NEAR FUTURE: Industrial civilization continues to pump out more and more greenhouse gases with each passing year, which will result in hotter temperatures, an acidified ocean and weirder weather by century's end.
In Brief
The carbon dioxide emitted today will affect the planet for hundreds of thousands of years.
If humanity continues to spew greenhouse gases into the air at the current rate, we will re-create the hot, wet conditions of the Cretaceous era, some 100 million years ago.
At present, humanity is altering the climate 5,000 times faster than the pace of the most rapid natural warming episode in our planet’s past.
Business, government or technology forecasts usually look five or 10 years out, 50 years at most. Among climate scientists, there is some talk of century's end. In reality, carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere today will affect Earth hundreds of thousands of years hence.
How will greenhouse gases change the far future? No one can say for sure exactly how Earth will respond, but climate scientists—using mathematical models built from knowledge of past climate systems, as well as the complex web of processes that impact climate and the laws of physics and chemistry—can make predictions about what Earth will look like.
This article was originally published with the title The Great Climate Experiment.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
44 Comments
Add CommentThanks to Dr. Caldeira for the very interesting and clearly written article. I had a question concerning the statement "Once CO2 and water vapor concentrations rise high enough, the molecules increasingly scatter the incoming sunlight, preventing it from getting any hotter". My impression was that scattering by molecules (Rayleigh scattering) is quite small, compared to scattering by aerosols, and that the contributions of minority species like CO2 and water vapor must be relatively tiny. Even if you doubled or tripled their concentrations, it seems hard to believe that Rayleigh scattering could get so large as to cause significant retroreflectance of sunlight from the atmosphere. If you could help me to understand this potential role of Rayleigh scattering, which is surprising to me, it would be much appreciated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Climate of our planet is determined by a million factors, only a handful of which are understood by Climate 'Scientists'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo amount of modelling, using dubious data derived from proxy research and limited to only a handful of those factors, can touch the surface of the meaning of the word prediction.
The climate is changing all right, but no one, no scientist, has a clue exactly how or why or how far it will go and anyone who claims they do is a charlatan.
"If humanity continues to spew greenhouse gases into the air at the current rate, we will re-create the hot, wet conditions of the Cretaceous era, some 100 million years ago."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have used about half of our carbon stocks to date and put the resulting CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 concentrations have increased by about 100 ppm. Even if we could put the remainder into the atmosphere, I don't see how we could peak anywhere near the levels of the Cretaceous era, some 100 million years ago. Estimates for this period are all over the map (up to 2000ppm). With declining fossil fuel stocks, just how, are we supposed to maintain current rates? Has peak oil somehow replenished itself and is no longer a possibility?
With current best estimates of CO2 residence time of 7 to 10 years... How can we attain such high CO2 levels?
Finally, CO2 levels do not correlate with higher temperatures in the past. First temperatures rise and then the oceans degas and we get a CO2 pulse.
Ken Caldeira also seems to have forgotten that the greenhouse effect (GHE) is a declining logarithmic effect which is very near saturation. Without a major volcanic CO2 incident, it seems Ken is has other ideology in mind. GK
HowardB
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly!
As a scientist I'm dismayed by the complete lack of scientific methodology in climate prediction. There are so many variable that are unknown Even the weight given to known variables is arbitrary.
The climate in 50 years?....we don't have a clue.
That's right, Peak Oil is a specter greater than Climate change, and IS imminent:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/the-cost-of-new-oil-supply/468
THE 2014-2015 TIPPING POINT:
"...Unconventional oil is currently just 3 percent of global supply. The IEA projects that it will make up 6.5 percent of supply by 2020, and 10 percent by 2035. As it gradually replaces cheap oil conventional oil, its real production costs will continue to push oil prices up. Eventually, those costs will cross with the pain tolerance limit of consumers.
Skrebowski sees rising costs outrunning the ability of economies to adapt to higher oil prices by 2014, producing an "economically determined peak" in oil production. After that point, prices will remain economically destructive, and render sustained economic growth impossible. At the same time, it will make new oil production harder to finance.
