Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The heat is on
The Economist ^ | Sep 7th 2006 | The Economist

Posted on 09/10/2006 12:35:39 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

The uncertainty surrounding climate change argues for action, not inaction. America should lead the way

FOR most of the Earth's history, the planet has been either very cold, by our standards, or very hot. Fifty million years ago there was no ice on the poles and crocodiles lived in Wyoming. Eighteen thousand years ago there was ice two miles thick in Scotland and, because of the size of the ice sheets, the sea level was 130m lower. Ice-core studies show that in some places dramatic changes happened remarkably swiftly: temperatures rose by as much as 20°C in a decade. Then, 10,000 years ago, the wild fluctuations stopped, and the climate settled down to the balmy, stable state that the world has enjoyed since then. At about that time, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, mankind started to progress.

Man-made greenhouse gases now threaten this stability. Climate change is complicated and uncertain, but, as our survey this week explains, the underlying calculation is fairly straightforward. The global average temperature is expected to increase by between 1.4°C and 5.8°C this century. The bottom end of the range would make life a little more comfortable for northern areas and a little less pleasant for southern ones. Anything much higher than that could lead to catastrophic rises in sea levels, increases in extreme weather events such as hurricanes, flooding and drought, falling agricultural production and, perhaps, famine and mass population movement.

Nobody knows which is likelier, for the climate is a system of almost infinite complexity. Predicting how much hotter a particular level of carbon dioxide will make the world is impossible. It's not just that the precise effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is unclear. It's also that warming has countless indirect effects. It may set off mechanisms that tend to cool things down (clouds which block out sunlight, for instance) or ones that heat the world further (by melting soils in which greenhouse gases are frozen, for instance). The system could right itself or spin out of human control.

This uncertainty is central to the difficulty of tackling the problem. Since the costs of climate change are unknown, the benefits of trying to do anything to prevent it are, by definition, unclear. What's more, if they accrue at all, they will do so at some point in the future. So is it really worth using public resources now to avert an uncertain, distant risk, especially when the cash could be spent instead on goods and services that would have a measurable near-term benefit?

If the risk is big enough, yes. Governments do it all the time. They spend a small slice of tax revenue on keeping standing armies not because they think their countries are in imminent danger of invasion but because, if it happened, the consequences would be catastrophic. Individuals do so too. They spend a little of their incomes on household insurance not because they think their homes are likely to be torched next week but because, if it happened, the results would be disastrous. Similarly, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the risk of a climatic catastrophe is high enough for the world to spend a small proportion of its income trying to prevent one from happening.

And the slice of global output that would have to be spent to control emissions is probably not huge. The cost differential between fossil-fuel-generated energy and some alternatives is already small, and is likely to come down. Economists trying to guess the ultimate cost of limiting carbon dioxide concentrations to 550 parts per million or below (the current level is 380ppm, 450ppm is reckoned to be ambitious and 550ppm liveable with) struggle with uncertainties too. Some models suggest there would be no cost; others that global output could be as much as 5% lower by the end of the century than if there were no attempt to control emissions. But most estimates are at the low end—below 1%.

What Kyoto did The Kyoto protocol, which tried to get the world's big polluters to commit themselves to cutting emissions to 1990 levels or below, was not a complete failure. European Union countries and Japan will probably hit their targets, even if Canada does not. Kyoto has also created a global market in carbon reduction, which allows emissions to be cut relatively efficiently. But it will not have much impact on emissions, and therefore on the speed of climate change, because it does not require developing countries to cut their emissions, and because America did not ratify it.

The United States is the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, though not for long. Every year China is building power-generating capacity almost equivalent to Britain's entire stock, almost all of it burning coal—the dirtiest fuel. It will shortly overtake America, and India is not far behind. Developing countries argue, quite reasonably, that, since the rich world created the problem, it must take the lead in solving it. So, if America continues to refuse to do anything to control its emissions, developing countries won't do anything about theirs. If America takes action, they just might.

