![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thursday Thoughts
May. 8th, 2008 02:02 pmApropos of the discussion thread on this post by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jeff_duntemann, I got to thinking about global warming. So, in my patented stream-of-consciousness order, here are some thoughts.
Order of Magnitude
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the UN watchdog on global warming, is predicting a 1.7 degree Celsius temperature rise by century's end. Note that they are giving temperature to tenths of a degree. Jeff Duntemann cites several links suggesting that some of the temperature data used in that calculation are wonky.jetfx says that of course this wonkiness has been baked into the calculation.
I'm not so sure. For example - the "official" temperature in Chicago from 1880 to 1920 was taken at the Weather Bureau office in downtown Chicago. Since that area is close to Lake Michigan, it's frequently several degrees cooler then both the current site (O'Hare airport, well inland) and the interim site, Midway airport, south of O'Hare but also inland. Even where the official location hasn't moved, stuff has frequently been built around the site, changing the microclimate. Even such things as an air conditioning vent dumping hot air on the thermometer can throw results off. I think that the real problem is that our data is only good to one degree, and we're trying to extrapolate to tenths of degrees.
Focusing on the correct problem
This site suggests that the lion's share of the greenhouse gas emissions are coming from coal-fired electrical plants. Except most of the argument about greenhouse gas emissions seems to be focused on transportation, not power. This may be because of ignorance, or it might be because worrying about power generation leads one quickly into discussing nuclear power, a Green Party no-no.
Related to that is the idea of being "carbon neutral." My Google-fu has failed, but I seem to recall that to be truly carbon neutral one would need to reduce per-person carbon output to around 800 kilograms/person/year. The only countries that are at or below that level are places like Haiti, Somalia and the like.
This suggests that we can't get to carbon neutral. Some scientists, Gregory Benford for one, are suggesting that we accept the need to become a steward of our world and more actively manage the climate. There are some obvious risks, but if we're really going to do something instead of just flap our gums, active management appears to be the only viable solution.
jeff_duntemann, I got to thinking about global warming. So, in my patented stream-of-consciousness order, here are some thoughts.Order of Magnitude
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the UN watchdog on global warming, is predicting a 1.7 degree Celsius temperature rise by century's end. Note that they are giving temperature to tenths of a degree. Jeff Duntemann cites several links suggesting that some of the temperature data used in that calculation are wonky.
jetfx says that of course this wonkiness has been baked into the calculation. I'm not so sure. For example - the "official" temperature in Chicago from 1880 to 1920 was taken at the Weather Bureau office in downtown Chicago. Since that area is close to Lake Michigan, it's frequently several degrees cooler then both the current site (O'Hare airport, well inland) and the interim site, Midway airport, south of O'Hare but also inland. Even where the official location hasn't moved, stuff has frequently been built around the site, changing the microclimate. Even such things as an air conditioning vent dumping hot air on the thermometer can throw results off. I think that the real problem is that our data is only good to one degree, and we're trying to extrapolate to tenths of degrees.
Focusing on the correct problem
This site suggests that the lion's share of the greenhouse gas emissions are coming from coal-fired electrical plants. Except most of the argument about greenhouse gas emissions seems to be focused on transportation, not power. This may be because of ignorance, or it might be because worrying about power generation leads one quickly into discussing nuclear power, a Green Party no-no.
Related to that is the idea of being "carbon neutral." My Google-fu has failed, but I seem to recall that to be truly carbon neutral one would need to reduce per-person carbon output to around 800 kilograms/person/year. The only countries that are at or below that level are places like Haiti, Somalia and the like.
This suggests that we can't get to carbon neutral. Some scientists, Gregory Benford for one, are suggesting that we accept the need to become a steward of our world and more actively manage the climate. There are some obvious risks, but if we're really going to do something instead of just flap our gums, active management appears to be the only viable solution.
