am just concerned below
with atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels.
I am aware that Carbon
Dioxide (Hence called "CO2") is a "greenhouse gas".
Like the glass of a greenhouse, CO2 is transparent to electromagnetic
radiation in the 400 to 700 NM electromagnetic wavelength band.
(visible light) And, like glass, it is opaque to longer
wavelengths (infra red aka "heat radiation"). This
means that it allows light from the Sun to reach the ground, then the
CO2 absorbs the reflected (as heat) radiation that is retransmitted
and warms up. So let me concede that the global temperature
might rise a few degrees if the CO2 concentration rises. And
that as a result the sea level might rise by up to a meter over the
next 85 years. Oh yes. And that the weather might get
wilder.
I am a
long time commenter on Global Warming. My most recent comment was in
January 2014. As long
ago as March 2005 I predicted the
effect of global warming on the "Roaring Forties" (I
suggested they would
become the "Howling
45's"). Recent research by ANU (reported in SMH May 11
2014 as "Wilder Winds, less rain, as Roaring Forties become
Furious Fifties") has essentially
confirmed my
prediction.
My technical
credentials obviously
do not match up with
those of Suzanne Carey, Professor in the “Molecular Genetics of
Cancer Division”???? at the Walter and Elizabeth Hall Institute or
with those of Distinguished “Professor of Economics”???? at ANU
Ross Garnaut. Nor do I have an enthusiastic ABC or
FOX hanging out for any
crumbs I might wish to scatter.
My
qualifications are more mundane. I am not a Professor or a
cancer researcher or an economist. I am a Mechanical Engineer
and have modeled the atmospheric boundary layer (roughly the winds up
to about one kilometer) in a wind tunnel. Mechanical Engineers
are primarily concerned with heat engines and moving machinery.
As such I studied Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Chemistry of
various fuels, Materials Technology, Mechanics. And other
similar stuff. Engineers describe the atmosphere as a "heat
engine".
I
have two issues with the warmist alarmists. One is a
comparative costof
their solution.
The other is, do we really want to cool down the planet?
What
would be the cost if we converted all our coal and gas to renewable
resources?
The "World
Factbook" estimates that in 2011 the world used 22 trillion
KWH of electricity per annum. The graph below is from
wikipedia. Electricity by coal costs between 0.04 and 0.08
Euros/KWH, so let us take the mean value of 0.06 Eu/KWH. Large
scale PV (PhotoVoltaic) electricity mean cost is 0.095 Eu/KWH and
less expensive wind onshore (If you don't mind the noise) mean cost
is 0.075 Eu/KWH. Multiplying the difference between power cost
(0.085 and 0.06 = 0.025Eu/KWH) by world consumption of 22 trillion
KWH gives a very conservative estimate of the extra cost we pay to
use renewables, which comes to US $800 billion p/a. That was
about 1% of GWP (Gross World Product) in 2011.
That number is
conservative because I have not included a "power storage"
cost. Coal power is flexible. If everyone switches on
their air conditioners or heaters, then just feed the furnace more
coal. But if you rely on sunlight or wind, where can you get
that power for your heater on a still, cold night? The answer
is, you need power storage. Currently the best option is a
hydro scheme, where you pump water uphill when there is surplus
electricity, and use hydro power on those cold windless nights.
As
for petrol (aka "gas" for our American audience). The
world uses about 90 million bbl/day at a current cost of about
$100/bbl, which translates to around 5 trillion litres at 64c/litre.
Carbon & hydrogen fuels have a far greater energy density than
other forms of storage, so let us consider substitution of the
"green" fuel ethanol. It takes around 2 Kg of grain
(say wheat) to make a litre of ethanol, and wheat currently costs
about 33c/Kg. However Ethanol has only 75% of the energy value
of petrol. So replacing petrol with ethanol would cost an extra
18c/litre equivalent, or another $900 billion/pa
So replacing
Coal and Oil with renewable fuels would very conservatively cost the
world an extra $1.7 trillion p/a.
What are
the costs if we do not stop the greenhouse warming?
OK
so we might lose a few habitats containing unique flora and fauna. I
would suggest creating artificial environments, or finding a new
locale. At the very least the chance of reconstitution at some
future date could be assured by preserving genetic samples.
Another
cost much cited is damage by rising sea levels. The warmist
website "Climate Central" contains an estimate that in the
next hundred years about 2.6% of the world's population will be
living in areas that are at risk from regular flooding. (They
do not subtract current flood prone areas in Holland, Bangladesh etc.
which might well include 2.3% of the world's population.)
The
Dutch have been building Dykes to hold back the ocean for centuries.
Currently, 17% of the Netherlands is below sea level. Sure,
building dykes is an expense. But they are only needed in some
locations, and are those few dykes going to cost more each year than
the combined annual GDP of Turkey and Indonesia (which come to less
than $1,700 billion)?
The only other cost mentioned by the
warmists is inclement (windier) weather. My solution is, make
the building codes more stringent.
