El Hilo del Clima y el Cambio Climático

[Republik]

Visitando foros de meteorólogos he visto que hay cierta polémica porque el NOAA ha revisado varias veces a la baja las temperaturas pre-1970 dejando intactas las series recientes, lo que empeora la comparativa. ¿Qué opináis de eso?

¿Que bibliografía recomendáis para aprender de estos temas a alguien con formación matemática pero no física?

Gracias

[traspotin]

Los foros de meteorología dejan mucho que desear en cuanto al cambio climático se refiere, más aún si son foros en español.

Lo cierto es que hay un nuevo algoritmo de homogeneización de la temperatura (se pasa de la versión 3.1.0 a la 3.2.0) y como es lógico el nuevo algoritmo se utiliza para recalcular la temperatura a partir de los datos originales (que no cambian), dando como resultado un trend de 1.07ºC/Siglo en vez del anterior 0,94ºC/Siglo. Para saber más sobre el asunto sólo tienes que ir a la página web del NOAA.

por ejemplo:

FAQ sobre el asunto:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf

Modifications to Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment software to address coding errors and improve run-time efficiency

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20NCDC%20No12-02-3.2.0-29Aug12.pdf

Descarga del Software:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/

Para saber más sobre qué es la homogeneización de los datos raw (y por qué es necesaria):

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/papers-on-time-of-observation-bias/


PS: evidentemente cada vez que ocurra ésto los deniers se intentarán lanzar al cuello del cambio climático, aunque siempre les pasará  lo mismo: se toparán de bruces con la física más elemental y con sus datos.

[Currobena]

Sobre el efecto de los superpredadores en los climas locales y la mejora de la resistencia de los ecosistemas al cambio climático:

Why the Beaver Should Thank the Wolf By MARY ELLEN HANNIBAL Published: September 28, 2012         San Francisco       
   THIS month, a group of environmental nonprofits said they would challenge the federal government’s removal of Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Wyoming. Since there are only about 328 wolves in a state with a historic blood thirst for the hides of these top predators, the nonprofits are probably right that lacking protection, Wyoming wolves are toast.       
 Many Americans, even as they view the extermination of a species as morally anathema, struggle to grasp the tangible effects of the loss of wolves. It turns out that, far from being freeloaders on the top of the food chain, wolves have a powerful effect on the well-being of the ecosystems around them — from the survival of trees and riverbank vegetation to, perhaps surprisingly, the health of the populations of their prey.       
 An example of this can be found in Wyoming’s Yellowstone National Park, where wolves were virtually wiped out in the 1920s and reintroduced in the ’90s. Since the wolves have come back, scientists have noted an unexpected improvement in many of the park’s degraded stream areas.       
 Stands of aspen and other native vegetation, once decimated by overgrazing, are now growing up along the banks. This may have something to do with changing fire patterns, but it is also probably because elk and other browsing animals behave differently when wolves are around. Instead of eating greenery down to the soil, they take a bite or two, look up to check for threats, and keep moving. The greenery can grow tall enough to reproduce.       
 Beavers, despite being on the wolf’s menu, also benefit when their predators are around. The healthy vegetation encouraged by the presence of wolves provides food and shelter to beavers. Beavers in turn go on to create dams that help keep rivers clean and lessen the effects of drought. Beaver activity also spreads a welcome mat for thronging biodiversity. Bugs, amphibians, fish, birds and small mammals find the water around dams to be an ideal habitat.       
 So the beavers keep the rivers from drying up while, at the same time, healthy vegetation keeps the rivers from flooding, and all this biological interaction helps maintain rich soil that better sequesters carbon — that stuff we want to get out of the atmosphere and back into the ground. In other words, by helping to maintain a healthy ecosystem, wolves are connected to climate change: without them, these landscapes would be more vulnerable to the effects of those big weather events we will increasingly experience as the planet warms.       
 Scientists call this sequence of impacts down the food chain a “trophic cascade.” The wolf is connected to the elk is connected to the aspen is connected to the beaver. Keeping these connections going ensures healthy, functioning ecosystems, which in turn support human life.       
 Another example is the effect of sea otters on kelp, which provides food and shelter for a host of species. Like the aspen for the elk, kelp is a favorite food of sea urchins. By hunting sea urchins, otters protect the vitality of the kelp and actually boost overall biodiversity. Without them, the ecosystem tends to collapse; the coastal reefs become barren, and soon not much lives there.       
 Unfortunately, sea otters are in the cross hairs of a conflict equivalent to the “wolf wars.” Some communities in southeast Alaska want to allow the hunting of sea otters in order to decrease their numbers and protect fisheries. But the rationale that eliminating the predator increases the prey is shortsighted and ignores larger food-web dynamics. A degraded ecosystem will be far less productive over all.       
 Having fewer fish wouldn’t just hurt fishermen: it would also endanger the other end of the trophic scale — the phytoplankton that turn sunshine into plant material, and as every student of photosynthesis knows, create oxygen and sequester carbon. In lakes, predator fish keep the smaller fish from eating all the phytoplankton, thus sustaining the lake’s rate of carbon uptake.       
 Around the planet, large predators are becoming extinct at faster rates than other species. And losing top predators has an outsize effect on the rate of loss of many other species below them on the food chain as well as on the plant life that is so important to the balance of our ecosystems.       
 So what can be done? For one thing, we have begun to realize that parks like Yellowstone are not the most effective means of conservation. Putting a boundary around an expanse of wilderness is an intuitive idea not borne out by the science. Many top predators must travel enormous distances to find mates and keep populations from becoming inbred. No national park is big enough for wolves, for example. Instead, conservation must be done on a continental scale. We can still erect our human boundaries — around cities and towns, mines and oil fields — but in order to sustain a healthy ecosystem, we need to build in connections so that top predators can move from one wild place to another.       
 Many biologists have warned that we are approaching another mass extinction. The wolf is still endangered and should be protected in its own right. But we should also recognize that bringing all the planet’s threatened and endangered species back to healthy numbers — as well as mitigating the effects of climate change — means keeping top predators around.       