This matches well with numerous analyses of oil supply that project a major tipping point around 2014 – 2015. At that point, as I have reminded readers repeatedly, we will likely begin down the back of Hubbert's Curve and see net losses in global oil supply every year.
"Unless and until adaptive responses are large and fast enough to constrain the upward trend of oil prices, the primary adaptive response will be periodic economic crashes of a magnitude that depresses oil consumption and oil prices," Skrebowski concludes. "These have the effect of shifting consumption from incumbent consumers - the advanced economies - to the new consumers in the developing economies."..."
So fact is, climate change is irrelevant. We need to transition to a Nuclear Energy economy ASAP. It won't be instant so we need to get at it, NOW. Happy coincidence - ZERO EMISSIONS - ZERO CO2. Climate change correction a welcome freebie.
We need to push all the tech to limit, Molten Salt Reactors: LFTR, the DMSR, LCFR - Liquid Metal high burn: IFR, PRISM, Traveling wave, BREST, India's FBR - Heavy Water: CANDU EC6, India's PHWR - Pebble Bed, Accelerator Driven, Small Modular reactors, the Slowpoke III, Barge built and submersible reactors, Ship reactors. With emphasis on Factory construction and Assembly line production.
And major R&D on Fast-Trak fusion: IEC Polywell, Focus Fusion, Colliding Beam, Muon-catalyzed and Fission-Fusion hybrids.
Problem solved. Next.
Think Venus. We may have to terraform Mars, move there then terraform Earth and Venus at the same time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKim Stanley Robinson in his book 2312 proposes building a 100km dia sun shield at a sun venuslagrange point. Freezing the carbon dioxide and covering it with foamed rock.
Wouldn't it be easier to just start building nukes now. Be all over in 10 to 15 years, zero unemployment and a 40% rate of return on the investment to the nation as a whole.
"YOU - ain't seen NOTHING yet"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOil isn't that big a deal in the scheme of things...it's coal. We haven't even scratched the surface of potential coal production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe peak oil...I've been a geologiost in the oil and gas industry for 36 years. it's amazing how folks know all know this info on 'peal oil' when most of us in the industry don't. Too many gullible peal oil groupies.
So, we have a pistol with one bullet and we stupidly or suicidal, like to play Russian Roulette?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe don't have enough scientific evidence that tells us when are we going to put that bullet in our head, therefore we can continue with our suicidal game.
We are playing with the future of our sons and grandsons. Manufacturing garbage because capitalism says so, until we brake the delicate equilibrium with our planet.
Better let those who think that nothing is going to happen to jump out of a cliff and see if they die or not.
Graphs of 26 Oil Producing countries that have achieved Peak Oil, in spite of a huge increase in the price of Oil, huge advances in drilling methods and processing, in spite of exploitation of the most extreme environments for Oil, in spite of endless rhetoric of politicians "to end our dependence on foreign oil":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisboryanabooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/6-countries-past-peak_bb.jpg
Rapidly rising demand in the Developing World, in spite of the Global Recession:
www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/24TPES.pdf
The alarming drop in Oil exports from the World's 5 top exporters of Oil:
i.bnet.com/blogs/top_5_exports_1990-2030_foucher.png
Even if we can maintain supply at an economically sustainable cost, effectively we will get an economic peak due to rising demand in the Developing World. You really think they will be content to live without heat, air conditioning, heavy industry, electronics, lighting on demand, easily accessible transportation, plentiful food, shelter and potable water? What arrogance some Westerners have. Developing nations use energy more sparingly, have much more fuel efficient vehicles that travel less miles for more product, they will be able to outbid us for dwindling Oil.
If you really want to know what the world mainstream science is saying about climate change and the possible future, go to any library and ask the librarian for leading reputable, juried scientific journals dealing with climate change...ask for ones from the 1970s as well which deal with climate change....go to several libraries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWarning: Some lesser scientific journals have recently been bought by special interest groups...the leading ones have not yet (that I know of).
