Tag Archive | "Paul Crutzen"

Bright Idea

Tags: , , , , , ,

It Is Time To Commemorate Us

Posted on 14 February 2016 by Jerry

We should formally recognize our impact on planet Earth. We should rename the epoch we are in. We should close the Holocene Epoch and open the Anthropocene or human altered geologically significant Epoch. We should use it as the rallying point to express the urgency of our fight to reverse humanity’s devastation of the planet.

The International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) is a professional organization that determines the Geological Time Scale under which the Earth operates. They, for example, formally named the Holocene or “entirely recent” Epoch that we are presently in. It began 11,700 years ago after the last major ice age and was progressing before our global affect on the planet was recognized.

The IUGS has formed an Anthopocene Working Group (from anthopo, for “man” and cene for “new”) with a target date sometime in 2016 to determine if we should change the name of our present Epoch to recognize humanity’s impact. This group is to make a formal recommendation to the IUGS this year.

It has already been well documented that humanity has fundamentally changed the planet. We know for example that we transitioned to the industrial age beginning in the early 1700’s. This represented the beginning of our global impact on the Earth. We started with England and by 1850 we were beginning to transform the rest of the world.

We quickly transitioned to fossil fuels and never stopped our increasing use. We moved from ongoing flows of water, wind, plants and animals to first coal then oil and gas. These fuels offered access to carbon stored in the ground from millions of years of photosynthesis. This represented a massive energy subsidy from the past to the present and became a great source of human wealth.

Today we use about five times as much energy as the hunter-gatherer societies that have gone before. Between the years 1800 to 2000 the human population grew more than six-fold with the worldwide economy growing about 50-fold and our energy use expanding about 40-fold. Nowhere was our growth more evident than our impact on the atmosphere.

An article by Will Steffen, Paul Crutzen, and John R. McNeil in December of 2007 said, “By 1950 the atmospheric CO2 concentration had pushed above the 300 ppmv, above its preindustrial value of 270-275 ppmv and was beginning to accelerate sharply.” In 2015 we have already had days and weeks above the 400 ppmv. It is only a matter of a short time when we will reach an average annual rate above 400 ppmv.

Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer originally proposed this formal adoption of the Anthropocene Epoch in the year 2000 in an article that appeared in the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Global Change Newsletter. Readers will remember that Paul Crutzen was given a Nobel Prize for discovering the destruction of the ozone in our upper atmosphere by human used chemicals.

An article appearing in the March 11, 2015 issue of Nature magazine entitled the Anthropocene: The human age stated, “When Crutzen proposed the term Anthropocene, he gave it the suffix appropriate for an epoch…Between then and the new millennium, he noted, humans had chewed a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica, doubled the amount of methane in the atmosphere and driven up carbon dioxide concentrations by 30%, to a level not seen in 400,000 years.”

The same article observed, “When the Anthropocene Working Group started investigating, it compiled a much longer list of the changes wrought by humans. Agriculture, construction and the damming of rivers is stripping away sediment at least ten times as fast as the natural forces of erosion. Along some coastlines, the flood of nutrients from fertilizers has created oxygen-poor ‘dead zones’, and the extra CO2 from fossil fuel burning has acidified the surface waters of the ocean by 0.1 pH units. The fingerprint of humans is clear in global temperatures, the rate of species extinctions and the loss of Arctic ice.”

A key objective is to establish a key ‘geological signal’ or ‘golden spike’ that can be used worldwide by stratigraphers (scientists who study rock layers) and geologists to show the separation of one epoch from another. In an article entitled the Geology of Mankind in 2002 by Crutzen published in the journal Nature Crutzen argues “The Anthropocene could be said to have started in the late Eighteenth century when analysis of air trapped in polar ice showed the beginning of growing global concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane.” This would be around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Europe and/or coinciding with James Watt’s design of the steam engine in 1784.

Other seminal events or golden spikes have been suggested.   A leading candidate is a spike in geologic time or a visible signal shown in sediments worldwide that occurs in the 1950s and 1960s representing the worldwide fallout from nuclear weapons and their tests in the open air of the planet. In fact a member of the IUGS Working Group has suggested the specific date of 16 July 1945 or the day of the first atomic-bomb blast, as the beginning of the Anthropocene Epoch.