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/opinion/the-world-needs-wolves.html?_r=0

[Currobena]

Video educativo sobre el cambio climático (en inglés):

What is Climate? Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 1

[traspotin]

Como siempre hemos comentado, el permafrost y la posibilidad de que todo ese co2 salga a la atmósfera es una opción que no está en las proyecciones del IPCC y los modelos climáticos y precisamente por eso es por lo que las proyecciones del IPCC son muy muy conservadoras. La cantidad de co2 que se estima es al menos la misma cantidad de co2 que hay en la atmósfera (si no el doble) de ahí su importancia. El mecanismo de adición es simple, el calentamiento del planeta provoca que el carbono atrapado salga a la atmósfera lo que provoca un calentamiento mayor y vuelta a empezar. Eso es lo que se llama un feedback del co2 (el co2 actúa como fuerza radiativa directa atrapando energía y a su vez es un feedback del sistema por el ciclo del carbono). Bueno pues ya hay quien empieza a poner números a la cuestión (1), números que serán mejores o peores pero que empiezan a indicar por donde puede venir la cosa:

Permafrost soils contain an estimated 1,700 Pg of carbon, almost twice the present atmospheric carbon pool1. As permafrost soils thaw owing to climate warming, respiration of organic matter within these soils will transfer carbon to the atmosphere, potentially leading to a positive feedback2. Models in which the carbon cycle is uncoupled from the atmosphere, together with one-dimensional models, suggest that permafrost soils could release 7–138 Pg carbon by 2100 (refs 3, 4). Here, we use a coupled global climate model to quantify the magnitude of the warming generated by the feedback between permafrost carbon release and climate. According to our simulations, permafrost soils will release between 68 and 508 Pg carbon by 2100. We show that the additional surface warming generated by the feedback between permafrost carbon and climate is independent of the pathway of anthropogenic emissions followed in the twenty-first century. We estimate that this feedback could result in an additional warming of 0.13–1.69 °C by 2300. We further show that the upper bound for the strength of the feedback is reached under the less intensive emissions pathways. We suggest that permafrost carbon release could lead to significant warming, even under less intensive emissions trajectories.

En otras palabras, hagamos lo que hagamos hay un pequeño calentamiento en la recámara debido al permafrost y que ese calentamiento, por sí sólo, puede liderar un calentamiento mucho mayor, e incluso en el posible escenario que los humanos dejáramos de emitir co2, es posible que los océanos no sean capaces de absorber el co2 lo suficientemente rápido como para equilibrar las emisiones, lo que en realidad significa que vamos a perder el control del sistema climático, no porque alguna vez lo hayamos tenido, sino que es el propio sistema el que lo va a perder. El equilibrio termodinámico va hacia un nuevo tipping point y seguro que éste no traerá muchas bondades para los seres humanos.

Saludos.

__________________________________________________________________

(1) http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1573.html

[Currobena]

Desmitificando errores sobre el cambio climático:

A sea level Golden Horseshoe nominee^* Filed under:

• Climate Science
• Oceans
• skeptics

— gavin @ 14 October 2012   <blockquote> I was reading a sign high on the wall behind the bar:
‘Only genuine pre-war British and American whiskeys served here’
I was trying to count how many lies could be found in those nine words, and had reached four, with promise of more …” </blockquote> Dashiell Hammett, “The Golden Horseshoe”
Google News occasionally throws up some obscure postings that I would never otherwise come across. A recent example was a letter to an editor of a Scottish newspaper (not my usual reading material) declaring that “Climate change is not man-made”. The letter itself is uninteresting – a basic confusion between weather and climate seguing into a NIMBY-ish rant about windmills. Ho hum.
However, in one of the comments from a “Dr John Cameron, St Andrews” (posted 9/Oct/2012), there was this unrelated pseudo-factoid:
 <blockquote> As regards the catastrophic sea level rise in the Pacific, it became obvious some 20 years ago that results from island tide gauges did not support computer predictions. Scientists from Flinders University in Adelaide set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands to test whether there was in fact any evidence of sinking. Recently the whole project was abandoned as there had been no sign whatsoever of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. </blockquote> Now this is specific enough to probably actually refer to something real, but doesn’t pass the sniff test for something that might actually be true. Scientists don’t set up monitoring stations only to get the answer they want and then stop monitoring if it doesn’t happen. This only happens in the fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists. So I was intrigued enough to investigate what this actually referred to…
 
