|
Most Recent Climate Change
Photos in the News… |
The fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due in complete form in a few months, but the “Summary for Policymakers” was released last week. The general consensus from environmental activists, along with the media and nearly all politicians can be summed up as this: “The ‘question mark’ has been removed; fossil fuels are causing global warming.”
 |
| Corn for Ethanol – uncritical support for biofuel may win the Iowa primary, but may also destroy the planet via deforestation |
There are many questions raised by this report and the reactions to it. For example, why don’t any commentators note that the report has pretty much dismissed the danger of sea level rise – since the new projection is one foot per century?
The biggest question, however, is why has the IPCC 2007 summary minimized or ignored the impact other factors may have on global warming – factors that have nothing to do with burning of fossil fuel?
The IPCC report claims that up to 27.5 GtCO2 per year originate from burning of fossil fuel, and up to 9.9 GtCO2 per year originate from “land use change.” This suggests that up to 26% of anthropogenic CO2 comes from “land use change,” which one may assume is associated with deforestation. And it is fair to say that the primary driver of deforestation today is the mad rush to establish biofuel plantations where tropical rainforests currently stand.
What also isn’t mentioned in the IPCC summary is that deforestation not only releases of vast quantities of CO2 as trees are removed and burned, but also causes a permanent loss of CO2 uptake capacity. Tropical forests, which flourish year-round, are far more efficient at removing CO2 from the atmosphere than the more extensive forests in the northern latitudes. Also receiving scant mention in the IPCC summary is the “surface albedo” and “cloud albedo” effects, which cool the planet, and which are directly undermined by deforestation, especially in the tropics. Worldwide, tropical rainforest area has declined from over 7 million square miles to less than 3 million square miles – a decline equivalent to nearly 10% of the land surface of the planet.
Also given short shrift in the IPCC summary is the impact of volcanic aerosols on radiative forcing (initial cooling from particulates, long-term warming from gas emissions), which are not included “due to their episodic nature.” In general, the role of non-anthropogenic CO2 is not given much attention by the IPCC, in spite of the fact that the numbers are far, far greater.
If you doubt the role non-anthropogenic CO2 emissions have on atmospheric CO2 levels, there is an interesting study entitled “Why Does Atmospheric CO2 Rise,” authored by Jan Schloerer at the University of Ulm. It remains the best source we can find to reveal global estimates of CO2 emissions, uptake, and reservoirs. In this study, Schloerer states “Natural CO2 fluxes into and out of the atmosphere exceed the human contribution by more than an order of magnitude.”
If you go to section 3.2 of Schloerer’s study, you will see that there are 38,000 gigatons of CO2 sequestered in the deep ocean. As the earth warms, this CO2 is released. The magnitude of this release, impossible to monitor, easily dwarfs whatever quantity of CO2 we can emit using fossil fuel.
The momentum building to do whatever it takes to curtail fossil fuel emissions is ludicrous for a variety of reasons – that deforestation (now in full swing again in order to grow “carbon neutral biofuel) may be the actual cause of any alleged global warming is only one of them. Another is the futility of quickly ending our dependence on fossil fuel. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, human civilization currently consumes just about 500 quadrillion BTUs of energy each year – and 78% of that energy comes from coal, oil, and natural gas.
Even with greatly improved “energy intensity,” the growth of the world economy absolutely requires total energy production to rise over the coming decades. If per capita energy consumption on the entire planet were only half what the most energy efficient developed nations currently consume, i.e., if energy intensity on the planet were to improve to twice where it now stands in the best cases, for everyone on earth to have a standard of living equivalent to the average represented by the 30 wealthiest nations, energy production on earth would still have to double (ref. “The Good, the Bad, & the BTU’s“).
While non-fossil fuel energy production worldwide stands at about 100 quadrillion BTU’s per year, or 22% of total production, this is almost exclusively comprised of hydroelectric power, nuclear power, and biofuel. Not only are these power sources problematic to many environmentalists, there are upper bounds to how much more of the world’s energy production they can represent. The remaining renewables, primarily geothermal, photovoltaic and wind power, currently constitute well less than 1% of global energy production.
