The Climate Change Q&A

[martini]

I said I would write this post about two years ago, but I forgot to

 

Background: I am an atmospheric Physicist working at the University of Tokyo, Japan. I completed a Physics degree and Ph.D at the University of Manchester, UK. My main research focus is the influence of atmospheric aerosols on cloud formation, and subsequently climate.

 

There are essentially three approaches to the climate change debate; that of the scientist, the policy maker, and the public.

 

I'll start with the latter and work backwards.

 

1) Public approach:

 

The public obtain most of their scientific news not from reading scientific journals, but from the main news channels and broadcasters themselves. Whether privately or publicly owned, the science is typically reported not by scientists but reporters (often with undisclosed scientific knowledge). As with any news, sensationalism sells. Drama captivates the mind. The British also love nothing more than to moan and complain about something (see Daily Mail & its comments section). Due to the manner in which the public obtain their information, it is therefore not surprising that most of the common consensus is plain wrong. I have heard people say things such as "how could it be possible, though? I mean, humans are so small and the Earth is so big!". Of course I can see the reason behind the statement, but there are north of 6 Bn people in the world at present; unless one goes to somewhere such as China or Bangladesh, one cannot imagine what real "crowding" is. Secondly, all scientific reason points towards a man-made hole in the Ozone layer. If we can put a hole in the ozone layer, it stands to reason that we can change the climate of the planet.

 

People also say, with complete conviction in their words, that the changes are all within the "natural cycle" and that "changes in the Sun's power happen all the time". My favourite is "we are due an ice age". Firstly, the changes are outside of the natural record, dating back thousands of years:

 

 

Secondly, the sun does change its intensity, but we don't know the exact affects as the conditions have changed on Earth now. There are also strange "events" which are not completely understood.

 

As for the ice ages, well, there hasn't been one since people were able to talk to each other. Example conditions for an ice age are known, but the physical processes behind the an ice age starting are not known. So we don't know when the next one will be, if ever.

 

2) Policy-maker's approach:

 

The public blur the line between science from scientists and science from policy makers/scientists with agendas. It is understandable that they do, for their only connection to the science is through media, which is driven heavily by agenda. On a policy level, it is clear that no one-country wants to hold any accountability for what is "mankind's doing", though it should be noted that it is essentially the 1st World countries which have created the levels of gases and aerosols to date, though developing countries have contributed heavily in recent times. Governments will most likely tax the public for their emissions (already happening in many places and only going to get stricter), whilst denying accountability and shifting the focus to other countries (USA vs. China anyone?). Governments would like a way to win votes and make money, so it is a careful balancing act.

 

 

3) Scientific approach:

 

CO2 levels have risen across the world, in a manner unlike any historical record. We have an ability to go back and see the CO2 concentrations thousands of years ago from bubbles trapped in ice cores. CO2 has a huge lifetime, and as a greenhouse gas, absorbs large amounts of short-wave radiation from the sun and traps it as long-wave radiation in the atmosphere. This is how greenhouses work (on a much smaller scale), and hence why the first "back of the envelope" calculation is that global temperatures will rise. But it is not CO2 alone which contributes to the greenhouse effect; methane (emitted from cows, humans and decomposition etc) is also increasing and is a far more potent greenhouse gas (see this paper due to be published soon). Water vapour is another greenhouse gas but has very different removal pathways to the former greenhouse gases (i.e. will rain out). So, Methane and CO2 are increasing, to levels not seen before...

 

Though gases are a major driving force for global climate change, there is another key player (my area of research). Atmospheric aerosols (e.g. dust, pollen, soot from cars) both absorb and scatter incoming solar radiation directly, and alter cloud properties (such as how long a cloud sticks around for before raining). The potential atmospheric changes are numerous and complex, and in fact will cool the earth's atmosphere. Aerosols, however, are very short lived (~ days) vs the gases (~ 100s of years).

 

So, the answer to stopping uncontrollable warming from the gases is to make more dust, like when the meteor hit Earth 65M years ago and ceased vegetation for the dinosaurs? Not exactly. The volcanic eruption in Iceland a few years ago actually cooled the planet slightly (the link takes you to a free scientific journal's special issue on the topic). Pumping large amounts of aerosol into the atmosphere is not desirable for two main reasons. The first, is that we don't know what would happen, due to the numerous complex processes. The second is that it is directly bad for our health, to have fine particulate matter enter our lungs (hence PM1 and PM10 regulations in most cities).

