Global warming, Lake Baikal and energy

[grmorton]

I post this with some trepidation. Yesterday flying back to Beijing, I was privileged to fly over the northern coast of Greenland and I got some decent photos of that coast from 39,000 feet. The thing that struck me was that the glaciers had retreated far from the coast. Since the last time I posted a picture from the air there were questions about the size of the objects, I have since calibrated my camera and know the subsumed field of view angles for full zoom and no zoom. The picture I am showing below is about 9 miles wide so the former glacial channel (the canyon) is about 2 miles wide. You can see a stream at the bottom of it. As near as I could tell this spot is about 50-100 miles from the actual coastline. Clearly the Arctic is warming.

But before everyone gets incensed about the US, or the lifestyle people live there, remember that global warming doesn't care where the CO2 comes from, nor does global warming care about a per-capita value of CO2. Only total CO2 matters. If you add Asia together they emit more CO2 than the US by about 1000 million tonnes. And the rest of the World emits almost double the CO2 as the US. But, if one decides that one should only emit the amount of CO2 that a 3rd world person emits, then be prepared to be asked if you are willing to live like a third world person. Having actually been to some 3rd world countries, I know I am not going to willingly live that way--no one in their right mind would. After eating lunch at one 3rd world town (with freshly washed vegetables) I found out where the latrine was in relation to the watersupply. I suddenly didn't feel so good but was glad I had all those injections. Such is a life with little CO2 emission.

The problem is not with 'them' the problem is with 'us'--all of us have contributed to the CO2 problems--when you drive to work, eat your supermarket bought food (which was transported for miles with CO2 emitting trucks), when you bought your stereo or Ipod (made halfway around the world and shipped to you courtesy of large CO2 emissions). When you eat strawberries in the winter flown to you from Chile in CO2 emitting jets. And this includes all those winter fruits and veggies I saw while living in the UK(which couldn't have been grown there at that time). Gripes about this system will only be entertained if the person making the gripes lives in a hut in the woods, never buying modern conveniences of anytype (But then this person contributes to CO2 emissions by chopping down and burning firewood every winter, so gripes can only come from people who freeze in the dark every winter).

One of the worries with global warming is that the albedo of the Arctic will change causing the absorption of more solar energy there. But at least yesterday, the flight showed me the largest solid cloudbank I have ever seen. After leaving the north coast of Greenland, skys got cloudy (below us). The plane flew 120 miles from the pole and then across to the northernmost part of Russia where we entered Russian airspace. The skies were cloudy from just north of Greenland to about 100 miles north of Lake Baikal. We were going to fly over it and I was afraid that I was not going to get to see it. Fortunately the skies cleared. Picture of Baikal, below. However, that wide of a cloud body would certainly reflect lots of light back out into space, but at the same time serve to warm the surface below because infrared wouldn't be able to escape as easily.

Concerning Baikal, I had always imagined this part of Asia as being a bit pristine from the hand of man, but it isn't. There are lots and lots of farms surrounding it. Baikal is the largest freshwater lake in the world by volume. The picture I chose to show also shows a big delta forming on the eastern shore and extending out into the lake. What I didn't see was the spillway of Baikal on the other side of the plane. That River drains this lake into the Arctic ocean and contributes to the freshening of the Arctic which is part of the global warming problem.

The biggest problem I see in our handling of the environment (which we must handle with care) is that we all are unwilling to live an appropriate lifestyle. Indeed I would suggest that it would be impossible to live such a lifestyle without having a major dieoff in the human population. We have 6+ billion people because we have energy to feed those 6+ billion people. As energy(oil and natural gas) supplies dwindle in the next few decades (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/oil2004.htm), the fertilizers required to get the crop yields to feed all these people will get more and more expensive. When they are too expensive and cease being used, crop yields will decline and as has happened in other countries when they lost their natural gas supplies and thus fertilizer, people began to starve to death. The modern agricultural system is a means to turn oil and natural gas into food. But it brings about the global warming that we all dislike. The global warming is due to our energy use, but without it, we couldn't feed the world--even with a 3rd world lifestyle. Indeed, without energy, we probably couldn't even have the injections that was my sole consolation after eating that lunch at that 3rd world village.

Life is full of problems, some of them look unsolvable.