 The easiest way to look for this is to search for the exact string – specifically the second sentence. Google comes up with 1000 or so very close antecedents – particularly with the “new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands” section. The links are to comment threads on partisan websites, the standard climate ‘skeptic’ blogs, and even a mention on SkepticalScience. The comments stretch back around 5 years. Some of the examples give an actual source for the remarks (unlike Dr. Cameron’s version) – one Dr. Vincent Gray – a well known pseudo-skeptic. Some even cite the newspaper article they appeared in – a error-ridden puff piece by Lawrence Solomon at the Canadian Financial Post. Curiously, that online version of the article doesn’t have a publishing date – though secondary sources suggest it was published on Oct 26th 2007. The lack of a date means that people quoting it often claim that the this is a ‘recent’ claim.
Going back a little further, Gray made similar claims in a July 2007 article:
 <blockquote> A claim that Pacific Islands were sinking led to an investigation by Flinders University, Adelaide, which replaced all the tide gauges in 12 Pacific islands to attempt to find out whether it was true. The attempt has now been abandoned as a failure, as none of the 12 islands showed any significant change since 1991. The team tried to save face by claiming that all showed an upwards “trend” because the 1998 hurricane caused a temporary depression in the ocean. Since 1998 all have remained flat, and the main island of contention, Tuvalu, actually rose last year. </blockquote> This is referenced to an actual report from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology about the “South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project” (SPSLCMP), dated November 2006. Now we are getting somewhere!
There are some obvious signs of confusion in the Gray/Cameron statements. Firstly, the Australian National Tidal Facility (which installed and monitored the tide gauges starting in 1991) used to be managed by Flinders University in Adelaide – but the facility was transferred to the National Tidal Centre run by the Bureau of Meteorology … in 2003!
Second, the SPSLCMP has been rolled out in stages starting in 1991: the third stage terminating in Dec 2005 – and they are now in stage IV. This might be the source of Gray’s claim that the project had been abandoned, though even the report he cited clearly states that the phase IV was started in January 2006 and was slated to continue at least another 5 years (at that time). The ‘last 16 years’ is a clue that the Cameron statement was obviously written in 2007 not 2012.
Finally, annual reports from SPSLCMP are available through to June 2011 – indicating a project that is very much ongoing and one that was not ‘abandoned’ before 2007.
So none of the statements that Gray (and Cameron) made about the project itself were true (either in 2007 or in 2012). But what about the sea level trends?
This is even odder. The report Gray cites states clearly that relative sea level trends (1992/3/4 to 2006) at all stations were positive (2.7 to 8.1 mm/year for the 11 of the 12 stations with long enough records). The 12th station at FSM was only installed in 2001 and the trends were very noisy (though positive). The Jun 2006 SPSLCMP report goes further and applies corrections for platform movement and the inverted barometer effect, concluding that trends ranged from 1.7 to 7 mm/year at the 11 longer stations. Note that these trends may include a component of subsidence/uplift of the islands themselves and so are the numbers most relevant for local planning (not eustatic sea level change). But so much for not finding a trend!

As one would expect, monitoring has continued since 2007, and in the latest report (June 2011), the 11-station trends range from 2.8 to 7.7 mm/year (and +17.0 mm/year at the FSM station). The monthly data series are available here for people to check for themselves. Comparisons with the satellite altimeter records show a reasonable coherence since the West Pacific sea level has risen faster than the global mean (at least partially related to the number of recent La Niña events).

 Trends using all data up to June 2011.

 Roughly comparable trends (1991-2012) using the satellite altimeter record.
In summary, every piece of concrete information in the Gray/Cameron statement is wrong. They were wrong even in 2007 when the statement was written and even wronger when it was cut-and-pasted without sources in 2012. Yet demonstrating this took a a few hours of googling, a little familiarity with the issues and people, and obviously is not going to be done by every reader. Thus a statement which clearly make no sense goes unchallenged for years and keeps getting regurgitated. Sure, no single statement like this is likely going to change anyone’s mind about anything, but this one and others like it form part of a drumbeat of disinformation, which by repetition, becomes embedded and hard to shift.
A good question would be why I bothered to research a claim in an obscure comment, on an obscure letter to the editor in a regional newspaper I have never read, and I don’t really have a good answer. Clearly, looking for substantive points in newspaper comment threads is a bit of a fool’s errand, but I was still surprised at how completely wrong every single aspect of the comment was. Given that I did look into it, it is worth sharing here – just on the off chance it will save someone else the bother.

Este artículo revela como uno de los argumentos contra el cambio climático (que el nivel del mar no sube en todo el océano Pacífico) está equivocado porque se basa en la interpretación errónea de unos estudios científicos australianos.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/10/a-sea-level-golden-horseshoe-nominee/

[Maple Leaf]

Las políticas del cambio climático.

http://youtu.be/A5GVHqlnPAc
	Small | Large

[traspotin]

Creo que ya se dijo en su momento que los fenómenos meteorológicos serían de mayor magnitud conforme la temperatura de la atmósfera aumente. Todavía queda mucho por estudiar al respecto aunque ya aparecieron los primeros estudios (1). Bueno pues parece que por Nueva York las están pasando canutas con una tormenta que ya les está pasando por encima. Muchos dicen que no han visto nada igual y que la fuerza de Sandy es más destructiva debida al cambio climático (2). Y ésto es ahora, se imaginan cuando el nivel del mar haya subido un par de metros y la fuerza de los fenómenos sea aún mayor? Pues es un poco la pregunta que me llevo haciendo desde hace un tiempo. Sabiendo que en el siglo anterior el nivel del mar ha subido 2.3mm/año y que en la década pasada el nivel subió 3.4mmm/año, es decir el límite superior entre las previsiones del IPCC, hace pensar que las cosas no pintan nada bien ya que parece que la subida del nivel del mar se acelera exponecialmente, por qué? Bueno hay que entender que el nivel del mar es afectado por la presión atmosférica, la dilatación térmica, el deshielo,  la gravedad etc. La gente piensa que el nivel del mar es el mismo en todos los puntos del globo, nada más lejos de la realidad. Según las previsiones a final de siglo tendremos (creo) entre 1-2 metros más, pero claro, las mismas previsiones indicaban que para final de siglo es cuando el Ártico se quedaría sin hielo en verano. Sin embargo en este hilo hemos podido demostrar que todo se acelera y que es posible que eso ocurra en esta misma década! Y cuando eso ocurra el Polo Norte empezará a acumular calor en verano, soltando el carbono acumulado en la última glaciación, algo no incluido en las previsiones. No en vano, hay cálculos que nos dicen que si la tasa se duplica cada década al final serán 5 metros. Hay que destacar que una vez el nivel del mar suba, éste irá comiendo terreno al erosionarlo por lo que el daño será aún mayor.

A mí personalmente me preocupa muchísimo este tema porque vivo a pocos metros del nivel del mar. De hecho me preocupa mucho más que la crisis. Por eso he buscado y he encontrado una simulación para conocer como podría afectarme (3). No sé como de fiable es esta simulación, yo creo que simplemente tiene en cuenta la altitud y nada más, por lo que entiendo será aún peor. Lo que sí sé es que vamos a dejarles un papelón a nuestros hijos que para qué.

