Global warming and financial positioning

[ERD50]

Here is an interesting 'unintended consequence' that might fit into the original (and recent) question about investment opportunities:

http://tinyurl.com/2c3ty5

That chart (directly from the IPCC site), indicates that a 'clean' power plant (one that captures CO2) uses about 25-30% *more* fuel than a standard power plant. So, the idea of sequestering CO2 is somewhat at odds with energy conservation. Could that make oil and coal *good* investments?

So, I think it is reasonable to really question if these efforts will help. There is a price to pay, not only in $$, but the environmental impact of obtaining the additional fossil fuel.


I don't think the IPCC claims are a slam-dunk on the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC#Contributors

# Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
# Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations
# Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.[9], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[10]

* Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3]

So, a 90% confidence that more than half of the global warming is due to human actions.

And we can only mitigate the damage to a degree.

And, that mitigation comes at a price (some of it an environmental price).

To me, that means we should have a reasonable understanding of just how much 'good' a given solution can provide, versus the 'cost' of that solution. IOW, prioritize and evaluate the solutions. This is not something our politicians are good at. They like high profile, 'look, I'm doing something', sound-bite type solutions.

I am somewhat hopeful that the problems won't be quite as bad as we currently think, that technology will provide some solutions despite the political interventions, and that we will be able to adapt to the changes that do occur.

And where did Al Gore get that 20 foot rise in sea level he dramatizes in "Inconvenient Truth"? The largest number I see in the IPCC report is 35" (.9M) which was revised downward to a max of 23 inches in the 2004 report. Does exaggerating by a factor of ten still count as 'truth'? Or was 20 feet just a 'convenient' number to use? He seems to draw on the consensus of the experts when it fits his needs, and then choses to ignore the consensus when it does not make such a dramatic video. 20 feet is much more dramatic than 23 inches (max).

-ERD50

 

[wabmester]

So, that wikipedia article on the inefficiency of plant photosynthesis inspired me to investigate photosynthesis a bit more. Turns out that plants are close to 100% efficient (not sure what the wiki article was measuring), but we still don't understand photosynthesis well enough to engineer a similar mechanism. Personally, I think this should be a major focus. Not just to improve our solar energy efficiency, but also to build efficient carbon sequestration machines if we need to. Imagine being able to build arbitrary structures out of carbon using solar power.

Anyway, interesting article on the latest scientific breakthrough:

Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed

 

[2B]

So, that wikipedia article on the inefficiency of plant photosynthesis inspired me to investigate photosynthesis a bit more. Turns out that plants are close to 100% efficient (not sure what the wiki article was measuring), but we still don't understand photosynthesis well enough to engineer a similar mechanism. Personally, I think this should be a major focus. Not just to improve our solar energy efficiency, but also to build efficient carbon sequestration machines if we need to. Imagine being able to build arbitrary structures out of carbon using solar power.

Anyway, interesting article on the latest scientific breakthrough:

Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed

I've avoided rejoining this thread until now. How can a plant not be "100% efficient?" CO2 comes in and O2 leaves. The carbon gets incorporated into the plant. There are no byproducts. The only way a plant can't be "100%" is to put it in an evironment of CO2 and wait for the plant to die because the CO2 level becomes too low to utilize. Perhaps that's what the alternative definition meant but it seems like a stretch for any rational evaluation.

 

[wabmester]

I've avoided rejoining this thread until now. How can a plant not be "100% efficient?" CO2 comes in and O2 leaves. The carbon gets incorporated into the plant. There are no byproducts. The only way a plant can't be "100%" is to put it in an evironment of CO2 and wait for the plant to die because the CO2 level becomes too low to utilize. Perhaps that's what the alternative definition meant but it seems like a stretch for any rational evaluation.

"Inefficient" usually means "heat loss" or otherwise failing to convert energy to a useful purpose. Humans generate a lot of heat (some of it on purpose), but plants don't.

 

[2B]

"Inefficient" usually means "heat loss" or otherwise failing to convert energy to a useful purpose. Humans generate a lot of heat (some of it on purpose), but plants don't.

