Nine of the World's Most Promising Carbon-Neutral Communities

WHY be carbon neutral?
First it is a myth that more GHGs or CO2 causes more warming. The Greenhouse effect says that an energy photon is required to be absorbed by a GHG to cause the Greenhouse Effect warming. Just adding more GHGs does not do it. The simple proof is that whenever the GHG water vapor increases from normal say 33% to 100% when it rains, then we do NOT see the GHG warming triple. The IPCC conclusion that more GHGs means more warming is scientifically wrong. It is obvious that the amount of energy photons coming in is what limits the amount of GHE warming. When the number of photons decreases every night, it gets colder AND the GHE gets smaller, regardless of the amount of GHGs both CO2 and water vapor that are present. It is the energy photons that limits the GHE , NOT the amount of GHGs or carbon available. IF there the energy was unlimited then the GHE would just continue until all the water vapor and CO2 was in use by the GHE, instead of the situation we have where there is EXCESS GHGs in the air and in the ocean, AND where the amount of energy photons allowed is limited and limiting.
SO why limit carbon? Why spend a ton of money for no purpose, except a Luddite ideal of maintaining things as they are (even when history says it wasn't always like this). Why limit the amount of energy created by man to enhance his standard of living and feed the masses?

(For an alternate explanation of climate change see papers at www.scribd.com called Gravity causes Climate Changes. http://www.scribd.com/doc/27343303/Gravity-Causes-Climate-Change and http://www.scribd.com/doc/19476991/John-Dodds-Wobble-Theory-of-Global-Warming- to explain when and where the added energy photons come from to cause cyclical warming and cooling climate changes)

This focus on being carbon neutral is taking our focus off of the real problem of pollution. CO2 has not been scientifically shown to be a pollutant, however, there are other local issues that can cause humans major problems. This is where our focus needs to be.

The truth is that, if we are intelligent, we will get off of fossil fuels for energy as a natural process of technological innovation. But, the major advancements will only happen when the environmentalists are brought under control and we develop an effective way to store the energy produced by many of the alternative methods being proposed.

Popular science needs to spend some time talking to, and listening to, the scientists who are not global warming fanatics ... usually politically and economically motivated.

www fregger com/bio.htm

JDoddsGW you should title your post.. "follow the money to me"...$10 to read your paper is laughable.

Visit www.vimeo.com/yangmingshanline to see how we can make Taipei into one of the the most convenient and most sustainable cities on the planet.

(Chinese translation coming soon)

Stuart.

Why restrict the amount of available carbon in the biosphere ? CO2 + H2O combined by sunlight is the foundation of all surface life . We exhale it because every bite of food we eat is made from it . While the effect of our few percent has a negligible effect on our planet's spectrum , it profoundly enhances green plant growth . It is a costly irony that our educational system has so distorted basic science that so many of those who claim to worship the environment to demonize this quintessentially "green" gas .

-- www.CoSy.com --

@fregger I agree but good luck trying to convince any science magazine to give up it's biggest source of revenue by dropping the global warming fanatics, people eat that like candy, and legitimate scientific research is pushed aside

Ok you people are nuts. Short sighted.. Only ONE simple way of reducing ALL forms of "carbon" is .. FUSION! You guys want to waste trillions on stupid rules, CO2 recovery, blah blah, blah when the simple answer is dump HALF of the money wasted on "green" BS and put it on FUSION research and we will forever have a limitless power source - the most "green" and natural in the universe!!!

Why not make 'green' cars running off the electromagnetic induction of a 'hot' flexible coiled wire (continuous electromagnet) in the center of each traffic lane in all roads. This would eliminate the need for fuel and could even be the power lines you now see hanging along roads saving space (and trees). Same tech that wireless chargers now use, but for your car! Eventually this tech could be adapted to have self driven cars that recognize where the coils in the road are coupled with an onboard computer that is connected via the internet and GPS to every other car within a set range. If not internet then bluetooth type tech with increased range for collision avoidance.

I am astounded. First, GHG DO cause warming. That's why the earth doesn't cool to -200 F like Mercury (which is >1000 F during the day). Its the GHG that keep the heat in at night. GHG is also why Venus has a higher average temperature despite being twice as far from the sun and why the temperature is fairly consistent. Stating GHG doesn't increase temperature is voluntarily ignorant.

Second, what about the REAL issues? What about chemistry? More carbon in the air means carbon in the water, which decreases alkalinity, changes pH, and reduces the ability of shellfish to extract carbonate from the water (the carbonate gets used by buffering the carbon that enters the water). What about the fact that oxygen solubility decreases with temperature? That is a major reason there are more large fish in colder water; there is more oxygen.

Are we to blame for this? I don't know. We can't tell if its our actions causing this or not. So...better safe than sorry? After all, even if we AREN'T responsible for climate change we will still have to deal with it...which means using alternate energy forms.