Total que las previsiones indiquen que habrá unos 3-4ºC más al doblar el nivel de co2 no será tan importante, verdad? La última vez que tuvimos 2ºC fue en el Eemiense, hace 125.000 años y el nivel del mar era de unos 9 metros mayor que en la actualidad. Hace tres millones de años y medio con 2ºC había 20 metros más. Alguien apuesta? Yo creo que Hansen tendrá razón y que el nivel del mar aumentará más cerca de 5 que de 1 porque ya llevamos casi 1ºC y todo se está acelerando...

Se preguntarán qué está haciendo nuestro Gobierno ante tal amenaza, pues nada, cero patatero en los presupuestos para el cambio climático. Más aún, dan una amnistía de 75 años en la ley de costas porque: "el cambio climático no causa impactos en la costa española"(4).

Lo más paradójico es que igual hay que irse a Groenlandia a vivir porque allí hasta bajará el nivel del mar.
 

______________________________________________________________

(1)http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/08/james-hansen-extreme-heat-events-connected-to-climate-change.html
(2)http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
(3)http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=36.9850,-5.9106&z=8&m=5&t=2
(4)http://m.greenpeace.es/index.php/blog/2012/07/groenlandia-el-cambio-climatico-evidente

Edit: por cierto estoy viendo el documental "la tierra desde el espacio y estoy flipando. Muy recomendable.

[Maple Leaf]

Muy interesante, ¿como piensas que afectaría climatológicamente a la península ibérica una subida del mar de 2 a 5 metros?

[traspotin]

Muy interesante, ¿como piensas que afectaría climatológicamente a la península ibérica una subida del mar de 2 a 5 metros?

Pues las ciudades del litoral serán arrasadas, en mi caso la lengua llegará hasta las puertas de mi casa, o sea Sevilla, los deltas se verán inundados, aumentarán las enfermedades tropicales como la malaria o el Dengue, los recursos hídricos se verán alterados, en general la zona será más desértica aunque puede que en algunos sitios sea al contrario ya que el patrón de lluvias se alterará. Los eventos climáticos extremos serán cada vez más usuales, tipo Sandy, inundaciones en Australia o incendios de Rusia, las olas de calor serán más habituales puede incluso que haya nevadas más fuertes aunque los inviernos serán más cortos. El precio de los alimentos y la energía se dispararán aún más, sobre todo porque en España seremos tan cazurros que no habremos hecho la transición solar/hidrógeno y porque graneros del mundo disminuirán su rendimiento. El petróleo, el carbón y el gas tendrán un usos limitadísimo si no es que estará prohibido su uso, cosa que acelerará aún más la subida de las temperaturas. Los océanos perderán gran parte de su biodiversidad ya que muchos de los corales morirán, el ph será más ácido lo que disminuirá la base alimenticia marítima y la pirámide se verá afectada hasta llegar a nosotros que no volveremos a probar un pescado salvaje en lo que queda de historia. Millones de personas se verán forzadas a la inmigración cuando no se convertirán en refugiados sin hogar, la pregunta es a dónde irán? Si en todas partes estarán igual. Creo que habrá que ir a Groenlandia, mucho espacio y allí el nivel del mar terminará bajando en realidad.

Lo peor de todo es que el sistema climático no se estabilice y haga un efecto runaway, que aunque poco probable puede convertir ésto en otro Venus.

Al final lo que nos pase como nación será irrelevante porque la preocupación de la gente será buscar comida y agua lo que provocará una fragmentación total de todos los países y se vivirá en pequeñas ciudades estado. Las guerras por éstos recursos serán constantes.

Apocalíptico? Puede, pero la mayoría de lo que describo creo que ya es inevitable.

Saludos.

[traspotin]

Uno de los puntos sobre el cambio climático donde menos información se posee es la cubierta de nubes y su previsión, es decir si el albedo provocado por las nubes aumentará o disminuirá el aumento de temperatura (ésta es inevitable). Hay poca información porque como dicen en un nuevo paper que se ha publicado:

"Constraining simulated clouds is a challenge, however, as clouds are complex and difficult to observe. The historical record is plagued by errors associated with the drift and failure of satellites, inconsistencies in the detection of clouds, and instrument biases. Moreover, clouds can vary not just in their bulk characteristics but also in their microphysical properties, for which global observations are lacking generally, and considerable uncertainty persists regarding the feedbacksnof various cloud types that may occur in a changing climate."

Hay algunos científicos (muy pocos) que indican que la cubierta de nubes impedirá que la sensibilidad climática (SC) sea muy elevada pero éstos han sido totalmente debunkeados. Recordemos que la SC responde a la pregunta, cuánto subirá la temperatura media si doblamos la cantidad de co2 en la atmósfera? Actualmente el rango de la SC está entre 2ºC y 4,5ºC (1) con un valor más probable de 3ºC. En realidad hay resultados que indican que el feedback de la cubierta de nubes es ligeramente positivo, pero como hemos dicho aún hay mucho que estudiar (2) y (3).

El enfoque del nuevo estudio es el siguiente.

Variations in clouds and relative humidity (RH) are inherently linked in nature, and the approach here is motivated by the fact that models generally use RH to parameterize clouds

Así que comparan la simulación de todos los modelos climáticos y como se ajustan a la realidad observada por los satélites AIRS y CERES y en función de eso vamos a comparar sus distintas SC. Como ellos explican:

"In boreal summer, the location of maximum solar heating moves north, resulting in air flow across the equator. Warm, moist air rises, loses water through rain, moves north or south, and descends in the high-pressure subtropical zones as relatively dry air. The decreased RH makes condensation, and hence cloud formation, less likely. More sunlight is absorbed, leading to warming."

Los resultados de toda esa comparación nos indican que, por ahora, los modelos climáticos con mayor SC son lo que más se ajustan a la realidad observada. O como el propio autor dice en The Guardian (4): "our findings indicate that warming is likely to be on the high side of current projections".

