We have been lulled into a false sense of security regarding climate change. As if it is something too big, or doubtful, so it is problem for governments to sort out. There have always been fires, floods and heat waves so this is nothing new. Natural cyclic variations.
To put it in perspective, the following graph using an average of global temperatures from 1979-1988 as the "0" value
Essentially since the last major El Nino (1998) event the oceans have been absorbing a lot of the increasing temperatures. Those temperatures have not gone away, water stores temperature very effectively. It's called thermal mass and water has it like virtually no other substance. The following graph is the average temperature of the oceans to a depth of 700m
That shows the air temperature and the water temperature are both increasing.
There is a particular temperature mass that has been tracked and it is hovering in the Pacific. The pool of 4-6+ degree Celsius above average temperatures continues to widen and lengthen, now covering 85 degrees of longitude from 170 East to 105 West. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that the zone of extreme 6+ C temperature anomalies has both widened and extended, covering about 50 degrees of longitude and swelling to a relative depth of about 30-40 meters.
http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/el-nino-update-monster-kelvin-wave-continues-to-emerge-and-intensify/
If it emerges partially it will be called a mild El Nino, if it emerges fully it will be severe. That is not really the concern. The issue here is that the oceans will store more and more of our heat. It does not go away, and it is having a side-effect. Under the oceans in the Arctic, the shores of Siberia, Canada, Greenland and the Antarctic there are frozen sediments that holds vast quantities of methane.
That stored heat is gradually thawing the Arctic/Antarctic sea ice but it is also gradually thawing the sediments. Apart from the occasional El Nino we don't cop it on the surface. We have a sense of luxury, mild increases in air temperature. But once the oceans have reached heat capacity there really is no going back. A thermal mass gives back heat when the surrounding environment is cooler than it. It is unlikely our atmosphere will cool any time soon.
C02 is precursor, it has caused the initial warming, but it has unleashed something far worse. That beast is CH4, methane. Methane has a short atmospheric life (12 years) but it is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas (ghg) than is C02. Once methane is unlocked there really is no turning back. Unfortunately that has started from the Siberian permafrost, the coast of Norway and Svalbard, the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/methane-buildup-in-atmosphere.html
This is a chart of the historic atmospheric methane levels as determined by the ice cores drilled in Antarctica and current measurements.
It is thought there is 1,500 gigatons of methane locked in deep sea sediments. As the Arctic ice melts, the sea absorbs more energy which warms the water more (albedo). When the sediments under the ocean thaw that methane gradually releases. That is what you call the "slab model". Gradually and evenly the permafrost thaws and releases methane over centuries of time. Normally under the "slab" model this methane is safely stored. It would take centuries or longer for the gas to escape as the covering ice melts. Methane is broken down over time in the atmosphere, quicker than C02, but a long time from the perspective of our lifetime. If its release is orderly everything is ok.
However, earth quakes and tremors release it suddenly from local sources. The problem is that earth tremors are realignments and these cause cracks in the covering ice and permafrost. It can be shown that arctic methane releases can be tied to arctic earthquakes. Well what would cause more earthquakes? http://www.npr.org/2014/01/02/259127792/a-sharp-rise-in-earthquakes-puts-oklahomans-on-edge. Suddenly, when we least need it, it seems every country in the world wants in on the action of fracking in the arctic. Claims that it only produces tremors and the occasional earthquake are irrelevant. Google "Methane water fracking Texas"
As the situation becomes more unstable in the Ukraine, Europe will be forced to look northwards for energy sources. Methane from fracking is already being explored in Norway. What choice do they have? Maybe to import it from the US rather than be self-reliant. That does not seem to be the way they are heading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amid-showdown-with-energy-rich-russia-calls-rise-in-europe-to-start-fracking/2014/04/07/f3616058-2c24-4683-abe3-728a5572debf_story.html
Alaska, Norway, Canada and a host of others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_by_country are in on the act, but that is not the exhaustive list some are doing it quietly. When it is done outside the Arctic/Antarctic they are ultimately polluting locally, done at the poles and we are all going to pay the price.
The other issue is the rapid heating and cooling of the Greenland ice sheet. It is causing the glaciers to crack which allows melted surface water to run down. This water then freezes and expands extending the cracks. At the bottom of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are huge reservoirs of methane.