Since it never occurred to me that living plants generate heat, I just assumed the it would all be chemical efficiency. Now if plants generated a few moles of CH4 for every mole of O2 we would then be able to talk about chemical efficiency.

Plants do die and decompose or they can be fermented. Maybe we should consider the whole life cycle. We could start a whole new thread.

 

[wabmester]

Plants do die and decompose or they can be fermented. Maybe we should consider the whole life cycle. We could start a whole new thread.

Or we could keep it in this thread since that's where our oil comes from. All we're doing is burning dead plants to use some of the solar energy they converted into chemical bonds.

And, as a side-effect, we're putting the carbon we dug up back into the atmosphere. Surely, we can do better than that (even if you don't believe the free carbon is a convoluted indirect threat to the polar bears).

 

[ERD50]

Turns out that plants are close to 100% efficient

I suspect their definition of 'efficiency' is too narrow, I don't think the efficiency they measured is comparable to solar cells (or our energy independence for that matter).

For one thing, how can I look at a plant (which appears green) and say it is 100% efficient at converting solar energy to anything? It would need to appear black to my eyes (all light energy absorbed and converted) to be 100% efficient. So right there - we know the efficiency they are talking about is something different.

Second, a plant is not electricity, or some other useful form of fuel yet. If we burn the plant, we lose efficiency in the conversion. Solar cells are in the 15% eff range - and that is electric power that can be used (in many cases it must be converted to AC power, but that loses only a few % total).

-ERD50

 

[wabmester]

Heh. I actually think this in on topic.

Humans generally want electrical or mechanical energy as the end product. Sometimes we want to build stuff, too.

Plants are good at converting solar (at the specific wavelength that excites chlorophyll) to free electrons (which is basically where our solar cells stop) and use that electricity to convert water and CO2 into structural carbon chains.

photosynthesis primer

I'm pretty sure we could learn a bunch from plants both as solar-based electrical generators and for building carbon-based structures. Today, we're using very crude methods to break down the carbon chains of plants for mechanical energy to power our cars and electrical generators.

 

[kcowan]

And where did Al Gore get that 20 foot rise in sea level he dramatizes in "Inconvenient Truth"? The largest number I see in the IPCC report is 35" (.9M) which was revised downward to a max of 23 inches in the 2004 report. Does exaggerating by a factor of ten still count as 'truth'? Or was 20 feet just a 'convenient' number to use? He seems to draw on the consensus of the experts when it fits his needs, and then choses to ignore the consensus when it does not make such a dramatic video. 20 feet is much more dramatic than 23 inches (max).
-ERD50

I listened very carefully and he said IF the entire ice glacier on land in Antarctica, or Greenland, or half of both were to completely melt, then the sea level would rise 20 ft. He implied that the melting action observed on the western Antarctic ice shelf might portend this.

He was mixing some science with lots of theatrics. Entertaining but that is all.

 

[BUM]

I say, keep your finances warm and positioned close to your globes

 

[ERD50]

I listened very carefully and he said IF the entire ice glacier on land in Antarctica, or Greenland, or half of both were to completely melt, then the sea level would rise 20 ft. He implied that the melting action observed on the western Antarctic ice shelf might portend this.

He was mixing some science with lots of theatrics. Entertaining but that is all.

Yes, that is it. And it is very, very dangerous. Al Gore's theatrics have led many, many people to believe that our coastal cities are in imminent danger of being under 20 feet of water in our children's lifetimes. And that we must take action now.

So then, this frightened populace votes in people to approve all these drastic measures to 'save us' from these 'problems'. We all get hit with the costs associated with it. Worse, money is taken away from real needs. I could call it 'entertaining' if it was a made for TV fiction piece, but it is presented as a documentary. And many people are buying it, hook, line and sinker.

Al Gore just admonished Congress for not listening to the scientists. But, Al Gore is not listening to the scientists when he shows a 20 foot rise in sea level. The scientists say 2 feet, maximum.