Two measures are needed. One is an economic tool which puts a price on emitting greenhouse gases. That could be a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, such as Europe's Emissions-Trading Scheme, which limits how much producers can emit, and lets them buy and sell emissions credits. Ideally, politicians would choose the more efficient carbon tax, which implies a relatively stable price that producers can build into their investment plans. The more volatile cap-and-trade system, however, is easier to sell to producers, who can get free allowances when the scheme is introduced.

Either of these schemes should decrease the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of alternatives. In doing so, they are bound to raise energy prices. To keep down price rises, and thus ease the political process, governments should employ a second tool: spending to help promising new technologies get to market. Carbon sequestration, which offers the possibility of capturing carbon produced by dirty power stations and storing it underground, is a prime candidate.

Although George Bush now argues that America needs to wean itself off its dependency on oil, his administration still refuses to take serious action. But other Americans are moving. California's state assembly has just passed tough Kyoto-style targets. Many businesses, fearing that they will end up having to deal with a patchwork of state-level measures, now want federal controls. And conservative America, once solidly sceptical, is now split over the issue, as Christians concerned about mankind's stewardship of the Earth, neo-cons keen to reduce America's dependency on the Middle East and farmers who see alternative energy as a new potential source of energy come round to the idea of cutting down on carbon.

Mr Bush has got two years left in the job. He would like to be remembered as a straightshooter who did the right thing. Tackling climate change would be one way to do that.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: carbon; climatechange; economics; emissions; energy; floods; globalwarming; ice; oceans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

FOR most of the Earth's history, the planet has been either very cold, by our standards, or very hot. Fifty million years ago there was no ice on the poles and crocodiles lived in Wyoming. Eighteen thousand years ago there was ice two miles thick in Scotland and, because of the size of the ice sheets, the sea level was 130m lower. Ice-core studies show that in some places dramatic changes happened remarkably swiftly: temperatures rose by as much as 20°C in a decade. Then, 10,000 years ago, the wild fluctuations stopped, and the climate settled down to the balmy, stable state that the world has enjoyed since then. At about that time, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, mankind started to progress.

I rather doubt that, unless of course you figure the earth is no longer in the same orbit it entered and has sustained for the last three million years.

 

 

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle

Figure 1-1 Global warming

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years

 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice

 

 

In Figure 1-6, the 10 kyr years of agriculture and civilization appear as a sudden rise in temperature barely visible squeezed against the left hand axis of the plot. The temperature of 1950 is indicated by the horizontal line. As is evident from the data, civilization was created in an unusual time.

There are several important features to notice in these data, all of which will be discussed further in the remainder of the book. For the last million years or so (the left most third of the plot) the oscillations have had a cycle of about 100 kyr (thousand years). That is, the enduring period of ice is broken, roughly every 100 kyr, by a brief interglacial. During this time, the terminations of the ice ages appear to be particularly abrupt, as you can see from the sudden jumps that took place near 0, 120, 320, 450, and 650 thousand years ago. This has led scientists to characterize the data as shaped like a "sawtooth," although the pattern is not perfectly regular.

Figure 1-6 Climate of the last 3 million years

But as we look back beyond a 1000 kyr (1 million years), the character changes completely. The cycle is much shorter (it averages 41 kyr), the amplitude is reduced, the average value is higher (indicating that the ice ages were not as intense) and there is no evidence for the sawtooth shape. These are the features that ice age theories endeavor to explain. Why did the transition take place? What are the meanings of the frequencies? (We will show that they are well-known astronomical frequencies.) In the period immediately preceding the data shown here, older than 3 million years, the temperature didn’t drop below the 1950 value, and we believe that large glaciers didn’t form – perhaps only small ones, such as we have today in Greenland and Antarctica.

