Earthquakes and Climate Change:
Earthquakes and Climate Change: Risks (1)
On March 11, 2011 there was a great earthquake in Tohoku, Japan. This earthquake caused large loss of life and property, and for the focus of this article large parts of the Fukushima nuclear power plant were destroyed. Therein is the link to climate change.
Figure 1: Poster describing 2011 Tohoku, Japan earthquake. (link to a LARGE version of this poster)
Global warming due to carbon dioxide increases is caused primarily by emissions from burning fossil fuels. Hence, there is the, now familiar, link of carbon dioxide to energy use to prosperity to population. Hence, our path to addressing climate change is finding sources of energy that do not emit carbon.
Nuclear power is a controversial issue, which I will discuss more below. But in the minds of many people, nuclear power is part of the paths to solution of the climate change problem. There is no doubt that nuclear power is low carbon, and it is a proven source of energy at societal scale. Below is a comparison of carbon emissions from different sources of energy.
Figure 2: Emissions of carbon dioxide from different sources of energy. This is from The World Nuclear Association.
The World Nuclear Association is an organization that supports the nuclear industry, and they make prominent points about the importance of nuclear energy in addressing climate change. The figure above is from a report that they generated, and it is based on a review of literature. I have looked through the report, and as a non expert, they have done a credible accumulation and reporting of information. The story that is definitive is that carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power plants is far smaller than from fossil fuel burning, and comparable to the emissions from renewable sources of energy. Given that carbon dioxide, once emitted, is around for many thousands of years, there is an urgency to address our emission levels, and increased use of nuclear energy would benefit the reduction of global warming.
In Japan, the loss of the Fukushima power plant was a loss of a major source of electrical generation. This led to a reduction of manufacturing that had direct effects on the world’s industries and economies. It also fueled and refueled opposition to the development of nuclear power plants. In Japan there have been massive protests opposing building nuclear power plants as well as calling for closing existing plants. There was a time not long ago where Japan, a country dependent on imports for most fossil fuels, was on a path to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels with the use of nuclear power. Japan has subsequently developed a policy to deemphasize nuclear power with a gradual fade out. Even with a focus on renewable energy, this decision in Japan will inevitably lead to more carbon dioxide emissions in the short term.
What I have thought was most interesting was the response in Germany. Germany decided to close its nuclear power plants by 2022. The Washington Post’s Editorial Board called this reaction to Fukushima a blunder, and there were wide spread comments that Germany’s demand for energy would inevitably lead to more coal use and an increase in both carbon dioxide emissions and public health risks. Germany’s position, however, is that they would accelerate their already aggressive programs in renewable energy. This is an interesting gamble. The challenges of meeting Germany’s energy demands with renewable energy are formidable, but if that challenge is met, then it is likely to provide Germany with technological developments and energy security that gives it huge economic advantage. Here is a nice summary story of Germany’s decision in the Christian Science Monitor.
In the earlier part of the Obama administration there was a renewed interest on nuclear energy in the U.S. Immediately after the 2011 earthquake there was significant decline in the U.S. public interest in nuclear power. This decrease came at a time when public support was at a near peak. Now a few months out, polling by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is a “policy organization” for the nuclear energy industry, shows modest declines, but with a majority in the U.S. still supporting more nuclear energy.
Looking worldwide, there is no doubt that there will be some countries developing more nuclear energy and there will be some countries where the political environment will reduce the use of nuclear power. With regard to climate, most energy decisions are made with regard to energy needs, energy security and cost. All energy systems have their proponents. All energy systems have environmental impact; therefore, they all have opponents. The net result of this is that we continue to rely on fossil fuels, with increasing stress on energy systems and the environment. There is no doubt that the earthquake in March 2011 in Japan has influenced how we think about nuclear power. Therefore, the earthquake has an influence on how we address the energy issues that are at the root of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.
There are two points I want to bring forward to carry to the next blog. The first is to reiterate that our world exists in many systems with fragile balance. Our energy systems are vulnerable to relatively small disruptions. Our economy is fragile. Our climate is in a balance where carbon dioxide emissions can drastically alter the balance of water between liquid and ice. The second is that all of these systems are connected. Global risks follow from an earthquake that is localized on the coast of a single island in Japan. It is this sort of systems impacts where the great risks are exposed, where climate change can have near-term impacts.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index
One who suffers from a disorder is often the last to discover the ailment. Anyone who supports the cause of taking revenue from those who support themselves and giving to those who don't is truly mentally imbalanced. That is the crux of liberalism.
Link
Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.
The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.
Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
Censorship will not censor the physical effects of our warming world.
LOL! Sunspots have about as much effect on climate change as a single raindrop trying to put out a forest fire.
How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?
Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans.
These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change.
A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.
The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
Link
Hmm, not really. The coldest part of the 'Little Ice Age' was called the 'Maunder Minimum' due to the fact that hardly any sunspots were seen during that period. The Little Ice Age was mainly regional, rather than global, affecting Europe in particular, and was probably caused by very slightly reduced solar output, greatly enhanced by negative feedback effects. The main feedback effect was probably increased albedo due to more extensive and longer lasting snow cover in northern latitudes.
