Viridian Note 00297: The Persistence ProblemBruce Sterling [bruces@well.com]Key Concepts: Greenhouse effect, trend persistence, climate change, next two hundred years Attention Conservation Notice: May cause feelings of fatalistic dread. Links:
(((The subject of this Note: the grim idea that the Greenhouse has been brewing for decade on end, and will come down upon us like the slow grinding of continents, no matter what steps we may take == this idea got a certain amount of elliptical discussion at the Greenhouse panel at the Davos Forum. Here were the issue's Great and the Good, from the IPCC and the Pew Foundation, and they got this kind of look on their faces as they diplomatically described this prospect... This kind of resigned, cross-we-bear expression.... "I wonder who will break this difficult concept to the benighted masses... maybe they're so dumb that they'll never catch on.")))
Public release date: 17-Feb-2002
"Global warming will persist at least a century even if
emissions curbed now
"Though significant uncertainty remains regarding the
amount of global warming that will occur over the next
century or two, scientists agree that the trend will
continue for the next hundred years even if fossil fuel
consumption is dramatically reduced. (((Let's put it this
way: the human race is screwed. Better yet: even if the
Space Brothers arrive in UFOs and carry off every last one
of us, the planet is still screwed.)))
"Scientists predict significant increases in global
temperature and sea level this century. And related
changes in weather patterns are expected to affect
agricultural production. Global warming is likely to have
the greatest human impact in poor countries unable to
adequately respond to the changes. (((Or, in English:
"lots of poor people will starve.")))
"Professor Robert Dickinson of the Georgia Institute
of Technology's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
will present the evidence behind this assessment at the
annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) on Feb. 17 in Boston.
Dickinson's presentation, titled 'Predicting Climate
Change," is part of the symposium "Climate Change:
Integrating Science, Economics and Policy.' (((Presumably
Dickinson indeed delivered this presentation at the AAAS;
I wasn't there. I wonder what it would take to get a
whole room full of scientists to run screaming into the
streets of Boston.)))
"'Current climate models can indicate the general
nature of climate change for the next 100 to 200 years,'
Dickinson says. 'But the effects of carbon dioxide (CO2)
that have been released into the atmosphere from the
burning of fossil fuels last for at least 100 years. That
means that any reductions in CO2 that are expected to be
possible over this period will not result in a cleaner
atmosphere and less global warming than we see today for
at least a century.' (((Oh well. We'll just hold our
breath till the unpleasantness is over.)))
"Climate models indicate temperature increases of 3 to
more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit this century and a sea
level rise of 6 inches to nearly 3 feet. (...)
"'Given enough time, there may be as many winners as
losers. However, many of the losers will be very unhappy,
such as people who live on islands that will be put under
water,' Dickinson says. (((I do like the idea that at
least some people will be overjoyed at global warming; I
sure hope they are hospitable.))) 'It will take a lot of
time for humans to adjust their systems to these changes.
The biggest problem is the speed at which global warming
is occurring.
"'If it were happening over 1,000 years, rather than
100 years, it would hardly be noticed. But we're talking
about fairly large changes within the next generation.
We're talking about people with houses on the beach having
to move. The U.S. is fairly resilient, and people can
move. But in Bangladesh and other low-elevation areas with
few resources, there will be severe difficulties.'
(...) "The global temperature has increased more
rapidly in the past 10 years, but the changes are more
dramatic in high latitudes perhaps because of natural
variability, Dickinson explains.
(...) "Much research is yet to be done regarding
climate change, but Dickinson believes policymakers can
already glean some guidance from the evidence he will cite
in his presentation at AAAS. That evidence will come from
research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
where Dickinson worked for 21 years, as well as his
current research and the 2001 report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"For example, enough data exists to develop mitigation
and adaptation plans regarding greenhouse gases, Dickinson
says. Mitigation involves strategies for reducing
greenhouse gases or changing other factors to compensate
for them (a fairly new concept). Reductions can involve
both consuming lesser amounts of fossil fuels and also
finding ways to capture the gases and put them in places
other than the atmosphere. The latter approach is called
sequestration and is part of a U.S. Department of Energy
research initiative.
"'The only way to stop the increase of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere is to reduce CO2 emissions to 20 to 30
percent of today's levels,' Dickinson says. 'This may
require a similar reduction in the consumption of fossil
fuels. I believe we will eventually achieve that goal, but
it will probably take 100 years. (...)
"'We have to move our energy systems to forms other than fossil fuels. And when I say we, I don't just mean the United States. The U.S. is the biggest user of fossil fuels, but China and India are likely to surpass the U.S. in the next 50 years, and China may surpass the U.S. in the next decade." For technical information, contact:
Robert Dickinson, 404-385-1509, or
E-mail: robert.dickinson@eas.gatech.edu
(((This puts "sequestration" into a rather new light. The problem is not about your world-shattering behavior == it's about getting rid of evil gases that your grandfather put up there. (((What if people give up using fossil fuels, then also begin violently and rapidly sucking greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere? Suppose that, driven by increasing havoc, they engage in massive sequestration programs around, say 2050. They yank the levels of pollutants back to the pre-industrial atmosphere of 1750, within a decade. What would that activity do to the climate? I wonder if anyone has ever modelled that.))) O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O |