 

Science most certainly points to a changing climate in the future, much like climate change happened in the past. It is also sensible to assume that man has had significant influence on future climate, by introducing both numerous aerosols and large quantities of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. Powerful computers using our current knowledge of physics, chemistry and many other disciplines are being used to estimate potential climate change. What will actually happen? Only time will tell.

 

 

I hope that this thread is an interesting read, and I would encourage people to ask questions and start a discussion on the topic. I am well placed to give an objective (i.e. scientific and without bias) answer to any questions as I have no agenda other than improving understanding.

[Nemesis]

Hmmm still not putting my cats back on.

[Al Massey]

I have a question

 

What affect does our cars and lifestyle really have on the planet?

 

And if we are spending billions to try and make more efficient engines and reduce our carbon footprint even tho our car tax is now pollution tax and they will take it in, why don't we just stop cutting down trees and save 3 fold?

[martini]

Hmmm still not putting my cats back on.

 

I wouldn't ask you to; I know how good it sounds

 

I have a question

 

What affect does our cars and lifestyle really have on the planet?

 

Cars produce CO2 from the combustion of petrol (excluding all other types of cars, let's just go for Supras and their ilk). Lifestyle wise, using huge amounts of electricity that come from coal and oil burning powerstations, which are like huge combustion engines, pumping out huge amounts of CO2. The effect on the planet is shown in the graph above.

 

And if we are spending billions to try and make more efficient engines and reduce our carbon footprint even tho our car tax is now pollution tax and they will take it in, why don't we just stop cutting down trees and save 3 fold?

 

Now we are entering policy making discussion, and have stepped away from science. If we look at things purely scientifically, then though the loss of trees is significant, they also release CO2 into the atmosphere. However, they take it in. Burning a tree will only emit CO2, as will burning coal and oil. I assume threefold is a figure of speech and you don't have some data showing that deforestation is three times stronger than other human activity regarding the CO2 budget?

 

"Worse than" is subjective. That's for the policy makers & politicians.

[AJI]

What is the general line of teaching in a university in Tokyo?

Do they give you the un-biassed approach or do they teach by assuption that Al Gore is correct?

Are they persuaded to 'direct' students on to a certain path of thinking or can you say that your tutors always provided a FULL BALANCED approach to what information they provided?

 

Although your post above is an interesting read, it does seem like you cherry-picked the usual graph when it comes to trying to back up the human influence on global Co2 levels.

I've been following the climate debate for a few years also and I started from a totally un-biassed approach because I come from a science background.

To me it was only when politics became heavily involved in the mid-late 90's that the science part of the debate became extinguished.

Today we are told "the science is settled" and governments refuse to alter their position on the matter even though they are basing their assumptions on belief. I use this word 'belief' because to date there have been no human influence signals found within the gathered data that would display a cause factor on a temperature change in the climate.

If there were then debate would indeed be 'settled' and the scientific process would be at the next step. But you will know the debate is not settled because the evidence of the human link to a changing climate is not visible within the data sources and as such many are making that 'belief' step and creating the results to suit their own goals.

[Al Massey]

Cars produce CO2 from the combustion of petrol (excluding all other types of cars, let's just go for Supras and their ilk). Lifestyle wise, using huge amounts of electricity that come from coal and oil burning powerstations, which are like huge combustion engines, pumping out huge amounts of CO2. The effect on the planet is shown in the graph above.

 

Ok maybe i should of worded it a little better, i understand how CO2 is produced and what produces it, i meant to say what exactly is CO2 doing to the environment and the planet.

 

Now we are entering policy making discussion, and have stepped away from science. If we look at things purely scientifically, then though the loss of trees is significant, they also release CO2 into the atmosphere. However, they take it in. Burning a tree will only emit CO2, as will burning coal and oil. I assume threefold is a figure of speech and you don't have some data showing that deforestation is three times stronger than other human activity regarding the CO2 budget?