Although you're right in that even if the sun were to become as quiet as it was during the Maunder Minimum, it wouldn't be strong enough to stop greenhouse gas driven warming.
You know, I think I may have you figured out. You must actually be a supporter of AGWT, because only someone who truly wanted to point out the ridiculousness of GW denialism would constantly link to articles by liars like Christopher Booker. (I mean, that guy is such a buffoon that he has a prize named after him. Six--count them, six--"misrepresentations, distortions, and falsehoods" crammed into a mere 900 words? Wow! That's a special kind of dunce.)
So: welcome to the science side. We're happy to have you. And please keep posting those links to doofuses like Bastardi, Watts, Goddard, Delingpole, and Spencer; we won't tell anybody whose side you're really on. ;-)
You forgot the Pielkes. You attack the author of the link I provided. Is it true or not that Britain is purchasing 4x4s for the upcoming winter?
Yes, according to news reports, the Brighton council purchased seven 4x4 "gritters" (sand spreaders)--to replace seven old ones being retired, some that were only two-wheel drive. So there's that.
Now, as anyone who has attended Atmospheric Basics 101 knows, as the world warms, there is more moisture in the air. That means more rain where it's warm and more snow where it's cold. And Brighton is at roughly the same latitude as Calgary, Canada, so, you know, it gets cold there, and it snows and everything. So there's that, too.
If Mr. Potatohead--I mean, Booker--is of the opinion that GW means that there'll be no more snow anywhere on earth ever, he's even denser than I give him credit for. And people who believe him? Well, you can figure that out for yourself...
Point 1 John Theon job title was Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program. He was responsible for the agencies climate and weather research including the work of James Hanson, Roy Spencer, and many others.
Point 2 The Mann graph is still highly debated and not settled. Claiming the IPCC as a source is insane it is political and not that scientific. Example 78 scientists some of which are main authors or reviewers or secondary authors are basically employees of the WWF, which pays them for everything. The WWF budget for last year was near 750,000,000 dollars. I am sure they have no bias. If they were from the Heartland Institute you would never hear the end of it.
Point 3 Arctic sea ice. In fact Arctic sea ice did recover in the winter 2007- 2008 to within 3% of the average. The arctic sea ice in Dec. 2009 was within about 3% of the average. The year 2007 is thrown in there because you remember it for being so low in the summer giving you a false assumption.
Point 4,5,6 The Antarctic temp. While the western part seems to be warming the eastern part does not and as far as the continent itself we have no reliable readings, as has been proven in a recent paper (Peer reviewed btw) that shows a warm bias by as much as 5 to 10 degrees because of the types of instruments used and there are very few readings anyway to be used so there for they rely on models which have been proven wrong many times including the last decade and not one scientist would bet his own money on them. It may very well be either warming or cooling we do not know.
Mann is an author whether he is first, fourth or sixth. Which is what he claims.
Congratulations Neapolitan on winning the award and for being one of the more biased, hypocritical people ever. BTW have you figured out profit vs profit margin yet
Mean temp Brighton England for January is 42F the temp for Calgary is 16F so it is almost close. BTW not a lot of snow falls when it is 42F. Your hilarious and foolish who were you calling a doofus or potatohead earlier. You may want to look in the mirror.
You must have missed 4th Grade Science 101 it is an ocean current that keeps Great Britain warmer in winter given the latitude. Can you guess which one? Extra points if you don't have to look it up on the internet.
FWIW the average temp in Atlanta Georgia in January is 43F and Dallas Texas 44F in conclusion both Dallas and Atlanta can look for more snow and freezing temperatures under continued Global Warming.
Good luck with trying to sell that moving forward.
Edit: Who calibrated those things 160 years ago? 1.4 really?
Not really, but arguing with you is as logical as using a chainsaw to cut a sandwich. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Ya' know, this conversation would be a lot more interesting if only you had actual science to back up such debunked and warmed-over Fox/WUWT/WeatherBell/Goddard/etc. blather. Because you don't, I really can't even feign caring enough to respond. Good night...
Point 2 source WWF annual financial report. If you like I can name all 78 scientists and their jobs in the IPCC 2007 report. Oh and I can throw in 30 or 40 more who work for Greenpeace
Point 3 source National Snow and Ice Data Center
Point 4,5,6 Warming west ice sheet several articles, east antarctic showing no warming several articles. Warming bias which is higher than I said 8C to 10C or 14F to 18F is from a report in the American Meteorological Society 8/1/2011. The models are not good and how can they be right for Antarctica when the temp numbers you add are off by as much 18 degrees F.
Nothing from Fox, WUWT, Weatherbell, Goddard or ect. I do not need them.
You have no argument or nothing to dispute them and you know it, so as always you scream some nonsense about denial sites to add your normal straw man argument. You have been taken to the wood shed again sir. I can always source you just take from left wing web sites
While I am having fun at your expense here is another one Al Gore faked what he called the simple thermometer experiment in 24 hours of climate reality. The one showing warming when co2 is added in the jar. If you can not find proof of this claim I will be happy to provide it just ask. BTW if it is so simple why fake it.