Hey, PopSci... your commenters pointing out the errors in logic and BRAINWASH ALERT propaganda / fuzzy thinking in your articles shouldn't be the best part of the site, but it's headed that way in the past few years! I understand the difference between science and science blogging, but let's at least not get hysterical. Why don't you guys write about C02 recycling technology and c02 farming in the ocean, and leave the politics out?

Common sense is that our society cannot keep on burning coal and oil, raising CO2 levels and dropping O2 levels in the air we breath without negative enviromental effects. Plus lets not forget the other proven health, enviromental problems caused, from acid rain to mercery poisoning, burning coal and oil is shorting both the lives of building, bridges, vehicles, and humans. It is past due we use the energy producted burning coal and oil to make wind, solar, biomass, and micro hydroelectric the only source of energy that powers our lives.

Oh how fun!
A discussion on Carbon Neutrality and everyone is on the gravy train!
Guess I should jump on as well.

First off,

This article really is liberal.
I personally think that it is foolish to believe we haven't affected the earth in some way (remember that oil spill that's in the gulf that's now the size of AK? Yeah, we dont' hurt the environment IN ANY WAY.... )... However, exclaiming that we're all going to get washed away or burn in the flames of Green House Gas Hell doesn't really paint a pretty picture for us, either. I'd rather keep it simple and hope to believe we are indeed capable of solving the mistakes and/or damages that we have done. I think going to a CO2-neutral mindset is def. a good start.

But POPSCI... if you want to keep me as a fan, just please give us facts and real info, and less jargon that makes your article sound like the preview to the movie 2012.
*
*
*
*
*
*
JDoddsGW :

Hmmmm. were to start with you... Carbon Dioxide does not cause warming in any way you say? I beg to differ! I got a simple experiment for you to try out, it is real easy and educational at the same time:

1. Park your vehicle in your garage.
2. Close the garage door and ALL exits to the garage.
3. Turn your car on and let it run for a few hours.
4. Turn your car off and tell me that the garage hasn't gotten any higher in temperature before you started the experiement.

Now take that example into a broader picture! That was just ONE car in ONE garage for a FEW hours - there is over 806 MILLION cars and trucks in the world that burn up 260 billion US gallons each year- and I don't think there's going to be less cars in the future. (NOTE: this is not even conidering other sources of CO2, including Power Plants, Ships, Airplanes, and Natural Sources [ Volcanoes, etc. ] )

Another erroneous point you forgot to mention - Cars (and everything else man made that burns carbon ), not only releases CO2, but HEAT as well... yes, heat!!! When you stick your hand at the end of a car's tail pipe-- HEAT! That heat will escape into the atmosphere and into space, but some of it will stay trapped in the atmosphere. This is the Greenhouse Effect; you've probably heard of it.

In matter of fact, check out our "Sister" Planet Venus. It's atmosphere has a RUNAWAY Green house effect. It's Atmosphere is so hot (on the surface), it can melt lead and zinc. Can you guess what the main ingredient of it's atmosphere is? Yep, you guessed it - CO2. A small amount of Nitrogen and Water Vapor also exists in the atmosphere as well (though because the atmosphere is 4x the mass of the Earth's, there is 4x as much particles then in comparison to the 100 % of the total amount in the whole atmosphere)

You can check out the info here :

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AtmosphereofVenus.png

Also, your link to the article on the "wobble theory" (ie, also known as "why 600 years of time passing causes a slight change in the earth's orbit and explains the rapid change in Temperature within the last 50 years") is an interesting idea, but it doesn't fully explain other events during the past few hundred years- including the "Little Ice Age", which happened from the late 1600's to the early 1800's. During this time, there were a number of volcanic eruptions - including one of the biggest known: Tambora, in Indonesia. That same year was known as the "Year without summer," were snow fell in Europe during the month's of JUNE and JULY !!! (While volcano's spew out CO2, they also spew out a large dose of SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide), which reflects incoming radiation from the sun - hence, the snow in the summer because of the Ash from the volcano('es)!!!)
I do not deny that the Earth's orbital change does contribute to change in climate on our planet- but this change happens VERY slowly over a period of time (think of the giant pendulum that hangs over the ceiling and moves around slowly before it makes a complete revolution!)

*
*
*

bradfregger:

CO2 is not a pollutant? Have you seen a diesel truck spewing out ash when it revs up from a stop? If you were to stick your head in that ash cloud and say to me, "Nope, it is not a pollutant" ... what would your definition for 'Pollutant' (and for that matter, "Pollution"), be?