Although lots is written in scientific language, you will still strongly get the gist of what is going on and has been going on with with climate change since the 1970s. It's a pretty consistent.
If you really want to know what the world mainstream science is saying about climate change and the possible future, go to any library and ask the librarian for leading reputable, juried scientific journals dealing with climate change...ask for ones from the 1970s as well which deal with climate change....go to several libraries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWarning: Some lesser scientific journals have recently been bought by special interest groups...the leading ones have not yet (that I know of).
Although lots is written in scientific language, you will still strongly get the gist of what is going on and has been going on with with climate change since the 1970s. It's a pretty consistent.
You must have an advanced degree in Wrong Studies. Do you work for Jim DeMint?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething being beyond your mental grasp doesn't make it wrong.
PS: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-kochfunded-climate-change-skeptic-reverses-course-20120729,0,7372823.story
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not a climate scientist, but do think the driving force behind climate change is indisputable. This is the imbalance between incoming solar radiation and what is reflected or re-radiated back into space. This is just standard theory of radiation transfer, probably supplemented these days by satellite measurements. Just how that driving force affects the climate undoubtedly is a much more complex thing, everybody agrees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm surprised that the Scientific American seems to have so many subscribers who have a head in the sand, denialist view of all this, seemingly reflecting Republican Party orthodoxy.
Are you saying that ALL articles in "leading" journals MUST BE "true", and that ALL articles in "lesser" journals MUST BE "false" ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat criteria are you using when YOU decide whether a journal is "leading" or "lesser" ?
Do they include "I agree with what they are saying" or not ?
From the article (emphasis added by me) :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... atmospheric CO2 concentrations WILL remain well above ... 280 [ppm] for MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS of years. As a result, the ebb and flow of ice ages WILL cease, and humanity's greenhouse gas emissions WILL keep the planet locked in a hothouse."
1) The use of the work "will" for projections "MANY tens of thousands of years" into the future is (extremely !) unscientific.
A single large asteroid/comet impact will PROBABLY change your predictions.
2) The ice ages started following tectonic changes which modified ocean currents, especially the rise of the Central America land bridge. Saying that they will simply "cease", for WHATEVER reason, is a BIG assumption.
The last (Eemian) inter-glacial was MORE THAN 2 degrees Celcius warmer than the current (Holocene) one for several thousand years, and that didn't prevent the last glacial period from happening.
Temperature is NOT the only factor.
How many people, EXACTLY, deny that the Sun is the main "driving force" of the climate system ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main questions are over the various feedback mechanisms, not all of which are known, and their impacts on the intrinsically variable climate. Note that the proportions for each mechanism are probably different depending on the timescales being discussed, which is one of the (many) reasons that climate is such a "complex thing".
It does not help when "deep greens" talk about human beings being capable of either "stopping" or "controlling" climate change. They cannot, not now and not in the foreseeable future.
- - - - -
Part of my individual position (as opposed to the "denialist" hive mind) is:
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER FACTORS (which is most defintely NOT the case outside of a laboratory) a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would result in a 1.0 to 1.2 degrees Celcius (about 2°F) increase in global temperatures
3) The climate always has changed, the climate always will change.
Many people would label me a "climate change denier" as a result.
What, EXACTLY, am I "denying" ?
Scientist in which field? Obviously not climatology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour reports must make interesting reading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@HowardB, we can debate the merit's of the existing data in support of climate change, but your assertion that it is impossible to know is a flat out denial of the merits of the scientific method. It isn't any more or less complicated than any of the other thousands of other branches of modern science. It is absurd to single out climate science and pretend it is special.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Climate of our planet is determined by a million factors"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease cite your source.
There are a number of little known breakthroughs involving renewable that can make a huge difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, see Moving Beyond Oil and Cheap Green on the Aesop Institute website.
Several are Black Swans - highly improbable innovations with enormous implications.
A strong solar storm has a 12.5% probability of hitting us by 2050. That could knock out at least half of the planet's power grids for months.