Al Gore's hypocrisy galls me, but it is worse than that - he is dangerous. The more I see of his contradictions and calls to action, the more I'm thinking maybe we are just better ignoring this until we have a better look. Mis-steps might do more harm than good. That harm might not be so apparent, like taking money from good causes.

At this moment, I am more afraid of Al Gore than I am afraid of Global Warming. Not because I'm less afraid of Global Warming, I just became more afraid of Al Gore.

-ERD50

 

[arandomwalk07]

Al Gore just admonished Congress for not listening to the scientists. But, Al Gore is not listening to the scientists when he shows a 20 foot rise in sea level. The scientists say 2 feet, maximum.

Which scientists would these be exactly eh? The figure is 21.something feet if Greenlands ice sheet alone melts.

More facts and figures
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

 

[ERD50]

Which scientists would these be exactly eh? The figure is 21.something feet if Greenlands ice sheet alone melts.

More facts and figures
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Al Gore is not listening to the IPCC scientists. They say 7 to 23 inches over one hundred years.

summarized here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3]

If you want it from the IPCC directly, here is a link - table 3 is found on page 13:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Your link is an estimate of the rise in sea level *IF* the Greenland Ice Sheet totally melted. That is a calculation, not a prediction. Which 'consensus' of scientists is predicting total meltdown?

Looks like the USGS talks about glaciers melting in one hundred years, while the IPCC is talking about thousands (yes, plural) of years (if present trends continue - another big IF)(p17). So, where is this 'consensus' we hear so much about? The scientists were wrong about global cooling just 20 or 30 years ago - now they are going to be accurate thousands of years out?

And remember, Gore compared the affect of this rise in sea level in the cities with the efforts to evacuate during Katrina. Hmmm, that happened over a period of days, we have hundreds or thousands of years to deal with this, if it does materialize. I recently heard a caller to an environmental radio program say 'Well, when New York is under water in ten years....', and the host didn't even stop to challenge the statement.

Here is a valid statement (from me): If nuclear chain reactions on the Sun cease, the Earth will get very cold. Not a prediction, but an accurate statement.

If GW is a real problem, and Al Gore is going to do something about it, he better get his act and his facts together. Scare tactics and dramatizations will fool some of the people some of the time. But it will ultimately undermine any real efforts towards real solutions.

JMO, but I don't think Al Gore has the slightest intention of saving the environment. He is a politician and sees it as a ticket to... something, somewhere.

-ERD50

 

[wabmester]

Obviously 2 ft isn't as bad as 30 ft, but neither change is predicted to happen in a rush. People and critters would have plenty of time to adapt to the changes. Still, people are afraid of change, and fear is good for political and moral crusades.

 

[Texas Proud]

This is interesting.... and I can say I am learning some more stuff reading the tos and fros.... from ERD50s article...

"Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level. The evidence comes from two different but complementary types of studies. One line of evidence is provided by old shoreline features (fig. 2)"

SO... just NORMAL global warming without human intervention COULD have the water level rise by as much as 20 METERS!!!

Well, that will take my house out... but Iwill not own it then... and it also continues to show how little we can 'change' the weather in the long run.. because it sounds like it will happen anyhow...

 

[2B]

"Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level. The evidence comes from two different but complementary types of studies. One line of evidence is provided by old shoreline features (fig. 2)"

SO... just NORMAL global warming without human intervention COULD have the water level rise by as much as 20 METERS!!!

The Texas Hill Country used to be underwater. Every rolling hill is a former reef. Try digging in one without finding massive amounts of fossilized sea life. I can't. It's a great Cub Scout outing. Nobody fails to bring home a bag of fossils.

 

[arandomwalk07]

SO... just NORMAL global warming without human intervention COULD have the water level rise by as much as 20 METERS!!!

Ireland used to be a tropical jungle several million years ago and you could stroll from here to the tip of south america on foot, but that's not the point. The point being made is not that the earth doesn't change, but that natural changes have come slowly over thousands and millions of years. There is a direct correlation between the period at the beginning of industrialisation and the level of CO2 in the air, all noticeable in the space of 150 years. Sure it may be a natural change, but the balance of probabilities attribute it to human interaction.