Fossil fuel is here to stay. And the enemies of fossil fuel, the global warming alarmists, are acquiring power in politics and media that any student of history should find frightening. Their prescriptions so far – banning various forms of energy consumption and condoning massive new rounds of deforestation – may very well do more harm than good. Combatting global warming, should it really be a problem, might begin through initiatives to immediately double the tropical rainforest canopy on earth.
Comment by Piet Martens
April 1, 2007 at 10:36 pm - #
Sir,
It would be most helpful if you critically examined your sources before writing such strong conclusions. Contrary to your statements it has been shown conclusively that the vast majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuels with deforestation a good second.
The key is the measurement of the carbon isotopes C13 and C14. C14 is completely depleted in fossil fuels, and a sharp decline in atmospheric C14 commensurate with what would be expected from fossil fuel burning amounts since the industrial revolution has been clearly established. C13 is depleted in carbon originating from live material (both rainforests and fossil fuel), and again there has been
a commensurate relative C13 decline in the atmosphere. Note that C14 depletion is not expected in carbon originating from rainforests, so the contribution from fossil fuels and rainforest can be separated.
Finally, an hemispheric CO2 imbalance exists, with the Northern hemisphere showing an excess; again a clear indication of fossil fuel burning contributing strongly to the CO2 increase.
I guess, what is left now, is to argue that CO2 really doesn’t contribute greatly to the greenhouse effect…
Comment by Ed Ring
April 2, 2007 at 7:41 pm - #
Piet: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I might suggest that “vast majority” and “good second” are not entirely compatible phrases – yet you use them in your lead sentence. Remember, not only is change in land status already deemed a “good second” by the IPCC in terms of causing global warming due to increased convection and decreased reflectivity – due to deforestation, desertification and drought (caused by deforestation) – but CO2 absorption is also compromised. If you really think CO2 is causing global warming, you are only performing half of the requisite analysis to point out that the C14 isotope allows us to determine the contribution of fossil fuels to atmospheric CO2. You must also take into account the degree to which 5.0 million square miles – 10% of the earth’s surface – has no longer been able to absorb CO2. That is how much tropical rainforest we have already lost, and moreover, tropical rainforest, unlike the great forests in the northern latitudes, absorbed CO2 all year around. Let’s not forget that the warming from deforestation, desertification and drought may actually cause CO2 release.
If you are truly looking for answers, and the tone of your comment suggests you are, then please read this post “Inconvenient Questions.” In spite of numerous attempts, I can’t find any climate scientists, anywhere, who are willing to sit down and provide a rebuttal to each of these questions. Our position since 1995 has been to promote reforestation, and everywhere we turn, the world’s last remaining tropical forests are being decimated to grow “carbon neutral” biofuel. It is a disaster, and environmentalists don’t seem to care anymore.
Pingback by Role of deforestation : IPCC (Technorati / Ecoworld) « Desertification
April 3, 2007 at 8:45 am - #
[...] http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/ [...]
Comment by jeff scherer
May 4, 2007 at 9:18 pm - #
THE ENDLESS DEBATES ABOUT THINGS THAT WOBBLE UP AND DOWN WITH EACH NEWLY DISCOVERED FACTOR MISSES THE WHOLE POINT THAT NO MATTER WHAT IS CAUSING TEMPERATURE
RISE ELIMINATING NONRENWABLE CO2 FOSSIL FUELS AND CROP BASED RENEWABLES CO2 FUELS BY NOT BURNING THEM IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY ASAP TO COOL THE EARTH.
WE MUST GO TOIALLY TO OCEAN WAVE ELECTRIC POWER AND WITH THE LATEST 40% SPACE SOLAR CELLS THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE MASSIVELY REDUCED IN SIZE BECAUSE I HOPE OF A NON-HYPE HOLO-CONCENTRATOR, WE CAN GET RID OF FOSSIL FUELS BY REPURPOSING THEM TO PLASTICS WHICH SHOULD KEEP THE MIDDLE EAST UNCHANGED AND ALL FOSSIL FUEL RELATED COMPANIES HAPPY.
COMBINING THE STOCKS OF ALL ENERGY RELATED AND CHEMICAL COMPANIES WHILE LEAVING THOSE COMPANIES INDEPENDANT TO BE DIRECTED BY GOVERNMENT MANDATES TO RID ALL TOXIC FUEL PRACTICES SHOULD SOLVE MUCH.
FUTURE CARS ARE IMPORTANT.