The ten horsemen of the global apocalypse 17 May 06

Interesting paper Mark. A couple of quick observations. I’m not surprised Leggett has Martin Rees as reference 1. Leggett’s paper and Rees’ “Our Final Century” should only really be read if feeling irrepressibly optimistic!!

Leggett seems to run with Rees’ theme but considers the predictions and evidence in a far more rigorous fashion. I like his systematic approach and it would be good to have other risk management experts comment. Someone from the insurance industry maybe? He seems to use a “maximum” interpretation of the precautionary principle in recommending we be “fully prudent”. I’m not sure if he’s up to date on the thermohaline circulation slowing/stopping and I note he does not refer to any info or debate over at Real Climate. There is a passing reference to Lomborg’s Copenhagen “Consensus” contrivance which is dismissed as off beam.

This supervolcano business is worrying not least because of the dramatic effect on photosynthesis. Being cold, immobile AND hungry does not appeal. But the effect lasts for (only!) 5-7 years and I’m not clear if the whole planet is equally affected by the supervolcano winter. One thing puzzles me. Leggett in the text indicates GW as the primary threat (p18) but table 3 has the GW threat as mid-ranking. Am I missing something?

Do I detect in this post you are coming round to a “no new nuclear” position? Your old friend Caspar Henderson http://jebin08.blogspot.com/ has pointed at interesting stuff from Walt Patterson whom I’d not heard about here http://www.waltpatterson.org/climenginf.pdf (3 page pdf). He’s not impressed by the more nuclear argument and refers to Woking and Ken’s London venture with shades of Lovins I think. Worth reading.

For the benefit of readers on the other side of the pond it might be useful for you all to check what our PM said yesterday on nuclear. Here http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1776497,00.html is the Guardian’s report. Many commentators are not surprised by Blair’s support for more nuclear – it’s been trailed for some time. And this despite the government’s energy review not being completed. Blair grrrrr!!

Douglas Coker

PS 3pm Just settled down to read my Guardian properly and discovered the Walt Patterson piece in the Environment section. Here http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1775975,00.html

Would the wind blow less in a sustained dark period? I’d have thought that Emperor Penguins would beg to differ.

However, it would surely lead to an energy gap caused by massively increased demand, as well as various solar-driven schemes giving way.

It seems to me that a highly renewable-driven grid would justify keeping on standby substantial combustional power capacity anyway, particularly for winter anticyclones.

Perhaps there will be systems for conserving biomass, including some waste, for ordinary such occasions, while consuming the methane that such stores release.

Some recommended articles here.

From what I understand, after the 5-7 year “winter” we’d be left with a lot of extra GHGs in the atmosphere, enhancing GW.

At any rate, I’d suggest going solar & wind power, because we don’t know when the super-volcano might strike—maybe 100 years from now or later. And even if it did strike right after installing our solar panels, we might want them after the 5-7 year period. And even if massive numbers of people serious started going wind & solar, it would take decades for it to reach, say 40 or 50% of our energy usage, and we could just as vigorously be pursuing geothermal & other things (like wave power) at the same time. I think solar would continue to work in such a “winter,” but at a much reduced capacity. And I think some wind generators can operate at lower levels of wind, as well.

I.e., I think we should vigorously pursue all benign alternative energy strategies, including conservation/efficiency.

I just thought of something. What about “current power”? Of course, we wouldn’t want to slow the currents (considering GW is doing so), but maybe there’s a way to get a bit of energy from them…..Have you even been in a rip tide—very powerful.

Climate Change, riding on Global Warming, is the leading horseman in the charge for global apocalypse. Climate Change is already causing loss of habitat and extinction of many species. But in one or two hundred years we may see near extinction of humankind. I see no way that the planet will be able to support 9 billion people (the population projected for 2050), when desertification sets in, crops fail, disease spreads, rain forests disappear and fertile land disappears under the sea.

I look forward to suggestions for avoiding this pickle. As the Archbishop of Canterbury rightly says, there are billions of lives at stake, particularly in poorer countries, and it’s our moral duty to do what we can.

In fact, I think like this with regard to energy and climate issues.

Mechanical cooling needs increase with higher temperatures and higher humidity. This creates peak demand during heat waves on power plants. Heating requirements decrease with mild winters. So, energy decisions and GHG emissions are directly affected by GW/CC

If weather patterns change which affect the cloudiness index of a location, then this can affect the solar yield. Also, if wind patterns change, this can affect the wind yield for wind turbines. An increase in the use of fluorescent lighting increases the need for recycling options so the mercury contained in these bulbs is kept out of the environment.

Engineers are used to thinking in terms of “everything”. When I was involved in machine design, we spent more time thinking about safety issues and what humans can do to hurt themselves than what the machine actually was being designed to do. We always said that one could design many protective ways to keep people from moving parts, etc, but you could never make anything “idiot-proof” as we called it.

When looking at energy and climate issues, it becomes particularly important to look at everything. In that light, ignoring some of the most important variables such as population growth is simply unacceptable. Ignoring anything important can be disastrous. In fact, not only must a total complete plan be developed and implemented, it must also be tested along the way and have a “safety factor” built in so remaining uncertainties would not unravel the desired outcome.

Best,

Dan

Come to think of it, a supervolcanic winter would be an extreme global dimming event, in which we would expect less temperature variation so probably less wind. I think you were right Mark!

based on a possible erruption of the Yellowstone Park mega-caldera, the impact was so enormous as to significantly reduce the habitable land mass of the US and the reduction in photosynthesis resulted in crop failures across the Northern hemisphere. Malnutrition and asociated illness, together with the demolition of much of the civil administration would probably reduce energy demand proportional to the redcution in population.

Thomas Malthus strikes again.

Colin

..and to Mark for drawing attention to the paper on the site.

To respond to some specific points made:

Douglas, I’m seeking reaction from economists and risk managers, and will post here on them when some have come in. And on your question on Table 3: that table ranks the risks not in terms of scale but in terms of simplicity of response. It is arguably simplest of all to avoid the risk from (particle-accelerator) scientific experiments – just don’t do those specific experiments – and so that ranks higher in Table 3.

Jim, you’re right, it might be windier during a super-volcano winter. In the paper I just observe that the wind situation would be uncertain. But if we can have an energy setup in place which is certain whatever the s-v winter does, a risk analysis scenario approach would say that would be better.

Lynn, the mix of options you raise may work, and hopefully detailed modelling in the future wil specify the best mix.

Regards

Mark

Thanks Mark (Leggett). That helps. I’ll look out for future posts.

Douglas Coker