 

Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity
Richard A. Muller* and Gordon J. MacDonald

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle
by Richard A. Muller

Figure 2. Spectral fingerprints in the vicinity of the 100 kyr peak: (a) for data from Site 607; (b) for data of the SPECMAP stack; (c) for a model with linear response to eccentricity, calculated from the results of Quinn et al. (ref 6); (d) for the nonlinear ice-sheet model of Imbrie and Imbrie (ref 22); and (e) for a model with linear response to the inclination of the Earth's orbit (measured with respect to the invariable plane). All calculations are for the period 0-600 ka. The 100 kyr peak in the data in (a) and (b) do not fit the fingerprints from the theories (c) and (d), but are a good match to the prediction from inclination in (e). return to beginning


Far more important to our present analysis, however, is the fact that the predicted 100 kyr "eccentricity line" is actually split into 95 and 125 kyr components, in serious conflict with the single narrow line seen in the climate data. The splitting of this peak into a doublet is well known theoretically (see, e.g., ref 5), but in comparisons with data the two peaks in the eccentricity were merged into a single broad peak by the poor resolution of the Blackman-Tukey algorithm (as was done, for example, in ref 8). The single narrow peak in the climate data was likewise broadened, and it appeared to match the broad eccentricity feature.

***

Figure 3. Variations of the inclination vector of the Earth's orbit. The inclination i is the angle between this vector and the vector of the reference frame; Omega is the azimuthal angle = the angle of the ascending node (in astronomical jargon).. In (A), (B), and (C) the measurements are made with respect to the zodiacal (or ecliptic) frame, i.e. the frame of the current orbit of the Earth. In (D), (E), and (F) the motion has been trasformed to the invariable frame, i.e. the frame of the total angular momentum of the solar system. Note that the primary period of oscillation in the zodiacal frame (A) is 70 kyr, but in the invariable plane (D) it is 100 kyr.

 

 

There is evidence from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (ref 39) of a narrow dust band extending only two degrees from the invariable plane. The precise location of these bands is uncertain; they may be orbiting in resonant lock with the Earth (ref 40, 41). It is not clear that these bands contain sufficient material to cause the observed climate effects. We note, however, that even small levels of accretion can scavenge greenhouse gases from the stratosphere, and cool the Earth's climate through the mechanism proposed by Hoyle (ref 30). The dust could also affect climate by seeding the formation of much larger ice crystals. The accreting material could be meteoric, originating as particles too large to give detectable infrared radiation.

Data on noctilucent clouds (mesospheric clouds strongly associated with the effects of high meteors and high altitude dust) supports the hypothesis that accretion increase significantly when the Earth passes through the invariable plane. As shown in Figure 6, a strong peak in the number of observed noctilucent clouds occurs on about July 9 in the northern hemisphere (ref 41, 42) within about a day of the date when the Earth passes through the invariable plane (indicated with an arrow). In the southern hemisphere the peak is approximately on January 9, also consistent with the invariable plane passage, but the data are sparse. The coincidence of the peaks of the clouds with the passage through the invariable plane had not previously been noticed, and it supports the contention that there is a peak in accretion at these times. On about the same date there is a similarly narrow peak is observed in the number of polar mesospheric clouds (ref43) and there is a broad peak in total meteoric flux (ref 44). It is therefore possible that it is the trail of meteors in the upper atmosphere, rather than dust, that is responsible for the climate effects.


Fig 6. Frequency of noctilucent clouds vs. day of year, in (A) the northern hemisphere, and in (B) the sourthern hemisphere (ref 41, 42). The arrows indicate the dates when the earth passes through the invariable plane. The coincidence of these dates with the maxima in the noctilucent clouds suggests the presence of a thin ring around the sun. Peaks on the same dates are seen in Polar mesospheric clouds (ref 44) and in radar counts of meteors.