Lo gracioso de todo ésto es que nuestros gobiernos están haciendo un esfuerzo titánico (léase con ironía) por evitar que la temperatura sólo aumente dos grados...pero las previsiones son que el co2 irá desde 540 (las más conservadoras) hasta 970 ppm. Ya casi hemos alcanzado las 400 ppm. La base que hay que coger son 280 ppm para hacer los cálculos. Por ahora la realidad indica que el co2 estará por la parte superior de las previsiones.

_____________________________________________________________________

(1) http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
(2) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1
(3) http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf
(4) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/08/climate-change-severe-models?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

[Currobena]

Artículo largo, pero muy interesante sobre las consecuencias del desperdicio de la energía que generamos en el calentamiento global:

Why waste heat is the problem and not CO2 – go long carbon price  Posted on 22 November, 2012                                   In an attempt to preamble this post with qualifications on not being pro this or that, not anti this or that, an anarchist or muppet media cheerleader, I might try to convince you this is not a promotion of anything else but free thinking. But somewhere within that preamble you would form an expectation of what this post may (or may not) contain and you would end up disappointed in some way, shape or form. So f*ck it, I’ll save you the time and me the effort. You see I don’t care if the planet is getting hotter by 1 degree every 10 years. Why? Because there is nothing I can personally do about it if it is, except adapt myself and my family to it as it changes my life. Since supposedly intelligent and morally attached representatives are forcing this change onto me, I may as well have a say in how I deal with it.
Now that might sound like resignation to you, but the reality of life after $5Trillion in bailouts following the collusion and fraud of 2008 has woken me up to my own opinions. This is simply an extension of that realisation.
Intuitively, 380ppm (or more correctly 0.038%) of CO2 does not sound like a whole lot. In economic terms, 0.038% expressed as a growth rate of anything is pretty small. But it is not a rate of change, it is the measured value of CO2 in the atmosphere. I’ve tried to put thoughts on this previously with little success -
 a) Commentary: On the hypocrisy over climate change
 b) AGW and accurate global population distributions
The end result is truly the trade of the millennium – a one way sure thing. That is, go long carbon prices, and stay long. Pass the trade certificates onto your children and them onto theirs. It’s about the concept of ‘heat rate’ (thermal efficiency) and the reality that in the US in 2011, 63% of all the energy used to generate electricity was waste, and mostly as waste heat. Waste heat sources can be measured as kW(th) thermal, as equivalent references to other kW units of energy and power. But get the 63% number – that means greater than half of all energy converted as ignited/burnt/combusted was waste heat.
Some further background
 You would understand the kilowatt unit ‘kW’ for your metered electricity, call this kWe (for kilowatts of electricity). When electricity is run through a filament light (typical incandescent bulb), almost all of this kWe is converted to heat through the resistance of the filament – it gets hot. The same for toasters, kettles, element stoves etc. The kilowatt hour (kWH) is the measure of 1 kilowatt run continuously for 1 hour.
Most simply, a 1000watt (1 kW(e)) bar heater running for 1 hour uses 1 kWH(e) producing 1 kW(th) thermal heat. Converting kW(e) back into kW(th) thermal produces heat you can feel with your hands at home, every day.
The verification data comes from the EIA’s latest US electricity summary data. The US EIA has recently published this graphical representation that virtually no-one would fully appreciate -http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec8_3.pdf
The graphic (with my markups below) showing the reality of the US electricity industry
 (note: this is not a fossil fuel love/hate)

 - don’t let the green colour fool you, it’s from the EIA
 - might not include secondary or tertiary heat recovery technologies
 - most electricity conversion losses are at thermal power plants (as heat);
 - metered electricity = net generation + T&D losses ; (transmission and distribution)
 - approx 63% of all energy used for US electricity generation in 2011 wasn’t converted to electricity;
 (very diplomatic of the EIA to say the least; some well chosen words)
So the 63% that “wasn’t converted to electricity” was what then? … and why would it be left shaded green? I have nothing against green per se, or monochromatic graphics. The thermal power plants would be coal, fuel oil, syngas, natural gas, bio fuels, bio mass and nuclear. 65.5% of the total energy used to generate electricity in the USA is fossil fuel derived. To be fair on the EIA data, waste heat recovery systems and cogen/trigen/CHP technologies are probably not included in the above stated conversion losses. At best, heat recovery technologies are still not very widespread and might lift the total average heat rate up a few percentage points – certainly would not lift the network heat rate higher than 50%.
The bottom line – the heat rate of the US electricity industry is a mere 37%. This is the residual (left over) output of kWe generation of the total energy needed to generate it. It means that thermal waste (as kW(th)) is almost DOUBLE this, but substantially more than all combined metered electricity generated in the US is wasted as heat.
BUT WAIT! This is a global phenomenon not restricted to borders of the US. You might argue the US would be a leading example of high efficiency power generation, without naming names. So using a heat rate of 37% for total global electricity production would not be unfair. Globally, 63% of all energy consumed to generate electricity is heating up the atmosphere. Again, the best case is slightly less wasted heat using heat recovery cogen/trigen/CHP technologies.
Thought experiment – imagine a heating element running 24hours 7 days (24/7/365) doing nothing but heating up the local area? This thermal waste heat element is equal to the total amount of electricity being generated and delivered to homes and factories 24/7/365.
For you own verification – a far better current statistical summary of global trends is from the iea.org
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf
Alteratively World Energy Outlook 2012 (also from the iea)
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/English.pdf