Do you ever provide counter data to anything?
At least your consistent............
You complain, but provide no solutions......... only rhetoric ...... very weak... to say the least !!
I'm sorry for your loss.
No matter how many times you say it, warming doesn't cause more snow. You must be a student of the old adage, "if you keep saying something long enough, people begin to believe it."
Yes.
Well, it's not just me saying it, champ. See, there are these people called "scientists" who study this stuff, and they're the ones who say it.
Here
...and here
...and here
...and here
...and here
...and here.
Getting one's science education from denialist sites is like getting diet information from the National Association for the Advancement of Saturated Fats.
Brighton is on the southern coast of the UK, protected from the prevailing Atlantic weather by the Jurassic Coast.
I found this information from the UK met office.
The occurrence of snow is linked closely with temperature, with falls rarely occurring if the temperature is higher than 4C. (39F) For snow to lie for any length of time, the temperature normally has to be lower than this. Over most of the area, snowfall is normally confined to the months from November to April, Snow rarely lies on the ground longer than four days.
On average, the number of days with snow falling is about 12-15 per year.
Calgary, on the other hand, (and I know as hubby was working in Calgary during this period) had snow on the ground from early November until April, with temperatures below freezing for many of the days between the same period. It even snowed on May 28th last year.
What was it doing in Brighton on the same date? Sunny and 24C (75F)
Honestly I thought of that as well. I stopped replying to JB because I figured that roughly there is an IQ divide seperating denialists from believers. JB was simply lowering the bar and hence converting more people.
I realize there are other issues, for example: emotional hatred of liberals and since boig oil has succesfully linked the issue with liberals, some intelligent but intellectually weak people are believing what their emotions say rather than their intelligence. There is also the simple payment issue: I really think JB et al don't have time/scientific capacity to actually provide real answers or reasons but is still contractually obligated to provide a certain number of posts per week. I suppose if I cared enough I would look to see if there is a pattern to his posting to support a quota theory.
Nea point about why they bought the 4x4s is still valid (note i didn't bother reading the article so don't call me out on this one.)
In general, weather patterns are changing and more snow/greater strength of a given blizzard doesn't provide evidence either way. It is the long term patterns GLOBALLY that count.
If you keep playing the 'blizzard lottery' you will lose. Global Warming is the house and the house always wins in teh long run.
link
link
link
It's ridiculous.Give me a source from NASA instead.
It seems that some misconstrued my comment as saying that Brighton's weather is the same as Calgary's. It's not. My original comment was "Brighton is at roughly the same latitude as Calgary, Canada, so, you know, it gets cold there, and it snows and everything." And that statement is simple fact. And that's why the council had to purchase seven new sand spreaders to replace the seven old, used, worn-out ones they had on hand.
No, my comment was directed at Christopher Booker, a dishonest and discredited denialist who attempted to claim that because A) Brighton was replacing some old road maintenance equipment, then B) the planet isn't warming. And that's about as woefully
ignorantidiotic an inference as I believe I've ever seen.How is it that you have so much time to post? Did you bring your laptop to the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstration?
I haven't made it to New York this month, unfortunately. But I'm lucky enough to live close to two OX events, and attended them both. Didn't bring my laptop; I used my iPad to live blog, and to comment on a large handful of websites (including this one). But believe it or not, I don't "have that much time to post"; I'm just a fast writer, that's all.
RECORD WARMEST: 1
MUCH ABOVE NORMAL: 7
ABOVE NORMAL: 19
----------------
NEAR NORMAL: 17
----------------
BELOW NORMAL: 4
MUCH BELOW NORMAL: 0
RECORD COLDEST: 0
To summarize, then: four states have been below normal in 2011, 17 have been near normal, and 27 others have been above to much above normal. I guess someone should break the news to Joe "it'll start getting cold any second now" Bastardi.
img src="
Link
Washington does not = Global. Comprende?
Sigh...
Normal = 43.67% 1,362,543 sq mi
Above normal = 27.39% 854,656 sq mi
Below normal = 10.39% 324,386 sq mi
Much above = 9.92% 309,720 sq mi
Record = 8.60% 268,580 sq mi
Total sq mi contiguous USA = 3,119,885 sq mi
Normal is the vast percentage. Those of you who will try and add up all above temps, don't forget to take off the below normal from the above normal before adding up.
BTW I believe JB was talking globally not regionally. Look at post 103 notice the slight dip in global temps. You just can not get out of your own way
I may be off by a smidgen as I did this quickly
This year is much cooler than...what, exactly?
Is the information right? If so, then please provide evidence. The burden is upon the claimant.
In "effect" Hansons' superior. Like I said earlier if push comes to shove at the time Hanson has no chance of winning the battle against Theon
But how would Theon fare against Muhammad Ali (in his prime)? It has just as much relevance to the topic.
43.67% is "the vast percentage?"
And why should below average temperatures be taken off?
I like the truth just fine. I especially like it when it's complete and relevant. I understand, though, that not everyone is so particular as me. ;)
Viewing: 101 - 151
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index