New technology can protect the vulnerable, three story high, transformers and prevent a potential nightmare, as nuclear plants without grid power for two weeks can become meltdown candidates.
Installing it fast enough to matter could require a massive program, large enough to restore the economy.
And decentralizing energy would be wise. 50 million more solar roofs, increasingly cost-competitive, would be a good place to begin.
The Earth has sustained a half dozen major climate change cycles during the past 450 million years. The temperature extremes are from 10C to 25C. The current average temperature of about 16C has increased from 12C during the past 10,000 years and is on its way to 25C. During this time there have been of order 25 warm or cool cycles probably driven by solar effects. We may be in one such warm cycle now. The influence of increasing CO2 concentration could be minimal. The hypothesis of warming due to increased CO2 concentration is hardly robust and certainly there has no prediction and confirmation based on a robust hypothesis. So, fair to say there is no basis to make scientific predictions based on CO2; anthropogenic global warming is not established science. The author is off base to suggest otherwise. However, in time the Earth will get warmer even if we stop using fossil fuel. The land of the US will become a desert and Canada will be much more habitable. However, by that time thermonuclear energy will be available and we will be able to create climate in dombed cities. Life will be different, but humans will survive. Humans will live on Mars as well. The author is involved in geoengineering and perhaps geoengineering will save the day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs it is said: Last will be first. The largest concern is of tons of methane get released under the arctic. Then we will get busted as maxima of negentropy is reached within open space. Technically speaking, as bioengineering buggers claim fail within the domain of imagination, although possible, factors running from various aspects of life will determine the outcome, the division of the planet on hell and heaven as always have been, just another period of humanity. Majority will not survive due lack of resources. Those that do will have a new mind set for understanding universe. The uncertainty of time persists albeit changes will come faster than expected.If we didn't learn to maintain carbon on both sides of equation in relatively oscillating balance, the outcome would be likely massive extinction of current species and likely evolving films full of capability to generate novel eco systems. At last, the power of survival speaks up. Humans will never inhabit Mars nor any other planet- that is a speculation and a total bug.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would first point out that none of the unproven and un-validated climate models predicted that there would be no significant warming over the last 10 to 15 years. In order to be accurate, a computer model must accurately model the climate system (which it cannot do because we don't properly understand it) must have accurate input data (which we don't have) and it must have demonstrated its ability to predict future climate. Which they have clearly failed to do. No confidence whatsoever should be put in climate models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, there is ample evidence that the world temperature follows various cycles and that, right now, we are on the crest of a wave. People who have studied sunspot related effects predict that we have now entered a cooling phase. History tells us that warming is good and cooling is bad. What we should be doing is making sure that we can cope with natural climate change and, in particular, cooling.
If you burn coal - the climate changes; if you burn Nuclear fuel - there is a danger of Nuclear pollution; BUT If We use Solar Power I think there is no danger at all...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy first reaction was: Don't worry; If CO2 is to be blamed for the hot climate of the Cretaceous era, relax, because the high values of CO2 in the past had nothing to do with human activity, so strike through the A of AGW ! On second thought I changed my opinon, because the equilibrium that appears to exist between high values of CO2 and high temperatures in the atmosphere, will also lead to a hotter climate if the increase in CO2 results from man-made CO2, as occurs nowadays, instead of natural causes, as in the past. However, how much the climate heats up should remain proportional to the level of CO2 (400 ppm now against 2000, according to some comments, in the past) or to its logarithm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Sun is causing this, why else is our not so benevolent government so invested in getting to Mars, cause every-one knows that the solar system, Galaxy, and universe are doomed according to science, as we are running out of the most abundant element in said Universe that life, and the Universe cannot exist with out, AND there is very little mere mortals can do about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an article? Did it say anything that isn't obvious to any itelligent person?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The carbon dioxide emitted today will affect the planet for hundreds of thousands of years."
A clerly meaningless statement. Everything in the past will affect everything in the future.