*
*
*

Bob Armstrong:

Carbon IS essential to life. Carbon DIOXIDE will most likely kill most forms of life if inhaled directly (see my fun "Car" experiment above). As we all know, plants absorb CO2 and release Oxygen for us to breath. But what you didn't state is that the same plants that help absorb and store that CO2 is being cut down faster than we can let it absorb it in the first place ( go ahead, Google "Amazon Rain forest Deforestation, and check out satellite pictures of how much vegetation has disappeared !!!!) ... and also, in case you hadn't realized , there is going to be more people on this Earth... and well, (like I said before), more people = most likely more cars (adding more CO2 faster than plants can absorb it.) It should be noted that there are other ways that the Earth can absorb CO2 naturally - such as the ocean, absorption through the ground, etc. While this covers a larger area then the total amount of vegetation on the planet, the process is much, much, much, much, much, slower (being that plants "breathe" in the CO2 and out Oxygen at a much faster rate.)

*
*
*

cruzinmy64:

Fusion = Awesome.
Availablity = sometime within however many decades.

However...Once it is in place and harnessed readily, I am certain (and hopeful) that it will, one day, be a reliable, safe and clean source of energy that can replace most of our current forms of energy.

*
*
*

bokfu74:

Venus is twice as far from the sun = ????
.... from Earth ? Incorrect.
.... From Mercury? More Correct.

Actually, Venus's closeness to the sun is another key factor to why it's atmosphere is so thick and dense (and thus, why it is a model of a greenhouse effect gone to hell.) An interesting comparison would be to see the difference between that and our next planet out, Mars (which is 1.6 X the distance from the Sun, but who's atmosphere is 100.4 x less pressure then the earth's)

*
*
*

tomorrow.we.jump:

I Agree.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Well that's it for me on this gravy train! I'm getting off at this stop. If any one wants to get on board for the discussion of CO2, Climate change and the Like, you can have my empty seat!

Verdad.

Wheter or not GHG causes global warming can be debated and science can be used to prove or disprove it. Global warming is historical, the earths temp. has been slowly riseing sense the last ice age. The temp didn't suddenly rise one day and then remained constant for thousands years!

As for "Carbon Neutral", renewable energy will be needed to power the worlds electric and transportation needs when fossil fuels are no longer available. Taking actions now to reduce the use of fossil fuels will lessen the impact of its eventual loss. If we maintain our dependence on fossil fuels without investing in renewable resources now, then what happens when fossil fuels start to dwendel? Do we try to build a renewable energy system from the ground up racing the clock before we go to war over the what remains? How long do we have? Can we not invest in the future now? Must we wait and continue our God like devotion to oil and coal?

Thanks for this great article. It gives me lots of good ideas. My community is tackling the carbon crisis too. We need more action and less blather from the hutas (head-up-their-axxxx) One of the best solutions is to ignore the hutas so that we can use our energy to move forward in a positive direction.

Just because climate change also has natural causes doesn't mean that global warming, as we are seeing it now, isn't caused by burning fossil fuels. We can solve this crisis -- with positive energy.

JDoddsGW said:
06/17/10 at 12:24 pm
"First it is a myth that more GHGs or CO2 causes more warming. The Greenhouse effect says that an energy photon is required to be absorbed by a GHG to cause the Greenhouse Effect warming. Just adding more GHGs does not do it. The simple proof is that whenever the GHG water vapor increases from normal say 33% to 100% when it rains, then we do NOT see the GHG warming triple. "

Thank you for bringing up water vapor. As you apparently already know, water is a strong greenhouse gas due to its many rotational and vibrational transitions, compared to carbon dioxide's vibrational transitions.

Your argument is flawed however, as you fail to take into account residency time. The average molecule of water survives in the atmosphere for 7 to 9 days. The average molecule of CO2 survives for several years. The difference here results in a much slower flux of CO2 out of the atmosphere than water.

Additionally, as water is one of the main constituents of the atmosphere, additional water molecules in the atmosphere will not have a linear effect on absorbance, rather, the absorptions will be logarithmically correlated with increase in molecule # concentrations.

This is why the addition of different molecular entities with different vibrational and rotational spectra will result in SUBSTANTIALLY increased GHG effect. CO2 absorbs in completely different regions of the IR than water, and thus a greater "slice" of the blackbody IR emitted from the earth's surface will be captured and retained.

Now to address your first point, that "simply adding GHG" doesn't impact climate without an associated increase in photon flux, well.. that's just silly. If you have a very thin layer of GHG, and emission is directed using a random-walk vector algorithm, you'll have many fewer absorption/emission cycles before the photon escapes the atmosphere. A thicker layer of GHG will substantially increase the number of absorption/emissions, resulting in a longer retention of that single photon. It's simple chemistry, my man.

The rest of your post is crap science and gobbledy-gook. What are your credentials?

Verdad- wow, you have a complete and utter misunderstanding about the entire issue. First, if I park my car in the garage and leave it running for a while, yes, it will get hotter. That has nothing to do with what's coming out of the exhaust. It gets hotter because it's a relatively small space with a large engine pumping heat into the room. The CO2, if it is a "GHG" would only have an effect if your garage was built out of glass. Second, yes, if I stick my head in the tailpipe of a truck, it will choke me. Not necessarily because of the CO2, but because of all the other highly toxic fumes- Nitrous Oxide and Carbon Monoxide being the most toxic, along with traces of petroleum products.

