“Here’s Your Sign”
Climate
Clodpolls:
-
Climate Activists,
- Cities, Counties, and States with
Climate Action Plans,
- and Climate Catastrophists
Grammatical notes: Apostrophes are not allowed in a URL, so the ‘ in here’s is omitted in the link. Also, it was impossible to resist the alliteration of "climate clodpolls"!
Executive Summary
for people unable to read anything with more than the 280 characters in a Tweet:
The medium-term solution to global
warming/climate change isn’t a futile attempt to drastically lower CO2
emissions and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The solution for the next few decades is
global cooling, which is scalable, reversible, and relatively cheap.
Climate Activists
I
live in San Diego CA, and went for a walk along the waterfront. Climate activists were carrying signs.
“There
is no planet B”
“You’ll die of old age.
I’ll
die of climate change.”
“The climate is
changing. Why aren’t we?”
Cities, Counties, and States with
Climate Action Plans
The City and
County of San Diego, like many cities, counties, and states, have “Climate
Action Plans” where the bureaucrats and politicians say they will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions through encouraging commuting by bicycle, rapid
(actually, not-so-rapid) transit, banning natural gas appliances, etc. The
general attitude seems to be that San Diego exists in a self-contained dome and
that, if San Diego drastically reduces greenhouse gas emissions, climate change
in San Diego will come to an abrupt halt.
Climate Catastrophists
Here’s a link to
an article in The Guardian about the so-called
inevitable climate catastrophe:
“Soon the world
will be unrecognisable’: is it still possible to prevent total climate
meltdown?” The Guardian, July 30, 2022
From the article: discussing Bill McGuire’s latest book, Hothouse Earth
“The crucial
point, he argues, is that there is now no chance of us avoiding a perilous,
all-pervasive climate breakdown. We have passed the point of no return and can
expect a future in which lethal heatwaves and temperatures in excess of 50°C
(120°F) are common in the tropics; where summers at temperate latitudes will
invariably be baking hot, and where our oceans are destined to become warm and
acidic. ‘A child born in 2020 will face a far more hostile world that its
grandparents did,’ McGuire insists.”
“Here’s
Your Sign”
Climate
Clodpolls:
-
Climate Activists,
- Cities, Counties, and States with Climate Action Plans,
- and Climate Catastrophists
For the background behind the SIGN, go to
https://heresyoursignbackground.blogspot.com/2022/09/heres-your-sign-background.html
The Reality
In the real world:
Reality #1.
In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, anything that a single city,
county, state, or country does is insignificant. Let’s take a few examples.
The U.S. is
reported to be responsible for 13%-15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s take 14%.
For the example of
a county, let’s take San Diego County, whose population of somewhat over three
million is about 1% of the U.S. population, or about 0.04% of the world’s
population of about 8 billion. Let’s
assume San Diego County residents emit greenhouse gases at about the same rate
as the rest of the U.S. (probably slightly less because of the relatively mild
climate, but let’s not quibble). So San
Diego County residents emit about 0.14% (1% of 14%) or about 1/700 of global
greenhouse gas emissions.
California, with
about 39 million people, is about 12% of the U.S. population and about 0.5% of
the world’s population, and probably emits about 1.7% (12% of 14% is 1.68%) or
about 1/60 of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Let’s suppose that
global temperatures are projected at some point in the future to increase by
3.000°C or 5.400°F (the extra decimal places in the temperatures are needed for
the exercise) if the world keeps going on the same track. Let’s assume the temperature rise is proportional to
greenhouse gas emissions (a reasonable assumption, and probably as good as any
climate model can do). If San Diego County cut its greenhouse gas emissions to
zero (highly unlikely, but we’ll go with that figure for this exercise), the
global temperature would increase, instead of by 5.400°F, by only….drum
roll…….5.392°F; that is, a difference of
0.008°F or 0.004°C.
And for this
0.008°F San Diego proposes to raise energy prices, make drastic changes in
housing patterns, make driving even more unpleasant than it is now, and much
more. San Diego richly deserves its
SIGN.
If California cuts
its greenhouse gas emissions by, say, 90%, global greenhouse gas emissions
would be decreased by about 1.5% (90% of 1.7%).
The global temperature would increase, instead of by 5.4°F, by 5.3°F, a
change of about 0.1°F, well within year-to-year variations and uncertainties in
measurements of global temperatures.
If the U.S. cuts
its greenhouse gas emissions by, say, 75% (unlikely, but possible), the U.S.
would emit about 3.5% of global greenhouse emissions. The cut of 10.5% in greenhouse gas emissions
would lower the projected temperature increase by about 0.6°F from 5.4°F to
about 4.8°F, again well within year-to-year variations and uncertainties in
measurements of global temperatures.