[aniso]

But before everyone gets incensed about the US, or the lifestyle people live there, remember that global warming doesn't care where the CO2 comes from, nor does global warming care about a per-capita value of CO2. Only total CO2 matters. If you add Asia together they emit more CO2 than the US by about 1000 million tonnes. And the rest of the World emits almost double the CO2 as the US. But, if one decides that one should only emit the amount of CO2 that a 3rd world person emits, then be prepared to be asked if you are willing to live like a third world person. Having actually been to some 3rd world countries, I know I am not going to willingly live that way--no one in their right mind would. After eating lunch at one 3rd world town (with freshly washed vegetables) I found out where the latrine was in relation to the watersupply. I suddenly didn't feel so good but was glad I had all those injections. Such is a life with little CO2 emission.

The problem is not with 'them' the problem is with 'us'--all of us have contributed to the CO2 problems--when you drive to work, eat your supermarket bought food (which was transported for miles with CO2 emitting trucks), when you bought your stereo or Ipod (made halfway around the world and shipped to you courtesy of large CO2 emissions). When you eat strawberries in the winter flown to you from Chile in CO2 emitting jets. And this includes all those winter fruits and veggies I saw while living in the UK(which couldn't have been grown there at that time). Gripes about this system will only be entertained if the person making the gripes lives in a hut in the woods, never buying modern conveniences of anytype (But then this person contributes to CO2 emissions by chopping down and burning firewood every winter, so gripes can only come from people who freeze in the dark every winter).

...

The biggest problem I see in our handling of the environment (which we must handle with care) is that we all are unwilling to live an appropriate lifestyle. Indeed I would suggest that it would be impossible to live such a lifestyle without having a major dieoff in the human population. We have 6+ billion people because we have energy to feed those 6+ billion people. As energy(oil and natural gas) supplies dwindle in the next few decades (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/oil2004.htm), the fertilizers required to get the crop yields to feed all these people will get more and more expensive. When they are too expensive and cease being used, crop yields will decline and as has happened in other countries when they lost their natural gas supplies and thus fertilizer, people began to starve to death. The modern agricultural system is a means to turn oil and natural gas into food. But it brings about the global warming that we all dislike. The global warming is due to our energy use, but without it, we couldn't feed the world--even with a 3rd world lifestyle. Indeed, without energy, we probably couldn't even have the injections that was my sole consolation after eating that lunch at that 3rd world village.

Life is full of problems, some of them look unsolvable.

Good observations, Glen. The problem isn't with energy bills coming out of congress or international agreements on CO2 emissions. The problem is that we are chasing an exponential population curve with dwindling energy resources. This is a recipe for a global train wreck.

[Ryokan]

.

The biggest problem I see in our handling of the environment (which we must handle with care) is that we all are unwilling to live an appropriate lifestyle. Indeed I would suggest that it would be impossible to live such a lifestyle without having a major dieoff in the human population. We have 6+ billion people because we have energy to feed those 6+ billion people. As energy(oil and natural gas) supplies dwindle in the next few decades (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/oil2004.htm),

I am very skeptical of this. In areas that have the greatest accesss to energy, population growth has dropped precipitously. It seems that, one humans reach a certain per capita income and level of women's rights, they cease to maximize population growth, and in fact can decrease it.

the fertilizers required to get the crop yields to feed all these people will get more and more expensive. When they are too expensive and cease being used, crop yields will decline and as has happened in other countries when they lost their natural gas supplies and thus fertilizer, people began to starve to death.

Probably not. Oil and NAtural gas aren't going to just disappear like poof, but rather are going to grow in price over time. Other fertilization methods which aren't currently cost effective will move into use. Food will be more expensive, but if we had the political will we could feed the entire planet with considerably less income. Third world nation will probably experience famine, but because of political and distribution problems, not oil shortages.

The modern agricultural system is a means to turn oil and natural gas into food. But it brings about the global warming that we all dislike.

Kinda. Fuels used in argiculture represent a small portion of the CO2 put in the atmosphere by us. And global warming is unlikely to annihilate the human race,(especially if you believe that we are running out of the fossil fuel causing resources)

The global warming is due to our energy use, but without it, we couldn't feed the world--even with a 3rd world lifestyle. Indeed, without energy, we probably couldn't even have the injections that was my sole consolation after eating that lunch at that 3rd world village.

Life is full of problems, some of them look unsolvable.

I don't think we face an unsolvable problem. Promoting women's rights and economic growth will reign in the population, and political action or economic forces will rein in fossil fuel use and force us to find alternatives. Global warming will cause hardship, but not in comparsion to the likely economic growth over the next century. We have problems that need solving and can be solved, not problems in need of whining about.

[grmorton]

I am very skeptical of this.

It is always good to be skeptical so long as one actually pays attention to data and so long as one isn't skeptical about an area in which he has done no study and so long as a person isn't skeptical just to be skeptical.

In areas that have the greatest accesss to energy, population growth has dropped precipitously. It seems that, one humans reach a certain per capita income and level of women's rights, they cease to maximize population growth, and in fact can decrease it.

High incomes do lower birth rates, but most projections say that we will level out at 11 billion people or so about 2050. That 11 billion will still require food. Do you know the amount of energy used per acre to achieve the highest crop yield?

Walter Youngquist, “The Post-Petroleum Paradigm -- and Population,” Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Volume 20, Number 4, March 1999

Pimentel and associates have researched the role of energy in agricultural systems, and present significant statistics. Pimentel (1998a) states:

Approximately 90% of the energy in crop production is oil and natural gas. About one-third of the energy is to reduce the labor input from 500 hours per acre to 4 hours per acre in grain production. About two-thirds of the energy is for production, of which about one-third of this is for fertilizers alone.

Fleay (1995), noting that Australia is the world's fourth largest wheat exporting country, discusses the importance of oil and gas in that country's agricultural production, particularly to offset Australia's relatively poor soil. Fleay (1995) states:

Fertilisers have played a key role in offsetting nutrient-poor soils for our agriculture this century... A dramatic twenty-fold increase in nitrogen fertiliser use has occurred since 1965. Fossil fuels are needed for fertiliser manufacture -- 1500-2500 MJ per tonne for superphosphate... However, nitrogen fertilisers use natural gas or petroleum as a feedstock and had an energy intensity of 37,000 MJ per tonne in 1980 (p. 15).

Fleay makes the summary statement:

A very large proportion of the world's population depends for food from high agricultural yields achieved by the use of fossil fuels. The world may only be able to support a population of 3 billion without this input· Petroleum is a key fuel ... The principal grain exporters are the U.S.A., Canada, Europe, Australia and Argentina -- all highly dependent on petroleum-based industrial agriculture.

© source where applicable

above from: http://www.buddycom.com/ecol/Brainfood/oilepic.html
accessed 7-26-03

For your information, the pre-petroleum crop yield of an acre of corn in the US was 30 bushels per acre. Today it is 130 bushels per acre because of fertilizer and tractor use. If fertilizer becomes scarce, what is going to keep the crop yield up?

Probably not. Oil and NAtural gas aren't going to just disappear like poof, but rather are going to grow in price over time. Other fertilization methods which aren't currently cost effective will move into use.

No one said oil and natural gas would disappear poof over night. Why on earth do you think I said that? I said it would become scarcer. And that will be the cause of the gradual rise in price you speak of.

I am curious as to what other fertilization methods you are thinking of? Human dung?

Food will be more expensive, but if we had the political will we could feed the entire planet with considerably less income. Third world nation will probably experience famine, but because of political and distribution problems, not oil shortages.

Since many crops are shipped to those 3rd world nations from places like Australia and the US, when it becomes too costly or the crop yields drop, such shipments will stop. I don't know why you think the slow strangulation of the world's energy supply won't cause famine.

Kinda. Fuels used in argiculture represent a small portion of the CO2 put in the atmosphere by us.

Oh really? Have you counted the big trucks carrying food from the farm to the store lately? THat too is part of the current agricultural system.

And global warming is unlikely to annihilate the human race,(especially if you believe that we are running out of the fossil fuel causing resources)I don't think we face an unsolvable problem.

THere you go again putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it would annihilate the human race. I said there would be a dieoff. The two things are not the same.


[/quote] Promoting women's rights and economic growth will reign in the population, and political action or economic forces will rein in fossil fuel use and force us to find alternatives. Global warming will cause hardship, but not in comparsion to the likely economic growth over the next century. We have problems that need solving and can be solved, not problems in need of whining about.[/QUOTE]

Given that you have offered nothing but platitudes in the way of addressing the issues I raised here. You haven't said what the new energy source will be. You have said that we will 'find alternatives', without a single guess as to what that alternative might be. You have said that 'other fertilization methods' will come into play but failed to actually name them. Empty platitudes is all I see. Tell me some specifics. Frankly, I hope you can do that. I want to be wrong but so far no 'solution' I have seen offered will work.

[Darth Executor]

You haven't said what the new energy source will be. You have said that we will 'find alternatives', without a single guess as to what that alternative might be.

If he didn't, I will. Nuclear power and mag rails. Mag rails are the fastest transportation method we have developed. Setting up mag rail lines is only a little more expensive than highways and the boost in speed is well worth it. The only real problem is to get the dinosaurs that rule this country to do it. I do remember them having planned to link two cities then cancelling the project. I guess we're gonna need a disaster to shake them into doing something.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

If he didn't, I will. Nuclear power and mag rails. Mag rails are the fastest transportation method we have developed. Setting up mag rail lines is only a little more expensive than highways and the boost in speed is well worth it. The only real problem is to get the dinosaurs that rule this country to do it. I do remember them having planned to link two cities then cancelling the project. I guess we're gonna need a disaster to shake them into doing something.