I very much doubt that the
amortised cost of all those changes would exceed $1,700 billion p/a.
So the cost of switching to renewable fuels is 2% of world GDP forever.
Do
We Really Want to Cool Down the Planet?
One
thing that warmists do not mention is Ice Ages and
Glacial/Interglacial periods. Ice ages are very infrequent, and
very dangerous. It is thought that during at least one Ice Age
there was Ice at sea level at the equator.
Glacial periods are what our planet has experienced about 90%
of the time for the last thousand millennium. Right now we are
at the end of a short warm (aka "interglacial") period that
has lasted 10,000 years. That followed a period of 100,000
years during which the global temperature averaged 6 Deg C lower than
now. If history repeats we can expect a drop in world
temperatures of around 6 Deg C over the next few centuries.
Below
are graphs from wikipedia (Major
ice ages). The data is from sedimentary and Vostok Ice
cores. Lake Vostok is in Antarctica, and is a water lake under
around 4,000 meters of ice. The first graph shows temperature
fluctuations over the last five million years. That is about
when Mammals first appeared on our planet.
Take some time to
look and think about the graph below. That horizontal line
labelled "0" on the left hand scale is our current world
temperature. You will notice that five million years ago the
average world temperature was around 1-2 Deg. C warmer than it is
today. You will also notice that the average temperature over
the last million years was about 4C lower than it is now, and that it
dipped as much as 8C below what it is now. Nobody is sure what
causes the oscillations in world temperature, but looking at that
huistorical graph, I am more worried about global freezing than I am
about global warming.
The three graphs below
have a much shorter timescale than the one above, and have greater
detail. They cover a period of only one million years.
You
will note that we are coming to the end of a rather short warm period
during which the planetary average temperature was high. (top graph
below, extreme RH side.) The last 10,000 years have been
unusually warm. You can see from the top graph that if nature
is allowed to take it's normal cyclic course, you could expect your
local temperatures to drop by as much as 8 C (that's about 15 F for
Americans) over the next few centuries, and it will (if history
repeats) remain at that low point for the next 90,000 years.
Cities like London, Berlin and New York could well become
uninhabitable. Countries like Canada and most of Northern
Europe and half of the USA would be riddled with glaciers. The
Derwent river (In Tasmania) could well become a glacier.
As stated above,
astronomers are undecided as to the cause of the Glacial-Interglacial
cycle. Wikipedia cites Malkovitch as suggesting that the earths
precession is to blame. A more recent theory is that there is a
shift in the internal magnetic field of the Sun. Any effect
would only need to alter the surface temperature of the Sun by as
much as 10C - 20C. That might not sound like very much, when
the Sun's temperature is estimated at 5776K. However the radiation
energy transmitted by the Sun is the fourth power of Temperature.
A 20C decrease in the Sun's temperature will produce a 1.4% decrease
in the energy falling on the earth. That should be more than
enough to bring on an ice age.
In summary, personally, I vote
that we keep the Carbon Dioxide levels high. The temperature
graph above looks to me like a bistable situation. If we tip
Earth into the cold option, it might not be so easy to return it to
the warm option. This is because
Once there is lots of ice and snow on the ground, Earth's albedo (reflectivity) rises and much more of the warmth of sunlight gets reflected straight back into space, thus further cooling our planet. This effect where a change produces effects that accelerate the change is known to engineers as a "positive feedback loop".
As the oceans cool, the solubility of gas (especially Carbon Dioxide) in the oceans increases. This effect would be most marked in the larger areas of ocean available in the lower latitudes. As a result photosynthesis would become more active and over a wider area, which would accelerate the reduction of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which would in turn accelerate global cooling to again produce a cooling positive feedback loop. This effect can clearly be seen in the graph of CO2 concentration (green graph) above, where the concentration of CO2 diminishes as the world temperature falls and photosynthesis in the oceans becomes more widespread.
On the other hand, I do
not believe that an increase of 5C warned of by the alarmists will
produce the catastrophic consequences predicted by economist Stern,
or the selected reviewers of the IPCC, or Suzanne Carey, Professor in
the Molecular Genetics of Cancer Division at the Walter and Elizabeth
Hall Institute or with those of Distinguished Professor of Economics
at ANU Ross Garnaut. Even the direst predictions only warn of
increased flooding for less than 1% of the world population, or for a
few extra deaths from heat in the tropics (with no mention of the
lives saved from freezing in arctic zones, or the lives saved by a
faster increase of GWP (Gross World Product). As can be seen
from the "five million year" graph, temperatures 3C higher
than are current existed during the early Pliocene, when the earliest
precursors to humans (Australopithecus and homo habilis) first
appeared.
I suspect that our climate scientists have not
properly modeled the effect of an increased CO2 concentration on
photosynthesis. Greater photosynthesis would accellerate the
fixing of CO2 and serve as a negative feedback mechanism on
warming.
I live in a warm country, I do not fancy having my
descendants living in an ice environment.
Earlier
Barvennon blogs on the environment can be found here:
Climate Change January 2014.