One naturally asks:
What will the rest of the world do? If
every human being cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 75%, the projected
temperature increase would only be about 1.4°F.
It’s argued that cities, counties, states, and the entire U.S., by
setting a good example, will bring the rest of the world to do as we do.
Sure…. What will the rest of the world
do brings us to Reality #2.
Reality #2.
If, say the U.S. and EU drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions, will
global greenhouse gas emissions increase or decrease? Good question. Will China (the largest single greenhouse gas
emitter), Russia, India, Mexico, Brazil, and the countries of the developing
world cut their emissions? Fat
chance. A good general rule is that much
of human progress has been linked to replacing manual or primitive energy
sources by energy from carbon-based fuels.
As the developing world develops, there will naturally be more and more
carbon-based fuels used. Also, if the
first-world countries use less carbon-based fuels and their demand decreases,
the price will naturally decrease making it cheaper for other countries to
increase their use of carbon-based fuels.
I would bet lots of money that, no matter what the U.S. and EU do,
global greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase at about the same
rate. Any takers?
In the first-world
countries that do mandate cutting greenhouse gas emissions, energy costs will
increase – solar, wind, battery storage, etc. are much more expensive than generate-on-demand
carbon-based fuels. The well-to-do can
absorb the increased costs with little problem; the middle and lower classes
will find the increased energy costs onerous.
Oh, well. There’s an old Russian
saying: Alas, the shortages will be
shared by the peasants.
What’s the non-stupid solution to
global warming?
There’s an old
rule, attributed to H. L. Mencken:
"For every complex problem, there's a solution that is simple,
neat, and wrong."
But there’s
another, even more valid rule: “To every
rule there is an exception.”
With those
conflicting rules in mind….
The non-stupid
solution – or at least the interim non-stupid solution – to global warming is
global cooling. A few words later about
why global cooling is best described as an interim solution.
Global cooling
goes by an assortment of names: solar geoengineering,
climate engineering, solar albedo reduction, to name a few. The general idea is to put the Right Amount
of the Right Stuff (RARS) into the atmosphere, or maybe even beyond the
atmosphere, to lower the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. There are lots of possibilities for what’s
the right stuff: an assortment of
chemicals (e.g., sulfates, carbonates), water, “tiny umbrellas” (see the
Postscript discussion of the Nova program
on this subject for the origin of this rather silly term), a 300,000-square-mile
(!!) Fresnel lens in space, and much more. I won’t deal here with about what’s the right
stuff and what’s the right amount, or the right combination of stuff and the
right amounts. It’s a complicated subject, and the only way to find out is to
experiment – carefully (see some discussion later). Deciding on and using the RARS (again, the
Right Amount of the Right Stuff) is doable and it’s relatively cheap,
especially compared with the cost of eliminating energy sources that emit
greenhouse gases.
There are Wikipedia
articles on the subject at a non-technical level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_geoengineering
There’s even a
National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 329 (!!) page report on
the subject; click on “Get This Book” and download the pdf for free as a Guest
(a few comments on what’s in this report later):
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25762/chapter/1
Here’s an
exceptionally clear discussion:
https://www.wired.com/story/think-climate-change-is-messy-wait-until-geoengineering/
A couple of
obvious Questions:
Question 1. Why isn’t global cooling being done right
now?
Question 2. Who’s most likely to do global cooling?
Question 3. What can go wrong?
First,
a quote from the wired.com article reference above, Katharine Ricke (Scripps
Institution of Oceanography):
“I'm having a hard
time seeing how we're not going to do it at this point, actually, because it's
so inexpensive. Already the impacts of climate change are looking to be so
disruptive that I don't see in this world how such a low-expense solution
doesn't get implemented by someone. There's just nothing else in the world that
can cool the planet as quickly. Even if we started rapidly decarbonizing and
taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, it's still a decade timescale for
consequences. Whereas blocking sunlight, the climate response starts right
away.”
Question 1. Why isn’t global cooling being done right
now?
There is enormous
opposition in the U.S. and EU against even tiny-scale trials of global cooling
ideas. Too many feeders at the trough,
and too many people with the mindset of “reducing greenhouse gases is the only
game in town.”
The National
Academies report mentioned above talks about the importance of all the
stakeholders – on the planet – agreeing on a plan for global cooling. The chances of everybody – even just the
stakeholders (a.k.a. special interests) in the U.S. and/or the EU – agreeing on
a plan and singing “Kumbaya” are zero.
There will be (mainly) winners, but at least some losers, from global
cooling, and the losers-to-be will have loud voices and loud microphones. The only way global cooling will occur is for
a few countries, ruled by authoritarian governments and/or in desperate
straits from global warming, to do it on their own in spite of at least public
condemnation from much of the world.
That brings us to Question 2:
Question 2. Who’s most likely to do global cooling?
Not the U.S. or
the EU; that’s for sure. Most first-world
countries have enough money and enough resources to adapt to global
warming: restrictions on water use,
increased use of air conditioning, and so on.
Oops! Using more air conditioning
requires more energy production, which in turn will increase greenhouse gas
emissions, which will further increase global warming.
Who’s the most
likely? I’ll give my guess. What is needed is two countries, one in the
northern hemisphere, and one in the southern hemisphere, both with reasonable
amounts of money and, for example, the capacity to utilize a fleet of airplanes
to spread chemicals in the upper atmosphere in both hemispheres.
The two obvious
choices are India or China, and Australia.
Let’s consider India and Australia.
India is already
being enormously affected by global warming, and it’s been said that some
regions of India will be essentially uninhabitable as global warming
proceeds. Also, India may be considered
as a democratic autocracy, where the leaders rule more-or-less as dictators,
but are elected by popular vote and are supported by their legislative
branch. That is, the government of India
won’t have to contend with taking into account the demands of all the
stakeholders in the country, thereby avoiding paralysis. The government can forge ahead with what is
best for the country – and that’s global cooling.
Australia,
especially the populated areas of eastern Australia, is also already being
enormously affected by global warming, and the future looks even bleaker with
increased flooding and even more heat waves in store. Also, Australia’s population and politics are
reasonably homogeneous compared with, say, the U.S. and the EU. So it should be possible for Australian
leaders to get the population to support global cooling to fend off a
disastrous future from unmitigated global warming.
Question 3. What can go wrong?
Climate and
weather prediction models are notoriously unreliable. So a calculation of the RARS that’s needed to
put in the atmosphere to produce a global cooling of, say 2°F, is likely to be
off by a factor of two or so from what happens in the real world. If countries put in the RARS their
calculations show is needed, they are likely to be far off the mark. In addition, a degree of global cooling
averaged over the planet is very likely to have local effects very different
from the average (in terms of temperatures, rainfall, etc.) However, there are two facts that make this
less of a problem:
a. Stuff that’s
put in the atmosphere doesn’t stay there very long, only a couple of
years. So anything unacceptable that
happens can be quickly brought back to the previous normal.
b. Most important,
the stuff can be put into the atmosphere incrementally. The National Academies report recommends
starting with an amount only 1% of what will result in significant
effects. That’s silly. Do they want to take 50 years to accomplish
anything while the planet continues to bake?
A more reasonable procedure will be to begin by putting in, say, 4% of
the calculated RARS for three years in succession. After three years, increase the amount to 8%,
after another three years to 16%, after another three years to 32%, after
another three years to 64%, and after another three years to 100% (that is,
doubling every three years). That gives
enough time to make sure the unintended consequences are acceptable and that
the climate is behaving according to the models (good luck with that!), and the
amounts can be adjusted to meet what the data say and the RARS can be
determined. The total time required
would be on the order of fifteen years, which would be likely to be an
acceptable timeframe.
The second thing
that can go wrong is that we could stop putting the RARS into the atmosphere –
people have seriously suggested that as a possibility, however idiotic the idea
might be. If that were to happen,
temperatures would rapidly revert to the global warming that would have happened
without global cooling. Ouch! We can hope
that whoever puts the RARS into the atmosphere will have enough sense to keep
going until it’s no longer necessary.
The third thing
that can go wrong is increasing acidification of the oceans. If CO2 continues to be emitted,
the acidity of the oceans will increase.
(For non-chemists, CO2 dissolves in and combines with
water to produce carbonic acid, H2CO3, which releases
some H+ hydrogen ions, which are acidic.) There have been an assortment of proposals to
counteract increasing ocean acidity. No
one knows which, if any, are practicable. It’s a chemistry problem to be
solved.
And there are a
few more places where things can go wrong:
affecting the ozone layer, etc.
That’s partly what incremental experiments are for.
Finally, there’s
what’s sometimes called the moral argument.
If global warming can be stopped by global cooling, it may be said that there’s
no need to cut down on greenhouse emissions, and we can keep belching CO2 into
the atmosphere and using up carbon-based fuels.
What should be done, of course – and this is why global cooling should
be regarded as an interim solution – is to minimize the use of carbon-based
fuels, saving them for future generations, and put lots of research and
development money into alternative energy sources (primarily solar and advanced
nuclear) and into methods of storing solar energy. Whether humans are capable of walking and
chewing gum at the same time is an open question.
The people who say
we shouldn’t do global cooling believe that the overriding priority is to force
humans away from using carbon-based fuels, even at the cost of the deaths of
millions of humans from the global warming along the way – collateral damage in
the drive to reach Net Zero carbon emissions.
In my opinion, this so-called “moral argument” is immoral.
What’s the “Maybe they’re not stupid” thinking/alternative?
1. There is lots of money to be made by
following the path – however misguided and futile it is to follow the path – of
lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
Brokers in carbon credits can make fortunes. There’s been much discussion that Al Gore has
made tens of millions of dollars by being a principal in such companies and
brokerages. Why switch from a path that
leads nowhere to one that will be successful if you can make lots of money
continuing down the current path?
There are scads of
organizations, scientists, and companies feeding at the trough of “reducing
greenhouse gases is the only game in town.”
The government can spend lots of money on, say, a carbon capture method
to extract CO2 from the air, spend a few years on the study, employ
lots of people for a while, and then quietly say, “Oops! That’s ridiculously expensive.” Then go on to the next hare-brained idea
(“Let’s study hydrogen-powered cars”) and employ another set – or even the same
set – of people to study an equally silly proposal.
2. There’s an old saying that the essence of
leadership is to be led. One possibility
is that there is so much blowback and opposition to climate engineering from
climate activists and people feeding at the trough that political leaders are
afraid to advocate for it, even though leaders know about it and know that its
chances of success are high. They need
to wait until the circumstances are so bad that there will be no other choice,
and they can announce global cooling as a brand new idea and a brand new
initiative, even if the idea is decades old.
Being proactive to solve a problem before it becomes absolutely,
absolutely necessary isn’t in the political mindset.
But we’ll be
hopeful: The best-case scenario is that
there’s already a team of scientists somewhere in the world, who have worked
with the best possible climate models and atmospheric scientists, and have
already developed and put on the shelf a plan for stages of climate engineering
actions. All that’s needed is for a few
governments to take the plan off the shelf, get the chemicals and the
airplanes, and go to work and find the RARS. An unlikely scenario, but one can hope….
Millions to tens
of millions of lives are at stake.
Postscript
Nova on PBS aired a documentary in 2020 with the title “Can We
Cool the Planet?” The documentary spent
lots of time on silly and/or impracticable ideas like carbon capture, etc. These sorts of ideas are advanced and pushed
by people who can make a living from grants to pursue them even though the
pursuit will ultimately be futile.
However, the
documentary did spend a little time on solar geoengineering, with the
unfortunate eventual conclusion that this is something humanity should not be
doing.
Here’s a link to the
transcript:
https://subslikescript.com/series/Nova-206501/season-47/episode-15
A few quotes from
the transcript, and comments on those quotes:
Sheila Jasanoff:
“Nothing in our
scientific capability actually enables us to understand the complexity of the
interactions that would be set loose. It's not just that it lowers the
temperature, but what are some of the other effects on the hydrologic cycle, or
on heat waves and droughts?”
“This is a
manipulation of the Earth's atmosphere on a huge scale. What happens if things go wrong?”
Comment on
Jasanoff’s statement: It’s hard to
imagine that the unintended consequences of solar geoengineering can be worse
that what’s going to happen if we continue down the same path we’re on. And – very important – one can start off with
solar geoengineering trials, using, say, 4% of the amount that’s predicted to
be needed, waiting a few years, then to 8%...16%...32%, and so one. That is, solar geoengineering is scalable.
Sheila Jasanoff:
“If we think that
there's this solution out there, then people may think it doesn't matter if
you're polluting the planet.”
David Keith:
“The root of the
concern is that solar geoengineering research, however well-intentioned, will
be used as an excuse for big fossil fuels to fight emissions cuts.”
Comment on
Jasanoff’s and Keith’s statements: There
is a real question as to whether humanity is capable of walking and chewing gum
at the same time. It’s possible to drastically reduce dependence
on fossil fuels and cut emissions, at the same time solar geoengineering brings
global warming to a halt, or even reduces global temperatures to a more
acceptable level. Whether humans can do
both is an open question. But it’s a lot
better to hope we can do both than it is to let millions or tens of millions of
people die.
David Keith:
“Solar
geoengineering does not get us out of the ethical and physical requirement to
cut emissions.”
Comment on Keith’s
statement: Is it more ethical to have
millions of people die because CO2 emissions continue more-or-less
unchecked when solar geoengineering would lower global temperatures, or to
assert we’ll cut CO2 emissions even when we know that won’t
happen? The only long-term “ethical
requirement” is to use fossil fuels only when necessary and save them as much
as possible for future generations.
Denning (no first name given):
“It's just like a
sci-fi dystopian novel or something, where we continue to just belch all this
CO2 into the atmosphere, but hey, it's okay, because we got these
little umbrellas that are, you know, hiding us from the sun.”
