With Carbon Dioxide Emissions at Record High, Worries on How to Slow Warming

[donsutherland1]

From today's edition of The New York Times:

Global emissions of carbon dioxide were at a record high in 2011 and are likely to take a similar jump in 2012, scientists reported Sunday — the latest indication that efforts to limit such emissions are failing.

Emissions continue to grow so rapidly that an international goal of limiting the ultimate warming of the planet to 3.6 degrees, established three years ago, is on the verge of becoming unattainable, said researchers affiliated with the Global Carbon Project.

The complete story can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/world/emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-hit-record-in-2011-researchers-say.html

[blizzard1024]

From today's edition of The New York Times:

Global emissions of carbon dioxide were at a record high in 2011 and are likely to take a similar jump in 2012, scientists reported Sunday — the latest indication that efforts to limit such emissions are failing.

Emissions continue to grow so rapidly that an international goal of limiting the ultimate warming of the planet to 3.6 degrees, established three years ago, is on the verge of becoming unattainable, said researchers affiliated with the Global Carbon Project.

The complete story can be found at: http://www.nytimes.c...rchers-say.html

Unless China and India slow their emissions, this whole thing is feudal. And I don't think they are going to do this. The best thing to do is for mankind to prepare

for climate change...both ways. Cooling would be far worse than warming. Fortunately, the oceans act as a buffer to whatever the forcing is (barring a comet or

nuclear holocaust) either way giving mankind a chance to adapt. that's my opinion. I don't agree with this scary geo-engineering stuff. we should not mess around with anything that cools the planet. Cooling would be far worse than warming. no doubt. Just look at history.

[Entropy]

Unless China and India slow their emissions, this whole thing is feudal.

Don't worry, our feudal lords will save us lowly serfs.

[skierinvermont]

The most realistic and fairest solution would probably be to allow China and India to maintain or possibly slight grow current emissions, while the developed world makes large cuts. Our per capita emissions are so much lower it easier and less costly to our prosperity to make cuts.

[Jonger]

I think geoengineering will prove to be the best solution and I'm confident it will happen. The question is: when will it?

[TerryM]

While it's probably feudal to argue with the above, it is disconcerting to think that in a few years he'll be able to vote ;-^

As prospects fall for a 3.6C world, that leftist, alarmist neo-hippy bunch of socialists at the World Bank has favored us with some predictions about the horrors of a 4C future.

" a warming of 4°C could occur as early as the 2060s. Such a

warming level and associated sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, or

more"

"In regions such as the

Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Tibetan

plateau, almost all summer months are likely to be warmer than

the most extreme heat waves presently experienced. For example,

the warmest July in the Mediterranean region could be 9°C warmer

than today’s warmest July."

"the greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations that would lead to warming of 4°C by 2100 would

actually commit the world to much higher warming, exceeding

6°C or more"

There's plenty more with graphs, charts and maps - and lots of references to the original research. The chapter on Arctic ice melt was quite good, the only addition I'd make would be to note the fact that if we lose as much ice volume in the next 3 years as we have in the last 3 years - we'll be out of ice.

http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf

Terry

[blizzard1024]

The most realistic and fairest solution would probably be to allow China and India to maintain or possibly slight grow current emissions, while the developed world makes large cuts. Our per capita emissions are so much lower it easier and less costly to our prosperity to make cuts.

The US could continue to cut emissions if we went over to natural gas more and more, but there is so much political opposition and controversy to

hydrofracturing that this may never happen. There are also some environmental concerns which are hard to gauge how serious they would

be given the polarized nature of the debate. Although I am skeptical of CAGW, I am all for cleaner more efficient energy and less pollution.

Have you ever seen the soot and smoke plumes from China on satellite? awful.

[OSUmetstud]

Unless China and India slow their emissions, this whole thing is feudal. And I don't think they are going to do this. The best thing to do is for mankind to prepare

for climate change...both ways. Cooling would be far worse than warming. Fortunately, the oceans act as a buffer to whatever the forcing is (barring a comet or

nuclear holocaust) either way giving mankind a chance to adapt. that's my opinion. I don't agree with this scary geo-engineering stuff. we should not mess around with anything that cools the planet. Cooling would be far worse than warming. no doubt. Just look at history.

eh?

[TerryM]

Does anyone recall Dabize's thread from < 1 yr ago that addressed man's inability to survive in humid conditions at temperatures only slightly warmer than we're now experiencing? I don't recall the details, but it certainly debunked any cold is worse than warm statements.

Terry

[Alpha5]

Have you ever seen the soot and smoke plumes from China on satellite? awful.

Have you ever been to China?

I went back a couple years ago, and after being out in the city all day, you would come back to your hotel room, sneeze, and the tissue would turn black.