A lot of at least beginning comments here seem to ignore positive feedback effects. Higher temperatures mean more fires, more CO2, more soot on ice fields, more breakdown of methane deposits, less reflectivity due to spreading seas, all leading to still higher temperatures. Who can predict where it ends, and when? Yes, we should be looking at the possibility of starting colony on Mars, where there'd be little oxygen to spare for burning anything.
The question raised is how far will climate change go. Once again the deniers all jump in with a dozen different reasons why there is no reason to think anything has changed or will change, so they can't possibly answer the question. They can only comment to confuse the question. What's the point? If you all really think it is just a lot of nonsense, why don't you just move on and find a subject you do have some real knowledge about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who accept AGW as a major player in the Earth's future climate can't really answer the question either because mankind has the ability to affect the climate so, it's all really a matter of what those who can do something about it actually do.
The most ridiculous argument comes from those who think burning oil is the only factor in determining the final outcome.
As Daniel35 correctly pointed out, feedback loops are the real factors that need to be discussed. Methane release will be a major player and very soon.
G Karst makes the assumption that CO2 release is already at the halfway point but the CO2 level is not nearly half of what it was in the warmest years of past climate, so therefore there is not enough CO2 in fossil fuel to cause that kind of change. He then goes on to state that climate warms up first before the oceans degas and just contradicts himself. I assume he means to insinuate that something else caused the warming in the past. His convictions are just as unfounded as the AGW believers that think CO2 is the only factor.
The fact is that a huge amount of CO2 is tied up in plant matter and released by man when forests are cut down and they rot and also when plant matter is fed to livestock. Furthermore there have been periods in time when volcanic gasses added to the CO2 picture more then they do today (which is miniscule BTW) but still those changes took thousands of years.
To the real scientists who have studied past climate change, the answer to the main question of the article is not the issue, but rather how can it be slowed down or even reversed.
Doing nothing is a sure recipe for disaster. Believing it is not happening at all is also a recipe for disaster.
The current problem of 'climate change' is due to GLOBAL WARMING which in turn is the result of our past discovery of 'STEAM POWER' and 'FOSSIL FUELS' at the advent of INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. At that time, the policy makers, scientists and engineers did not judge the fate and impact of that industrial revolution. UNIPCC2007 report has predicted dark future of the earth. The EARTH POLES will become more warmer which will result into rise in sea water level. In tropical regions desertification and drought will increase while in temperate regions more rainfall is expected. Thus, global cropping pattern will change and will result into fall in agriculture production. The main GHG responsible for climate change is carbon dioxide. The life time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more than 100 years. The high concentration of these gases trap more infra-red radiation and remitted back to earth's surface resulting in global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are few suggestions, which needs urgent attention: 1. There should be a WORLD COMMISSION FOR SCIENCE AND DEVELOPMENT for promoting the researches and developmental works which have zero to low carbon emission.
2. There should a compulsory constitutional amendment to make ENVIRONMENTAL WAY OF LIFESTYLE a compulsory duty.
3. Our investment in R & D should be more on the forthcoming areas like solar, tidal, wind and water energies apart from on lowering carbon emission.
4. There should be a big role for N.G.Os. in implementing environment friendly plans & projects of government.
5. There should be effective AWARENESS programmes, at grass root level, to save the environment from degradation.
6. Carbon caping should not be the one way legislation programme against developing nations. This should be the primary duty of DEVELOPED nations to provide financial help and green technology transfer to help DEVELOPING nations in phasing-out the fossil fuels.
Such steps are big BUT will be helpful in controlling GREEN HOUSE EFFECT and CLIMATE CHANGE.
Hi y’all!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article says EXACTY (with somewhat less flair and panache) what I have been saying for months. The worst case resulting from these feedback loops is not Venus (which gets twice the sunlight as we do, and has an 95% CO2 atmosphere) but the “warm” paleoclimatic mode, the World Tropic of the Dinos.
