ENERGY SAVINGS: Social scientists aim to quantify exactly how much behavior change--such as swapping out inefficient light bulbs--can be expected as California aims to continue curbing energy use.
Image: © iStockphoto.com / Pavlo Maydikov
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Roughly 44 percent of Californians smoked tobacco in 1965. By 2010, 9.3 percent did—a shift that might have seemed impossible before it happened. Understanding exactly how such a social transformation occurred in the past may prove key to understanding how individuals might alter their behavior to help combat climate change in the future.
By studying past instances of social transformation, scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) hope to predict future change in response to global warming as part of California’s Carbon Challenge—a study commissioned by the California Energy Commission to help the state cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels. LBNL energy technology scientist Jeffery Greenblatt and his colleagues are analyzing technology options as well as data records from 10 historical behavior changes—smoking cessation, seat belt use, vegetarianism, drunk driving, recycling and yoga, among others.
For starters, Greenblatt is examining the full mix of technical advances in both the supply and demand of energy that could possibly help meet the target, including more efficient electric motors, better insulation, intelligent controls for energy, as well as fluorescent and LED lighting. But even all of these technological advances may not get California to its mid-century mandate alone.
Individual choices could close the gap, according to historical data. Because smoking cessation data and seat belt—use statistics have around for decades, scientists have a good grasp on so-called adoption rates, or how much behavior change is ultimately possible. Historical data also explains how long it takes for change to stick. For example, tobacco smoking has been in a steady decline since the 1960s with all sorts of factors driving this trend—improved science and epidemiology, education through labeling and advertising campaigns, and greater public awareness of risks—all of which could be applied to behaviors that contribute to climate change. "Watershed events and labeling can play important roles in transforming change. The 1964 Surgeon General report is an example [of a watershed event] and subsequent labeling for cigarettes was a big factor," says energy researcher Max Wei of LBNL, adding that he imagines far more carbon or environmental labeling to inform the public.
By identifying the hurdles, policies and incentives used to, say, dissuade smokers from lighting up, the LBNL team says they can better pinpoint corresponding elements related to persuading individuals to alter their energy use. "We're eliminating the squish from what has often been known as the squishy science," Greenblatt says. In total, the team is looking at 23 different energy behavior areas—from telecommuting and public transit to wasting less food—and projecting these well into the future.
Consider, for example, some of the obstacles in switching to a vegetarian diet, which can save more than three metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year. Changing one's diet can be difficult because it requires new food habits and learning about alternative sources of protein and iron. Cultural barriers such as gender, race, ethnicity, education and where you live are also involved: white men in the Midwest eat considerably more beef than their compatriots on the coasts, and education is inversely proportional to beef and meat consumption. There's also a perceived lack of pleasure associated with going meatless because many carnivores perceive vegetarian diets as boring. In addition, historical data on rates of people adopting a vegetarian diet have risen from 0.9 percent in 1991 to about 3 percent in the U.S. now, suggesting that actions perceived as involving sacrifices of comfort or pleasure are not adopted widely. The LBNL scientists have identified several energy-saving behaviors that share the obstacles of forgoing comfort and pleasure. Line-drying clothing, for instance, results in stiff fabric that can be scratchy on the skin; shorter showers can feel cold and rushed; and setting the thermostat higher in summer can make a person feel too warm.
See what we're tweeting about
75 Comments
Add CommentTickets for not turning off your lights? Convert more people to vegetarinism? I mean if we (the U.S.) only produce 8% of the the carbon emissions worldwide, I dont think reinventing your lifestyle is really necessary. Well have fun with your veggies and energy police, I myself like all the wonderful things fossil fuels have made possible (most likely everything you own and consume on a daily basis) and do not intend to stop using them any time soon. The only reason people wear seat belts is because it is against the law, it was not a social movement for the betterment of mankind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Understanding exactly how such a social transformation occurred in the past may prove key to understanding how individuals might alter their behavior to help combat climate change in the future." IS an erroneous statement. Smoking cessation had much more to do with laws making it illegal in many places and taxes to raise the prices to prohibitive levels. Seatbelts are worn because of legal requirements, not social change. Remove laws about smoking and seatbelts from the books and see how much "social" change you really have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFatal flaw in their study. Both smoking and not wearing seatbelts can directly raise the odds of death, while using using old fashioned light bulbs will not. Same could be said for DUI and vegan diets to a point. A better comparison would be the adoption of public transportation or the adoption of new technologies like cell phones over the last 20 years. It's all about the economics in this case not life or death.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother sad article written by a dumb moonbat... this is why I canceled my subscription to SA... pathetic BS that is far from good science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are of course right on every count. Now stand by for the site trolls (trent or Smitty, or both) to start their ranting and name calling. It should be fun to watch. LOL!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe social engineering that is the focus of this article is brainwashing by another name. The media puts out green messages 24/7 -- is there a single hour of radio, television, or news oriented web that is not soaked in it? No. We live in a grotesquely intrusive times, where individual thinking is routed by groupthinking pseudo scientific media proselytizers. And just think of the comparative harm between incandescent lightbulbs which could be thrown out in the garbage, and the ridiculously awful mercury laden compact fluorescent bulbs which have to be disposed of (if you don't accidentally break them first) at hazardous waste facilities (imagine all 350 million of us rushing with them to the hazardous waste facilities from now on). When you have groupthink you have the lowest common denominator thought process, in this case, very low indeed. Almost as low as Michael Mann and his hockey stick global warming proof, or Al Gore and his Inconvenient Lies, or for that matter the mutterings of other media stars such as Michael Moore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving established a correlation between the Keeling curve and the decline of smoking, Sci Am should abandon its authoritarian lust to lobby for social engineering and prohibition, and promote the solution of two pipe environmental problems by advocating agricultural subsidy of transgenic low tar-high nicotine cultivars and increased investment of tobacco taxes in oncology research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry Mr or Mrs PabstyLoudmouth but the US currently produces almost 20% of CO2 emissions while it only represents less than 5% of the total population. Do the math, even if China produces the same amount as a country, it means than the average american generates 5 times mor than the chinese.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all can do something to change.