While I agree that nuclear will play a more important part (it will have to unless people in Houston want to give up air conditioning) there will also be a need for a liquid fuel to take the place of gasoline. As of now, there are no options that are all that promising. The options that are available are heavily dependent upon fossil fuels for their production.

FK

[Darth Executor]

While I agree that nuclear will play a more important part (it will have to unless people in Houston want to give up air conditioning) there will also be a need for a liquid fuel to take the place of gasoline. As of now, there are no options that are all that promising. The options that are available are heavily dependent upon fossil fuels for their production.

FK

I wouldn't say liquid fuel is a need. More of a convenience.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

I wouldn't say liquid fuel is a need. More of a convenience.

Well, I don't mean necessarily liquid, but I mean some kind of motor fuel. If there was an endless supply of natural gas, for example, vehicles could run on that. But even in Europe and in big cities where mass transit is common, people still drive. Unless we are willing to voluntarily give up our ability to drive where we want to drive, then an alternative motor fuel is imperative. Mass transit might work for people who live in densely populated areas, but a lot of people don't.

FK

[Darth Executor]

Well, I don't mean necessarily liquid, but I mean some kind of motor fuel. If there was an endless supply of natural gas, for example, vehicles could run on that. But even in Europe and in big cities where mass transit is common, people still drive. Unless we are willing to voluntarily give up our ability to drive where we want to drive, then an alternative motor fuel is imperative. Mass transit might work for people who live in densely populated areas, but a lot of people don't.

FK

We might have no choice but to give up our ability to drive. I'm just saying we don't need it for our society to survive.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

We might have no choice but to give up our ability to drive. I'm just saying we don't need it for our society to survive.

I agree with that. That's why I wrote 'voluntarily'. But if we do have to give up our ability to drive, there will be enormous consequences from that. Many of us live too far from work to walk or bike to work. I can't see mass transit ever being an option where I live. Maybe an electric car plugged into solar panels might work.

Glenn is right, though. There is a potential crisis looming. The recent spikes in oil prices are nothing compared to what's eventually coming.

FK

[Darth Executor]

I agree with that. That's why I wrote 'voluntarily'. But if we do have to give up our ability to drive, there will be enormous consequences from that. Many of us live too far from work to walk or bike to work. I can't see mass transit ever being an option where I live. Maybe an electric car plugged into solar panels might work.

If there is no more oil all the money in the car industry will be diverted to mass transit. Unless you live in a village in the middle of nowhere you'll definitely have that option.

Glenn is right, though. There is a potential crisis looming. The recent spikes in oil prices are nothing compared to what's eventually coming.
FK

Oh I agree that there is a crisis coming. I'm saying we can largely avoid that if we start implementing mass transit systems NOW. If we wait for the oil to run out we can expect a couple billion deaths and a potential world war.

[grmorton]

We might have no choice but to give up our ability to drive. I'm just saying we don't need it for our society to survive.

Society will survive, it always does, but that doesn't mean that society can have 6 billion pluss people. Somehow you have to transport that foodstuff from the sparsely populated farm regions to the cities.I guess it is back to the horse and buggy bring the food to the coalpowered trainstation days. Nuclear probably won't be sufficient.

Remember that as the price of oil goes up, economic activity will be choked off. You will have lots of unemployed people.

I have no doubt that we will limp along for about 50 years or so.There is coal, there is natural gas and there is nuclear, but limp along may be the word because of the declining ability to produce oil. The second half of this century is where the real rubber will meet the road. Somewhere about then, natural gas is expected to peak and begin its decline. And I have seen reports that the world's nuclear fuel could be used up on 50 years.

Michael Parfit, “Future Power,” National Geographic, August 2005, p.26

“The readily available uranium fuel won’t last much more than 50 years.”

© source where applicable

[Darth Executor]

Society will survive, it always does, but that doesn't mean that society can have 6 billion pluss people. Somehow you have to transport that foodstuff from the sparsely populated farm regions to the cities.I guess it is back to the horse and buggy bring the food to the coalpowered trainstation days. Nuclear probably won't be sufficient.

Remember that as the price of oil goes up, economic activity will be choked off. You will have lots of unemployed people.

I have no doubt that we will limp along for about 50 years or so.There is coal, there is natural gas and there is nuclear, but limp along may be the word because of the declining ability to produce oil. The second half of this century is where the real rubber will meet the road. Somewhere about then, natural gas is expected to peak and begin its decline. And I have seen reports that the world's nuclear fuel could be used up on 50 years.