 - critical to understand this increasing trend
 - no indication or mention of efficiencies or heat rates
 - no indication or mention of heat recovery technologies
 - the heat rate of the global system is not likely to change appreciably on current (increasing) trends
 - the heat rate (and waste heat) is greatly unaffected by any treatments targeting CO2 of existing/future generation units
Conclusion (the controversial bit)
 I am hopeful that more intelligent people than I read this with direct experience in the climate argument. I don’t think the ICC reports acknowledge heat rate and the waste heat content as per above. Instead, they opt for the CO2 content of the waste, and not the enormous amounts of heat wasted in generating electricity around the world. Which is a gaping flaw in the AGW debate in my humble opinion. By my back of the envelope calculations, this heat alone (when adding it up globally) accounts for more immediate and measurable climate change than the contribution of 380ppm (0.038%) of CO2.
This previous article (link) has a more estimates for global heat rates including motor vehicles. It is a much larger problem globally.
Directing environmental policy towards addressing this glaring oversight on efficiencies and waste heat (and NOT C02) would be an impossible mission. I cannot get myself past CO2 being the lesser of 2 evils and a massive financial opportunity for those who stand to benefit from trading CO2. Far worse would be that addressing CO2 fails to do anything at all to reverse the temperature trends – this would be a human travesty of epic proportions should the environmental conditions worsen as predicted.
Food for thought while everyone is hell bent on solving the Al Gore CO2 problem. If Al had used this argument while on the scissor lift to heaven artificially scaled J-curve CO2 chart, I might have listened to his whole argument. While the current CO2 policies will have an impact to reduce the gross levels of waste heat above, it won’t be significant simply because it is not the focus. Yes, cogen/trigen/CHP plants offer a partial solution – you are not going to know how much until it’s too late, or the carbon price is $2500/ton – whichever occurs sooner. Certainly less of an impact in developing/emerging markets, even if they use CO2 scrubbers. The reality is that only those few people who read this, or something similar to it will even be aware of a larger issue going unaddressed, much less understand it.
Regards, … and try to stay cool for fellow southern hemisphereans, it’s gonna get warm out there!
 atr
p.s. the above is limited to just electricity generation heat rates. My previous (un)controversial article estimated a much bigger heating problem. Long carbon prices – it really is the trade of the millennium if this is how they think they are going to solve it.

Lo de la Agencia de la Energía usando el verde para  que el desperdicio parezca ecológico...mejor no lo comento.   

http://atradersrant.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/why-waste-heat-is-the-problem-and-not-co2-go-long-carbon-price/

[traspotin]

Artículo largo, pero muy interesante sobre las consecuencias del desperdicio de la energía que generamos en el calentamiento global:


http://atradersrant.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/why-waste-heat-is-the-problem-and-not-co2-go-long-carbon-price/

Guardo sitio para hacerte los cálculos de por qué el calor irradiado en pérdidas NO es el problema.

Según la EIA (1) podemos ver que aproximadamente la energía primaria consumida ha sido de 550 quadrillion btu (550x10¹⁵btu). 1 btu=1.055KJulios, por lo tanto 550x10²¹ Julios aproximados. Para convertirlos a vatios que es la unidad que nos interesa tenemos que pasar el año a segundos, o sea dividimos por los segundos que hay en un año. En total nos salen unos 17 Tw (este dato lo podíamos haber puesto directamente pero como no he encontrado los datos en Tw y sí en btu's me he tenido que joder).

Da igual que ese dato sea aproximado porque vamos a pensar que hay un 100% de pérdida así que esos 17 Tw se convertirán en radiación o calor. La Tierra tiene una superficie aproximada (2) de 500x10⁶km², o sea 500 Tm² lo que hace una densidad de radiación de 0,034 Wm^-2. La constante de radiación solar es de 1366 wm^-2 y al co2 se le atribuye un forzamiento radiativo de 1,8 wm^-2 pero vamos también a calcularlo para que no haya dudas:

ΔF = αln(C/Co) donde α=5,35 y Co es la concentración de co2 en la era preindustrial (278 ppm). Sabiendo que actualmente ahora mismo hay 390 ppm hacemos el cálculo y nos da los 1,8 que pusimos anteriormente.

Estamos hablando de dos órdenes de magnitud, por cada vatio irradiado en forma de calor el co2 atrapa 100w así que hay comentarios que están totalmente fuera de lugar, como éste,:

I am hopeful that more intelligent people than I read this with direct experience in the climate argument. I don’t think the ICC reports acknowledge heat rate and the waste heat content as per above. Instead, they opt for the CO2 content of the waste, and not the enormous amounts of heat wasted in generating electricity around the world. Which is a gaping flaw in the AGW debate in my humble opinion. By my back of the envelope calculations, this heat alone (when adding it up globally) accounts for more immediate and measurable climate change than the contribution of 380ppm (0.038%) of CO2.

O sea que el co2 no aumenta la temperatura de la atmósfera, no? Vamos a hacer otro cálculo. Por la fórmula anterior sabemos que doblar la cantidad de co2 nos daría un forzamiento radiativo de 3,7 Wm^-2, a qué equivale en temperatura? Pues conociendo la temperatura de la Tierra podremos saber lo que irradia en Wm^-2, . Sumar 3,7 Wm^-2 por el aumento de co2 equivaldría a aumentar 1ºK la temperatura, o sea 1ºC (que en realidad, como hemos explicado en anteriores post, la sensibilidad climática llevará a 3-4ºC). Podéis hacer los cálculos:

P = s * T⁴ medido en Wm^-2
∆T= (T_f-T_o) medida en ºK

s= Constante de Stefan-Boltzmann

∆T= [(P+∆P)/s]^1/4 - [P/s]^1/4 siendo ∆P el forzamiento radiativo del co2

Y quien no se lo crea que lea (y entienda) la ley de Stephan-Boltzmann (3)

Hasta los cojones de vendedores de humo, en todos los temas pero especialmente en el del cambio climático. Me gustaría que esta persona se aplicara lo que pone en su blog:

Accurate technical analysis of real trends

Preciso dice...jajaja

___________________________________________________

(1) http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2011&subject=0-IEO2011&table=1-IEO2011&region=0-0&cases=Reference-0504a_1630
(2) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra#Superficie
(3) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_de_Stefan-Boltzmann

[Currobena]

Gracias, Traspotín, por el post anterior donde explicas la influencia comparativa del CO2 y la radiación en el calentamiento global. Es muy bueno.