IMHO our best bets for green power are probably

A. Nuclear power Thats right, what was once a supervillain in captain planet is probably a good idea if we want to reduce our carbon footprint. The only waste it gives off is depleted uranium which we can use for weaponry.

B. Hydroelectricity
It gives a constant flow of electricity and has no harmful wastes at all.

Why others are not so good:
The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. the only good place for a wind turbine would be at the top of a mountain, and a forest of them at the top of a mountain are probably not good for the animals.

I think people forget that ... PLANTS BREATHE CO2!!! Idiots ... Venus has no Plants to absorb CO2 ... WE DO!!! The more CO2 we produce, the more plants will suck it up! So, NO ... CO2 will NOT cause an issue here on Earth as long as we have Plants / Trees / etc.

Does ANYONE here work in a greenhouse or have one at home?? If you do, you would know that many greenhouses that grow food QUADRUPLE the CO2 in their Greenhouse to make the plants grow wild! AND ... they have to constantly pump more in because they suck it up so fast!

You have to be a complete fool to think CO2 is causing "global warming"..

I'm still all for Fusion ... that way we would have no dependency on oil.

cruzinmy64,

While plants do indeed serve as a sink for carbon dioxide, your argument is remarkably short-sighted and simplistic. Just to pick one article, in 2004, Trueman, et al. at UIUC published a study on plant respiration rates in elevated CO2 environments. They found that canopy respiration did not follow biomass increase proportionately. They also found that the carbon dioxide sink rate did not increase as concentrations of carbon dioxide increased.

I don't know if your feeble mind is capable of understanding what I am saying; however, I will try to explain. Your postulate, that carbon dioxide levels will remain static, no matter how much carbon dioxide is emitted, due to an increase in plant respiration rates, is patently false.

If it were true, one might wonder, why then have atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased exponentially over the last two hundred years, after all, wouldn't the plants have maintained a constant level.

If it were true, one might wonder, why then is there any atmospheric carbon dioxide at all, after all, the plants are unstoppable consumptive machines.

If it were true, one might wonder, why then have real scientists, with real degrees, real expertise, and real reputations applied real techniques to assess this very real problem, after all, you were able to dismiss the entire issue without any measured thought at all.

WooWoo678,

You are incorrect when you state that the only waste product of a nuclear fuel cycle is depleted uranium. Depleted uranium (238-U) is one product which can be extracted from spent fuelstock in a 235-U reactor. Waste products include radioactive fission products, isobaric decay products, among other things.

An interesting technology is now being investigated in generation 4 nuclear reactor designs - the molten salt reactor employing the thorium fuel cycle. While thorium breeds fertile 233-U with great efficiency, the cycle still produces troublesome radioactive waste. There is no panacea.

Fusion is interesting; however, I don't know if we shall see a functioning reactor in our lifetimes. One design of great interest is the HYLIFE-II LiFBr2/ThO2 blanketed inertial confinement design, as it promises a much longer lifetime than the tokamaks currently being experimented with in Europe.

Wow Gerhard,

You must be so smart because you can look up articles. :P So commercial greenhouses spend millions pumping extra CO2 for no reason... and just imagine that everything grows faster. I'm sure thats a good business plan. They must have mass hypnotized everyone to believe the plants were bigger. Yeah, thats it!

Yes I listed a simplistic argument, however, when applied to the amount of CO2 that humans create it will hold true. Unless every volcano on Earth erupted simultaneously spewing 100's of times what humans created in the last 100 years, we are are not going to turn into a fireball. So no - I am not saying that carbon dioxide levels will remain static, no matter how much carbon dioxide is emitted. What balls we have to think our feeble existence here will modify our climate which regulated itself for billions of years. Yeah, start pulling CO2 now and when we have another ice age then what?

Even in the "worst case" global warming estimates is a few degrees over hundreds of years. Try living anywhere in the northern half of the US where wind chill gets -40 deg F and people would gladly take a *10* degree hotter climate! (What about the poor Canadians? They deserve some warmth! :P ) - but seriously ... scientists can't even get a 5 day forecast correct and you believe their 100 year forecast!! Sucker!

Another point is - whining about CO2 is moronic. Shouldn't you guys be whining about WORSE crap like CO, CFCs, Radioactive waste with million year half life, cancer, etc?? or better yet, stop whining and trying to sucker the country into making Democrats billionaires by forking over our hard earned cash for fake "green" products. Do you believe that making thousands of pounds of batteries with rare earth materials that are TOXIC to the environment just to save a couple MPG on Prius is green?? NOT! It is overall worse. WAY worse. You know China is dumping millions of pounds of toxic material in the ground and air to make those batteries.

