UUUS Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Talk (2010-08-29)

Supplemental Notes



As anyone realizes to get a handle on the subject of AGW, the breath of scope is daunting. Unfortunately, thirty minutes is simply not enough time to get your hands around this subject, or all of the short and long term consequences. During this talk, I chose to concentrate on a basic understanding of the problem, which meant I had to forgo mitigation efforts, detailed future projections, etc.


This would not be preferred method as I believe it gives one a sense, but not the broader background that I feel is necessary to understand it. No matter if you believe the science or not, I recommend a firm basic understanding of environmental science (geology, volcanoes, weathering, glaciers, atmosphere, etc), and then build from there.



If you're interested in grasping the subject, keep an open mind. The thing I like about science is that theories are tested over time, and there are no absolutes as in many religious beliefs. This self questioning is a scary proposition for some individuals and groups, but in science when something doesn't fit, a new explanation or understanding surfaces to better fit the facts. Some folks who misunderstand this process, dismiss it without realizing that most of our high technology is based on these foundations, such as quantum, that runs counter to ones intuition. One example of this is the MRI machine, which uses quantum resonance, superconducting magnets, and sensitive electronics to produce images of the bodies. The majority would not question that MRI exist while at the same time many Americans question the science behind AGW. Of course, each of us has reasons for believing this or that, but when we are unwilling to question our own beliefs, we are in trouble. Speaking of revisions, a September 7th news blurb reports on a scientific paper suggest that deformations in the ice's crust may cause a 50% overstatement of Antarctica's ice loss, see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100906085152.htm. Obviously, this would mean that I overstated the Antarctica's ice melt in those slides. The paper's authors say that it may take years to verify this, so for now I'll leave it as it is.


Another item that often comes up is Cap and Trade (C&T). Climate science deniers often point to this as something that is scientists and environmentalist support that will hurt our nation's economy. The fact of that is that some form of carbon tax is necessary to reduce our burning of fossil fuel. As it is now, C&T will not drastically change things, and make things worse. Some argue that Goldman Sachs and others are trying to create another financial bubble to enrich some investors and companies. The proponents of C&T are sometimes the greatest carbon emitters (power companies, coal producers) who see this as a way to avoid fines, and limit further regulation. C&T is an indirect tax that goes not to government, but industry. Despite C&T's coverage by mainstream news that gives the appearance of strong support for it, many environmentally concerned individuals, scientist, economists, and organizations do not support it.


As an alternative, a progressive fossil fuel tax would encourage conservation, innovation, and send a clear sign to the marketplace. Raising the federal gas tax from its current eighteen cents per gallon to one dollar would not increase the price that much at the pump (well published studies back this up), but this along with small future yearly increases would encourage the transition to better energy sources: wind, higher efficiency solar (thermal and electric), and nuclear. It has been argued that gasoline's real cost is over $10 per gallon if one was just to include military expenditures (used to protect pipelines, facilities, and oil fields), tax subsidies, pollution related disease, and so forth. Most of this direct tax could be refunded to individuals, with a portion going toward R&D in energy, conservation, infrastructure improvements, etc. The problem with a direct tax is that America lacks strong political leadership willing to make these hard choices that maybe unpopular for the short term. At the same time, the mainstream news focus is on short term problems.


One other thing to consider is that the news often fails to convey meaning. Part of this is the nature of a three minute news item that has little time for an explanation whereas another reason is that controversy sells. Thus AGW has become a “controversial topic,” whereas AGW is accepted by an overwhelming percentage of climate scientists. Controversies do show up though in other areas, such as the variability of data. In the future, better satellites will monitor atmospheric aerosol concentrations more accurately, and better models. Progress continues in these regards but there will always be some question as to confidence of future predictions. This is no laughing matter as the climate changes we are seeing now maybe less, or worse yet, more dire than current models predict.


As to how solving AGW, I am more more concerned than most. On the surface it appears that a simple change to better conserve energy, followed by a switch to more efficient technologies would be a good path. However, there are strong corporate forces, such as gas, oil and coal that hold a grip over politics due to immediate jobs, and through large campaign contributions. Then there is the enormous challenge of changing a society built on inefficient processes, and steering it toward a sustainable future. And how do we change the publics habits and opinion? Even with an all out effort to conserve energy while building up nuclear, solar and wind resources, we face the added challenges of a weak economy, increasing human population, rising temperatures, and tipping points that have been passed....


I'd like to thank Victor Montequin for his interest as shown in his emails.


Gary