Geek stuff – Page 83 – a sibilant intake of breath

Black carbon and climate change

[Image removed at the request of a subject (2019-10-01)]

Al Gore’s latest book – Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis – includes a fair bit of discussion of black carbon, a human pollutant that causes global warming, but not in the same way carbon dioxide (CO2) does. Greenhouse gasses like CO2 prevent long-wave infrared radiation from leaving the Earth into space. Black carbon, by contrast, warms the planet by absorbing a lot of short-wave radiation from the sun. In essence, it has a very low albedo.

Some other pertinent things to know about black carbon:

The largest source is biomass combustion – such as burning forests and grasslands to clear them for agriculture.
The areas where this is happening most are Brazil, Indonesia, and Central Africa.
Black carbon settling in the Arctic is a major cause of warming there: possibly responsible for 1°C of the 2.5°C of warming already observed there.
Black carbon is also a major threat to Himalayan glaciers, which in turn provide the source water for rivers of critical human importance, such as the Ganges.
Black carbon is washed out of the atmosphere by rain, and only has a lifetime of a few weeks. If we stopped emitting it, its contribution to climate change would cease quickly.

The last of those is very encouraging. Unlike CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for a very long span of time, black carbon is something we could tackle on a short timescale, by mandating things like filters on diesel engines and the cleaner burning of coal and biomass.

As mentioned before, recent research has also highlighted the importance of non-CO2 greenhouse gasses. Anything that allows us to take more rapid and effective action to halt climate change is welcome news. Also, it requires a lot less political will to install better filters on diesel engines than it does to curb activities that are critically linked to greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate Change Futures Markets

Over at FiveThirtyEight – a website that leapt to fame on the basis of statistical analysis of the 2008 US election – there is a discussion of futures markets for climate change. The idea is to let people place bets on what will happen, and the hope is that the sum of opinions backed up with money will provide reasonably high quality information on what is likely and what is not:

Personally, I’d envision a robust series of contracts on temperature, CO2 emissions, precipitation, and perhaps tropical storms that expired at various intervals along the lines of those used for US Treasury bonds — say at 3, 5, 7, 10, 20, and 30 years. I’d encourage the use of options and perhaps derivatives, which can be helpful in pricing not just the mean estimates of temperature or precipitation but also the uncertainty surrounding these estimates. I’d run the markets through a major, cross-national platform such as the United Nations, IMF or World Bank, so as to encourage participation and create liquidity. And I’d make them open to as many people as possible with few legal restrictions or transaction costs.

This is similar to the idea of using such markets to predict the outcome of elections. While implementing the idea is bound to produce some problems, it could be a good thing to try. For one thing, it could help create mechanisms through which additional insurance could be provided for climatic risks, whether of extreme weather, crop failure, or other phenomena.

The Climatic Research Unit’s leaked emails

160 megabytes worth of emails – ostensibly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – have apparently been obtained by hackers and posted online. Being emails between colleagues, they are written in a less formal style than public documents. Some blogs and news sources critical of the mainstream scientific view are hailing the emails as proof of poor practice within the scientific community, or evidence that the consensus view on climate change is incorrect or an intentional fabrication. Various climate change blogs have put up responses to the whole event and to those allegations:

Grist: Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
RealClimate: The CRU hack
Greenfyre’s: CRU Hack, time to hit back … hard
DeSmogBlog: Climate contrarians spinning hard with stolen email files

Firstly, it isn’t clear that these emails contain evidence of any wrongdoing. Secondly, it hasn’t been established whether the documents are all genuine and unaltered. Thirdly, and most importantly, the consensus on anthropogenic climate change is bigger than any one specific institution. It is based on multiple lines of evidence that support the same conclusions – something that cannot be said about alternative hypotheses, such as that nothing is happening or that observed warming is not mostly being caused by greenhouse gasses.

RealClimate probably has the best analysis on the significance of all this:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

That said, you can be sure that climate change delayers and deniers will be milking these emails for years – using them to continue to cast doubt on the strength of the scientific consensus about climate change. Thankfully, it does seem as though the world’s political elites are increasingly aware of the strength of the scientific consensus and the incoherence of the views of those who deny it.

[Update: 3 December 2009] Nature has posted an editorial about this whole incident. It makes reference to two open archives of online climate data – maintained by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc-data.org) and the US National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html).

[Update: 14 December 2009] Newsweek has printed a comprehensive evaluation of the significance of the CRU emails, written by Jess Henig of FactCheck.org. It concludes that the emails sometimes “show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive” but that the emails do not undermine the IPCC consensus, and that: “E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented.”

[Update: 20 June 2010] Wrap-up video on the CRU emails

Email and two-monitor setups

One thing I have discovered at work is how pleasant it is to have a monitor devoted exclusively to email. For me, email has become the central clearinghouse for virtually all information and action items. To remind myself of something, I send an email from my phone. I also track emails by applying ‘@Pending’ and ‘@Waiting For’ labels to them. Email can also be searched instantly, unlike having to search separately through blog posts, comments, wiki entries, document files, etc.

Having a second monitor exclusively for email is qualitatively different from having a window open, or even having a second desktop devoted to email use. This is because it is glanceable – you can check almost instantly and with minimal distraction whether anything new has come up. It is also easy to shift information from one screen to another: making reference to a document or website in a message, or adding information from an email to a website, calendar, etc. With a dedicated monitor, email never gets buried or left unnoticed for too long.

Much as I appreciate the 24″ screen on my iMac, I suspect I will eventually go for a two-monitor setup at home. Arguably, such a setup is a mark of excess. That being said, when your entire life is coordinated through computers, it is perhaps an acceptable area in which to devote resources (including a share of your direct and embedded greenhouse gas emissions).

Casting doubt on fusion power

Looking at a diagram of a proposed fusion reactor, it is easy to get the false sense that such technologies will provide clean and inexpensive power within a few decades: fusing tritium and deuterium to produce heat, while generating new fuel from lithium using the neutrons produced.

A post on The Oil Drum enumerates the many technical challenges associated with achieving that aim, going so far as to say that dreams about fusion power should be ‘ended’ as a consequence. Written by Dr. Michael Dittmar, a researcher with the Institute of Particle Physics of ETH Zurich, the article enumerates a number of significant problems:

Large amounts of tritium are required and various problems exist with it as a material and a fuel.
Materials from which reactor walls can be made are unavailable, and far beyond anything that is available.
Many obstacles exist to breeding tritium from Lithium-6.
Similarly, obstacles exist to extracting tritium from the lithium blanket and delivering it in a pure form into the chamber where fusion is occurring.
Reactors may not be able to breed enough tritium to keep themselves going, much less provide excess tritium for new facilities.

While this may not be cause for declaring fusion a complete non-starter, it is at least a useful way to temper the assumption that fusion power will emerge any decade now, providing a pain-free solution to the problems of climate change and fossil fuel depletion.

The article also lists problems with fission reactors that breed plutonium or use thorium as fuel: both options mooted in response to concerns about limited availability of uranium for use in conventional reactors. All this is a reminder that – while renewables may be costly and have intermittency problems to manage – there is every reason to believe they can be practically deployed starting immediately.

Anthropogenic climate change: evidence from isotopic ratios

Back in 2003, Prosenjit Ghosh and Willi Brand described one of the more clever ways in which the link between fossil fuel combustion and the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been demonstrated. In their article “Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research” (PDF), they discuss how the ratio of isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere can be used to identify the sources of atmospheric CO2. Their work was published in 2003, in the International Journal of Mass Spectrometry.

By tracking the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the atmosphere, the distinctive imprint of fossil fuel combustion can be identified. This is really just confirmation of the inevitable chemical fact that burning coal, oil, and natural gas produces CO2. Nevertheless, it is nice to have an independent line of evidence showing that human activities really are the major cause behind observed increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

The boundaries of reasonable climate change debate

In his well-argued book Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Mike Hulme does a good job of establishing the boundaries of the legitimate debate about climate change and what we ought to do about it:

Many of the disagreements that we observe are not really disputes about the evidence upon which our scientific knowledge of climate change is founded. We don’t disagree about the physical theory of absorption of greenhouse gases demonstrated by John Tyndall, about the thermometer readings first collected from around the world by Guy Callendar, or about the possibility of non-linear instabilities in the oceans articulated by Wally Broecker. We disagree about science because we have different understandings of the relationship of scientific evidence to other things: to what we may regard as ultimate ‘truth,’ to the ways in which we relate uncertainty to risk, and to what people believe to be the legitimate role of knowledge in policy making.

That’s as good a concise summary as I’ve seen. If the people you are debating accept that temperatures are rising, that greenhouse gasses cause warming, and the the climate system may react to human emissions in deeply disagreeable ways, you are within the realm where reasonable discussions can occur. By contrast, if your partners in discussion assert that climate is not changing, greenhouse gasses have nothing to do with it, and that any change will surely be benevolent and gradual… well… here be dragons.

Long-lived nuclear waste warnings

In addition to the engineering problems involved in storing radioactive wastes from power plants and weapons programs, there is the additional difficulty of marking the storage sites as dangerous, in a manner that will be comprehensible throughout the period in which the wastes will be a hazard. In 1991, a report considered this question: “Expert Judgment on Markers To Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion Into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.”

As reported in Slate:

“The report’s proposed solution is a layered message—one that conveys not only that the site is dangerous but that there’s a legitimate (nonsuperstitious) reason to think so. It should also emphasize that there’s no buried treasure, just toxic trash. Here’s how the authors phrase the essential talking points: “[T]his place is not a place of honor … no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here.” Finally, the marker system should communicate that the danger—an emanation of energy—is unleashed only if you disturb the place physically, so it’s best left uninhabited.”

They estimate that a system of redundant warning markers for an American nuclear waste dump would cost about $68 million.

The whole issue is a potent demonstration of the challenges contemporary technologies create, when it comes to our moral relationship with future generations. Just as they will be the ones who live with the climate change we produce, they will also have legacies like topsoil erosion and the accumulation of toxic and radioactive wastes to contend with.

Strategy for denier commenters

I am happy to say that traffic to this site has been steadily increasing. Visits are up 138% from last year, and October was our best month ever. Increasingly, a sibilant intake of breath is well ranked by search engines.

One problematic element that accompanies popularity is that I attract ever-more climate change deniers and delayers (those who accept that it is real, but think we should take no action). Ordinarily, I am happy to debate with people and try to provide quality information. That being said, it can take up a lot of time to try to refute those who repeat faulty arguments over and over. These people call themselves ‘skeptics,’ but I think they are mis-applying the term. I have yet to encounter one that is willing to back away from even thoroughly discredited positions. Instead, they just move on to another misleading argument.

The question, then, is how to deal with these commentors without losing all scope for socializing and personal projects. Some of the options:

Briefly assert that their position is incorrect and point to a resource that says why. Ignore further attempts at rebuttal.
Point all such commentors towards pre-existing posts and conversations, without offering specific responses.
Adopt the Zero Carbon Canada approach: “ATTN climate change denier trolls: you are cooking our kids and will be deleted.”
Continue to provide detailed, personalized responses as much as possible.

(1) and (2) are appealing because they reduce the extent to which one person seeking to spread disinformation can waste my time. That said, leaving comments unaddressed could lead readers to believe that the points made therein are valid. (3) is appealing because it would prevent bad information from appearing online, though it is obviously a form of censorship. (4) is the ideal world solution, though I do need to wonder whether refuting deniers and delayers in blog comments is really the best use of my time, even if all I am taking into consideration is whether I am acting effectively on climate change.

Which option do readers think is most suitable? Are there other options I ought to consider?

More camera and travel issues

Earlier today, I got my Rebel XS back from Canon. Apparently, they had to replace one of the circuit boards to deal with the infinite loop the camera got itself into at the Fill the Hill event. Unfortunately, whoever did the repair managed to disable my on-camera flash in the process. I had little choice but to send it back to Canon immediately, since my one-year warranty will be up in a few days.

Henry’s says they will definitely lend me a body for the family reunion in Vermont, since I bought their three-year extended service plan. I just have to hope I get the camera back before December 19th, when I will be leaving for Vancouver. I really doubt Henry’s would lend me a body for a whole month, but it would be really intolerable to be sans-dSLR during my first trip to Vancouver in two years. I am told that ‘re-repairs’ are generally faster than ordinary repairs. That’s a bit comforting, though it is unnerving to know that cameras are broken often enough during the repair process for the Henry’s staff to be familiar with the statistics. What ever happened to quality control?

As for the mode of travel, I am leaning warily towards the bus. It’s a lot faster and cheaper than the train, and 1/5 of the emissions of flying. On the ‘sociology of travel‘ side, nothing shows commitment to climate change mitigation more than extending the length of your journey twelve-fold, in order to decrease the associated emissions by 80%. Well, I suppose the only thing that would would be avoiding the journey entirely, and passing the time blockading nearby coal power plants instead.