Michael Parfit, “Future Power,” National Geographic, August 2005, p.26

“The readily available uranium fuel won’t last much more than 50 years.”

© source where applicable

Even if nuclear energy runs out, electricity is relatively easy to gather and never runs out. Of course, we will end up using a lot of land for solar pannels and wind towers...

[Nicholas]

The way I see it we shouldn't look at just one possible source, we shouldn't invest a large amount in one possible power source, because while hydroelectric and nuclear are cleaner than fossil fuels, they still have problems, so you should have the sources of power spread between them. Although if Fusion power becomes feasible, that would be easier.

[Ryokan]

It is always good to be skeptical so long as one actually pays attention to data and so long as one isn't skeptical about an area in which he has done no study and so long as a person isn't skeptical just to be skeptical.




High incomes do lower birth rates, but most projections say that we will level out at 11 billion people or so about 2050. That 11 billion will still require food. Do you know the amount of energy used per acre to achieve the highest crop yield?

Walter Youngquist, “The Post-Petroleum Paradigm -- and Population,” Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Volume 20, Number 4, March 1999

Pimentel and associates have researched the role of energy in agricultural systems, and present significant statistics. Pimentel (1998a) states:

Approximately 90% of the energy in crop production is oil and natural gas. About one-third of the energy is to reduce the labor input from 500 hours per acre to 4 hours per acre in grain production. About two-thirds of the energy is for production, of which about one-third of this is for fertilizers alone.

Fleay (1995), noting that Australia is the world's fourth largest wheat exporting country, discusses the importance of oil and gas in that country's agricultural production, particularly to offset Australia's relatively poor soil. Fleay (1995) states:

Fertilisers have played a key role in offsetting nutrient-poor soils for our agriculture this century... A dramatic twenty-fold increase in nitrogen fertiliser use has occurred since 1965. Fossil fuels are needed for fertiliser manufacture -- 1500-2500 MJ per tonne for superphosphate... However, nitrogen fertilisers use natural gas or petroleum as a feedstock and had an energy intensity of 37,000 MJ per tonne in 1980 (p. 15).

Fleay makes the summary statement:

A very large proportion of the world's population depends for food from high agricultural yields achieved by the use of fossil fuels. The world may only be able to support a population of 3 billion without this input· Petroleum is a key fuel ... The principal grain exporters are the U.S.A., Canada, Europe, Australia and Argentina -- all highly dependent on petroleum-based industrial agriculture.

© source where applicable

above from: http://www.buddycom.com/ecol/Brainfood/oilepic.html
accessed 7-26-03

For your information, the pre-petroleum crop yield of an acre of corn in the US was 30 bushels per acre. Today it is 130 bushels per acre because of fertilizer and tractor use. If fertilizer becomes scarce, what is going to keep the crop yield up?




No one said oil and natural gas would disappear poof over night. Why on earth do you think I said that? I said it would become scarcer. And that will be the cause of the gradual rise in price you speak of.

I am curious as to what other fertilization methods you are thinking of? Human dung?




Since many crops are shipped to those 3rd world nations from places like Australia and the US, when it becomes too costly or the crop yields drop, such shipments will stop. I don't know why you think the slow strangulation of the world's energy supply won't cause famine.




Oh really? Have you counted the big trucks carrying food from the farm to the store lately? THat too is part of the current agricultural system.




THere you go again putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it would annihilate the human race. I said there would be a dieoff. The two things are not the same.

Promoting women's rights and economic growth will reign in the population, and political action or economic forces will rein in fossil fuel use and force us to find alternatives. Global warming will cause hardship, but not in comparsion to the likely economic growth over the next century. We have problems that need solving and can be solved, not problems in need of whining about.[/QUOTE]

Given that you have offered nothing but platitudes in the way of addressing the issues I raised here. You haven't said what the new energy source will be. You have said that we will 'find alternatives', without a single guess as to what that alternative might be. You have said that 'other fertilization methods' will come into play but failed to actually name them. Empty platitudes is all I see. Tell me some specifics. Frankly, I hope you can do that. I want to be wrong but so far no 'solution' I have seen offered will work.[/QUOTE]
I will get back to you tommorrow. My computer is mean, and keeps cutting out on me. 1 thought though. Oil can be sythesized, via coal or via organic materials. The problem is, it is 3 or more times more expensive that just drilling it out right now. The end of fossil fuels will make farming alot mroe expensive, but not cap our max. pop. capacity. It will be our political and economic systems that do that.