People have to get their rears out of the clouds and FIRST start with a CORE TECHNOLOGY NEEDED if we are ever going to stop relying on fossil fuels - FUSION. MAKE IT HAPPEN PEOPLE. PERIOD. The mighty earth can "deal" with human CO2 for the next 50 years until fusion is everywhere. F' all the "green" crap the Democrats are exploiting. Just put that $ into fusion and stop making our lives miserable with stupid "green" taxes.

You're just incorrect. There is a maximum rate of carbon respiration which does not increase as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase. You're trying to drain a swimming pool with a needle-hole. There is simply far more excess carbon dioxide than equilibrium.

Aside from atmospheric effects, such as increases in global average temperatures, excessive carbon dioxide levels also contribute to the acidification of our oceans. In the last two hundred years the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 0.1 pH units. Now remember, this is a logarithmic scale, so this small unitary change actually represents the ocean being 100% more acidic than it was before the industrial age.

It's a shame you seem to think you can belittle substantial changes in our climate. A 4 degree celsius increase in temperature would present drastic consequences for human civilization, including intensification of storm systems, altered weather patterns, increased desertification, reduction in freshwater:saltwater reserves, coastal flooding, and.. still remember, these are yearly AVERAGE increases. You are going to see higher highs and lower lows.

With a 4 degree celsius increase in temperature, you will see farming in western Antarctica and the far north of Canada.

Sharp increases in greenhouse gases since the industrialization era are testament to the fact that human activity is substantial enough to influence our climate.

And when did this become an American Political debate? I am not a member of the Democratic Party in the USA and my laboratory does not represent their interests. I think you have political blinders which prevent you from realizing the true nature of this problem.

CFCs are going to peak at about 2020, at which point they will become a decreasing concern; however, due to their long atmospheric residency (on the order of centuries) and the fact that each CFC molecule contributes 10,000 times the greenhouse warming as a single carbon dioxide molecule (for reasons I explained in an early post re: water vapor), it is still a concern. It is precisely this reason why we must prevent the further excessive leaching of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Carbon monoxide is a weak greenhouse gas, as it only has a few absorption bands, being a diatomic system, and I'm not sure why you mentioned it. It is associated with anthropogenic ozone generation (ground levels of ozone have increased by 300% in the last two hundred years in urban areas), but not nearly as much as NOx from your automobile exhaust.

A solution to global climate change won't rest on just a single technology, especially one which may require decades to develop. Nuclear energy is a necessary solution, as is photovoltaic energy, wind energy, tidal energy, among others. The fact is, the developing world will eventually want to use as much energy per capita as those in the developed world use. This should alarm you, as these nations will adopt coal power, as coal is the cheapest option available.

And yes, chinese burning of coal does affect you in the USA. Not only are sulphates, nitrates, and particles from China traceable in plumes across the Pacific ocean and in air samples in the Southern California Air Quality Management District's jurisdiction, but the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by these developing nations upon energy consumption parity will DWARF that of the United States. The United States could reduce its sizeable pollution levels to zero, and we'll still have a climate problem.

You seem to support fusion, and that's great, but it's not enough. The National Ignition Facility at Berkeley is a start for inertial confinement fusion systems, but it's a long, long, long, ways away from being even research-reactor ready.

A solution in use in Southern California right now, which you may want to look into are Hybrid Fuel Cell Vehicles. You'll see that the largest hydrogen fueling infrastructure in the world exists there, and hydrogen generated from LNG power reduces the carbon cost of a vehicle by more than 50%.

Sigh. Why did the USA have to politicise something as important as this?

I hope you live to see the consequences of our actions.

It's difficult to predict what the climate will do over the next few decades. We do know that humans are capable of adversely effecting our environment even on large scales. What we should consider is the the worst case scenario for doing nothing about climate change or doing something about it.

If we do something about it and it turns out not to be caused by us then we will have wasted a bunch of money, perhaps seriously effecting the economy but we will have moved to renewable energy, which would happen anyway unless fossil fuels suddenly become renewable.. Which they won't.

If we do nothing and it turns out that it was caused by us and was preventable... Well we are looking at massive drought, food shortages, relocating major cities and countries, devastating flood, the next massive extinction of species, wars over food, water and land, and also an economic meltdown.

What would you rather risk?

@ CruzInMy64
Good point with needing to spend more money on R&D in energy tech. In 1978 we were spending something like 6 billion a year on it. As of 2008 it was under 2 billion. I'm not sure what the Bama admin is spending now, I'm pretty sure it's more but this is more of a hope...

Gerhard:

You seem well qualified to discuss this topic, but I do have some questions for you.

First, wouldn't you agree that your predictions about a 4 degree C increase in temperature, shared by many in the pro-AGW community, are in fact somewhat speculative? Given that we have not actually observed such an increase first hand, what evidence supports your notion that storms would be stronger and there would be increased desertification?