If the climate only had the courtesy to follow the spectacularly false predictions of the experts, people would comply en mass and instantly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr perhaps if the experts made predictions BEFORE a horribly cold winter, instead of after, i.e. Great Britain, people would comply.
If that darn sea level rise would accelerate as predicted 20 years ago, people would comply.
Dear FW, read the reports by NOAA, 2010 is going to end up being the 3º warmest year in record. It will surely strike you as a strange fact if you are currently in the east under 2 feet of snow but the worls extends beyond the US frontiers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry that 8% was just for U.S. Households, I will be more clear in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou do know the NOAA started reporting that this will be the hottest year on record back in October failing to include the final 3 months of the year but continue to puch the story. And quite frankly people consume a very small portion of land and it does matter if Europe, Asia, and North America are buried in a deep freeze, that is where the majority of all people live!(look at the population of Northern vs. Southern hemispheres) No gives a crap what the climate is going to be like in the sub-sahara now do we?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe attended the funeral a woman I'd known since 2nd grade 4 months ago, she was 52 years old, a strict vegetarian, never smoked, never drank. She always looked sickly growing up,and more than once I tried to get her to consider at least a little animal protein in her diet. Her mother was also a strict vegetarian, and she died at the age of 54. My Grandparents practically lived on beef stew, meatloaf,hamburgers,collard greens,mustard greens, and potatoes. Grandpa lived to the ripe old age of 93, Grandma made it to 98.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe obamacare death squads will be telling us all to become vegetarians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real problem with climate change is that there are too many really stupid people saying too many really stupid things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe live in an age where anyone and everyone can voice their opinion, which in and of itself that wouldn't be a problem if those same people also realized that there are many subjects where their opinion isn't worth squat.
I'm sorry, but if you do not have a degree in environmental sciences or an equivalent degree coupled with years of research in the field than I can't even begin to express how much I don't care what your opinions on climate change are.
Is it only climate change and evolution that causes people who know next to nothing about the subject to fill message boards with complete nonsense or do these same people spend your days bothering those building particle accelerators and nuclear reactors too?
This method is the worst way to actually fix the problem. All it is going to do is put people off and make it seem like the problem is too hard to solve. Even though I fully believe the science behind AGW, the claims of brainwashing and social engineering make some sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPushing a method that cannot work, interfering with peoples lives as a result is the worst thing possible to do at the moment.
Here are some exponential trends that have been given far too little attention and will make more difference than personal action can EVER make.
1. Installed wind power has been increasing by 50-100% every year for quite a few years
2. The same has been happening with solar
If these trends continue for another 15-20 years, 100% of everything will be powered by renewables. Then no matter what you do, your carbon footprint will be zero and all that personal action stuff will have been completely pointless.
Now, don't expect that it will be that easy, but that is by far the best approach, i.e. rapid exponential growth of non-fossil fuel energy, NOT making people feel guilty.
There is around 10,000 times as much solar energy hitting the planet as we currently need, 70* as much wind if you tap the jet stream, and enough nuclear to last around 1 million years if you do it right (breeder reactors, extract uranium from seawater)
So the choices are:
1. Solar, with 100* more energy than we will ever need
2. Wind with much more energy than we will ever need
3. Nuclear similar,
4. A combo of 1-3
5. Guilt, social engineering and fossil fuels (not thanks!)
The current exponential increase of renewables needs to continue and is more important than any carbon footprint.
To do this,
1. Sufficient desert/wind farm areas need to be found and set aside
2. Power lines need to be built
3. Power storage such as flow batteries need to be researched more, scaled and made cheaper.
4. Battery technology and infrastructure for electric cars needs to be researched/funded.
We have an energy problem and a fossil fuel problems, keep the social scientists out of it!