 

"Worse than" is subjective. That's for the policy makers & politicians.

 

And again i will re word this lol

 

Trees and vegetation absorb CO2, in vast amounts, and i dont mean cutting them down to burn, we cut down millions of trees for all sorts of reasons and uses, ie: paper, card fuel, building materials etc and a lot of that is just wasted, useless and outdated

 

But what if we stopped cutting down all the trees, leave the rainforests where they are, intact for all life to thrive and keep planting new trees to grow around the world, wouldnt this have a bigger impact on reducing CO2?

 

And by threefold i meant

Saving money or not wasting money on cutting down trees and the resources used to do the task.

As well as saving the money spent using the trees collected to turn into products.

Saving money or not wasting money on coming up with new ideas or products to reduce our foot print like super gucci low emission engines or the actual planet killing Prius

 

 

A very good write up on your behalf and i dont mean to come across as critising or that i know it all, when in fact i dont, but i am very interested and enjoyed reading your post

[qwarrior]

With me the jury is still out on the subject. (Physics Degree, 12 months in Stratospheric Metrology at NPL London)

 

But my main concern at the moment on a similar note is petrol. Drivers of cars fall in to 3 main groups in my head; a) Petrol heads (enthusiasts), b) Status symbol owners, c) Functional users.

 

Catagory a is us lot. Catagory b is the knob who won't get out of the outside lane and spends hours talking about his bog standard expensive car that he doesn't know how to drive and c is the everyday user who doesn't care what the car looks like as long as it is reliable and functional.

 

What I'm getting at is, catagory c is probably the biggest catagory and they are using petrol at an outstanding rate. Soon the petrol will run out and become a commodity. At the moment the Petrol heads are always against electric cars and other cars that run on fuels other than petrol. I say promote these cars to catagory c as much as we can so there is more petrol left for us to use our cars way into the future.

 

Simples. Tch

[martini]

What is the general line of teaching in a university in Tokyo?

Do they give you the un-biassed approach or do they teach by assuption that Al Gore is correct?

Are they persuaded to 'direct' students on to a certain path of thinking or can you say that your tutors always provided a FULL BALANCED approach to what information they provided?

 

I lecturer at the Uni, on aerosol physics. There isn't a biased approach to those lecturers; it's simply physics and chemistry. I don't know what lessons, if any, would teach students about climate change topics, as I am too far into the research end of things.

 

Although your post above is an interesting read, it does seem like you cherry-picked the usual graph when it comes to trying to back up the human influence on global Co2 levels.

 

I wouldn't say that I "cherry picked" that graph. The data simply doesn't lie - it is data. Only our interpretation of it can lie to us We agree that burning fossil fuels creates CO2, yes? That was the major change regarding the industrial revolution; after which CO2 levels increased to present day levels.

 

The difference is - we don't know what affect this CO2 will have, as there are many factors (e.g. Milankovitch cyles). We know it is a greenhouse gas, but as I said, aerosols negate this effect somewhat and the entire estimation is extremely complicated. CO2 and predicted temperature increase are not estimated to be linearly related.

 

Ok maybe i should of worded it a little better, i understand how CO2 is produced and what produces it, i meant to say what exactly is CO2 doing to the environment and the planet...

 

A very good write up on your behalf and i dont mean to come across as critising or that i know it all, when in fact i dont, but i am very interested and enjoyed reading your post

 

Thanks! I am completely in favour of criticism; I don't claim to know it all at all What this effect CO2 will actually have, is the big question, along with many other parts of the atmosphere. Current understand drives large computational models, which are really just "best guesses". The way they are tested is by running time backwards to known temperatures and CO2 levels and to see if they then work again going forwards.

 

With me the jury is still out on the subject. (Physics Degree, 12 months in Stratospheric Metrology at NPL London)

 

Nice anoalogy with the petrol - I completely agree on that one! CO2 levels and climate change are two separate, but related issues. CO2 is increasing, sure. What does this mean for the future? We simply do not know, but just have "model estimates". In the short term, the policy makers keep grabbing what they think can drive their policy from the science, and use that as their agenda to extract money from the masses.