Second, since we know that CO2 levels *have* been much higher in the Earth's geologic history, coinciding with not only the existence of but also the unrestrained growth of life, doesn't it seem odd that only negative consequences are ascribed to warming, regardless of its source?

These are questions which the alarmist community has failed to adequately answer, and I'll remind you that their predictive capacity thus far as been lacking when one considers the actual increases in CO2 vs. the recorded temperature deviations over the last 20 years.

Kstuaff: I'm happy to address some of your concerns, but first I'll state that I don't know any "Alarmists". I know scientists who are concerned with their findings, and if you happen to know how scientists think, we don't react with "alarm" when we are presented with minimal evidence; rather, our decisions and reactions are resultant from logical processes. You don't overturn centuries of established thought because of one experimental result stating otherwise.. one must first verify the result and attempt to understand why the result exists in conflict with theory.

Anyway, here goes:

"First, wouldn't you agree that your predictions about a 4 degree C increase in temperature, shared by many in the pro-AGW community, are in fact somewhat speculative? Given that we have not actually observed such an increase first hand, what evidence supports your notion that storms would be stronger and there would be increased desertification?"

A 4 C increase is the high end of the "business as usual" model parameterization. Our models are definitely not perfect (I don't work in modeling, but I do use them sometimes), but they're becoming more sophisticated as we refine our parameters and increase our computing power. One problem with contemporary modeling is that all particles are treated as sulphates. This is obviously not representative of reality. Re: Storm intensification, these predictions are resultant from increased energy in the stratosphere. Hotter air masses can carry MUCH more water - this is an exponential relationship, but within the temperature range we experience normally, you can approximate that the maximum mass of water in a given volume of air doubles for every 7 degrees C. So warmer air holds more water.. so what? Well..

Here's an example with which you may be familiar: El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO). El Niño is the warming of the ocean surface in the Pacific, and this results in localized warming in the atmosphere above the water, resulting in localized high pressure zones. During El Niño events, the rainfall directly over the warmer air mass is MUCH more intense than normal. Additionally, because the warmer air mass can hold more water, cloud condensation nuclei hit the critical precipitation mass much more quickly - resulting in more intense rainfall.. this also results in the decreased half-life of a cloud - so rainfall events are local rather than distributed over a large area. (This is mitigated somewhat by fine aerosols functioning as CCN, but we won't get into that).. But because rainfall is more immediate (ie- clouds do not last as long), you will have less moisture transport to continental interiors = increased desertification.

"Second, since we know that CO2 levels *have* been much higher in the Earth's geologic history, coinciding with not only the existence of but also the unrestrained growth of life, doesn't it seem odd that only negative consequences are ascribed to warming, regardless of its source?"

During the Cenozoic era, atmospheric CO2 was about 8 times higher than it is now- where did it come from and what happened to it? Paradoxically, 45 million years ago, we see this peak associated with a cooling trend. Why is this? Admittedly, I am not familiar with the techniques for measurement of CO2 over geologic time-periods; however, I trust that the measurements are peer-reviewed. What I can tell you is that Cenozoic cooling has been attributed to complex feedback mechanisms. It is truly an unresolved question and may remain that way due to the difficulty obtaining accurate and precise data for time periods that far back.

In terms of positive effects of global warming.. well, for the first time in known human history, the Northwest passage is open for shipping. There are other effects, such as decreased numbers of deaths due to winter chill; however, the negative effects including loss of current agricultural land, sea level increases, loss of fresh-water reserves, and more intense rain (monsoon-like) seasons far outweigh the positives.

A savvy player could make money in this situation though, either through environmental controls conforming to new regulations or through the exploitation of unforeseen consequences (such as the Northwestern Passage).

This is the first time I have looked at popular science since I was a child (almost 40 years ago) when my father religiously subscribed to the magazine. I was killing time randomly browsing the web when i thought I would come by the popsci site for some nostalgic feelings and I have to say how DISAPPOINTED I am to see the blatant pushing of at best sadly misinformed and worst completely biased and fraudulent so called global warming(or, i'm sorry isn't it now called "climate change"??), environmentalism, carbon-neutral, or whatever BS these far left influences are attempting to feed to the masses. I cant believe PS would waste so much ink and effort. You publication is virtually now worthless as a result. PS MUST be getting most of its advertising revenue or other financial support from sources that are pushing this agenda on Americans.

Hi Sean,

what exactly is bullshit about climate change? I'd love to hear your informed opinion.

I'm also curious how this is some sort of American political conspiracy. As far as I know, climate change affects communists, socialists, fascists, and republicans equally.