Those who have read the book Beyond Animal, Ego and Time know that chapter 12 states, “On July 16, 1945 the United States led an unknowing world into the nuclear age with the Trinity test nuclear explosion in New Mexico…Most people would credit the development of nuclear weapons as the tipping point where human beings moved from being incapable of destroying all life on planet Earth to fully capable.”

In a Smithsonian magazine article appearing in January of 2013 Joseph Stromberg writes, “Will Stephen, who heads Australia National University’s Climate Change Institute and has written articles with Crutzen, recommends starting the epoch with the advent of the industrial revolution in the early 1800s or with the atomic age in the 1950s. Either way, he says the new name sends a message: “[It] will be another strong reminder to the general public that we are now having undeniable impacts on the environment at the scale of the planet as a whole, so much so that a new geological epoch has begun.”

The article continues, “To Andrew Revkin, a New York Times reporter (now blogger) who suggested a similar term in 1992 that never caught on (“Anthrocene”), it’s significant that the issue is being debated at all. “Two billion years ago, cyanobacteria oxygenated the atmosphere and powerfully disrupted life on earth,” he says. “But they didn’t know it. We’re the first species that’s become a planet-scale influence and is aware of that reality. That’s what distinguishes us.”

For this reason and because it is true, the choice of this date and the use of the development of nuclear weapons as the beginning of the Anthropocene Epoch would be very appropriate. We should endorse this change and allow all of human kind to mark its ascension as the initiators of a new and dangerous epoch, the Anthropocene.  It should give every one of us a new urgency to change the destructive path we are on. The future is ours to shape. Whether we are victorious or go down to a final defeat is up to us and depends on what we do in the coming days and years.

For additional information or to access the source documents used for this article use the following links.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/public-events/archiv/alter-net/former-ss/2007/05-09.2007/steffen/literature/ambi-36-08-06_614_621.pdf

http://www.nature.com/news/anthropocene-the-human-age-1.17085

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6269/aad2622

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/07/human-impact-has-pushed-earth-into-the-anthropocene-scientists-say

http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/workinggroups/anthropocene/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/?no-ist

http://phys.org/news/2016-01-anthropocene-hard-evidence-human-driven-earth.html

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/06/anthropocene-debate.html#

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Waiting Means Being Too Late

Posted on 10 June 2015 by Jerry

We have a few researchers talking about how to put something in our atmosphere to protect us from the sun’s warmth and rising temperatures and/or how to remove carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere and sequester it safely somewhere.  These are the main two areas of emphasis of ‘climate engineering’.

Most scientists believe that climate engineering, or intentionally manipulating the global climate, is not desirable and would be our last option.  While they completely discount removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequestering it underground as ineffective given the size of the effort involved, they are concerned that putting something in the atmosphere to increase reflectivity will be tried and be very dangerous.

A broad range of options have been suggested as to how we can modify our atmosphere to increase its reflectivity where sunlight is directed back into space.  These include injecting sulphate particles into the stratosphere mimicing the natural cooling effects of volcanic ash and/or spraying seawater into the air to brighten clouds and reflect more sunlight back into space.  Thoughts have gone so far as even to suggest placing giant mirrors into orbit to reflect sunlight before it reaches Earth.

One of the first suggestions was from Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work to understand the stratospheric chemistry to which our ozone is subject.  He suggested we inject tiny particles of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to shield Earth from solar radiation that would warm our planet.

The problem is that while Crutzen’s suggestion has spawned much talk of research, according to Anders Levermann (see article below), a Berlin-based climate scientist and Physics Professor, while it might cool the planet on average, it would do nothing to reverse the effect of greenhouse gases.  In a Huffington Post article published on May 8, 2015 entitled “Why Climate Engineering Won’t Work” he outlines the problem as he sees it.

He states, “The reason is as simple as fundamental: The extra abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere does not change our climate in a uniform manner.  The Arctic, for example, is warming almost twice as much as the tropics.  This has to do with a well-known effect called polar amplification.  The main reason for this is that warming enhances the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which then snows-off in the dry and cold polar region where it releases energy and warms the atmosphere.  Now if this sounds too complicated, one just has to hold up a thermometer in the Arctic and another one in the tropics:  They show that temperature up North rises faster than at the equator.”