[Kaan W]

The main effect on the planet from a high hp supra is spinning the world backwards at launch

[Gaz6002]

At the moment the Petrol heads are always against electric cars and other cars that run on fuels other than petrol.

 

I don't agree with that. Myself and several of my colleagues are absolutely fascinated by new tech in cars. Electric, hydrogen, hybrid and range extenders all give us semis. I think to be a true petrolhead you have to appreciate new tech as well as the old-fashioned stuff.

[tkddav3]

im game for hyrdrogen power. not so much for electric though! electricity has to come from somewhere... and most of it seems to come from power station which create CO2... the G whiz =fail

[tbourner]

Another problem that can be solved by mass genocide.

 

 

Actually I might change my commonly repeated retort to:

"Another problem that can be solved by mass genocide.......... or fusion power"

[Gaz6002]

im game for hyrdrogen power. not so much for electric though! electricity has to come from somewhere... and most of it seems to come from power station which create CO2... the G whiz =fail

 

The G-wiz isn't a car.

 

What a lot of people don't grasp about electric motoring is that it has the capacity to vastly reduce our dependency on fuel through range extension tech, and also has capcity to be significantly more 'green' as more renewable energy sources are introduced. Just because it doesn't work now, that doesn't mean it can't work in the future.

[qwarrior]

I don't agree with that. Myself and several of my colleagues are absolutely fascinated by new tech in cars. Electric, hydrogen, hybrid and range extenders all give us semis. I think to be a true petrolhead you have to appreciate new tech as well as the old-fashioned stuff.

 

Maybe I should rephrase "The majority of Petrol heads" as that was a sweeping generalisation.

 

I'd assume anybody reading this particular thread has an interest in either science or technology. I personally have a fascination with the idea that electric motors generate extremely large levels of torque, tied to an invertor drive the control and precision you have from an electric drive system is way beyond that of any conventional vehicle.

 

You don't get the same noise though.

[tbourner]

Myself and several of my colleagues are absolutely fascinated by new tech in cars.

 

Nobody cared to reply when I asked .

[AJI]

I wouldn't say that I "cherry picked" that graph. The data simply doesn't lie - it is data. Only our interpretation of it can lie to us We agree that burning fossil fuels creates CO2, yes? That was the major change regarding the industrial revolution; after which CO2 levels increased to present day levels.

 

The difference is - we don't know what affect this CO2 will have, as there are many factors (e.g. Milankovitch cyles). We know it is a greenhouse gas, but as I said, aerosols negate this effect somewhat and the entire estimation is extremely complicated. CO2 and predicted temperature increase are not estimated to be linearly related.

 

I would argue that the graph shows a very limited time-scale in which the objective of the graph is to show a flat period and then a sharp increase.... commonly called a 'hockey stick' graph. Now if you extended the graph time scale it would show the natural periodic and other non-periodic events that cause Co2 levels to increase and decrease. And then the graph would not be 'special' in any way and would not have any relation to the current day other than show that we are still part of the natural and expected cycles of variation with regards to Co2 levels.

 

So yes, data is data, and if left unmolested it is what it is. But if you cherry pick that data with a view to use that to specifically show something, then its quite meaningless, unless of course it is aimed at 'believers' where by you can use this as created 'evidence' to portray a pre-determined message/view. (ie. political).

So you are spot on when you say 'our interpretation of it can lie'.

 

Burning of fossil fuels does release Co2 in to the atmosphere, but compared to the natural releases of Co2 in to the atmosphere the human input is very little (even at today's level of burning). So little in fact that our scientific equipment used to measure the influence it has on the atmosphere and other aspects of the globe as a whole is undetectable.

 

Like you I do not profess to be an expert on all the factors of climate change as it involves many natural cycles, some of which climatology scientists still do not fully understand and many that is beyond my knowledge, but I tend to read both sides of the debate to give myself a balanced view. Until the pro-MMGW camp can provide the evidence to back-up their claims then I will not buy in to their beliefs. Unlike the politicians whom, it is apparent, have jumped on the band-wagon and have pre-determined the scientific process through use of 'belief' and created a world wide capitalist billion dollar business based on the trading of carbon credits and the like. Which on a daily living scale of things means we now pay ridiculous amounts of extra taxation on all our products.