(as I said on April 23)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-ocean-releasing-significant-amounts-of-methane#comment-47
(as I said on May 22)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-than-150000-methane-seeps-appear-as-arctic-ice-retreats#comment-01
“If we look at world temperatures across the ages, we notice it was almost always at either 12 to 15, or else at 24 to 28 degrees Celsius. The Cool eras are Today / Quaternary, Ordovician, Silurian and Permian and the Warm are Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous”.
The bad side is that sea level rises 80 to 200 m at these times.
And as I also said many times before, considering oil is finite as even the most adamant Climate Skeptic will admit, why the hell not do the transition to post-oil logistics while we have a modicum of control, and not midst a major world crisis? The fact is the rich and powerful are no smarter than the average person, and they have no idea of what they are doing.
We are not entirely sure of anything – in that, the denialists are right – so playing it safe is the only rational choice. Billions are spent on (basically precautionary) military gear, while honest families go homeless.
Solutions? Thorium nuclear. Ultradeep geothermal. Joint Industry Projects to refine Solar and Wind tech. And I think almost everyone has already mentioned cutting oil subsidies – subsidies being the most essentially anti-free-market thing there could possibly be.
We must campaign and vote for post-oil logistics being implemented right now - and to start a worldwide effort to curb overpopulation in a Framework Convention for instance, or we risk leaving a world for our kids I am frankly ashamed of (35% emissions are land-use-based, so just having clean power, without tackling overpopulation, is not enough). Anyone here has kids?
BTW, arctic methane just might be passable of safe remediation, in the most densely packed regions such as off Siberian deltas, by burial in sand mixed with liquid air (clathdrate stability = pressure x temp). All it would take is a pump barge with liquid air plant, a dozen bulkers (ships), and a scout raft to map up ahead.
"How Far Can Climate Change Go?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnywere from Zero Kelvin (thereabouts) to a few million Kelvin although the latter is not supposed to happen for a few billion years.
"If humanity continues to spew greenhouse gases into the air at the current rate..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, there you go. Recalculate the entire theory because this part of it is simply unsustainable. At $4 a gallon, I can assure you that *I* am not spewing greenhouse gases at my former rates!
We do know a lot of things with certainty. We understand that before an oxidizing atmosphere (with Oxygen) we had a reductive one (with CO2). This CO2 was used by organisms to form their bodies and that is why is it said to be locked. This process took a long, long time. What we are doing is simply pumping all this Carbon back and reverting a process (called the Carbob cycle) that took eons too quickly. We do not need a theory that allows me to know whether hair is going to grow on the tip of my index finger to understand and foresee the consequences of what we are doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's set the record straight. Which is comes to climate change there is overwhelming empirical evidence that we are on a runaway train of our own making speeding towards 'deadman's curve'. The engineer is asleep at the switch while the passengers stare blankly out the windows admiring the view. The Age of Carbon is in now in full swing marking the boundary layer of a new mass extinction event - ours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMankind's only hope is to move beyond carbon by embracing solid state energy storage on a massive scale. It will be the single greatest advance in energy technology since whale oil - our ability to store massive amounts of electrical energy the same way we store data. Try to imagine a computer without a hard drive let alone the Internet. That's the current state of our electrical grid which has zero energy storage capacity. The same is true of transportation where we rely on fossil fuels solely because of their energy storage capacity and relative ease of use and distribution. Chemical battery technology is the limiting factor which it comes to substituting electrical energy storage for petroleum. Evolving from chemical to solid state energy storage changes everything.
With over 30 trillion dollars worth of fossil fuels still in the ground solving this engineering challenge is mankind's best hope for the future. Look for major breakthroughs in coming years that will transform our energy landscape and completely reframe the debate. Ultimately it will be economics and consumer behaviour that will wean us off fossil fuels, hopefully within a generation which is about all the time we have left.
How many vacuum tubes does it take to change a light bulb? The answer is none. The same will be true of the internal combustion engine and all forms of carbon power generation sooner than you think.