Funny thing Nate. I'd bet most people don't give a rats ass what you think. And if your a global warming fanatic, guess what...your side is losing the argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually Taggert1, I wish all scientists felt the way Nate does. If they weren't concerned with what the non-scientists thought, and through extrapolation, the funding that they provide, then, maybe they would concentrate on science instead of politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see that 14 out of 18 comments are negative as to trying to brainwash the American public as to behavior change to combat supposed global warming. I did study glacialogy at Cornell, so I have some idea what I am talking about. I was taught that we are currently in an inter-glacial period and that global cooling will return, with glaciers thousands of feet thick over much of the globe, down to 40 degrees latitude, just as has happened several times during just the Pleistocene Epoch, to quote Yale University professor Richard F. Flint, and such sources as John Agassiz, Venetz, Torell, etc. In my opinion, if we are experiencing a warming trend it is 95% natural and irreversible by man, that man has little to do with it, and whatever we do in denying ourselves economic security and comfort will be futile to change it. As to persuading people to change life-styles that sounds like the 17th century Puritans. I gave up smoking because it offered me nothing but harm and cost me money. I have lost two wives to smoking and only the threat of death made the second give them up. I put seat belts in my first car, before they were generally available, for safety - after my boyhood hero, Race Driver Rex Mays was killed when he was thrown out of his race car. If economizing on energy will save me money, I'll do it, but not before. Vegan? ridiculous. Those crummy new light bulbs? Not a chance. I'm stocking up on incandescents. (Tried the others and they don't last as long as advertised.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a behavior I've learned this weekend. I am staying in a hotel room with compact flourescent lights overhead. They are so dim for the first minute or two after turning them on, that we have decided to leave them on all the time. So, even though they use 1/3 the energy, they have been actually on for about 10 times more than an incandescent would have been left on. So much for these bulbs saving energy in this case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy local Lowes Hdwr had incandescent bulbs on sale a few months ago. I doubt I will ever run out. The flourescents cost ten times as much or more, give poor light, don't last nearly as long as claimed, and are extremely bad for the environment when they are disposed of. I recommend everyone stock up while the incandescent bulbs are still available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat on Earth is a bikini jacket?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoving on to the article, I'd like to point out a frequent problem with the "all or nothing" proponents: we don't have to become vegetarians in order to reduce our meat consumption, improving our environmental footprint AND our health; we don't have to stop using fossil fuels, we just need to gradually reduce our dependence on them to the point where it won't matter that we're still using them because the environmental consequences will be manageable.
We don't need to go from the present situation today to a new one tomorrow: all we need is to change gradually. That's the point of the article: public education to start changing behaviour.
And to all those who would keep things as they are, well, I sympathize with your wishes, but I can also tell you that it won't happen. It has NEVER happened in recorded human history. Change is a fact (it's even a principle of physics).
Incandescent bulbs are OK if what you need is to heat something. If you need light you can either use the appropiate fluorescent for the size and conditions of the room or you can go directly to LED lighting that not only uses less energy but also last longer and do not pollute with mercury at the point of disposal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, so you don´t give a crap for the sub-sahara or southern hemisphere. OK, but remember that this is our children and granchildren only planet so far. So you can either stsrt looking for another, or you can try to colaborate in keeping this one healthty. By now please dont look for blueberries at your local supermarket, those available in winter are produced in the southern hemisphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you have to do, besides a little patience for the first two minutes or so, is to request the hotel to use tha appropiate lamps for the room.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou would't use a 25w incandescent for a mediun size room or reading, so don't use a 7 or 9w fluorescent for the same room. Go for a 16 or even a 21w fluorescent that is the sustitute for a 100w and will provide more than enought light for 20% of th energy.
As a friend pointed out to me, there is historical proof that we can change habits - as a nation - fast, completely, and with commitment. On December 7th, 1941, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and the United States was catapulted into World War II. Americans willingly cut back their consumption habits to support the war effort. They recycled paper, metals, rubber, clothing, metals, cooking fats and other resources. They accepted rationing of food and fuel, and planted victory gardens to save canned food for the troops. In World War II the nation united on short notice against a clear enemy. Frugality was seen as virtuous and patriotic. We now face the new threat of climate change – not as obvious as war – yet it represents the most significant challenge humanity has ever faced. To address this new challenge, we need to adopt many of the same frugal habits of World War II. It may take a catastrophic resource or weather event to bring the world to collective attention, but hopefully not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Pabsy Loud Mouth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Tickets for not turning off your lights?"
I did not see that as a proposed option in this article. Where does it appear?
"I mean if we (the U.S.) only produce 8% of the the carbon emissions worldwide"
We do not. We produce nearly 20%$.
"The only reason people wear seat belts is because it is against the law, it was not a social movement for the betterment of mankind."
Speak for yourself, Pabsy.
"Propaganda must constantly be repeated & reinforced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2500 UN paid deadbeats claim it's a settled science.
30,000 Professionals signed a Petition saying the IPPC was BS."
Actually is would appear your petition is a fraud:
Really think about it. What professional can a cardiologist offer on climate science?
"Here's a TRUTH the Average Temperature has been dropping the last 10 years."
No. That is lie. The fact is that the past 10 years are the hottest on the instrument record. You have again fallen for another lie.
@Russel Seitz,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Having established a correlation between the Keeling curve and the decline of smoking, Sci Am should abandon its authoritarian lust to lobby for social engineering and prohibition, and promote the solution of two pipe environmental problems by advocating agricultural subsidy of transgenic low tar-high nicotine cultivars and increased investment of tobacco taxes in oncology research."
This message brought to you by Exxon-Mobil.
@Pabsy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You do know the NOAA started reporting that this will be the hottest year on record back in October failing to include the final 3 months of the year but continue to puch the story."
I did not know that, tell me more. Maybe you could help me by going to the appropiate NOAA web site and point it out:
State of the ClimateGlobal Analysis October 2010:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/10
From the article:
"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2010 was 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F) and was the eighth warmest on record. October 2003 is the warmest October on record."
How about November?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/11
" The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for November 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). This was the second warmest such period on record. 2004 was the warmest November on record."
December:
Oh, darn it. Maybe you failed to notice but we are still in December.
Why lie on something so easily debunked?