Supongo que será por el huracán Sandy, pero algunos analistas de inversiones de los Estados Unidos (los más espabilados, supongo  ) están empezando a plantearse su inevitabilidad y su influencia sobre las posibilidades de inversión:

Five years ago my family and I were awakened early in the morning and forced to evacuate our home due to raging wildfires burning out of control near our home in Southern California and fanned by winds gusting to over 100 miles per hour (as shown right).  Unlike many of our neighbors, we had time to gather a few things before we escaped.  We left seriously doubting that we would return to find our home still standing. After nearly a week we were allowed back into our neighborhood.  Fortunately, our home survived.  We suffered smoke damage and some damage to trees, but few other problems of note.  Many of our friends and neighbors were not nearly so lucky (see below).  Just within our church community, 70 families lost their homes.  We live with “fire season” every year.  But the problems and the risks have grown consistently over the 17 years we have lived in San Diego and they will continue to grow, largely on account of climate change.
According to nearly all working scientists in the field and the various organizations representing America’s best scientists, climate change is a fact. It is very likely caused by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. As these emissions continue to increase, further change and greater risks will ensue.  These risks include rising temperatures, extreme weather, and the problems caused or (more typically) exacerbated by them.  A helpful summary of the science of climate change is provided by the following video.
   
 
Without belaboring what is remarkably clear, temperatures are rising significantly.
 

Source: NASA
And sea level is rising and rising faster.

Source: NASA
With events like Hurricane Sandy crashing onto the East Coast recently becoming more and more common, it is exceedingly difficult to ignore the increased and intensifying storms, droughts, cold snaps, heat waves, wildfires and disease that inevitably follow from climate change and which are causing devastating damage and disaster-related losses, according to organizations like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  It also means more agriculture-related problems and more variability in weather patterns.
If you don’t want to believe scientists directly, then believe the highly profit-motivated insurance industry, which has become the first major business sector to acknowledge the effects of climate change and to seek to deal with that risk in a systematic fashion.  Just two weeks before Sandy slammed onto the Jersey shore, German reinsurance giant Munich Re issued a report entitled Severe Weather in North America, in which it linked the risks of severe weather events to human-caused, or anthropogenic, climate change:  “In the long term, anthropogenic climate change is believed to be a significant loss driver. [...] It particularly affects formation of heatwaves, droughts, thunderstorms and — in the long run — tropical cyclone intensity.” Allianz actively lobbies for worldwide, binding carbon emission targets and has designed various insurance products to deal with climate change risk, such as catastrophe bonds and micro-insurance. Swiss Re also has a product line that is explicitly geared toward climate-change risks.

Or perhaps you’ll be influenced by the United States Navy, which is actively preparing for an ice-free Arctic Ocean.  Indeed, a major study commissioned by the Pentagon asserts that climate change is a greater threat to national security than terrorism. Even oil companies (see here, for example) acknowledge the facts of climate change and its human causes.
There is a dedicated group of climate change “skeptics” who insist either that climate change is a myth or that its risks are overstated.  Since causation is such a difficult matter to ascertain to everyone’s satisfaction (and especially to the asserted satisfaction of those whose financial status is threatened by climate change).  But no serious climate scientist believes that sea level will rise less than a meter this century unless we get off fossil fuels with great haste.  Many forecasts are much grimmer.  At least 20 port cities will be seriously exposed to coastal flooding risks in the coming decades including Mumbai, Calcutta, Ho Chi Minh City, Shanghai, Bangkok, Tokyo, Miami, Alexandria, and New York (as Hurricane Sandy demonstrated).
But even if the science were in dispute, when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established. In this context the proponent of a threatening activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of persuasion.  If they cannot do so — by establishing that climate change is not a substantive risk — then we should act as if climate change is a major risk to our lives and health. This approach is particularly appropriate, as Nassim Taleb points out, because the extent of the threat and the risks are so high.  As Taleb explains, we should readily use a headache pill if it is deemed effective at a 95 percent confidence level but assiduously avoid such a pill if it is established that it is “not lethal” at a 95 percent confidence level.
The results of the presidential election and the impact of Hurricane Sandy suggest that there might finally be some traction toward deal with climate change.  After a campaign devoid of its consideration, climate change was finally brought up by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in his surprising last-minute endorsement of President Obama in the wake of Sandy. The President himself returned the issue to public light by speaking of it in his acceptance speech on election night:
“We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”
Yet, to this point, little has been done.  Neither New York City  nor New Jersey, which took the brunt of Hurricane Sandy’s force, have made climate change response a serious priority, perhaps because doing so would create further tax burdens on a population already economically stretched.  More cynically, while storm mitigation is largely a state and local expense, disaster clean-up garners major federal dollars.  Irrespective of the reasons, much needs to be done and almost nothing has been done.

But is there an investment play here?

