Re: [Phys-L] "Climate science is not settled"

[Richard Tarara <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

Having just used the 2000 video from NOVA/FRONTLINE, "What's Up with the 
Weather" as I have for the past 14 years in my energy class, let me 
offer the final comments of three of the participants that I think 
relate to this thread.

Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research offers 
that he believes that 50 years from now (now being 2000) we should have 
a pretty good handle on where the Climate Change will fall between the 
'Good for you' and 'End of the World' model predictions (both of which 
have non-zero probabilities).  However, he is not sure we will know this 
in 20 years.  It is now 14 years on, and I think his prediction is 
pretty much correct.

Marty Hoffert of New York University (my favorite in the video) offers 
that while we are in the FOSSIL ERA and while such fuels might last 
another 200 or more years, Climate Change is forcing us to find 
alternatives for such in the 21st Century rather than having to deal 
with this in the 22nd or even 23rd Centuries.  At the same time he has 
offered the statistics that the world (2000) was consuming energy at the 
rate of 10 Terrawatts but the pressures from the developing world 
(China, India, Brazil) could push the demand to 30-40 Terrawatts by the 
mid to late 21st Century.  A major portion of the video deals with the 
alternatives and reasonably (I think) shows that it is very difficult to 
see how the renewables, even in combination and with the addition of 
nuclear, could be capable of handling that kind of demand.  So while we 
would actually like to reduce the fossil contribution to less than 10 
TW, how can we possibly produce 30 or more TW from carbon free sources.

Henry Jacoby or MIT finally offers that this is a very difficult problem 
(curbing Climate Change while maintaining and expanding our Industrial, 
Technological societies for a world population of 9 billion or so) and 
he is not sure we can find a solution, but feels (obviously) that it is 
important that we try.

Dr. Gerald Miller in the more recent video SWITCH (recommended) offers 
that he believes that we will add several degrees to the climate because 
of fossil fuel use and will learn to deal with it because there is 
really no alternative in the developing world. They can't afford 
alternate technologies (even if available) and the developed world can't 
afford to subsidize them--his opinion.

All of this speaks to the situation that the legitimate uncertainties 
about the severity of _consequences_ of carbon induced climate change 
coupled with the obvious connection between energy consumption and 
economic well-being (with all the ramifications there..both positive and 
negative) makes political decision making on the issue very difficult.  
The Jacoby and Miller statements are quite pessimistic but probably 
fairly realistic.

rwt



On 10/4/2014 6:41 AM, Bill Norwood wrote:
> Thanks, John, for your work in explaining what should have been more
> obvious to more of us.
> Bill Norwood
> On Oct 4, 2014 1:13 AM, "John Denker" <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:

--
Richard Tarara
Professor Emeritus
Saint Mary's College

free Physics educational software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
NEW: Energy management simulators now available.