The estimated time frames vary from 2036 to 2100. But keep in mind that by 2050 there will be 9 billion people on the face of the planet everyone of them with a right to live, work and raise a family. Just a 2C rise will spell out massive disruption to food chains and water availability. Currently a 4C rise is looking more realistic. At 4C you are talking about very dire conditions.
Governments have taken on so much debt while trying to achieve "growth" that they cannot provide protection against this. There is just no way for this to end well. Currently the US unfunded liabilities stand at ~124 trillion dollars.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22999-evidence-of-acceleration-on-all-fronts-of-anthropogenic-climate-disruption
IMF’s Christine Lagarde was sounding the warning bell and saying that “huge government and banks risk new financial crash. That the world leaders needed to do more to deal with huge government and bank debts that will continue to drag down growth and undermine the stability of the financial system.”
There is no point any more in denying it. Nearly all scientists (97%) agree in climate change. And, we are to blame for climate change http://publications.mcgill.ca/reporter/2014/04/odds-that-global-warming-is-due-to-natural-factors-slim-to-none/. On the other side you have big business. A lot of people, who don't understand the facts, will take whatever glimmer of contradictory information they can find to make a case against it. Here is an example. By reading the article you think "An MIT scientist who thinks it is bunk, therefore climate change is bunk". Now check the facts, he is retired and thinks that smoking has no link to cancer.
The reality is that once we have a real problem on our hands it will be too late to fix it. The ghg pollutants cannot be removed from the air and they have a long lifespan. The oceans cannot be cooled to preserve the sediments. This all comes down to money, and if the statement "Money is the root of all evil" was ever true, then this proves it.
The public view is misinformed. 25% of Americans don't believe the climate is changing. There is little real hope for massive energy usage changes in the developed world. Even if implemented, effective climate control would cause initial large scale unemployment that would persist for a significant time. The masses would see unemployment and a decrease in their living standards. They would therefore vote for whoever would improve their lot. Which takes us back to business as usual. If the masses do not accept climate change then the developed world will continue on its present path.
And if changes are not implemented in the developed world, then it is reasonable for Asia not to reduce its consumption either. When you have 230 million people living in comparative luxury, and refusing to change, then just wait and see what will happen when that number is 2.3 billion (China+India alone).
Our present structure favours big business and they want things to continue as they are. An example would be Exxon "Exxon, for example, spent more than $130m in lobbying and political contributions between 2002 and 2010. The purpose of these contributions was clear: the oil giant donated ten times as much money to politicians who opposed emissions reductions than they did to those who supported such policies." (http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/unwilling-leader-exxon-mobil-climate-report)
So the result is that even if people want to be informed it will become increasingly difficult to do so. That is because governments are beginning to silence scientists
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/silencing-scientists.html
Big business now control the government and the news. As such, and as depressing a conclusion as it is, there really isn't anything that can be done until the effects are so bad that change is forced.
Completely collapsing society as we know won't fix the problem either, it would just slow climate change. The positive climate feedbacks that are now in motion cannot be stopped to reduce the temperature in the Arctic (http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/nasa-giss-shows-march-2014-was-third-hottest-on-record-as-arctic-heatwave-spurs-siberian-fire-season-to-early-start/).
Consequently, the discussion is not about how to stop it although I applaud those who are trying. The discussion is about living in it.
At this point you would expect me to propose building a bomb shelter getting lots of guns and ammo and learn to live off the bush. That won't work, this problem has a time span of thousands of years. That would be a struggle for survival, not living. Next option, build a village commune and live off the land. Perhaps, but it will not be easy. There is no buffering against the elements. Any major storm or heat event would decimate the community.
There is a future with society. The affluent will live in gated communities with air conditioning. Malls will be extended with apartments. Adjoining apartment blocks will be linked to become malls. Energy will come from the current mixes, but eventually will probably go to Thorium nuclear energy.
The major problems will be energy, food, security and employment. This is a topic too large to be covered here. So how to function in this new paradigm? Become indispensable, you really cannot afford to do otherwise.
The Arctic fox when it crosses a frozen river walks with its ears pointed down towards the ice. It is listening for cracking in the ice. It does that because its life depends on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment