Date: Fri, 4 Jun 93 04:04:45 From: ISU Space Power Digest Reply-To: Space-Power-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Power Digest V1 #009 To: Space.Power.Talkers Precedence: bulk Space Power Digest Fri, 4 Jun 93 Volume 1 : Issue 009 Today's Topics: global warming Welcome to the ISU Space Power Digest!! This digest will seek to provide a forum for discussion of wireless power transmission, solar power systems. It is hosted by alumni and faculty of the International Space University, but is open to everyone with an interest in this area. Send e-mail contributions to: space-power@isu.isunet.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe, send your e-mail request to: space-power-request@isu.isunet.edu If you experience technical problems, send an e-mail message detailing the problem to: digests@isu.isunet.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 11:14 EDT From: USRNAME Subject: global warming ************ SOLAR POWER NEWS VIA INTERNET ************** June 3,1993 G.E. Canough CANOUGH@BINGVAXA.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU GREENHOUSE EFFECT, GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE The Earth is not just the right distance from the sun to enable life. It also has an atmosphere with the correct mixture of gases to maintain a certain temperature range. We know from studies of Venus, that an atmosphere with lots of CO2 retains more heat. In the case of Venus, temperatures can reach upwards of 470 C, a hairy case of global warming... What we do not know in detail is the exact ratio of CO2 to temperature. Because the atmosphere is a dynamic and large system, it is very difficult to model it (although people do try, especially for predicting the weather). We are now in the midst of a global "experiment" in the effects of increased levels of CO2. By burning fossil fuels, we are putting CO2 into the air at a rapid pace (6 billion tonnes per year). Other human activities generate other types of "greenhouse gases" which are not CO2, but act similarly in retaining heat. These include methane and freon. For example, the increasing population of humans adds to the methane production by natural bodily functions. The question is, given that our models of what will happen to the temperature of the planet and the climate are not very good yet, is it wise to be doing this experiment? THE AMOUNT OF CO2 There are many people still skeptical that addition of CO2 is much of a problem. In general, humans are still much less effective at altering planet-wide parameters than natural forces such as volcanic eruptions. In the last five years, there has been growing evidence that we are effecting the climate by the addition of CO2. To give you an idea of how much CO2 we generate: Using data from Antarctic ice cores, the CO2 content of the air can be traced back to 160000 years ago. 160000 years ago, the CO2 content was around 200 parts per million (ppm). Around 120000 years ago it jumped up to 300 ppm. 40000 years ago, it dipped back down to 200 ppm. Today, we are up to 360 ppm and 410 ppm equivalent (i.e. adding in other greenhouse gases). ***** In other words, there is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than in the last 160 millennia! **** If we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate (and the rate is actually increasing, not staying constant) the CO2 concentration in the year 2050 will reach 600 ppm, fully double any past concentration. THE EFFECTS OF CO2 There is general agreement that more CO2 will cause the temp to go up. There is disagreement on * how much the temp will rise as a function of concentration * what will be the effect of increasing temperature * effect on climate * effect on oceans * will there be positive of negative feedbacks THE EFFECT OF TEMP INCREASE Most of the media attention has been given to the disagreement on the amount of temp rise. But any temp rise, even a small one has its consequences. The fact is, we have already experienced a small temp increase. The seas off California have warmed by 0.8 C in the last 40 years. The temps in Northern Canada have increased by 2 C. The average snowfall over the Northern hemisphere has decreased by 8% since 1973. The Arctic ice cap has declined by 2% between 1978 and 1987. Coral reefs are very sensitive to temp increase and in fact reefs have been observed to be dying off at an unprecedented rate. Corral reef experts have recently been shocked at the level of this occurrence. They were surprised that a temp increase of only 0.5 to 1 C could have such a disastrous effect on the reefs. Southern Africa, Oregon, California, and SE England are in the worst droughts ever. These effects are all due to global warming. Some of the warming may be natural variation in the climate, but do we dare assume that none of it is caused by us? INSURANCE COMPANIES GOING BROKE ON STORM DAMAGE CLAIMS The climate change that has occurred in the last 5 years, which has drawn the most attention and concern is the change in the patterns of windstorms. The insurance industry has been adversely affected by this to the tune of billions of dollars. They have thus suddenly taken an intense interest in climate change. Insurance companies decide whom to insure and what premium to charge, based on past history. So, if you want to buy hurricane insurance, the company goes to the weather record to determine how often a hurricane is likely to occur where you live. They calculate your premium based on frequency of occurrence and intensity. To make money, they have to make an educated bet that storms will not do more damage than can be covered by a fraction of the premiums. If you choose to live in a storm-ridden area, you may not be able to obtain insurance at all. From 1966 to 1987, there were NO storms or other catastrophes which drew claims of more than $1 billion. Between 1987 and 1992, there have been at least 15 such catastrophes. These included mainly intense hurricane and typhoons, but also 1 bush fire (in drought-ridden California), 1 earthquake, and 3 oil accidents. Most of the disasters listed cost $2 to $5 billion, but hurricane Andrew cost a whopping $20 billion, causing some insurance companies to go broke! Some of these storms made historical records for their intensity. [This list is from ref 1] Other storms of note: During the 1992 ISU summer session in Kitakyushu Japan, we had 3 typhoons in the space of 1 month. This was said to be quite unusual, although only one of them was intense and did damage. In early 1993, the worst snow storm in at least a century (essentially a "winter hurricane") hit the eastern US. As we sat around shivering here in Endicott, during the blizzard of '93, people would laugh at the idea that maybe global warming has arrived. ERRATIC WEATHER HARBINGER OF GLOBAL WARMING However, the weather we have had in the last 5 years may be an ugly harbinger of global warming. Realize that global warming's first effect may not be continuously warmer days (although the last 5 years are the warmest on record). *** It is most likely to be manifest in erratic weather. *** Why? Because the atmosphere is a giant convection engine. The temp of the air masses has everything to do with how weather develops. Raise the temp and the engine runs faster and more intensely. This means more storms and/or more intense storms. So you can see why insurance companies are worried. In the short term they can raise their rates or refuse to insure FLoridians, but if there continue to be more and more storms, some of them in unlikely places (such as Endicott) something more will have to be done. FEEDBACK There has been discussion as to the possibility of feedback that could either lessen (negative) global warming or increase (positive) it. For example, more CO2 helps some types of plants grow more. I discussed this briefly with Mark Nelson in Biosphere 2 and he explained that some types of plants do better and over-run other types. Many of the hardy types are what we would consider to be weeds. So maybe the weeds would over-take the crops? Trees do better and could take over grass lands (who knows if this would be good or bad?) Although the Biosphere-2 has a controlled climate, they have been able to gather data on the effects of CO2 concentration on plants and the results of this will be important to our understanding of the "plant feedback" mechanism, and whether it is positive or negative. I'll leave it Mark to expound on this... Of course, more CO2 might also lead to fewer plants (due to higher temps, flooded lands, etc.) which would be positive feedback causing still more CO2 build up. There might be other positive feedback we don't know about yet. And what's worse, we don't really know what the threshold might be. We could stumble on to it any time now and be in deep trouble fast. This is the root of the idea that we might run into a "run-away greenhouse". We have been in the habit of thinking that climate change onsets very slowly, over centuries. But recent evidence (ice cores from Greenland) shows that dramatic climate change can happen very suddenly, in just a year or two[see ref 2]. Do we bet the planet that maybe this won't happen? If the climate does change drastically, humans are likely to end up on the endangered species list, where- as the Earth itself will continue on its way. (So we are really betting human life...) There is some interesting literature available on all of this. Read some of it, and you will be up nights wondering. You will ride your bike more and turn down the thermostat. Peter Glaser quantified our excesses neatly when he said that each kW-hr of electricity made puts another kilogram of CO2 into the air. So if you use your air conditioner or clothes dryer for an hour, there goes another kilogram of CO2. REFERENCES 1) Climate Change and the Insurance Industry by Jeremy Leggett, Greenpeace International [Copies available from The SUNSAT Energy Council Newsletter, c/o ETM, PO Box 67, Endicott, NY 13760 ($5 for copying and postage) Or contact Jeremy Leggett, Greenpeace International, Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN fax = 71 696 0012] This article is very well written and describes discussions going on in the insurance industry. As you might expect, any article on global warming will have its biases, but in this case, the biases were not outrageous or hidden. The article is well referenced to various studies of global warming. There has been a conference of insurance people and global warming experts just last week in London. A second one is scheduled for September 28 in New York City. 2) Ice core shows speedy climate change, R. Monastersky Science News v 142, Dec 12,1992, p 404. Dr. Gay E. Canough ETM,Inc. and BU-SUNY, dept.of physics e-mail(Internet): CANOUGH@BINGVAXA.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU (GEnie) : G.CANOUGH phone/fax= 607 785 6499 voice mail = 800 673 8265 radio call sign: KB2OXA 'Snail Mail: ETM, Inc. PO Box 67 Endicott, NY 13761 ------------------------------ End of Space Power Digest Volume 1 : Issue 009 ------------------------------