@Postman,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid it ever occur to that protesting about people calling you names while call people names is the height of hypocrisy? How can you fail to be so self-aware?
trent! knew you couldn't resist, a little slow though. Not calling names here. You are the site troll by majority consensus.Facts is facts! LOL!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistrent, does the LOL! really creep you out? That was my intention, I appreciate you confirming it. By the way, what took you so long to get over to this article? All the politeness without you was somewhat refreshing, but now we can laugh at your comedic relief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops, sorry, forgot- LOL! just for you buddy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Not calling names here."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you are admitting to the hypocrisy.
"You are the site troll by majority consensus."
Ad Populum. Just can not help throwing some irrationality on top of the denial, eh?
"trent, does the LOL! really creep you out? That was my intention, I appreciate you confirming it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow that is trolling by most definitions.
" By the way, what took you so long to get over to this article? "
I have a life and work.
" All the politeness without you was somewhat refreshing, but now we can laugh at your comedic relief."
Shorter Postman: When we agree with each other we are polite to another.
Shocking, I know.
@Postman,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo when are you going to admit that those statistician found a warming trend in that article?
Hmmm. I wonder how you figure out what's "propaganda", what's "brainwashing", and what's just information? And most interesting, what's an appropriate use social engineering? I'm guessing here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming: propaganda, inappropriate
The government is evil: truth, appropriate
Death panels!: truth, appropriate
Europeans love their health care: brainwashing, inappropriate
new energy is inevitabl, many are working on it, i have no doubt that we'll move in to something like hydrogen as energy soon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalso check out my website http://bgwjun.blogspot.com
Despite IPCC Fourth Asessment Report broadly and loudly proclaim that climate change is a reality and nations ned to act ,and so also people ,at their levels,to contain carbon and emissions ,and address the challenge ,through adaptation and mitigation ,or change of life styles,there are many who think that it is all sham being pushed down your throat as part of some kind of powerful lobbying for obvious advantages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough one cannot say for sure that one is more right than the other ,there is no harm in adpting less polluting life styles ,if that suits you ,and is good for you and your neighbour or society in the longer run.But then people are not so wise nor far-thinking or astute enough to adopt social enginnering on their own.They need to be coaxed to do so,and that calls for legalities,laws,governance rules and conditions,personal and national advantages.The cap and trade and CDM are so popular despite all the rhetoric against it is because it is practical.The pollution abatement of yester years was a success because the laws and policies made it possible to be practical on that-that is abatement was not part of social engineering but conscious efort and decision contingent on the practicalities imposed by a set of ground rules and health concerns ,or the awareness campaign and governance conditions that made it possible.
We can call it governance leveraging rather than social engineering since climate change calls for technological and economic changes that a large section of people in the developing world does not want to make nor are in a position to do so ,socio-technically or culturally,as of now.Despite all the talk about the need for the developed world owning up responsibilties for the impacts of climate change that has happened or is happening,they are only too reluctant to own up,and in turn argue that China and India are fast catching up with them in absolute terms.That may be true but China and India cannot agree readily because they have percapita figures in their favour and they have a long way to go to cater to the socioeconomic need of the people in terms of development.
We need governance structures that redefine developemnt and its measures ,and account for ecological costs,and devise rules and incentives that promote ecofriendly and climte friendly policies and behaviuor.
That calls for legal and ethical actions rooted in governance principles,and not merely appeal to social engineering aspects.Eventually as the ball gets rolling social engineering can amplify the action and results
SURESHKUMAR,SCIENTIST
"Despite all the talk about the need for the developed world owning up responsibilties for the impacts of climate change that has happened or is happening,they are only too reluctant to own up,and in turn argue that China and India are fast catching up with them in absolute terms.That may be true but China and India cannot agree readily because they have percapita figures in their favour and they have a long way to go to cater to the socioeconomic need of the people in terms of development."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBroadly speaking I agree with you, but we need to remember that Nature doesn't take into account per capita numbers. A ton of carbon, whether emitted by a billionaire or by 100 slash and burn farmers, has the exact same effect. Resource distribution alone won't get us out of this hole.
Trent- Can you demonstrate (or provide a link to any study) to show that the actions the article suggests (using less energy in the US) will actually do anything beneficial for the climate? NO
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would have been a simpler article to have written- Can Social Science Effect Climate Change- By getting humans to breed less” probably not, but a more productive idea.
It always saddens me to read comments on articles SA writes on climate change. It's because of these articles that I subscribed. Keep up the good work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNature may not differentiate between percapita or absolute figures and that is why it is reacting with climate change and its impacts in hydrogeological and eco-meteorological terms ,as well as in the form of economic busts in the west and resurgence in the east,as part of its cycles.We humans cannot take such actions,and we can play our part based on our cognition of responsibilities,duties and actions.That calls for its own philosophy and psychology.So if one dirties up a place and asks another to own up and clean then reluctance is only natural ,though in terms of effect who fouls is not a matter for consideration. This self-other differentiation is what spoils the discussions for joint effort.Then there are even people who feel that there is no anthropogenic global warming and it is all make-up based on some vested interests and lobbying
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonal change could make one’s life better in this “overvaulted cave”, as Empedocles used to call life on earth, but I do not think that it could stop the destruction of the physical environment of our planet. To my view, the essence of what is going on in nature and in the world has been presented many times by the writer and gnoseologist Ioannis G. Tsatsaris. I cite hereupon a pertinent excerpt from one of his articles, entitled “If the Mind has Eyes”:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“I (...) wish (...) to give a revelation about Nature, mainly addressing aspiring researchers: at this moment, the fluid atmospheric elements of earthly Nature have begun to be disrupted from its material elements. This signifies that they are inductively ceasing to have a relation of intercourse of energetic functionality among them. But what is the outcome of the disruption of their relation affecting the Earth’s atmospheric and material condition? There are many branches that could find out, if they were to conduct more careful research.