One of the problems here is the language that scientists are forced to use - because science is a moving target, they have to couch their findings in terms like "balance of probabilities" and "risk", which leaves the door open for opponents to scream "haha! they don't really know". The opponents usually have no problem being 100% confident in their own opinions of course.

 

[donheff]

The Texas Hill Country used to be underwater. Every rolling hill is a former reef. Try digging in one without finding massive amounts of fossilized sea life. I can't. It's a great Cub Scout outing. Nobody fails to bring home a bag of fossils.

But they are only 6000 years old. And they were planted there. I think it was by extraterrestrials.

 

[Texas Proud]

One of the problems here is the language that scientists are forced to use - because science is a moving target, they have to couch their findings in terms like "balance of probabilities" and "risk", which leaves the door open for opponents to scream "haha! they don't really know". The opponents usually have no problem being 100% confident in their own opinions of course.

I don't have any problems with the language they use... I invest in the stock market because of probabilities...

It is the conclusions that cause me concern.. that because of man, global warming is occuring (or should I say occuring faster than normal)... and that the water level will rise up to 2 feet... (or 20, who knows the correct number that is 'official')... and because of this, let's harm the people of certain contries by up to 3% of GDP PER YEAR without even knowing if that would do anything different using models that even they say are flawed..

That is a LOT of money.

But, if global warming is eventually going to have the water rise 20 meters... then the cost to man will be a LOT higher than that... but it seems that we could not stop that because it happens... and has happened a few times already in the Earths history..

 

[HFWR]

Looks like the USGS talks about glaciers melting in one hundred years, while the IPCC is talking about thousands (yes, plural) of years (if present trends continue - another big IF)(p17). So, where is this 'consensus' we hear so much about? The scientists were wrong about global cooling just 20 or 30 years ago - now they are going to be accurate thousands of years out?

I don't believe many scientists took the "global cooling" idea seriously...

JMO, but I don't think Al Gore has the slightest intention of saving the environment. He is a politician and sees it as a ticket to... something, somewhere.

Shirley, you jest...

 

[arandomwalk07]

let's harm the people of certain contries by up to 3% of GDP PER YEAR without even knowing if that would do anything different using models that even they say are flawed..

That is a LOT of money.

It's not like this money disappears, it ends up redistributed. We've had a couple of posters here rubbish Kyoto, but the facts on the ground are that European economies in particular are rapidly moving towards carbon neutral technologies and investments. Money that would previously have gone towards oil and coal fired stations are going into wind, wave, gas & nuclear projects. Carbon trading will in my opinion be a massive source of financial service jobs in the future. Sure if you have everything invested in Exxon you may be in trouble, but that's why diversification is preached in the first place.

As an investor the key thing is not to be caught in industries or companies that refuse to recognise the new reality. I have difficulty seeing which technologies or industries can clearly profit, but as far as I'm concerned my investing in stock market index funds will negate any upside or downside.

There seems to be an undercurrent that money will be taken from business by "socialist" governments and dumped into the arms of who knows who, the poor maybe? In reality, the money is being reinvested in new & innovative technologies and applications of technologies. I would imagine there are a number of companies or states in the US who would not like to be left out in the, err, cold while their competitors around the world gain an advantage.

 

[al_bundy]

Ireland used to be a tropical jungle several million years ago and you could stroll from here to the tip of south america on foot, but that's not the point. The point being made is not that the earth doesn't change, but that natural changes have come slowly over thousands and millions of years. There is a direct correlation between the period at the beginning of industrialisation and the level of CO2 in the air, all noticeable in the space of 150 years. Sure it may be a natural change, but the balance of probabilities attribute it to human interaction.

One of the problems here is the language that scientists are forced to use - because science is a moving target, they have to couch their findings in terms like "balance of probabilities" and "risk", which leaves the door open for opponents to scream "haha! they don't really know". The opponents usually have no problem being 100% confident in their own opinions of course.