 

 

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.252.html#1

INTERPLANETARY DUST PARTICLES (IDPs) are deposited on the Earth at the rate of about 10,000 tons per year. Does this have any effect on climate? Scientists at Caltech have found that ancient samples of helium-3 (coming mostly from IDPs) in oceanic sediments exhibit a 100,000-year periodicity. The researchers assert that their data, taken along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, support a recently enunciated idea that Earth's orbital inclination varies with a 100-kyr period; this notion in turn had been broached as an explanation for a similar periodicity in the succession of ice ages. (K.A. Farley and D.B. Patterson, Nature, 7 December 1995.)
Farley & Patterson 1998, http://www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/20/36/33/37/32/abstract.html
Farley http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~farley/
Farley http://www.elsevier.nl/gej-ng/10/18/23/54/21/49/abstract.html

 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr96/dec96/noaa96-78.html

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE DURING LAST GLACIAL PERIOD COULD BE TIED TO DUST-INDUCED REGIONAL WARMING

Preliminary new evidence suggests that periodic increases in atmospheric dust concentrations during the glacial periods of the last 100,000 years may have resulted in significant regional warming, and that this warming may have triggered the abrupt climatic changes observed in paleoclimate records, according to a scientist at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Current scientific thinking is that the dust concentrations contributed to global cooling.

 

 

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9228-mysterious-glowing-clouds-targeted-by-nasa.html

Mysterious glowing clouds targeted by NASA
26 May, 2006

High-altitude noctilucent clouds have been mysteriously spreading around the world in recent years (Image: NASA/JSC/ES and IA)

41 posted on 09/10/2006 3:25:43 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Invisible Gorilla

Agreed.
BTTT


42 posted on 09/10/2006 3:38:57 AM PDT by mother22wife21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DB
It's called water vapor. LOL. Wanted to bump that.
43 posted on 09/10/2006 3:54:17 AM PDT by mother22wife21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Also could you convincingly argue that there aren't a limited number of natural resources on our finite planet.

The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment

44 posted on 09/10/2006 4:24:20 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

The volitile emissions of the ink required for this drivel is a major contributor. When combined with the poitical hot air from algore the gaseous compound rejects radiation.


45 posted on 09/10/2006 4:27:54 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. We will screw you inshallah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo
a worldwide network of prayer circles led by shamans and wizards. In fact, at only a small marginal increase in cost, we could add tom-tom drummers to the prayer circles and boost their effectiveness by an order of magnitude.

I like your proposal and heartily endorse it. Now, if we can figure out a way for liberals to be exclusively taxed for this service.

46 posted on 09/10/2006 5:04:17 AM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (If DemocRATS are elected they are going to kill Christmas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Excellent information! Even I learned something. The real question is: Since the world gets hotter and colder all the time, what is the most desirable temperature? A little hotter? A little colder? My wife wants it a little hotter! For those that want it a little colder, a satellite at L-1 would do the trick. The climate is very sensitive to the intensity of the sun. Currently, I ascribe to the theory that methane has moderated the wild swings in temperature. So actually, man has made the climate better for man. If the world started getting colder in the future, how could we keep my wife happy and turn up the temperature? Good question! Nope, increasing CO2 wouldn't do it. Increasing the reflectivity of the moon might be an interesting though experiment.

Next time that you meet a rabid "the ice caps are melting" liberal, make a little money. Put ice and water in a glass and fill it right up to the brim. This is your very own North Pole ice cap. Bet them that when the ice melts, it will not overflow. (Unconfined ice displaces the exact amount of water as it would if it was liquid.)
47 posted on 09/10/2006 5:04:41 AM PDT by Revolutionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer




Bookmark Bump.

Good info; thanks.



48 posted on 09/10/2006 5:18:35 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Ho-hum


49 posted on 09/10/2006 5:30:43 AM PDT by Frwy (Eternity without Jesus is a hell-of-a long time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Looks to me like it'll be an early and very cold winter here in MN. I had to drag out my sweatshirts already this week. If there's gonna be global warming, send me some!


50 posted on 09/10/2006 5:32:52 AM PDT by AmericanChef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

I am suprised they allowed that second paragraph to go to print. They took a survey?
It goes downhill from there
But the first paragraph is a keeper.


51 posted on 09/10/2006 5:41:25 AM PDT by winodog (Buchanan is the new Perot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winodog

I take that back. I just reread that first one and it wont fly either. Why would a "serious" paper allow this garbage?