(...) significant details are lacking from the gnoseology of the Earth’s experts. On the other hand, they do not fail to speak in arrogant tones of their supposed discoveries. We, however, see the state that earthly Nature has come to with the help of scientists. It is clear to everybody by now that the planet has entered the rule of dissolution. Were it not for the acceleration of the destruction, to which they contributed, human beings would have some margins for extension of the life of Nature which would give them a chance to learn. But all this is not part of the gnoseology of those who have the responsibility (...)”
(Ioannis G. Tsatsaris, “If the Mind has Eyes…”, Foni tis Korinthias, 10.06.2010)
Zoe Pittaki, Economist / Athens.
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Trent- Can you demonstrate (or provide a link to any study) to show that the actions the article suggests (using less energy in the US) will actually do anything beneficial for the climate?"
There goes old Sicko once again insisting that it is only the U.S is being asked to reduce CO2 emissions.
"NO"
Yes: Emission senarios:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf
If we objectively measure what keeps the Earth habitable, that is, our internal nuclear furnace, the flywheel effect of the mass of our atmosphere, and other minor effects, then we'll know the actual magnitude of the total greenhouse effect (97% of G.H. is H20) is a small part of the 40 degree advantage we have over our Moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPut a 'non greenhouse' atmosphere on the Moon, give it a 24 hour day, install an awesome internal nuclear furnace, and you'll come close to the temperature we have on Earth.
Mars has no greenhouse effect with the equivalent of 55,000 ppm of CO2, and we have less than what, 1000 ppm?
I'll be happy when REAL Science kicks back in.
Due to the chance whimsy of the "American Energy System", including our landmass, water surfaces and flora, the USA is a net absorber of CO2. We Sink more CO2 than we liberate.
Let the countries who release too much CO2 adjust their excesses. If all countries absorbed more CO2 than they liberated, increasing CO2 in our Atmosphere would not be even be something we need to "nudge" people about.
Trent-- You posted a link to a 10 year old paper from the UN that has no relation to the question that was asked-- “Can you demonstrate (or provide a link to any study) to show that the actions the article suggests (using less energy in the US) will actually do anything beneficial for the climate?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the information available today shows that CO2 will go up from current levels by somewhere between 40% and over 100% over the next 25 years. If you have studied the issue, you surely realize that the United States is not driving that rise. Hopefully, you have read a bit more and now agree that China is absolutely not going to reduce their emissions levels, but will at best reduce the rate of growth of their CO2 emissions. (you previously posted otherwise, but I hope you read more and are making fewer silly comments)
The overall point is that the most important issue is one of preparation and adaptation. Since currently less developed economies worldwide will seek and obtain more electricity and transportation over the next 25 years-- CO2 levels will rise--- that is unavoidable. It is terribly wasteful to spend 100’s of billions and hurt the US economy by seeking to implement plans that would reduce our CO2 emissions by (say 20% for the sake of discussion) when that reduction will have no measurable impact on the climate. (if worldwide CO2 in 25 years is 625ppm vs. 600ppm will the climate be better for humans…no one says yes to that Trent) The funds would be much better spent on infrastructure improvements that would make the impact of any climate change minimal.
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You posted a link to a 10 year old paper from the UN that has no relation to the question that was asked--"
You did not read it did you? This paper looked at emission scenarios. Why did you not read it?
" Can you demonstrate (or provide a link to any study) to show that the actions the article suggests (using less energy in the US) will actually do anything beneficial for the climate?"
You have been presented with that work. You simply reject it. Like you reject all science that you do not like. You know like pretending that air samples are not taken of C14/c12 and c13/c12 ratios.
Why do you pretend that the U.S does not emit 20% of the world's CO2 emissions? Why do you continually act as though it is the U.S that it only going to reduce emissions? Why?
"All the information available today shows that CO2 will go up from current levels by somewhere between 40% and over 100% over the next 25 years."
False.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.PDF
None of these projections have any such thing happening in the next 25 years. Even in the worst case scenario of the A1F1 of people doing absolutely nothing do the emissions hit even your 40% claim.
By 2035 CO2 levels would be near 500 ppm.
Why lie about something so absolutely verifiable? BTW, that chapter also gives lie to Michaels claim that model predictions do not match observations.
Trent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US may burn 20% of fossil fuels, BUT, due to the vast flora in the US, we ABSORB MORE CO2 than we generate.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981020074617.htm
Why punish ourselves for our success? That's OUR trees absorbing our CO2, plus a share of someone else's...
Plants absorbing CO2 is a negative feedback....More CO2 begets more plants, which sucks up more CO2.
Please also see my post #48 above.
There are some scientific reports based on field studies which reveal that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not mean more absorption by biomass since there are thermodynamic and biologic/genetic limits for carbon fixation by a given biomass,unless of course we genetically engineer the plants to sequester more carbon than its biological nature as per the original genetic makeup.Unfortunately I am not able to provide the link to the report based on the study.But one can always engineer plants for absorbing more carbon which also implies other ecological effects possibly of an adverse nature due to jumping genes in the wild,which can rake up another controversy until settled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuresh10in,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sure the scientific reports are correct. A single plant of a certain size cannot absorb more CO2 than it can absorb ('given biomass' in your post).