Gerhard,

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough responses, and forgive me for using the term alarmist. But frequently it seems, scientists in the field of climatology seem to tout only the most negative of consequences when discussing the possible effects of global warming. I think that this has been borne out in literature, media and the recently uncovered CRU emails. It does little to lend credibility to the actual science, for which you seem to be admirably directed.

Your explanation of warm air having a higher capacity for water vapor makes excellent sense. But in fact, my experience in Texas is that El Nino's tend to increase precipitation. While this is obviously local, it does seem to follow that increased rainfall here during an El Nino might imply that it occurs elsewhere, and that the effects of El Nino might not be as local as you state. We likely do not have an accurate read on cloud and storm formation and how its cooling effects through albedo and heat transport may affect the green house.

As for the Northwest Passage, I was not aware that it was open. We do know that the Vikings inhabited Greenland approximately 1000 years ago under relatively warm conditions. It would be speculation to assume the passage was open then, but it wouldn't be a stretch of reason. Perhaps you are referring to the Northeast Passage?

In sum, there are many unanswered questions remaining in climatology, and I feel it is irresponsible to make predictions of the sort that politicians and even some scientists have made. I do, however, appreciate a reasoned response from a fellow commenter at this site. Thank you.

I love reading this amazing debate on how exactly everything will happen and what pollutants cause what kind of effect. The one point that is clearly proven is that we have no complete understanding of how things really are happening since we never experienced such a drastic change in our history. Being so, laying low and trying not to cause further changes is the safest alternative in my opinion.
http://www.guide-budapest.com/budapest.html

Gerhard is just spouting the fake Alarmist pseudo science. All the models on which it is based are (as admitted in the fine print) merely linear "scenario" extrapolations of hand-picked assumptions; the actual math and data requirements of realistic non-linear models are intractable, far beyond any even theoretical possible solution. The CRU/Alarmist models' predictive value is zero, or less. Their scientific value is about the same as a video game's.

Global warming has coincided with boom times for human civilization throughout history, and cold eras with contraction, plague, and starvation. Take your pick. Having, e.g., the NW Passage open year-round would be lovely! Even the polar bears would benefit from not having to lurk around breathing holes in the ice for the odd seal; they actually do much better with the more abundant food of warm climates, like any bears. (Their population has already multiplied many times over the last few decades, notwithstanding The Goracle's blatant misrepresentations.)

As for Venus, GH effects are zero there. Almost no solar energy reaches the lower atmosphere, much less the surface, to GH effects are irrelevant. The planet actually radiates more heat than falls on it, due to internal unknown heat sources. The 56 Earth-day long nights are 1°C cooler than the days, ruling out ANY solar effects from the get-go.

BTW, if you want to know where totally emission and waste-free ultra-cheap power is going to come from, beginning in 5 years or so, check out focusfusion.org.

Correction: "...so GH effects ..."

Fact:
1.We are running out of coal, oil, and natural gas.
2.The world is getting warmer.
3.Deforestation and pollution exist.
4.We need renewable resources. (hence carbon neutral)
5.The above are facts.
6.Regardless if you believe in global warming.

---
Alejandro Mochizuki

Alejandro:

Some more facts:

1. While fossil fuels are finite, it is estimated that we have known reserves of coal of over 200 years, 60 years of natural gas and at least 30 years of oil, likely much more, in the US alone.

2. The world has been as warm or warmer than it is now in the relatively recent past (see the Medieval Warm Period).

3. Deforestation and pollution exist, and more can be done to curb both of these as necessary. However, humanity also has the highest standard of living in history as well, thanks largely to the use of fossil fuels and agriculture.

4. While the the average temperature of the earth has become warmer over the last 30 years relative to the last 100, the warming has statistically stabilized in the last 10 years, despite an exponential increase in the amount of CO2 input to the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources. This is in direct contradiction to the claims by many scientists that climate change is *mostly* anthropogenic. An honest appraisal must question the validity of the thesis if direct observation contradicts it.

5. As they are economically competitive with traditional sources such as fossil and nuclear, renewable resources should be deployed in sensible areas.

6. 1-4 are facts; 5, like your #4, is opinion derived from facts 1-4.

Laura99, I'm interested in your community project. I'm working on a project as well and would like to compare notes with you. email me at jmontera@gometrolina.com

KStuaff,

I am talking about the Northwest Passage, which has been ice-free due to the shrinking arctic ice-caps. This is the passage between Greenland and Alaska.

BrianH,

You are a luddite. Climate models reliably match the past and while future predictions are variable, global trends are accounted for quite nicely. These multi-dimensional parameterizations are not simply "linear", but can include many different linear combinations of GLM families and link functions.

Your description of Venus is ludicrous. Any scientist would understand that a constant day/night temperature is the product of thermodynamics. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as "thermal inertia" and can be explained easily by analogy: imagine the transfer of current through wood and through semiconductor. Venus' atmosphere, due to the overwhelming presence of IR absorbing CO2, has very low resistance to heat transfer, resulting in a homogenous average surface temperature. In other words, the Venusian atmosphere can transfer heat much like the Earth's ocean, in which little variation is observed between day and night controlling for stratum.

You cannot in any possible way say that greenhouse gas effects are not present on Venus.. this is in direct contradiction to the facts and not in dispute by anyone with expertise in the scientific community. Venus has an albedo of 0.75.. while quite high, 0.25% of incoming solar radiation is absorbed. Venus experiences a solar flux of 2640 W/m^2. Because this is a sphere, divide that by 4 and multiply by unity-albedo and you'll arrive at the actual solar flux, which is 165 w/m^2. This value is 70% that of Earth's, so quite a bit of energy is still being absorbed. Now consider the penetration of UV/Vis through the atmosphere.. while only a percentage (2.5% = 17 W/m^2) is absorbed at the surface, the residency time of a photon, undergoing random walk at 90 atmospheres in a medium of 97% CO2 is going to be quite a long time.

So tell me, Mr. Exoclimatologist, what is your response? What are your credentials besides wasted time reading politicised climate change denialist websites?

And there is absolutely zero chance we will have fusion power in the next five years. I wish it were available that quickly, but NIF hasn't even provided a demonstration of inertial confinement fusion yet. You're going to have to wait another twenty - fifty years before you even see scalable research fusion reactors. The thorium fuel cycle is where we need to invest our money currently, with secondary funding for fusion research, of course.

I forgot to mention that the blackbody thermal temperature of Venus is about 220K, while the observed surface temperature is 730K. By the very definition of greenhouse effect, we find that there is 510K attributable to greenhouse gases.

Compare this to the 33K GHG warming on Earth, and you'll see why it is very important to control current GHG emissions. There is a very fine balance between very poorly understood feedback systems, and if we push the equilibrium too far in one direction, we will see unstoppable out-of-control fluctuations resulting in one extreme or another, as likely happened on Venus.

Gerhard:

It doesn't appear open here as of yesterday. We're still a couple of months from minimum, but there's no guarantees that it will be open this season, especially considering the lower than normal temperatures in the arctic. As with most things climatological, time will tell. But observations do not support your assertion in this case.

kstuaff,

The rate of ice melt this year is the highest on record. It is very likely that we will see further decline of thicker "old" ice.

This figure shows that one cannot dismiss ice melt as resultant from weather, but is actually a result of climatic shift: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090406_Figure3.png

But come back in a few months and we'll see for certain :) .

MYTH B.S. AND LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is all a scam people. Carbon is a very good and essential component of life itself.

Why not a fossil fuel tax???

That makes a trillion more sense then this utter nonsense of "cutting carbon to save the world". Glaciers.....MELT! Life is not perfect!

How about instead of shipping off factory jobs to undeveloped (virgin) land so that the company can cut cost on clean ups and environmental factors, we keep them here and make them environmentally friendly?

This is just craziness, this is a huge scam!

and why are we the people having to deal with this?? We bought the items that caused this mess, we didnt manufacture them. Put the bill at the right peoples feet. We the people already have to live with the mess corporations have made to the air, water and land almost EVERYWHERE!

This is just a big scam for a one world government.

If you think I'm crazy wait till we're using a north american currency....then a one world currency....implanted in your arm. Thats the kind of tech that makes me puke and scream.

And yes I do think the BP spill is on purpose to bring about an environmental disaster that really screws things up and scares people into giving up more personal freedoms,rights and protections just to put power in the hands of a few wealthy people. Arent billionares just awesome? They have enough money to convince people into not having children because theyre "carbon monsters".

Its also designed to shift wealth and resources to other parts of the world, and I'm sorry the USA WORKED DAMN HARD to get this far. 3rd world countries are really 100-150 years behind...its not our business literally and figuratively. Its not fair for them or us to dump all this advancement on them overnight....and expect them to use it properly. Look at what certain countries do with military tech!

So people don't think the world is going "green" for your benefit, most are making the biggest fortunes of their life selling you the idea that you are bacteria.

We also are not smart enough to handle this problem.

Can we all admit that messing with thing beyond our scope is unwise?

Gerhard:

I think my link was swallowed. For completeness, please see the following link. It is the "here" I was referring to in my post.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png

Gerhard:

I also disagree with your statement about rate of melt. The following shows that 2007 had a much longer and steeper slope for decline.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

As I mentioned, we haven't reached minimum yet, so time will tell.

It's nice that people are attempting to be carbon neutral, as CO2 is proven as a contributor in global warming, but most of these communities are FORCED to be carbon neutral, since they are several meters underwater and any changes in water levels would be CATASTROPHIC to them. We need to take their example as we are the largest creators of GHGs and CFCs.

If you like my comments and want to read more, you can follow me at www.twitter.com/EnvironmentMan1 or read my blog at www.climatechange123.blogspot.com