The reality of climate change doesn’t mean that there’s a trade to be made. Jeremy Grantham (see here) addresses the issue directly: Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me.”  I hesitate to disagree with Grantham because of the great respect I have for him, but disagree I do.
With the possible exception of the inverting demographic pyramid, I expect climate change to be the dominant investment challenge and opportunity of our time. But I don’t expect it to play out quickly. For most traders, an actionable item is one that can and should be undertaken right now and is expected to pay off essentially right away (not that there’s anything wrong with that).  But no matter how often I point out that lunch tomorrow is not a long-range plan, I don’t seem to get heard all that often on this point.  Yet I will not be deterred.  Today I offer an action item that will almost surely pay off in the longer term for those with the necessary patience based upon any reasonable interpretation of the available data.  The climate is changing and those changes will have to be dealt with sooner or later.
The denialists do not trouble me in the least.  As Bruce Chadwick puts it, “if your investment horizon is long enough and your position sizing is appropriate, you simply don’t argue with idiocy, you bet against it.”
Investment opportunities in this area fall into two general categories.  Climate mitigation focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions while climate change adaptation refers to actions taken to address the risks and opportunities associated with the physical effects of climate change such as changes to temperature, rainfall and ecosystems.
I remain unconvinced about the investment opportunities available with respect to mitigation.  Since entrenched energy interests have a strong economic incentive to delay governmental initiatives towards climate mitigation, since climate denialists are likely to oppose such initiatives, and since it remains decidedly unclear which approaches will succeed (even assuming the “correct” approach(es) currently exist), Grantham’s uncertainty is well placed in this regard.  From an investment perspective, we can avoid arguing about the causes of climate change — which are fraught with political peril despite science that is clear — and simply put our money to work in companies that deal with the consequences of climate change. Thus the better investment opportunities exist in climate change adaptation.  Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design (Sandy clearly demonstrated the fragility of our energy infrastructure), more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.  Infrastructural improvements include sea-walls, dykes, tidal barriers, and detached breakwaters. But since these improvements may have unintended and damaging side effects, for example by displacing erosion and sedimentation, we might also consider “softer” accommodation options that involve restoring dunes or creating or restoring coastal wetlands, or continuing with indigenous approaches such as afforestation.
Other accommodation options include warning systems for extreme weather events as well as longer-term measures such as improving drainage systems by increasing pump capacity or using wider pipes. Of particular interest ought to be food technologies that are resistant to heat, drought and flooding.  Water needs provide opportunities in adaptation strategies for water conservation, storm water control and capture, resilience to water quality degradation, preparation for extreme weather events and diversification of water supply options.
 
 
Harsher and more wide-spread droughts will lead to a strain on communities and farmers that need fresh water. At the same time, rising sea levels will affect coastal regions, potentially leading to an increase of salt in ground water. So-called desalination technology has been a non-starter to this point; venture capitalists may want to re-think that. Other water recycling approaches are also promising. Further opportunities exist with respect to innovations in dealing with infectious diseases and pest control, weather forecasting technologies and more efficient irrigation systems.
Because the facts (and the science) are inexorable, society is going to have to adapt to higher temperatures and a rising sea level.  Obviously, it’s much cheaper to deal with climate change before a crisis hits than after a city has been flooded. But there is no reason to believe or expect that we will have the public policy sense to do so.  Moreover, green-energy technologies are still too speculative for the type of call I’m making here. The obvious investment priority is in adaptation technologies that will prepare and help us to deal with effects of climate change.
It is a highly speculative play.  It is a very long-term play.  But it is the right play.  Our atmosphere is getting warmer and that has inevitable consequences.  It is the most important hot action item of our time.

http://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/hot-action-item/

[NosTrasladamus]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/arctic-sea-ice-larger-us-melted-year-17825213

Arctic Sea Ice Larger Than US Melted This Year

An area of Arctic sea ice bigger than the United States melted this year, according the U.N. weather agency, which said the dramatic decline illustrates that climate change is happening "before our eyes."

In a report released at U.N. climate talks in the Qatari capital of Doha, the World Meteorological Organization said the Arctic ice melt was one of a myriad of extreme and record-breaking weather events to hit the planet in 2012. Droughts devastated nearly two-thirds of the United States as well western Russia and southern Europe. Floods swamped west Africa and heat waves left much of the Northern Hemisphere sweltering.

But it was the ice melt that seemed to dominate the annual climate report, with the U.N. concluding ice cover had reached "a new record low" in the area around the North Pole and that the loss from March to September was a staggering 11.83 million square kilometers (4.57 million square miles) — an area bigger than the United States.

"The alarming rate of its melt this year highlighted the far-reaching changes taking place on Earth's oceans and biosphere," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said. "Climate change is taking place before our eyes and will continue to do so as a result of the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which have risen constantly and again reached new records."

The dire climate news — following on the heels of a report Tuesday that found melting permafrost could significantly amplify global warming — comes as delegates from nearly 200 countries struggled for a third day to lay the groundwork for a deal that would cut emissions in an attempt to ensure that temperatures don't rise more than 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) over what they were in preindustrial times. Temperatures have already risen about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 degrees F), according to the latest report by the IPCC.

Discord between rich and poor countries on who should do what has kept the two-decade-old U.N. talks from delivering on that goal, and global emissions are still going up.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, urged delegates to heed the science and quickly take action.

"When I had the privilege in 2007 of accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC, in my speech I asked the rhetorical question, 'Will those responsible for decisions in the field of climate change at the global level listen to the voice of science and knowledge, which is now loud and clear,' " he said. "I am not sure our voice is louder today but it is certainly clearer on the basis of the new knowledge."

Delegates in Doha are bickering over money from rich countries to help poorer ones adapt to and combat the impacts of climate change, and whether developed countries will sign onto an extension of a legally binding emissions pact, the Kyoto Protocol, that would run until 2020.

A pact that once incorporated all industrialized countries except the United States would now include only the European Union, Australia and several smaller countries which together account for less than 15 percent of global emissions. And the United States is refusing to offer any bolder commitments to cut its emissions beyond a non-binding pledge to reduce emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

"For developed country parties like the United States and the European Union, the pledges and commitments ... put forward on the table are far below what is required by the science," Su Wei, a member of the Chinese delegation, told reporters. "And far below what is required by their historical responsibility."

Developing countries have said they are willing to take steps to control emissions, but that they must be given space to build their economies. Although China is the largest carbon polluter and India is rapidly catching up, both countries lag far behind the industrial countries in emissions per person and still have huge populations mired in poverty. They don't see emissions peaking anytime soon.

"We are still in the process of industrialization. We are also confronted with the enormous task of poverty eradication," said Wei, acknowledging that the country's emissions won't peak by 2020.

"In order to eradicate poverty, to try to improve the living standards, certainly we need to develop our economy," he said. "So the emissions will need to grow for a period of time."