1) I'd expect that a single plant with more success due to more of the good things that make plants grow will have a larger number of more successful offspring.
2) A single tree, which doubles its' size will have much more leaf area and more photosynthesis. Of course a bigger tree is "more biomass", by definition.
3) Many commercial and 'clandestine' inside growing operations spend significant money to attain 1,100 ppm CO2 around their plants, fully triple our ambient levels. Huh. Wonder why they do that.....Bigger tomatoes. Of course that wouldn't do anything for mushrooms, which don't photosynthesize.
4) We have today 15% more productivity in our fields, due to the ambient CO2 going from 300 to 400 ppm CO2. When it goes to 800 ppm, we'll have 50% more.
5) We've been lead to believe that Carbon Dioxide, one of the 4 absolute necessities for life, is somehow associated with the devil himself. Let's see, we need the warmth and light of the Sun, Water, and CO2. The 4th, Oxygen, is a result of photosynthesis. Mars and Venus, our 2 closest neighbors, have ~95% pure CO2 atmospheres. It's not too much of a stretch to believe the Earth had the same, until Stromatolites started the conversion to biomass and the foul waste product, oxygen.
6) When we look at the level of CO2 in the geologic record, the present epoch is only the 2nd time that CO2 has been below 1,000 ppm CO2. The duration of the <1,000 ppm is only about 5% of Total Time. The CO2 levels during the most prolific times for all life on Earth have been what we consider to be VERY high.
7) Some believe we should strip CO2 from our atmosphere. More is better, right? Talk about a WMD without equal.....No CO2, no plants, no animals, in very short order.
8) There is no emergency, except in the minds of those who are on the cusp of becoming very rich (Hey Al!) from finally putting a hammer-hold on industry, and sucking out some of that wealth that has made America so successful and admired.
9) You know what 'they' say, Just Follow The Money.
10) The greenhouse has never "run away" as evidenced in our geologic record. There's no snap over point, there's no lit fuse, there's no impending doom.
11) Even all Mayans knew that on Dec 21, 2012, you just flip back to the 'beginning' of their calender, which will repeat again. Why waste time repeating a calender?
There's no impending doom here, either.
Trent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease stop ranting about measuring carbon 14 in the atmosphere since it shows you have no understanding of how the measurements are taken.
The link you posted previously showed absolutely nothing regarding the question asked. I asked can you show any difference to the climate as a result of potential US actions. If the US reduced emissions and worldwide CO2 were at 600ppm vs. 650ppm would it matter? There is certainly no reliable data to support that conclusion and the link you posted certainly did not.
Over 70% of the world’s population is going to be the cause of higher worldwide emissions over the next 25 to 40 years. There is simply no reasonable way to avoid this situation. Currently less developed regions of the earth that are not now using much energy will use more and more energy in that timeframe as they gain access to the technology.
If China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc, etc, etc are increasing their per capita emissions it will certainly offset any US reductions. On the economic side, the US will not wish to destroy it’s economy by implementing programs that would reduce emissions by say 50%, and thereby become less able to compete with countries that are producing thing more cost efficiently.
Finally, on the models you seem to think are reliable, can you reference any model that has reasonably accurately predicted rainfall amounts (which is far more important than temperature) and temperature on a regional basis as it relates to changes in CO2???? In order for humans to kno what actions need to be taken to adapt to a changing environment, the models need to forecast accurately at that level. So far....none are even close.
Wow, it's jerks like these commenters that are the cause of climate change. Who cares if this artice is accurate or not? It's just a perspective and study, nothing proven. It's another approach to solving global warming, and that's all. It's stupid know-it-all ignorant people like you (not the ones supporting this) that are making it such a struggle to reduce carbon emissions in the first place. No wonder the world is filled mostly with greed, corruption and it is so hard to make shifts in thinking. I suggest you people go read the news and travel a little.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@MensaPE,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you read the 1998 article? Here is what it said
"Team members emphasized that while the North American sink may prove important in worldwide management of atmospheric carbon absorption, their results should not be interpreted as justification for claiming that pre-existing carbon sinks in a given region act to offset that region's combustion-produced carbon dioxide."
And:
"They also stressed that the findings are subject to confirmation. "Our sampling density and frequency were inadequate for estimating the ecosystem uptake of carbon dioxide over other areas of the world,..."
So in short you have taken a preliminary finding from 1998 and spun it into firm science. Calling Dr. Confirmation Bias.
Now take a look at some later work:
First-Ever 'State Of The Carbon Cycle Report' Finds Troubling Imbalance 2007
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114111141.htm
FTA:
"The first "State of the Carbon Cycle Report" for North America, released online this week by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, finds the continent's carbon budget increasingly overwhelmed by human-caused emissions. North American sources release nearly 2 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year, mostly as carbon dioxide. Carbon "sinks" such as growing forests may remove up to half this amount, but these current sinks may turn into new sources as climate changes."
OK. So we change the rules, inflict more costs on our beleaguered Industries. So, energy for a steel company here increases 2x, so they bid for a contract to supply steel, and must bid a higher price to keep from going bankrupt and firing all their employees. A Chinese company still has cheap energy, so the same amount of steel is produced in China, some American Steel Workers are laid off, the same amount of fossil fuel not burned here is burned there, and the net savings to the Environment is......?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this the type of Social Change we want to combat Climate Change? Will it effect Climate Change?