52 posted on 09/10/2006 5:43:41 AM PDT by winodog (Buchanan is the new Perot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
****Do you know what Pascal's wager is?****

I do, I do.
It's $4.00 an hour because Pascal is an illegal!

53 posted on 09/10/2006 5:45:12 AM PDT by Condor51 ("Alot" is NOT a word and doesn't mean "many". It is 'a lot', two separate words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Afterall, this is more about science and economics than about partisan politics.

This ALL about partisan politics and economics (as in destroying the economies of the West) and nothing about science.

Twenty years ago the same quality of "scientists" were telling us we were absolutely causing a brand new ice age--and they were just as positive about that as they are about global warming.

Check out some of the global warming sales groups like that group of "Concerned Scientists". See how many of their "scientists" have degrees in Library Science, Psychology, Sociology, etc. and how few in the hard sciences.

Are you aware that over 17,000 REAL scientists have signed a petition questioning the authenticity of the science re: global warming?

54 posted on 09/10/2006 5:49:30 AM PDT by Sal (Once you know they sold USA out to Red China, what do you think they would NOT do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
If global warming is to be blamed on green house gases then why are the rest of the planets in the solar system heating up also?

Scientist were recently surprised to find the unexpected temperatures on Pluto. Of course we should completely ignore that old Bible that states that in the end times power would be given to the sun to scorch men with fire.

So if indeed that is true and we are entering that phase of history I doubt that a giant pair of sun glasses placed on the Earth is going to help much.
55 posted on 09/10/2006 6:09:13 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
"Regardless, at least using less oil is good for security."

I disagree. Having a strong economy is the key to our security. That is how we won WWII and how we defeated the Soviet Union.

The most important thing for our economy is the use of the most economical source of energy. Right now that is oil. Doesn't matter if it comes from Saudi or Alaska or Nigeria.

56 posted on 09/10/2006 6:56:41 AM PDT by Boss_Jim_Gettys (Willing to compromise...NOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Outland
I'll take an interest when someone proves to me that 0.04% of the atmosphere can produce more than a negligible warming impact on the remaning 99.96%.

BTTT

57 posted on 09/10/2006 6:58:04 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
at least using less oil is good for security

No, paying for a more expensive fuel while others use a more economical one is not good for our security. Producing our own resources would be good for our security. Instead we let environmentalists and democrats hold us hostage while we fund our enemies.

58 posted on 09/10/2006 7:00:42 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
"The cost that would be associated with action in this Pascal's wager is far below the cost of being wrong."

Given that the article states that climate has changed dramatically, and with absolutely NO HUMAN INFLUENCES IN THE PAST, on what basis do you justify human changes being suddenly so significant?

Your analogy argument using insurance costs is best seen in terms of buying a policy alleging to insure against fire where there are no data regarding future fire frequencies or intensities, where there are no data regarding fire protection mechanisms, and there there is absolutely no fire suppression mechanism possible ( barring Divine Intervention on the behalf of the insured).

Not a policy with much appeal to any but the socialism impaired, would be my assumption.

Regarding your statement: "Afterall, this is more about science and economics than about partisan politics.", I can only ask that you add a keyboard alert to such posts in the future. I nearly spilled my coffee laughing at that line.

As for spending money to read such trash, may I suggest keeping your money securely in your bank (or other investments) and Google-ing climate papers by Dr. Patrick Michaels? Also read Professor Linzden (MIT). More data, no Libroid BS factor, peer reviewed, and available free.
59 posted on 09/10/2006 7:27:40 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
which just so happened to coincide with an exponential increase in human burning of fossil fuels

It also coincides with an exponential increase in the number of humans that die every year. So, clearly, human death causes global warming. It also coincides with an exponential decrease in the number of pirates in the world. So, clearly, piracy was keeping global warming in check.

Association isn't causation, my FRiend.

60 posted on 09/10/2006 7:33:56 AM PDT by Terabitten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson