Is global warming unstoppable?
November 23, 2009In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major cause of global warming - cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day.
"It looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in carbon dioxide emission rates," says the new paper by Tim Garrett, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences.
Garrett's study was panned by some economists and rejected by several journals before acceptance by Climatic Change, a journal edited by renowned Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider. The study will be published online this week.
The study - which is based on the concept that physics can be used to characterize the evolution of civilization - indicates:
- Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption.
- Throughout history, a simple physical "constant" - an unchanging mathematical value - links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So it isn't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society's future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions.
- "Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually - approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day," Garrett says. "Physically, there are no other options without killing the economy."
Garrett says colleagues generally support his theory, while some economists are critical. One economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: "I am afraid the author will need to study harder before he can contribute."
"I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem," Garrett says. "I end up with a global economic growth model different than they have."
Garrett treats civilization like a "heat engine" that "consumes energy and does 'work' in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy," he says.
"If society consumed no energy, civilization would be worthless," he adds. "It is only by consuming energy that civilization is able to maintain the activities that give it economic value. This means that if we ever start to run out of energy, then the value of civilization is going to fall and even collapse absent discovery of new energy sources."
Garrett says his study's key finding "is that accumulated economic production over the course of history has been tied to the rate of energy consumption at a global level through a constant factor."
That "constant" is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history, "each inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary energy consumption," Garrett says.
Garrett tested his theory and found this constant relationship between energy use and economic production at any given time by using United Nations statistics for global GDP (gross domestic product), U.S. Department of Energy data on global energy consumption during1970-2005, and previous studies that estimated global economic production as long as 2,000 years ago. Then he investigated the implications for carbon dioxide emissions.
"Economists think you need population and standard of living to estimate productivity," he says. "In my model, all you need to know is how fast energy consumption is rising. The reason why is because there is this link between the economy and rates of energy consumption, and it's just a constant factor."
Garrett adds: "By finding this constant factor, the problem of [forecasting] global economic growth is dramatically simpler. There is no need to consider population growth and changes in standard of living because they are marching to the tune of the availability of energy supplies."
To Garrett, that means the acceleration of carbon dioxide emissions is unlikely to change soon because our energy use today is tied to society's past economic productivity.
"Viewed from this perspective, civilization evolves in a spontaneous feedback loop maintained only by energy consumption and incorporation of environmental matter," Garrett says. It is like a child that "grows by consuming food, and when the child grows, it is able to consume more food, which enables it to grow more."
Is Meaningful Energy Conservation Impossible?
Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use.
"Making civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy," says Garrett.
He says the idea that resource conservation accelerates resource consumption - known as Jevons paradox - was proposed in the 1865 book "The Coal Question" by William Stanley Jevons, who noted that coal prices fell and coal consumption soared after improvements in steam engine efficiency.
So is Garrett arguing that conserving energy doesn't matter?
"I'm just saying it's not really possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way because the current rate of energy consumption is determined by the unchangeable past of economic production. … If it feels good to conserve energy, that is fine, but there shouldn't be any pretense that it will make a difference."
Yet, Garrett says his findings contradict his own previously held beliefs about conservation, and he continues to ride a bike or bus to work, line dry family clothing and use a push lawnmower.
An Inevitable Future for Carbon Dioxide Emissions?
Garrett says often-discussed strategies for slowing carbon dioxide emissions and global warming include mention increased energy efficiency, reduced population growth and a switch to power sources that don't emit carbon dioxide, including nuclear, wind and solar energy and underground storage of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. Another strategy is rarely mentioned: a decreased standard of living, which would occur if energy supplies ran short and the economy collapsed, he adds.
"Fundamentally, I believe the system is deterministic," says Garrett. "Changes in population and standard of living are only a function of the current energy efficiency. That leaves only switching to a non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power source as an available option."
"The problem is that, in order to stabilize emissions, not even reduce them, we have to switch to non-carbonized energy sources at a rate about 2.1 percent per year. That comes out to almost one new nuclear power plant per day."
"If society invests sufficient resources into alternative and new, non-carbon energy supplies, then perhaps it can continue growing without increasing global warming," Garrett says.
Does Garrett fear global warming deniers will use his work to justify inaction?
"No," he says. "Ultimately, it's not clear that policy decisions have the capacity to change the future course of civilization."
Feb 08, 2010
As for the heat engine hypothesis, even if it were true, I doubt that the magnitude of human activity is large enough to heat an entire planet, even if all of our 'work' were inefficiently dispersed as 'heat'. What is more, as our efficiency increases, not all of our work gets thrown out of the window. The analogy is too simplistic in any case.
Earth's climate has always changed.
Ask anyone who has studied the geologic record.
CO2-induced climate warming is a hoax, as revealed over the weekend by hackers who revealed private messages between those making this claim.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Of course it's undeniable that the planet is getting warmer. Another time it will be undeniable that the planet is getting colder. To show that humans are responsible is much more difficult than you are suggesting. Like I said, I don't think many people appreciate exactly how rigorous you have to be to prove that it's not just business as usual. Since the climate always changes, the burden of proof rests with those claiming that our little cars and factories are responsible for some or all of this change. Ask any statistician and they will tell you how difficult it is to show than any change did not occur by chance alone. Unfortunately this kind of sharp thinking is not very common.
What a huge waste of technology. They should be building more powerplants, nuclear preferrably so that we use more electricity on more electronic devices. I see two glaring economic benefits from that.
With the revenue generated by our reckless use of energy we can then afford to shift to efficient machines.
Also, the group that reject climate change have a clear agenda (to not spend money), those who propose that it is occurring do not have an agenda other than concern. Yet everyone demands so much proof from the group who say it is occurring? I don't understand this attitude.
At the end of time, the world will stop supporting life. Until then, let's take reasonable action - but by all means avoid the Global Warming hoax which is being used to try to form a One World Government in a couple of weeks in Copenhagen.
Human Induced Global Warming (HIGW)? I don't know and you don't know.
Everybody seems to have his own agenda, and needs to get support for it and HIGW is such a justification to get things done.
Fact is: the earth is POLLUTED.
That is undeniable, you can take pictures of it and you can measure it!
Now should we continue polluting because HIGW is a religion?
What about acid rain (measurable)? The ozone hole (measurable)? animal extinction (measurable)? Dirt field in the oceans (photograph-able)?
No we can continue on our way because HIGW is a myth and wait for someone that can come with some concrete numbers that show something real.
LOL you can proof that everything we say is religion, because everything is an interpretation of the perception performed with one of our senses, and if certain VIPS agree, or when enough individuals agree, then we can say it is true! Unless certain other VIPS disagree. Comes down to power in the end.
...One economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: "I am afraid the author will need to study harder before he can contribute."...
Since when can we classify economists, climate change specialists, and homeopaths as scientists?
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha...
Carbon dioxide is the product of clean, full, and efficient combustion!
Going Green quickly isn't a panacea either. Switching from regular light bulbs to the new ones needs big factories to be built, and the new bulbs themselves are an environment hazard, unless disposed of properly. (Not everyone even has access to Proper Waste Disposal.)
Massively creating renewable energy needs investing, R&D, manufacturing facilities, and raw materials. Which means even more mining and more energy consumption in the coming years.
Finally, a new nuclear plant every day seems like much. But for the US, that'd be a plant every three years in each state. Not outrageous at all considering that this includes increases in oil consumption, too. If everybody switched to electric cars, this would seem too little.
Here Garrett makes what could easily be an incorrect prediction.
Jeavons Paradox assumes that supply remains constant and conservation causes a decrease in cost. Decreased cost then leads to higher consumption.
That may not hold.
That most likely will not hold.
We need to, and are likely to, take cheap coal electricity off our grids. The renewable replacements will be somewhat more expensive and will not create the desire to consume more as Garrett assumes.
Short term we should see increases in the cost of electricity, which should further drive conservation.
(And if the nuclear fanboys get their way electricity prices will soar, crushing demand.)
Here Garrett makes another mistake.
He assumes that increasing energy supplies will increase CO2 production.
He overlooks the vast amount of wind and solar energy we have available for harvest.
He overlooks the fact that wind energy is now quite inexpensive relative to average grid prices and solar is reaching grid parity much quicker than predicted.
A mix of conservation/efficiency and renewable energy can allow us to continue to grow our economies without releasing additional CO2.
In 2008 the world added 27 gigs of new wind capacity (capacity, not nameplate). That's roughly 10% of the renewables that we would have to build per year to reach Garrett's goal.
Wind installation is expected to increase by at least 20% per year over the next several years. At that rate we will be annually installing close to 300 gigs of new wind capacity in a dozen years.
Add to that all the solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro and other renewables that are being and will be installed.
This is not undoable.
Most everyone wants to succeed at something, to accomplish something and to grow and be productive. Would we be willing to redefine a new 'standard of living' as it pertains to the world as a whole, not just the richest countries, the 'haves'? Could the 'haves' still be as happy or happier, consuming less for an indefinite period and helping other people less fortunate - to help provide the opportunity for them to be able to support themselves sustainably?
I feel it begins with each of us. Michael Jackson said something to that affect at the end of 'This Is It." Garret's statement: "Ultimately, it's not clear that policy decisions have the capacity to change the future course of civilization." Yes, not policy decisions alone.
Fact is: controlling pollution has NOTHING to do with controlling CO2.
Fact is: AGW policies do NOTHING to better pollution control.
Fact is: CO2 and Methane ARE NOT pollutants, they are NOT ambient air health concerns.
Fact is: AGW legislation pushes regressive technology, technology which only adds cost to the basis of modern life: energy production.
Fact is: The West has been controlling ACTUAL POLLUTION for over 30 years.
Fact is: It is up to the Developing World to develop RESPONSIBLY.
Fact is: the bi-line of this article is 100% false and 100% academically dishonest, 100% propaganda.
Fact is: AGW theory has collapsed.
No one can deny that even the smallest amount of green house gases being artificially pumped into the atmosphere has an effect on the Earth's chemistry. Whether it is enough to change the course of human history can be deturmined by math, the ultimate source of truth.
If it were just a hoax it would be the greatest in the history of science. But hundreds of millions (cumulatively billions) of dollars are at issue. It's fraud and over the next decade there will be people going to jail over this. I have heard that the big revelations are not in the e-mails. They are in the data files and comments in the code that describe what it is doing. There seems to have been a reason that they never wanted to make their climate data or the code used to manipulate it available for scrutiny and it wasn't just wanting to avoid critical evaluation of their results on a scientific level. Crimes have been committed
http://www.guardi...ientists
Thankyou!!! It's good to hear some sanity in these comments!!
Forever and ever, amen.
Actually I do get that. Evidence for these climate cycles is well documented. Unfortunately, so too are the mass extinctions that have repeatedly occurred as a result. You're undoubtably right that the human race will survive due to our technology, but we already see the signs that there will be a lot of trouble for other species (in particular in the oceans). And such an event will create significant problems for us.
I don't think the end of the world is around the corner, however, with attitudes like yours being as prevalent as they seem in these posts, we may be quite unprepared for the challenges that are on our doorstep.
Natural systems are complex and we don't have a control. A scientist would not be surprised that there is a high degree of uncertainty.
- Mankind releases a lot more Carbon Dioxide than was ever released before.
- Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas; it is good at absorbing heat, and hence traps heat in the atmosphere.
Given just those two points, which can hardly be disputed, climate change IS occurring. I don't care about what you "choose to believe", there is only one truth, and that is that the world is getting hotter because of emissions of carbon dioxide.
Solution, improvise, adapt, overcome. Something homo sapiens have been doing for over 100,000 years.
Before what?
Water is much better. Why do the dry deserts get so cold at night. Why doesn't the CO2 trap the desert heat?
The real truth is there IS a limit to how much heat can be absorbed (not trapped) by C02.
"Remember that CO2’s heat effect is logarithmic. The more you add, the less it`s impact. "
http://wattsupwit...warming/
.4 +/- .7 => -.4 to +1.1 Wm-2. So the feedback could be positive or negative.
http://www.spring...7806501/
Of course the leading Climatologist was L. Ron Hubbard.
And what is the cause of that uncertainty? Papers presented at COP 13 in Bali stated that 50% of the uncertainty was due to varying projections of energy use.
A good example of looking for a simple cause and effect correlation without considering the whole system.
Before now, obviously.
It does. The deserts, and everywhere else, are getting warmer due to there being more CO2.
I'm not sure why I bother arguing with you idiots though. You are clearly absolutely determined to reject common sense. Just to prove my point someone is probably going to quote this and try to argue against it with a load of childish nonsense.
Even if that was true, it is as relevant as noting that Einstein believed in God. Smart man, knew a lot of stuff, but does it prove the existence of God for you?
But your claim seems to be one of those items of fiction circulated on sceptics sites.
that global warming was just definalty proven to be a scam only this week
for all those who didnt get the news couse there busy stuffing turkey here is the link to get u up to date
http://www.youtub...KItPhEJc
Where is the data?
That is what science is about, proof. Show me the data documenting the decrease in delta Temp in dry deserts.
((Thankyou!!! It's good to hear some sanity in these comments!!))
Oh foolishness, thy name is AGW Alarmist! ;-)
http://books.goog...;f=false
((The deserts, and everywhere else, are getting warmer due to there being more CO2))
Oh and a warmer planet is a *bad thing* all of a sudden? Remember mate, the last 10K yrs of warmth allowed human civilization to evolve farther and faster than anytime in our species' 5 million yr history! And even if the pathetically small sliver of .038% CO2 in the atm were to blame for warming the earth significantly, CO2 is actually GOOD for life (plants) ergo it's good for us!
((not sure why I bother arguing with you idiots though))
Um, mate...all of the "idiocy" is brandished on the side of the anti-capitalist AGW Alarmist idiots as they perpetually spew out pseudoscientific nonsense. And as the wise sage Aesop reminds us:
"You are known by the company you keep"
((determined to reject common sense))
Which is what *The nuge* and his capitalism-hating AGW Alarmist comrades do everytime they spout the gospel of AGW Alarmism.
http://www.co2sci...les/V12/
this is what its really about for many of these people- government control and wealth redistribution. its not sound science but "social justice" that they seek. green on the outside, red on the inside.