@Sisco,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Please stop ranting about measuring carbon 14 in the atmosphere since it shows you have no understanding of how the measurements are taken."
Says the person who insists that air samples of C14/C12 ratios are not taken to spite being shown the station methodology for just that action. I am going to keep on asking you to admit to this. So get use to it. Why can you not admit to this simple error?
"The link you posted previously showed absolutely nothing regarding the question asked. I asked can you show any difference to the climate as a result of potential US actions."
That is because you did not read it and you keep on pretending that it only the U.S making cuts.
"If the US reduced emissions and worldwide CO2 were at 600ppm vs. 650ppm would it matter?"
Still pretending that only the U.S is going to cut emissions. And yes it does matter. "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
"Over 70% of the worlds population is going to be the cause of higher worldwide emissions over the next 25 to 40 years."
I like how you keep on just making statements without a hint of empirical evidence. I am guessing I am in for some more 'blog science' links?
"If China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc, etc, etc are increasing their per capita emissions it will certainly offset any US reduction."
Let us keep on pretending that only the U.S makes cuts, eh? Just going to keep on with that lie.
"On the economic side, the US will not wish to destroy its economy by implementing programs that would reduce emissions by say 50%, and thereby become less able to compete with countries that are producing thing more cost efficiently."
Alarmist.
"Finally, on the models you seem to think are reliable, can you reference any model that has reasonably accurately predicted rainfall amounts (which is far more important than temperature) and temperature on a regional basis as it relates to changes in CO2??"
Oh, I see now we are going to switch from the Models are not reliable lie to what about regional models red herring. Don't you think that it is time that models have made predictions and been substantiated with observations? I have already given you such a list. Your reaction? Denial.
Earth is 40 deg C warmer than our Moon, and both are the same distance from the Sun. Earth is warmed by our internal nuclear furnace, the "Thermal Flywheel" of the mass of our atmosphere, tidal heating, and a tad bit from 'greenhouse gases'. If 'greenhouse gases' were significant, Mars, with an equivalent of 55,000 ppm of CO2, no internal furnace, and 'thin' atmosphere would be substantially warmer than its' distance from the Sun dictates. But, Mars is exactly the correct temperature for a stone cold rock 230 million km from the Sun. On Earth, after all, we have less than 1000 ppm of CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI expect the level of atmospheric dust, and its' influence on Clouds has a greater atmospheric effect on Global Temperature than does CO2.
Venus is heated greatly by its' internal furnace (Venus is the most volcanically active planet in the Solar System), and it has the equivalent of 32,000,000 ppm of CO2 (molecules/m^3) on Earth, and an Albedo of 85%. Venus does not have a "runaway greenhouse", it has always had the same amount of 'greenhouse effect' as now.
Let's put the contribution of greenhouse gases in the proper perspective relative to Earth's 40 degree advantage over our Moon. Changes in greenhouse gases can then be properly measured compared to the total of the greenhouse contribution, and a real temperature number put to "The Human Element".
This should take an objective, competent Scientist about what, one week to accomplish?
The difference between today's issues and yesterday's successful campaigns is the difference between direct and indirect impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are health consequences to smoking and not wearing a seat-belt. And saving oil in the 1970s meant less time lining up at the gas station to buy the gas.
Unfortunately the threat of climate change does not have a direct effect on individual's health or well-being (at least for now). How can we get people to act on something that does not yet affect them?
@pabstyloudmouth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments are noted. The problem is that you're innumerate: we use 8%, but we're only 4% of the world's population, so we're using twice as much as others, at least half of which is wasted, as in gives us none of the benefits you describe as essential to your happiness.
(Sorry I read your nom de net as pigstyloudmouth)
#2: Change does come about in recalcitrant and obstinate populations by regulation -- fines and prison. Since the US has a recalcitrant population, probably due to its population being about the balance between society and the individual, we also have a high percentage in prison. That's a whole other subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#3: It IS a matter of life and death, just not the life and death of the carbon pigs causing global warming, which will kill millions, cause wars, and thus social unrest. You just THINK terrorism is bad now. Our greed pretty much guarantees the Muslim billion will get weirder, and soon bus and train and subway and mall terrorism will grow. Then you can eat your words about life and death. If you live, your kids can bash you, if they don't stick you on the last ice floe...
#4- We can only hope you'll soon stop commenting, also. I'd appreciate it.
#6- Thanks for the excellent example of email drive groupthink. Unintentional self-satire?
#9 - I presume that you carry no insurance, plan no budget, have no education, wear no seatbelt, and are fat and smoke a lot, since none of these have the immediate catastrophe your limited powers of statistical observation require.
#12 You presume NOAA doesn't do year over year. You're wrong. And your obvious Western centrism fails to include some of the most populous nations in the world, Asia India Africa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou talk funny, without reason, context or human perception. Where'd you get that world view, your navel? Ayn Rand?
#13 Haven't figured out that data is not the plural of anecdote, eh?
#20 You get the Darwin Award, for suicidal behavior for the species. Pick it up at Chernobyl.
