Climate Science How serious is the problem?
60
Climate Science How serious is the problem? Bruce M. Everett July 15, 2014
description
Climate Science How serious is the problem?. Bruce M. Everett July 15, 2014. The argument as portrayed in the press. Yes. Do something. Is climate change real?. Do nothing. No. The real argument is much more complicated. Has the Earth warmed?. Yes. (Some debate about numbers.). - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Climate Science How serious is the problem?
Climate ScienceHow serious is the problem?
Bruce M. EverettJuly 15, 2014
The argument as portrayed in the press
YesIs climate
change real?
No
Do something
Do nothing
The real argument is much more complicated
Has the Earth warmed?
Yes.(Some debate
about numbers.)
The real argument is much more complicated
Are humans responsible?
Yes.(Not sure
how much.)
Has the Earth warmed?
Yes.(Some debate
about numbers.)
President Obama’s Tweet(May 16, 2013)
• Examined abstracts of 14,000 papers on climate.
• Did not interview authors.
• Selected 2,000 which addressed climate change.
• Concluded that 97% either:
– State that humans are the primary cause of observed global warming, or
– State or imply that humans caused some of the observed warming, but don’t say how much.
Professor Cook’s Study
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
President Obama’s Tweet(May 16, 2013)
and, to some degree,
ˆ
The real argument is much more complicated
Are humans responsible?
Can we predict future
warming?
No!Climate system is
too complex. Scientific
understanding is insufficient.
Yes.(Not sure
how much.)
Has the Earth warmed?
Yes.(Some debate
about numbers.)
Complex Systems – Bird SwarmsCan we predict their behavior?
How do we know whether we
understand the problem?
Science!
1. Guess
2. Compute the consequences of the guess
3. Compare the computation results to nature
Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynmanon the Scientific Method
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.”
Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynmanon the Scientific Method
The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous..
Thomas L. FriedmanNew York Times Columnist
The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous..
Thomas L. FriedmanNew York Times Columnist
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
Palmer Drought Severity Index for US
Source: NOAA
Dry
Wet
The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous..
Thomas L. FriedmanNew York Times Columnist
1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 20140
4
8
12
16
# of Category 5 Hurricanes since 1949
Trend
Source: Unisys hurricane data base
There have been no Category 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic since September 6, 2007.
Climate computer models cannot yet make any meaningful predictions.
The atmosphere has not experienced any net warming in the last 15 years.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a committee.
Committees do politics,not science.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Richard Feynman
We do not know if climate change is:
Catastrophic
Unimportant
Beneficial
How much does carbon mitigation cost?
Bruce M. EverettJuly 15, 2014
CO2 reduction 0 100%
Carbon mitigation
Easy and cheap
Harder and more
expensive
Difficult and painful
$/to
nne
of C
O2
$/to
nne
of C
O2
CO2 reduction 0 100%
Carbon mitigation
$20
$200
EasyHard
Really painful
Easy steps
Plant a treeNegligible impact
Easy steps
Compact fluorescent lights0.4% carbon reduction
Easy steps
Change your thermostat 2°0.07% reduction
Hybrid cars ($165/mt)0.8% reduction
Harder steps
$/to
nne
of C
O2
CO2 reduction 0 100%
Carbon mitigation
$20
$200
EasyHard
Really painful
Hybrid cars
Harder steps
Nuclear power ($180/mt)Cost twice as much as natural gas
Safety?Public acceptance?
$/to
nne
of C
O2
CO2 reduction 0 100%
Carbon mitigation
$20
$200
EasyHard
Really painful
Nuclear
Harder steps
Onshore wind power ($190/mt)Cost twice as much as natural gas
Low utilizationIntermittent
$/to
nne
of C
O2
CO2 reduction 0 100%
Carbon mitigation
$20
$200
EasyHard
Really painful
Onshore wind
Really painful steps
Electric cars ($600/mt)Cost twice as much
Poor performance (low range)Not much reduction with today’s grid
$/to
nne
of C
O2
CO2 reduction 0 100%
Carbon mitigation
$20
$200
EasyHard
Really painful
Electric cars
Solar ($700/mt)Cost 4-5X as much as natural gas
Low utilizationIntermittent
Really painful steps
$/to
nne
of C
O2
CO2 reduction 0 100%
Carbon mitigation
$20
$200
EasyHard
Really painful
Solar
Light rail ($10,000/mt)Huge capital cost
Low ridershipSome systems save no CO2!
