Thu, September - 9 - 2010 |
(on a truly global perspective)
 |
|
|
|
The last newsletter provided some background regarding the controversy surrounding climate change. As noted, on February 5 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provided a Summary for Policymakers describing the physical science basis for climate change. This summary contained data showing concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased during the industrial period as determined from ice cores and atmospheric measurements. Also contained in the summary is a figure showing global average surface temperature over the timeframe 1850 to 2000. According to the figure, over that period the global average surface temperature has gone from 13.7º C to 14.5º C. On page 10 of the summary the statement is made that “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (their italics) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” While the press in general has seized on the report and this statement to make the conclusion that climate change has been induced by human activity, it may be worth looking at some of the alternative interpretations of the observations.
Although there are people who will argue that the data for both the gas concentrations as well as the temperature increases are either not as large as indicated or are artifacts of the measurements, these arguments are too varied and suffer the same uncertainty as the anthropogenic climate induced change arguments. The focus here is to look at the uncertainties of the impacts going forward and the concerns about wide scale changes to influence climate change.
One major concern with the greenhouse gas/climate change hypothesis is how intimately are they related? Could there be other causes that result in temperature increases? How much is actually known about global dynamics? In the Spring of 1975, Newsweek magazine had an article indicating that scientists were concerned that weather patterns had begun to change and it went on to state that food shortages and political disruptions were on the horizon as a result of global cooling. This was before the discovery of the hole in the ozone and the subsequent interest in greenhouse gas concentrations. While much more is now known about the potential for global warming, less is known about the mechanisms for global cooling. Some work has been done to look at the influence of aerosols, clouds and contrails on global temperature. Although most of the concern about global warming has focused on carbon dioxide, water vapor has more impact on the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
So why hasn’t there been more concern voiced about water vapor? There are likely a number of reasons. One is that there is little that can be done to reduce the water vapor in the atmosphere, but there is also the aspect of the uncertainty of the effect of increased water vapor on climate. Water vapor is able to retain the radiated infrared energy from the ground, which leads to warming, but water vapor when it is in the form of clouds, reflects the sun’s energy before it reaches the ground. Some climate models indicate that increased water vapor in the atmosphere will lead to increased cloud cover which will lead to cooling or at least an offset to warming. The real point is that much is still unknown about global climate dynamics. While some would argue that it is unclear whether human activity has influenced the Earth’s climate, it is even less clear that changes in human activity by significantly reducing the carbon dioxide emissions will affect the future climate.
Perhaps the question is not whether there is global climate change, but what is the risk/benefit for action. How much should be spent to change current energy practices and what are the risks? The recent IPCC Summary indicated that climate change was very likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Very likely was defined by the IPCC as greater than 90% sure of the outcome or result. Nothing was said about the level of certainty that reducing anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide would have on climate change, but it is likely that this would certainly be below very likely and might not even be as high as likely (>66%). Would you buy a lottery ticket for $1 if it is very likely you would win $250 million dollars? Of course! Would you spend $2 billion to have a very likely chance to win $250 million lottery? Simply put is the risk relatively minimal for the potential gain, or is the gain (not guaranteed) less than risk? The issue of dealing with global climate change is likely somewhere between these two lottery example extremes.
To say that the arguments for or against global warming are contentious likely understates the rift. It is safe to say that the overall issue of climate change has become highly politicized. The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement between 169 countries to control/limit their emissions of greenhouse gases. Industrialized nations commit to reducing their emissions to 5.2% below their emissions in 1990 whereas developing countries (China and India are considered developing countries) are exempt from emissions targets. The United States and Australia are the two major countries that have not ratified the treaty. The Treaty came into force February 16, 2006. As of the end of 2006, the UK and Sweden were the only European Union countries to be on track to meet their 2010 emissions goals.
While considerable time and money could be expended to prove whether or not anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases do or do not influence climate change, the more prudent course of action might be to expend the research effort on developing alternative energy sources. Regardless of the issue of climate change, there are good reasons for seeking alternative, sustainable sources of energy. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it should reduce the reliance on oil and natural gas as energy sources. Development of sustainable, carbon neutral, green energy sources may not stave off global climate change, but it likely would be more benign than continuing to burn large amounts of fossil fuel. Consider the two extreme positions: global warming is occurring and is the direct result of anthropogenic emissions or global warming is not occurring and reduced anthropogenic emissions will have no effect. In either situation it would seem to make sense to move toward sustainable, environmentally benign alternative energies. The February 9, 2007 issue of Science has a special section devoted to Sustainability and Energy. Solar, wind, biomass derived as well as nuclear options are discussed and new technologies that may enable or enhance these options are presented. Regardless of your position of global warming, the emphasis should be sustainable energy.
The forest products industries are positioned to be an important part of any biomass related energy efforts. The industry already collects and processes biomass on a large scale. The effort to expand the collection and utilization of forest materials to produce fuel and energy could help to improve the profitability of the forest product companies. The current effort to design and construct a biorefinery at the Flambeau River facility in Park Falls is a step in the right direction.
It may seem that greenhouse gases are a relatively recent issue, but the initial description of the effect was first reported by Joseph Fourier in 1827 and Svante Arrhenius voiced a concern about the influence of increased carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere in 1896. Arrhenius estimated that doubling the concentration would lead to a 4º C increase in average global temperature.
Share with:
to subscribe and receive automatically periodical updates about new articles and reviews >>
send comments, notes, thoughts to feedback@knowledgeforaction.info
to inquire about contributing to KnowledgeForAction.info write to: proposals@knowledgeforaction.info
edited and managed by Knowledge for Action & Action for Knowledge
technical support by eLabora