Let's
assume you're the President of the United States, and you ask your head
science advisor what we could do about global warming. Here's what the
conversation might be like:
Pres: My dear science advisor, what should we do about global warming?
Advisor:
First, you should know, sir, that, contrary to popular belief, predicting
how much the Earth will warm in say 100 years is very difficult.
Pres: But isn't it true that human's emissions of greenhouse gasses is causing the Earth to warm?
Advisor:
It certainly seems to be. There are many agencies who are collecting
temperature data from all over the world. Fortunately, the data for the
last 50 years or so seems to be pretty well agreed upon.
Pres: And what does the data say?
Advisor: Here's a graph from the United Nation's IPCC report:
Sir,
it's hard to tell what's going on with global temperatures unless you
look carefully at this graph. Let's look at the top part of the graph for the last 50 years, from 1962
to 2012, where the curve is the steepest. (And as far as we can tell,
since 2012 the curve has risen at the same rate). In 1962, the
temperature anomaly was about -0.3C. Fifty years later, in 2012, the
temperature anomaly was almost 0.6C.
So in the last 50 years, the Earth's global temperature has increased by about 0.9C.
Pres: That's all? What do the other agencies show?
Advisor: NASA and Berkeley Earth show very similar data.
It's
important to note what this graph shows temperatures are projected to be. Doubling 0.9C gives 1.8C. So
if the temperature continues to rise at this rate, the Earth's
temperature by the end of the century, in 2100, will be about 1.8C
warmer than in was at the start of this century, in 2000.
Pres: So
you're telling me that current projections based upon actual data show a
warming of less than 2C by 2100? I've heard predictions of up to 10C by
2100. Where did that come from?
Advisor: Well,
sir, there are hundreds of climate models that attempt to predict
future temperatures. It's good that we are trying to model climate, but
there are literally thousands, if not millions of variables that affect
climate. We don't know if we'll ever be able to predict climate, but
it's good to try. The various climate models make predictions that vary
greatly. So it's best to project from actual data instead of relying on climate models, none of which have been verified.
Pres: What do you think is the most likely temperature increase by 2100?
Advisor:
As I said, a 2C increase is the best projection. And there's good data
that CO2 emitted by humanity is the main cause of global warming.
You
might not know this, sir, but the United States and other developed
countries have leveled off, and even lowered their CO2 emissions.
But
China and India are building a bunch of coal plants, and they, along
with other developing nations will be responsible for the vast majority
of increased CO2 emissions. I'm not blaming them. Their economies are
growing rapidly and they need lots of energy. Unfortunately, coal plants
are their cheapest source of energy.
So to
directly answer your question, the amount of global warming that occurs
by 2100 is going to be largely determined by how much CO2 China and
India produce.
If they start building more natural gas plants and nuclear power plants, that would help.
The
bottom line is that if they don't stop building so many coal plants,
temperatures might increase by 3C by 2100, or possibly 4C. Understand
that these are guesses based on the best evidence we have.
Pres: How bad would such increases be for the world?
Advisor: An
increase of 2 to 4C by 2100 would likely be disruptive for some
developing countries. It rather depends on how much technology improves
over the decades to come, as well as how much more prosperous these
countries become. Prosperity allows a country to afford pollution
controls, conservation measures, air conditioning, and investment in
clean energy.
Actually, there's some evidence
that a 2 to 3C increase will eventually be better for humanity. After
all, sir, who's to say that the current temperature of the Earth is the
best one?
Pres: So the bottom line is
that there's nothing that the United States or other developed countries
can do to prevent global warming?
Advisor: Not
by passing laws that penalize us for our emissions, such as a carbon
tax. This will have a negligible effect on global CO2 emissions, but
will raise our energy prices, which will hurt the poor the most.
Nevertheless, there is a great deal we can do to help.
Pres: And what would that be?
Advisor: Invest
heavily in reseaching 4th generation nuclear power plants. We should be
able to get these plants to be inexpensive enough for developing
countries to use. These new plants can't melt down, they give off no
pollution, and give off no greenhouse gasses.
Even
Bill Gates' Foundation is working with other countries to develop next
generation nuclear power plants. He'd like to work more with the United
States, but there is too much bureaucracy and too much resistance from
the general public about using nuclear power. This, even though in over
60 years of commercial nuclear power, not one American has been killed
or injured by the radiation from a commercial plant, or even from our
nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines.
If we can build a 1 Gigawatt plant for $3 billion dollars in 3 years, that would do it. And that's quite feasible.
And
with the growth in solar and wind power, within 50 years all countries
could be getting their energy from clean sources of power.
Pres:
Great! Call Bill Gates right now. The United States is going to be at
the forefront of this endeavor. What are you waiting for? Get Gates on
the phone!
Tim Farage
is Senior Lecturer at The University of Texas at Dallas. He speaks about
topics as varied as mathematics, computer science, cosmology, nuclear
power, Intelligent Design, and Christianity. The opinions given in this
post are his. He can be contacted at tfarage@hotmail.com