Let's set the record straight. Which is comes to climate change there is overwhelming empirical evidence that we are on a runaway train of our own making speeding towards 'deadman's curve'. The engineer is asleep at the switch while the passengers stare blankly out the windows admiring the view. The Age of Carbon is in now in full swing marking the boundary layer of a new mass extinction event - ours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMankind's only hope is to move beyond carbon by embracing solid state energy storage on a massive scale. It will be the single greatest advance in energy technology since whale oil - our ability to store massive amounts of electrical energy the same way we store data. Try to imagine a computer without a hard drive let alone the Internet. That's the current state of our electrical grid which has zero energy storage capacity. The same is true of transportation where we rely on fossil fuels solely because of their energy storage capacity and relative ease of use and distribution. Chemical battery technology is the limiting factor which it comes to substituting electrical energy storage for petroleum. Evolving from chemical to solid state energy storage changes everything.
With over 30 trillion dollars worth of fossil fuels still in the ground solving this engineering challenge is mankind's best hope for the future. Look for major breakthroughs in coming years that will transform our energy landscape and completely reframe the debate. Ultimately it will be economics and consumer behaviour that will wean us off fossil fuels, hopefully within a generation which is about all the time we have left.
How many vacuum tubes does it take to change a light bulb? The answer is none. The same will be true of the internal combustion engine and all forms of carbon power generation sooner than you think.
The Carbon Trap is an ecopolitical thriller that addresses mankind's attempt to control CO2 going awry and threatening all life on earth. Already labs are working on genetically modified lifeforms to more readily absorb CO2 and create fuels or sequester the carbon. Imagine phytoplankton species designed to outcompete natural species that raise the export production from it's current one percent to two. That would cause a net global CO2 reduction. How about ten percent of carbon detritus not being recycled? It wouldn't be long before agriculture would suffer greatly, and with it, humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEarth used to have CO2 levels as high as 7,000 ppmv about 540 million years ago. Since then nature has been sequestering it into carbonates and other non-accessible forms.
There's much to worry about. Plants have had to adapt to declining minerals in the soils by going deeper, and developing vascular systems. Eventually though, the available soil minerals will not support plant life as we know it. Here's the Catch 22. To reduce CO2, mankind is accelerating the movement of terrestrial minerals and carbon to the oceans by growing biofuel feedstock and using all the available biomass.
The biggest global warming gas (GWG) is water vapor and we are dramatically increasing it by irrigating nearly 40 million acres to grow biofuel feedstock, which barely gives us a net energy gain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for peak oil, mankind has larger known reserves now than 20 years ago. But in the future that may be moot in the near future because the US Navy has figured out how to make jet fuel from sea water. www.theengineer.co.uk/1014064.article?cmpid=TE01#comments.
The current problem of ‘climate change’ is due to GLOBAL WARMING which in turn is the result of our past discovery of ‘STEAM POWER’ and ‘FOSSIL FUELS’ at the advent of INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. At that time, the policy makers, scientists and engineers did not judge the fate and impact of that industrial revolution. UNIPCC2007 report has predicted dark future of the earth. The EARTH POLES will become more warmer which will result into rise in sea water level. In tropical regions desertification and drought will increase while in temperate regions more rainfall is expected. Thus, global cropping pattern will change and will result into fall in agriculture production. Dramatic collapse of Arctic sea ice, in recent years, is the sign of disaster to come much sooner due to this process, area of open water will increase and will result into Ocean Warming and Acidification. The main GHG responsible for climate change is carbon dioxide. The life time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more than 100 years. The high concentration of these gases trap more infra-red radiation and remitted back to earth’s surface resulting in global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Climate of our planet is determined by a million factors, only a handful of which are understood by Climate 'Scientists'."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd absolutely none of which are understood by conservative commenters. Which is why they should stfu and go back to their Pabst and Fox News.
I call bullshit. You're no scientist. What field did you study, and what research have you done?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What, EXACTLY, am I "denying" ?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are denying the collected experience and expertise of the community of climatologists, by insisting that your simplistic view is as valid as their extensive research.
Your argument is analogous to the creationist arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old because his competing "theory" of the Grand Canyon being carved by receding floodwaters of the "Noah" variety. That creationist dismisses geological science in the same way.