He continued, “Now reflecting sunlight back into space would have the exact opposite pattern.  It would do a lot in the tropics where sunlight is strong, and less in the Arctic and Antarctic.  This is fundamentally true and cannot be fixed.  So, reflecting radiation back into space could cool the planet on average, but it cannot reverse the effect of the greenhouse gases – not even remotely.”

A recent New York Times article quotes Newt Gingrich, our former House speaker, in 2008 as saying “Instead of penalizing ordinary Americans, we would have an option to address global warming by rewarding scientific invention.”  He later added it would “Bring on American ingenuity.”  No matter how uninformed his observation, it is attractive for all since it removes the burden of changing anything, instead replacing it with a false hope.

A concern is that the political forces will rally around climate engineering or putting something in the atmosphere because it is “new business” for someone as opposed to reducing existing greenhouse gas emissions through changes in energy sources or usage that is costly for existing industries.  Existing industries are powerful lobbying sources that will use their political influence to focus efforts on others or push for climate engineering.  Companies small and large, researchers far and wide and entrepreneurs will vie for money and opportunity.

In February of 2015 a committee of the National Academy of Science (NAS) called for study of geoengineering options including federal funding for demonstration projects to test assumptions.  This does not mean however that the NAS views geoengineering positively.

In fact, the committee chairwoman, Marcia McNutt, editor-in-chief of Science Magazine and a former director of the U.S. Geological Survey, is quoted as telling The Associated Press on an Opinion Page of the New York Times “The public should read this report and say ‘This is downright scary.’  And they should say, ‘If this is our Hail Mary, what a scary, scary place we are in.’ ”

Ms. McNutt’s concern echoes that of futurist Jamais Cascio.   He suggested, “Global delays in reducing carbon emissions will likely force the human race to embark upon a set of geoengineering-based responses, not as the complete solution, but simply as a disaster-avoidance measure.”

Both have undoubtedly read a February 25, 2014 study published in Nature magazine that showed that geoengineering would not work.  They used an Earth system model and looked at the effectiveness of afforestation, artificial ocean upwelling, ocean iron fertilization, ocean alkalinization and solar radiation management during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario.

The study team stated, “We find that even when applied continuously and at scales as large as currently deemed possible, all methods are, individually, either relatively ineffective with limited (<8%) warming reductions, or they have potentially severe side effects and cannot be stopped without causing rapid climate change.  Our simulations suggest that the potential for these types of climate engineering to make up for failed mitigation may be very limited.”

The evidence is in, existing geoengineering approaches will not work because the costs are too high, the approaches have been proven to be insufficient or with the complexity of the world atmosphere, we will certainly exchange one group of problems for another.  This only serves to delay the inevitable until it is too late.

There is a lot of talk about climate change and a lot of delay between discussion and action.  We all know we can control climate change by changing the way we live.  There is a serious question of whether we will.  The big questions are when will we act and what option will we choose.

We must follow our best scientific advice.  The scientists have said that “mitigation” or reducing the carbon dioxide modern society puts into the atmosphere is our best option.  It unfortunately requires a large change in how various industries conduct their business and in how we live.  But we must choose this option and we must do it now.  We cannot wait any longer.

Use the following links to access additional information or the source documents for this article.

http://www.ce-conference.org/what-climate-engineering

http://www.ce-conference.org/conference-blog/assessing-geoengineering-technical-fix-too-far

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/opinion/the-risks-of-climate-engineering.html?_r=0

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-tinkerers-thrash-out-a-plan-1.16470

http://legal-planet.org/2015/02/13/climate-engineering-national-academy-committee-recommends-starting-research-with-limits/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anders-levermann/why-climate-engineering-wont-work_b_7239816.html

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4304/full/ncomms4304.html

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/02/climate-engineering-in-from-the-cold/

http://faculty.engr.utexas.edu/bickel/Papers/AP_Climate%20Engineering_Bickel_Lane_v%205%200.pdf

 

Comments (0)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here
March 2017
S M T W T F S
« Feb    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031