Nasty, dirty place

[Jonger]

Does anyone recall Dabize's thread from < 1 yr ago that addressed man's inability to survive in humid conditions at temperatures only slightly warmer than we're now experiencing? I don't recall the details, but it certainly debunked any cold is worse than warm statements.

Terry

Humans are tropical adapted creatures, so trying to say cold is better than warm is ludicrous. I don't agree with the premise of his argument though. We need to geo-engineer the co2 out...much less political and economically damaging.

Jon

[dabize]

Does anyone recall Dabize's thread from < 1 yr ago that addressed man's inability to survive in humid conditions at temperatures only slightly warmer than we're now experiencing? I don't recall the details, but it certainly debunked any cold is worse than warm statements.

Terry

Hi Terry,

That's right - evolution has equipped us with a much greater tolerance for cold than heat - mainly because 1) our main defense against heat (sweating/panting) relies upon evaporative cooling and 2) our tolerance for high body core temperatures runs out only a few degrees above our normal body temperature. Also, we are constantly generating metabolic heat that must be dispersed - our survival requires a negative heat balance. So excessive heat is unlike cold, which can be resisted simply by preventing the loss of body heat faster than we naturally produce it. This is a much lower bar, physiologically speaking.

I've seen posts from much more authoritative people than I on this subject elsewhere - the general drift is that prolonged spells (3 weeks +) of heat and humidity sufficient to make evaporative cooling ineffective (e.g. 42C/95%+ RH) will soon start to threaten the ability of significant parts of the world to support a stable human society. The heat wave wouldn't need to actually kill you for this - it would just need to make you prioritize physical survival to a point where it is all consuming.

I think the thing to bear in mind is that heat waves like this will occur in conjunction with reduced mobility and reduced access to AC and fresh water. This will mean that poor people (in particular) will not be able to survive economically in such places, since they will be forced to do things that are incompatible with working (e.g. hiding in caves or holes In the ground) to stay alive. Add to this the increased price of food (due to drought), and you have large groups of people who will be made functionally homeless.

These conditions were being approached last summer on India's Deccan Plateau.....

[TerryM]

Dabize

Nice to hear from you!

The figure I keep coming up against is 35 c wet-bulb At this point we can't get rid of excess heat & end up frying ourselves. I've been in a Basket-maker dugout in the Mojave Desert and the temperature was quite comfortable even on a hot July day, but I'm not sure how well this technology would work with heightened humidity. We produce too much heat to survive if we can't somehow get rid of it & 100% humidity shuts down all the evaporative cooling mechanisms we've evolved with.

As you say the poor will feel the effects first, but I can't imagine the electrical grid holding up for too long with everyone's AC blasting away. Even water source heat pumps pull a huge load in high temp/high humidity conditions & cooling towers don't work at all.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

In the U.S. heat mortality is expected to grow from 1300 to 4500/yr by the end of the century. About half of these deaths would occur naturally within a few months IIRC. I don't view this as a huge issue, at least in the U.S. It's definitely significant, but not huge.

It's very rare to reach 35C wetbulb, even with additional warming and humidity. That is pretty extreme... usually when it is 100F the humidity is like 40% not 95%.

[TerryM]

In the U.S. heat mortality is expected to grow from 1300 to 4500/yr by the end of the century. About half of these deaths would occur naturally within a few months IIRC. I don't view this as a huge issue, at least in the U.S. It's definitely significant, but not huge.

It's very rare to reach 35C wetbulb, even with additional warming and humidity. That is pretty extreme... usually when it is 100F the humidity is like 40% not 95%.

With >50K deaths in Europe and in Russia in recent years it seems inevitable that North America will be hit before too long.

I'd expect the greatest problems to occur in areas that already experience high humidity, where an additional few degrees would be enough to put things over the top. Chicago was hit a while back, but if that heatwave had occurred further south where base temperatures were already higher, the results would have been much worse.

I wonder if any maps showing changes in wet-bulb temperature over time are available.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

With >50K deaths in Europe and in Russia in recent years it seems inevitable that North America will be hit before too long.

I'd expect the greatest problems to occur in areas that already experience high humidity, where an additional few degrees would be enough to put things over the top. Chicago was hit a while back, but if that heatwave had occurred further south where base temperatures were already higher, the results would have been much worse.

I wonder if any maps showing changes in wet-bulb temperature over time are available.

Terry

Actually, NYC has the highest heat mortality by far the last 3 decades, followed by Boston. Population helps in NYC, but Boston is a mid-sized northern city. A lot of the high death cities are northern.

It seems to mostly be about how prepared people are. People down south are more prepared. I don't think we are near temperatures where healthy hydrated people die. Healthy people can walk across the hottest deserts in the world.

[Jonger]

Actually, NYC has the highest heat mortality by far the last 3 decades, followed by Boston. Population helps in NYC, but Boston is a mid-sized northern city. A lot of the high death cities are northern.

It seems to mostly be about how prepared people are. People down south are more prepared. I don't think we are near temperatures where healthy hydrated people die. Healthy people can walk across the hottest deserts in the world.

On the other end of the spectrum.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/medical_notes/276284.stm

This article is old, but the figures should still be relevant.

[TerryM]

Actually, NYC has the highest heat mortality by far the last 3 decades, followed by Boston. Population helps in NYC, but Boston is a mid-sized northern city. A lot of the high death cities are northern.

It seems to mostly be about how prepared people are. People down south are more prepared. I don't think we are near temperatures where healthy hydrated people die. Healthy people can walk across the hottest deserts in the world.

The reason hydration is important is that sweating provides the phase change needed to efficiently move heat around. I've hiked and camped extensively in Death Valley, arguably the hottest place on earth, without problems. The secret is lugging huge amounts of water, an evaporative cooling vest & hat, long sleeved shirt and long pants. I lived in the desert for 25 years and only experienced heat related problems twice (both avoidable).

When you approach the body's core temperature at 100% humidity there is no way for the body to expel heat & body temperature begins to rise just as if you're experiencing a fever from some illness. Apparently the length of time it takes for the body to generate enough heat to kill itself is ~ 4 hours, but long before that you're unconscious & have suffered permanent brain damage.

If won't be Phoenix or Las Vegas that experience the killer heat waves, it will be in high humidity areas with much lower dry bulb temperatures, but much higher wet bulb readings.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

The reason hydration is important is that sweating provides the phase change needed to efficiently move heat around. I've hiked and camped extensively in Death Valley, arguably the hottest place on earth, without problems. The secret is lugging huge amounts of water, an evaporative cooling vest & hat, long sleeved shirt and long pants. I lived in the desert for 25 years and only experienced heat related problems twice (both avoidable).

When you approach the body's core temperature at 100% humidity there is no way for the body to expel heat & body temperature begins to rise just as if you're experiencing a fever from some illness. Apparently the length of time it takes for the body to generate enough heat to kill itself is ~ 4 hours, but long before that you're unconscious & have suffered permanent brain damage.

If won't be Phoenix or Las Vegas that experience the killer heat waves, it will be in high humidity areas with much lower dry bulb temperatures, but much higher wet bulb readings.

Terry

You speak as though 100% humidity is actually potentially realizable at temperatures of 95 or 100F. We're nowhere close to that right now. Normally in the SE US right now if it is 95 or 100F humidities are like 50%.

Austin TX for example has never seen a wet bulb above 85F (95F=35C death limit after 4 hrs). Ever! A typical record 1 in 5 or 10 year heatwave would probably see wet bulbs of 75 or 80F. Austin would need to see 5.5C of warming to even have the slightest potential of exceeding 95F wet bulbs, and it would need to see 7C before they became a 1 in 5 year event. Probably 9C before it became an every year event (just for a few hours per year). Currently projected summer warming in Austin is probably less than 3C by 2100 under a BAU scenario. You'd have to double that to even have a shot at seeing 95F wet bulbs.

In the last 15 years, Newark NJ has never seen a wet bulb above 80F. It would take 8 or 9C of warming to make 95F wet bulbs a 1 in 10 year occurrence.

The following study says that it would take 4C of global warming to even begin to see a 95F wet bulb exceeded. And 4C is 1C warmer than the A1B BAU scenario by 2100. It would take 11C of global warming for 95F wet bulbs to become widespread. 11C!!!

http://www.purdue.ed...uberLimits.html

[skierinvermont]

Also, apparently your assumption that the highest DPs occur in the southern U.S. is wrong. About half of them occur in the upper Midwest and Chicago has one of the highest recorded in the U.S for major cities.

Most major east coast cities have record high DPs of around 80F.

[TerryM]

Skier

The paper is at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/26/0913352107.full.pdf+html

and a 2012 interview at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/26/0913352107.full.pdf+html

A sling psychrometer is the traditional method of measuring wet bulb temps, although more recent digital instruments are available and has been in common usage for a very long time. I'm chugging through the original paper, but when you consider that he's referring to survivability of a naked, perfectly acclimatized health person, constantly gulping water while standing in front of a huge fan and never allowing sunlight to touch him I think we can agree that these conditions will never actually occur.

It's 2:15 local time & I'm not sure I'll be able to grok the paper before toddling off to bed but I'll be back no later than tomorrow. The subject is interesting and the article you found has lead in interesting directions.

I'd checked out the WBGT methodology last night, & while it may be useful for some things it doesn't answer the questions you've asked. Huber's maps are good, but more detail would definitely help.

FWIW I don't think Austin would be an area to worry about - again it's in an arid zone that will probably get increasingly dry.

Terry