Really painful steps
$/to
nne
of C
O2
CO2 reduction 0 100%
Carbon mitigation
$20
$200
EasyHard
Really painful
Light rail
Carbon capture and sequestration (?/mt)Unproven technology
Cost and performance unknown
Really painful steps
Impact of carbon taxes• US current emits ~5 billion metric tons of
CO2 annually
• A $20/mt tax = $100 billion per year $1,000 per household
• A $200/mt tax = $1 trillion per year $10,000 per household
• A $500/mt tax = $2.5 trillion per year $25,000 per household
Question:How much should we pay to insure
against an unknown risk?
Climate ChangeWhat should we do?
Bruce M. EverettJuly 15, 2014
Effective policies require:
• A clear understanding of the issue
• A pathway to a solution
D-Day (June 6, 1944)What does it take to win?
OECD Europe
US
Global CO2 Emissions from Energy1990 = 22 Billion tonnes
China
Source: Energy Information Administration
Rest of the World
OECD Europe
US
China
Global CO2 Emissions from Energy2013 = 33 Billion tonnes
Source: Energy Information Administration
Rest of the World
OECD Europe
US
China
Global CO2 Emissions from Energy2030 = 41 Billion tonnes
Source: Energy Information Administration
Rest of the World
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proposes:
• 40-70% reduction from 2010 levels by 2050
• 1.3% to 3.0% annual reductions
40% reduction case
President Obama’s Climate Plan (“War on Coal”) would reduce 2030 global emissions by ~1%.
A contribution of 3% of the IPCC requirement.
40% reduction case
US The US nuclear revival
The EU target for 2030 is a 40% reduction versus 1990 levels.
A contribution of 8% of the IPCC requirement.
40% reduction case
EU
China and Germany, in particular, have made the clean energy transition central to their overall economic development strategies.. “The Green Industrial Revolution
and the United States” Center for American Progress December, 2013
Germany – Electric Power Supply, 2013
Natural Gas (8%)
Nuclear (19%)
Wind (10%)
Solar (6%)Hydro (4%)
?
Germany – Electric Power Supply, 2013
Coal (53%)
Natural Gas (8%)
Nuclear (19%)
Wind (10%)
Solar (6%)Hydro (4%)
Wind +1.3 TWhSolar +1.8 TWhCoal +7.7 TWh
Growth 2013/2012Wind +1.3 TWhSolar +1.8 TWh
2013 Electric Power Supply, US vs Germany
Coal (53%)
Natural Gas (8%)
Nuclear(19%)
Wind (10%)
Solar (6%)Hydro (4%)
Coal (40%)
Natural Gas(28%)
Nuclear(20%)
Wind (4%)
Solar (<1%) Hydro (7%)
0.50 kg CO2/kWh 0.46 kg CO2/kWh
China’s CO2 emissions from coal in 2030(assuming no solar or wind)
12.1 billion mt CO2
Wind(5%)
Solar(3%)
GW 2013 2030Wind 92 400Solar 10 270
Projected growth
12.1 billion mt CO2 → 11.2 billion mt CO2
Equivalent to a 2% reduction in global carbon emissions
$/to
nne
of C
O2
CO2 reduction 0 100%
Carbon mitigation
$20
$200
EasyHard
Really painful
The European Trading System (ETS) has a
current price of ~$8/mt.
$/to
nne
of C
O2
CO2 reduction 0 100%
Carbon mitigation
$20
$200
EasyHard
Really painful
The US Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI) has a current price of ~$5/mt.
If you believe there is a problem, show us a solution!