2000 years ago tunisia, egypt and other north african countries were the biggest food producers of the civilized world and fed the roman empire. why are they wastelands now? why did the climate change so drastically in less than 2000 years before industrialization? why did we have a little ice age that ended in the middle of the last century? all this alarm about climate change, but the base measurements are from the little ice age and they are supposed to rise after it ends.

 

[al_bundy]

It's not like this money disappears, it ends up redistributed. We've had a couple of posters here rubbish Kyoto, but the facts on the ground are that European economies in particular are rapidly moving towards carbon neutral technologies and investments. Money that would previously have gone towards oil and coal fired stations are going into wind, wave, gas & nuclear projects. Carbon trading will in my opinion be a massive source of financial service jobs in the future. Sure if you have everything invested in Exxon you may be in trouble, but that's why diversification is preached in the first place.

As an investor the key thing is not to be caught in industries or companies that refuse to recognise the new reality. I have difficulty seeing which technologies or industries can clearly profit, but as far as I'm concerned my investing in stock market index funds will negate any upside or downside.

There seems to be an undercurrent that money will be taken from business by "socialist" governments and dumped into the arms of who knows who, the poor maybe? In reality, the money is being reinvested in new & innovative technologies and applications of technologies. I would imagine there are a number of companies or states in the US who would not like to be left out in the, err, cold while their competitors around the world gain an advantage.

US is doing more to be carbon neutral than other countries. the europeans just talk about it

 

[ERD50]

RE: Euro vs US greenhouse gas - This does not explain the hows or whys, but it is interesting, I think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Results_to_date

From 2000-2004, the United States' CO2 emissions growth rate was 2.1%, compared to the EU-15's 4.5%. That happened while the US economy was expanding 38% faster than the economies of the EU-15 while experiencing population growth at twice the rate of the EU-15.[72] This naturally has led to questions and debate about the merits of a mandatory emissions cap approach (as currently adopted under Kyoto) versus a voluntary approach to emissions reduction (as adopted by the United States.

and

On June 28, 2006, the German government announced it would exempt its coal industry from requirements under the Kyoto agreement.

The numbers look worse for the US when you go back from 1990-2004. Plus 16% for US, minus 0.8% for EU-15. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Relative to Texas Proud and some other comments on the natural cycles - I think this is what must be put in perspective. For example, if the one-half of the predicted 7 to 23 inch rise in sea level is from natural changes, we could see a 12 inch rise due to natural cycles alone. We would need to do something regardless of our greenhouse gas emissions. That number is larger than the low end of the estimate.

If we need to take action to adapt to the natural cycles (evacuate coastal areas for one), the incremental cost to adapt to the incremental rise due to man-made GHG must be estimated. Then, the cost of mitigating the incremental damage must be estimated. Then, a risk/reward assigned.

I'm not saying we should not do something. But I'd hate to see billions and billions of $$ and energy diverted from other uses, and possibly provide only a very marginal benefit. Just maybe, those $$ and energy are better spent in adapting to change, rather than minimizing man-made contributions. IMO, those are the important numbers. We need to be pragmatic about this - 'feel good' stuff is just that.

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

... and because of this, let's harm the people of certain contries by up to 3% of GDP PER YEAR...

Why do people keep repeating this? It will SAVE you money to use a cfb instead of incandescant bulb. It will save you money to conserve energy. There are a ton of things you can do on an individual level that cost you nothing, or even save money.

If you don't like the people that say it will cost the public tons of money, criticise THEM, not the underlying issue.

But, if global warming is eventually going to have the water rise 20 meters... then the cost to man will be a LOT higher than that... but it seems that we could not stop that because it happens... and has happened a few times already in the Earths history..

Following that logic, would you also hold that we can't prevent any forest fires, because they have happened before mankind has been around?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

These are really the basics. To claim mankind is not contributing to GW, one must falsify one of the above claims. Forget all the rest, it is really pretty simple.