Saturday, April 15, 2017

Do We Fight Global Warming Or Not?

This is an issue that has become politicized to the extreme,  which precludes rational action. What I present here has absolutely zero to do with ideologies or politics.  It is simple logic and common sense. 

There are two things to consider,  but only one available choice.  Whether humans cause global warming or not is not a matter of choice,  it is something decreed by nature,  which does not tell us which is true.  Our only choice is whether or not to act,  based on what we do know. 

What we know is this:  (1) there is a huge volume of ice on Earth located above sea level,  (2) if even some of it were to melt,  sea levels would rise sharply,  (3) added heat melts ice,  and (4) most of our critical institutions and a major fraction of our population live in the zone threatened with flooding. 

What portends here is a disaster far exceeding the temporary flooding of a city by a hurricane,  or the migration of millions out of Syria and Africa to escape war.  What could happen is the forced migration of billions,  and (nuclear) war over failing food resources.  So,  this decision is important to get “right”. 

Filling Out The Decision Matrix

One simple way to decide this is by a version of the trade study matrix,  a pretty standard tool.  However many choices you have is the number of columns (in this example 3),  however many versions of the unknown natural issue there might be is the number of rows (in this example 2).  That gives you a 6-hole pigeon-hole matrix to fill in with likely consequences. 



There are two rows because human emissions might,  or might not,  cause global warming.  You do not get to choose between them;  this is decided by nature,  not humans. 

There are three columns instead of two,  because if we decide to act,  there’s two ways this action might turn out.  There is only one,  if we choose not to act.  Acting versus not acting is the choice available to us.  If we act and it doesn’t work,  we’d better already be working on how to cope (the third column).

As for the consequences,  they need not be detailed,  and it is OK to exaggerate them for better contrast.  

If we choose to act,  we will spend lots of money to act,  and there will be monetary losses,  too.   These costs could range from significant (damaged economies) to catastrophic (going back to the stone age).  That variation doesn’t matter,  just fill in all four “choose to act” cells with “lose $$”.

If we choose not to act,  then the consequences depend upon what nature does not tell us:  whether or not human-caused global warming is real.  If not real,  there will be no meltdown,  no sea level rise,  no migrations,  no war,  and no money lost.  If real,  all those things will happen,  and both money and lives will be lost (at catastrophic levels). 

That fills in all 6 cells with consequences.  5 of the 6 involve lost money,  there is no avoiding that.  1 of the 6 involves life loss as well as loss of money;  that one is really bad.  1 of the 6 has no bad consequences in it at all. 

Now We Must Choose

You cannot choose which row you want (political ideologies notwithstanding).  You can only choose a column!  The standard way to use the matrix is to pick the outcome that you cannot abide,  and then cross out the entire column that contains it. 

In this example,  losing lives is to be avoided,  which rules out choosing not to act.  This valuing of lives over money is in accordance with the teachings of all 3 Abrahamic religions in the West.  Most of the Eastern religious traditions agree. 

That result says:  act,  and be prepared ahead of time to cope,  if your initial action fails. 

Did you notice that not once did I refer to any of the prognostications or temperature history data of the climate science community?  I didn’t need it to make this decision.  I need it only to help define the actions we might take to mitigate this threat:  reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

And,  there is another independent science dataset that says the same thing:  observed ice melting behavior as the fossil fuel-guzzling population has exploded.  Getting the same answer by two independent means lends a lot of confidence to that answer. 

Climate-Modeling Science

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that humans are causing major effects with greenhouse gas emissions.  They arrive at this conclusion with a combination of (1) computer modeling of climate,  and (2) various proxies for past temperature data earlier than historical measurements. 

There is inherently a lot of uncertainty in the computer modeling,  and a lot of inference in the proxies for past temperatures.  There is potential for error,  disagreement,  and even fraud.  Many folks outside the community are uncomfortable with that,  and this is the weakness exploited by those who prefer to disbelieve that we are causing climate change. 

Ice Melting Behavior

Ice behavior is unambiguous.  The mountain glaciers have been generally receding since the 19th century.  Now there are enormous summer sea ice losses,  and thousands of summer meltwater lakes on Greenland,  that we have never seen before!  The co-timing of these symptoms with the increases in measured atmospheric carbon dioxide to unprecedented levels since 1958,  is quite damning.