#40 Excellent rundown of the facts. People who object to governance never have an alternative. Maybe because there is none. I suspect they also shake their fist at thunderclouds when their golf game is interrupted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#42 Congratulations, not on your dumb comment about Proving climate change, but on being the first to mention Overpopulation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#47 You're a MENSA? High IQ, low EQ, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink your smarts will do you any good when the society collapses? Sit down, download "Canticle for Leibowitz" and guess the social position of the smart aleck in post WWIII society.
Many errors of omission and context in your post.
#50 Mensa, you pull that article completely out of context, and actually do exactly what the authors of the study explicitly ask you NOT to do:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Team members emphasized that while the North American sink may prove important in worldwide management of atmospheric carbon absorption, their results should not be interpreted as justification for claiming that pre-existing carbon sinks in a given region act to offset that region's combustion-produced carbon dioxide."
"The researchers also caution that the size and location of the sink is variable. Other studies of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere show that global sinks vary by almost a factor of five from year to year and may also vary in location. The results in this paper may not be representative of periods outside 1988 to 1992, they added."
QED, as they say...
I'll quit now. Thanks to the clear-thinking and diligent researchers who have contributed to refudiating the ill-tempered and misanthropic hyperindividualists who keep repapering the walls of the science room with Karl Rove blast emails.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Ormondovtos,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Thanks to the clear-thinking and diligent researchers who have contributed to refudiating the ill-tempered and misanthropic hyperindividualists who keep repapering the walls of the science room with Karl Rove blast emails."
LoL!
Pabstyloudmouth sees no need for the US to reduce carbon emissions. Latest figure that I could quickly access showed US produced 5.6 times the world average per capita in 1999 (see http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?fid=31&theme=3).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this some God given right that Pabstyloudmouth claims to require the rest of the planet to adjust, but the good old US of A?
Fortunately for the Scientific Community, a Vision and Passion for the Truth of a venue of study is never more than briefly distracted by the ranting of any self-righteous potentiates for world domination. Surely Mao Zedong would have encouraged more such distractions against rational thought, and many of the 70 million must surely have been victims in his effort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the research by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Princeton University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the conclusions of the research are clear and unambiguous. The Team has issued their concerns regarding the applicability of their results over longer time periods. Unquestionably carbon dioxide absorption in an area decreases during times of stress, for instance during drought or freeze. As the Climate Changes, so does the health of biomass and photosynthesis.
“Team members emphasized that while the North American sink may prove important in worldwide management of atmospheric carbon absorption, their results should not be interpreted as justification for claiming that pre-existing carbon sinks in a given region act to offset that region's combustion-produced carbon dioxide.”
In this statement, quite unusual for a Purely Scientific Work, the Team is attempting to reach well beyond their mission of discovery and revelation in their advice.
This is indeed analogous to Mikhail Kalashnikov giving advice that his AK-47 should be used exclusively by proponents of Communism and never by pirates.
The emphatic insistence that Humans are destroying Earth’s Climate through the recycling of sunlight stored in fossil fuels detracts greatly from the Real Science of which society wants to become informed. If the data regarding the relationship between CO2 concentration and Global Temperature, and only therefore Climate, were clear after such massive expenditure of resources as the World continues to spend on this issue, no shrill voices would be required. No condemnation of individuals would be made based on their opinions. The Science could be judged based on its’ merits.
This obfuscation of Science is redolent of those with selfless ambition for THEIR religion.
When we say "Can Social Science Combat Climate Change?", we're really accepting a position of blind faith in a tumultuous and obviously unsettled scientific theory about Humans and Global Temperature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy definition, "Social Science" is a study of how people react and interact, the science being an act of discovery and revelation. When it is implied that "Social Science" could Combat Climate Change, what is really being understated is the actions following the Social Science. In times of violent crisis, we've revved up the population and the troops through actions outside of "Science", through a process typically referred to as "Propaganda". So in truth, this article should be simply titled "Can Propaganda Combat Science?". Once the Science is known, then and only then can we take appropriate actions, as we have as real problems arise.....When food sources are unreliable, when water was found to have many pathogens, when diseases such as turbulosis, malaria, and polio were widespread. There have also been times we have found items we did not know to be dangerous were found to be so, and we fixed those, too. As one example, asbestos. Another DDT. The jury is still out on Carbon Dioxide. People must remember,
Without CO2, there is NO LIFE.
In trying to bring people to some sense in the science of Global Temperature, the following video was made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph88eUd6ZYA
Perhaps it will help a few people clear the fog in their minds, and focus on what the science really is.
I'm continually surprised that S.A. still beats the man-made global warming drum. As more science emerges, it's starting to appear there are other factors involved in climate change......all of them natural. Give it time people.....the earth will cool again and we'll all be wishing for some warming again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would love to get into this debate about
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissocial engineering and global warming but I have no
time. I must go to tell the king the sky is falling.
Rodimus Prime Says: Im continually surprised that S.A. still beats the man-made global warming drum."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTranslation: I am surprised that physical reality is still being reported on.
Rodimus Prime: As more science emerges, it's starting to appear there are other factors involved in climate change......all of them natural.
I like how you think such statements by anonymous entities should be taken at face value.
I find many of the critical comments on Dr Greenblatt's work to be based on an extremely superficial understanding (of this research work done; of the situation we face today; and of the situation looming ahead in just a few years hence).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA good instance of superficial understanding is seen in the remarks of Mr/Ms PabstyLoudmouth, No. 1 at these comments.
It might be useful to remind such Loudmouths that if we do not learn to behave more wisely starting right today, there will be no options open to us but to slide into the abyss lying just ahead.
GSC