[Gaz6002]

Nobody cared to reply when I asked .

 

 

Funnily enough I was actually out on an eco car launch that day!

[martini]

I would argue that the graph shows a very limited time-scale in which the objective of the graph is to show a flat period and then a sharp increase.... commonly called a 'hockey stick' graph. Now if you extended the graph time scale it would show the natural periodic and other non-periodic events that cause Co2 levels to increase and decrease.

 

I know the hockey stick graph, but that is the inside plot. Is the graph I show not the one to which you refer?

 

Burning of fossil fuels does release Co2 in to the atmosphere, but compared to the natural releases of Co2 in to the atmosphere the human input is very little (even at today's level of burning). So little in fact that our scientific equipment used to measure the influence it has on the atmosphere and other aspects of the globe as a whole is undetectable.

 

Do you have the figures; for natural and anthropogenic sources and sinks?

 

This paper might be interesting reading; but again, it is all model results. It's all we really have for any interpretation!

 

Unlike the politicians whom, it is apparent, have jumped on the band-wagon and have pre-determined the scientific process through use of 'belief' and created a world wide capitalist billion dollar business based on the trading of carbon credits and the like. Which on a daily living scale of things means we now pay ridiculous amounts of extra taxation on all our products.

 

Absolutely. You might like this anecdote! I was recently on a flight to a remote location, and 80-90% of the passengers were ministers of environment for various countries and their aides. I was sat between two, and they were quite chatty to each other, across me. They apologised and said "of course you have heard about global warming, we are just discussing some of the science behind it", to which I said "no, please go ahead". After a few minutes of their talking, one asked what I did. I told them I was on my way to a research station to install an instrument which measures precisely what they were discussing (soot, basically). They were gobsmacked. I educated them a little about the science behind cloud formation, of course which can offset any warming but can also change precipitation patterns and the water table. They weren't expecting that.

 

I have actually edited a section of the upcoming IPCC report. My section is in the clouds and aerosols section, and merely summarises the state of the science (from recent publications and data). What the policy makers do with that information, is anyone's guess (though probably sufficiently spin it to hike up taxes in one way or another).

[tbourner]

I would argue that the graph shows a very limited time-scale in which the objective of the graph is to show a flat period and then a sharp increase.... commonly called a 'hockey stick' graph. Now if you extended the graph time scale it would show the natural periodic and other non-periodic events that cause Co2 levels to increase and decrease. And then the graph would not be 'special' in any way and would not have any relation to the current day other than show that we are still part of the natural and expected cycles of variation with regards to Co2 levels.

 

 

You seem to only be describing the zoomed section of the graph, shown in beige.

 

 

 

 

That section only shows the last 1,000 years, and is a hockey stick, but the graph below it shows 400,000 years into the past, where the zoomed section is too small to make out. The main graph shows a repeating cycle every ~100,000 years, going from ~180ppmv to ~300ppmv, then in the zoomed graph it shows that in the last 200 years it's gone up to nearly ~380ppmv, a value that hasn't been seen in the entire 400,000 year history of the measurements.

[Nemesis]

242 modding days til the apocalypse

[AJI]

To reply to Martini and tbourner,

 

I should have made myself a little more clear. I was indeed referring to the inset of the graph as the 'hockey stick' (even though the full graph also shows this too). And you are both right that the full graph does show the periodic variencies over a long period of time. I am aware that the recent sharp increase on the graph (the blade if you like) has raised numerous doubts and questions in the climate change debate, actually soon after Al Gore used it in his political shows when he first revealed this huge terror of global warming that was about to soon impact the world. It is the zooming in on this 'blade' and trying to overlook the previous trends and cycles as to what my line of statement was aimed at.

 

Going back to the inset part of the graph, the 'blade' part of the hockey stick has been in question for a long time in the climate change debate. I would try to explain but I think a simple link would be better:

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm

 

So if you were to accept that the data and how its been used is very doubtful regarding the sharp increase and the extent of that increase, then you can see that when you look at the full graph we sit at a point that is not all that different to conditions shown in the past.

But still, if you were to 'cherry pick' that inset it would still show an alarming increase. This being the basis to my previous comments. (apology for not explaining in full).