There is a documentary film available in whole or in part on Youtube named “Chasing Ice”.  It was made by James Balog as part of his Extreme Ice Survey (EIS).  The award-winning film was first shown in 2013.  The time lapse photography of glacier melt-back in the last 30 minutes of that film makes my point better than any words. 

Trade Study-Recommended Actions

The mitigation action to take first is to cut back carbon dioxide and methane emissions as fast as we can,  but without hurting or killing somebody for lack of energy, which limits how fast we can do this.  The coping action to take in case mitigation fails is twofold:  (1) start stockpiling foodstuffs,  and (2) to start moving critical institutions and assets to much higher ground.  

Any other “geo-engineering” activities we contemplate must be reversible,  because we simply do not know that they will do more good than harm.  If they do not work,  we have to be able to undo them. 

It is that simple. And it is that stark.  And,  it has absolutely nothing to do with politics or ideology.  Those who claim otherwise are lying to you.  Follow the money to see who and why. 

Previous Related Article on this Topic

There was one earlier article that I wrote on this topic,  which the current article updates and replaces.  That was “On Global Warming”,  dated 1-12-2010,  and sharing the same search keywords you can use to filter searches for this topic on this site:  "bad government",  “bad manners”,  “climate change”,  and “idiocy in politics”.  That older article was last updated in 2014 to show a simpler 4-cell version of the 6-cell trade study matrix presented here.   It now refers the reader to this article.  


5 comments:

  1. Ocean nuclear power is the best way to stop global warming. Centrally mass produced floating nuclear reactors located in remote US territorial waters could be used to manufacture carbon neutral methanol, gasoline, jet fuel,diesel fuel,etc. using the US Navy's synfuel from seawater technology.

    Renewable methanol could replace natural gas in natural gas turbines that could be cheaply modified. Its methanol has already been tested in such modified turbines by the natural gas companies. Recycling the CO2 from those power plants to make more methanol for electricity production would actually make nuclear synfuels for electricity-- carbon negative (reducing the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere).

    http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2016/12/siting-ocean-nuclear-power-plants-in.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unsubsidised cost of nuclear power is 2 to 3 times more than PV. And nuclear cost is rising while pv is falling.

      When you have places like california where electricity cost is like 40c per kwh, and cost of solar is like 4 cents per kwh. Then theres no need for nuclear.

      Delete
  2. 1. A centrally mass produced floating nuclear power plant is not the same has a large land based nuclear facility

    2. The future of land based reactors is probably in small centrally mass produced underground reactors

    3. PV cost are distorted by the fact that they only produce electricity efficiently when the sun is shining. So a nameplated 10 MWe PV is really only a 2.5 to 3.3 MWe PV. Nuclear power plants currently have a lifetime of about 60 years which could probably be stretched to 100 years. PVs lose about 20% of their efficiency after just 20 years. Per kilowatt of electricity produced, PV produce about 10,000 times more toxic waste than nuclear power plants do. PVs are also extremely land intensive.

    Nuclear power provides about 8% of the total energy consumed in the US even though there really hasn't been a brand new nuclear power plant built in the US in decades. Solar power still provides less than 0.08% of the total energy produced in the US even though lots of solar panels are being produced all of the time.

    Marcel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nuclear is maybe 8% of electicity generation, not total energy used. You are basically ignoring nuclear waste, and the exclusion zone that reactors usually get on land. Is steel being bent on those floating nuclear reactor designs?

      And you are wrong, in 2016 US got 1.4% of its elecricity from solar. Compared to 1% in 2015. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/03/02/solar-reached-1-4-of-u-s-electricity-in-2016/

      Delete
    2. 20% of the electricity consumed in the US is from nuclear energy.

      China and Russia are already building floating nuclear reactors.

      There's really no such thing as nuclear waste since spent fuel can be recycled to produce even more carbon neutral electricity. France already uses the plutonium from spent fuel to produce electricity.

      Used in next generation nuclear reactors, Bill Gates has estimated that the spent fuel that already exist from commercial nuclear reactors is worth more than $100 trillion in electricity generation.

      No, you're wrong. Read the article you provide a link to, it says 1.4% of electricity production not 1.4% of total energy consumed in the US.

      Marcel

      Delete