Unfortunately, a whole lot of people are living in areas that would become uninhabitable (by being underwater). Many species could make the transition very easily. Many could not. It isn't really the warming that's the problem, its the speed of the transition. I am sure we wouldn't lose more than 5 to 10% of our population, so any alarmist talk of the end of the world is idiocy.
Of course if you happen to believe, as I do, that 200-500 million people dying would be a tragedy, it is something worth preventing.
What do propose to ensure those 200-500 million don't die? Provide evidence as to the efficacy of your plan.
Do you think it a tragedy that the DDT ban has killed millions from malaria?
(Not my quote, but I think it's trenchant.)
NOTHING is undeniable now that we've had a hard look at how the political activists pretending to be scientists behaviour has begun to be exposed with the whistle blowing of the University of East Anglia/Climate Research Unit of emails, reports and code.
We've known for years that Mann of the "hockey stick" and Hansen at NASA have been cooking their data. All that remains to be seen now is to understand just how big the "global warming" fraud is, not whether there is a fraud being perpetrated as I've long suspected.
As for CO2, especially man made CO2, contributing to global warming, the jury is still out on that.
My concern is all these "brilliant" scientists and polliticians rushing to implement an irreversible solution to global warming which ends in most of the habitable earth covered in ice.
As regards the article itself...Hrm.
Hope it isn't so.
If the AGW believers proposed such a solution, I may take them seriously.
Punishing the world with higher taxes and more government interference suggests another motive.
And the human population dropped down to a few thousands at least once during that period. A few will (may?) adapt and overcome.
What 'established' science?
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. "
http://www.timeso...6328.ece
Reagan used to say 'trust but verify'. How can we trust scientists who say 'trust us' and then toss the data?
looks like that way with articles likes these
http://www.youtub...KItPhEJc
http://en.wikiped.../Big_Lie
AGW-ites have too much invested in their big lie to give it up easily.
Have you been to the Arctic or Antarctic?
Is "Global Warming" unstoppable? Yes, as soon as the AGW scam is fully uncovered for the fraudulent extorsion of lower/middle classes that it is, we'll all soon forget about it.
I wouldn't dismiss climate change but to think CO2 is going to cause catastrophic damage to this planet unless we pay a tax is simply naive. If they had a sensible solution (like force people to neutralize thier carbon footprints by planting the necessary number of trees depending on thier consumption) then it'd be a little more believable.
Label me as a denier if that's what your religion does but I belive we are polluting this planet with far worse chemicals (than CO2) which cannot be processed by life and no matter what we do, the climate will still change as it has done in it's past.
I had been gradually coming 'round to the same conclusion due to the observed data regarding oil prices and its consumption. The data is VERY supportive of Garrets claims and his work will ultimately be validated as correct.
Agreed.
Now what did you proof?
Is climate change not caused by CO2?
You found yourself a mantra with a dead end.
Mantras are religion!
Now you are a religious person.
Find yourself a mantra that moves you to action.
At least something positive might happen.
Climate change is caused by CO2
Climate change is caused by CO2
Climate change is caused by CO2
Climate change is caused by CO2
Climate change is caused by CO2
Then you act upon it.
You plant some trees in your neighborhood to absorb CO2.
Then somebody who lives in a desert proofs that climate change is not caused by CO2.
In the meanwhile your neighborhood looks beautiful with all those trees that attract songbirds. You saved your neighborhood from a landslide because the roots fix the sand where your house is standing on. You drink pure water because all those treeroots have a positive effect on the ground water, and your children breath oxygen in stead of this CO2 that is harmless for the climate.
If you look at ice core data it's clear that the Earth usually warms beyond our current temp before the end of an interglacial so it wouldn't be surprising if it happens this time. I'm just not sure which species caused the earlier warming since it wasn't humans. As we are nearing the end of our interglacial, warming may be the least of our problems.
http://www.grist....keptics/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
or
http://www.climateaudit.org/
You talk like a bunch of right wing conspiracy theorists. I am sure your ancestors denied evolution as well and thought the world was 4,000 years old.
:)
Ice core samples show that atmospheric CO2 levels have doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Age. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have good reason to believe atmospheric methane has also risen as well.
More greenhouse gases ceteris paribus, higher temperatures.
When you look at the various feedback mechanisms, most reinforce the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere. Higher temperatures reduce snow and ice and hence increase terrestrial absorption of heat.
Similarly, higher temperatures melt permafrost, which in turn releases more CO2 and more methane.
Orbital variations and sunspot activity do not explain current global warming.
Temperatures are rising too quickly to be explained by either.
The purpose of the board is to have intelligent discussions, not advertise one's ignorance.