Trapping Carbon Dioxide Or Switching To Nuclear Power Not Enough To Solve Global Warming Problem

[steven johnson]

Oh damn, nuclear power and CO2 injection won't save us.

I guess it's back to putting little umbrellas into orbit to cut sunlight.

ScienceDaily (July 13, 2009) — Attempting to tackle climate change by trapping carbon dioxide or switching to nuclear power will not solve the problem of global warming, according to energy calculations published in the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming.

They have worked out that using the increase in average global air temperature as a measure of global warming is an inadequate measure of climate change. They suggest that scientists must also take into account the total energy of the ground, ice masses and the seas if they are to model climate change accurately.
The researchers have calculated that the heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to a mere 6.6% of global warming, while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31.5%), melting ice (33.4%) and sea water (28.5%). They point out that net heat emissions between the industrial revolution circa 1880 and the modern era at 2000 correspond to almost three quarters of the accumulated heat, i.e., global warming, during that period.

Their calculations suggest that most measures to combat global warming, such as reducing our reliance on burning fossil fuels and switching to renewables like wind power and solar energy, will ultimately help in preventing catastrophic climate change in the long term. But the same calculations also show that trapping carbon dioxide, so-called carbon dioxide sequestration, and storing it deep underground or on the sea floor will have very little effect on global warming.

The researchers also point out a flaw in the nuclear energy argument. Although nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide emissions in the same way as burning fossil fuels it does produce heat emissions equivalent to three times the energy of the electricity it generates and so contributes to global warming significantly, Nordell adds.


Trapping Carbon Dioxide Or Switching To Nuclear Power Not Enough To Solve Global Warming Problem, Experts Say

[timeforpeace]

1. As Peter Green would say, oh well.

[spag68]

3. Peter Green

That was when he was part of Fleetwood Mac, when it was a real band. Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me too.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Now wait just one cotton-picken minute

In essence, they're saying that the "greenhouse effect" is only responsible for about a quarter of the heating.

If they're right, then this requires a fundamental rethink of essentially all of "global warming" science.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

… increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations is very likely to have caused most of the increases in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century. …

[kristopher]

6. Yep. That's what they are saying...

BTW: "picken"? :)

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. OK, here's the paper

http://www.ltu.se/forskning/1.16009?l=en&pureId=2090518&pureFamily=dk.atira.pure.families.publication.shared.model.Publication

[kristopher]

10. Thanks.

"The major natural heat source is the geothermal heat flow but heat is also generated by, e.g. volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and meteorites. Non-natural heat sources include the global use of fossil fuel, nuclear power, and deforestation. Heat emissions from nuclear bomb tests and conventional bombs also add to the net heat generation.

Global heat flow data are collected by the International Heat Flow Commission, . The compiled mean geothermal heat flow is 0.065 W m-2 for the continents and 0.101 W m-2 and for the oceans. Its variation is a result of the composition and thickness of the upper part of the crust. The total geothermal heat flow during the last 120 years is 486.1014 kWh (175.1021 J). This energy is considerably greater than the global energy consumption during the same period, and is given as a reference value to other net heat sources though it does not contribute to the global warming."


That deals with one critique on this thread...

I don't see a weakness in the substance of their argument.


"CONCLUDING REMARKS
Independent of what causes the global warming it should be considered in terms of accumulated energy. Performed estimations of global heat accumulation in air, ground, and global net heat emissions only include the years 1880 to 2000.

Data used in estimating global heat accumulation in air, ground, and melting of land ice are fairly reliable while the melting of sea ice might be overestimated. The main uncertainty concerns the sea temperature increase, which means that sensible heat accumulation in sea water might be underestimated. The air only contains 6.6% of globally accumulated heat, of which 45% is distributed over the land area though it accounts for about 30% of Earth’s total area. The remaining heat is accumulated in the ground (31.5%), sea water (28.5%), sea ice melt (11.2%) and land ice melt (22.2%).

So, the melting of ice has absorbed 33.4% of the total global warming. The heat stored by sea water, melting of sea ice, and in the air over the oceans accounts for almost 43% of the global heat accumulation while the corresponding value for the land area is about 35% if the land ice of ~22% mainly Greenland is treated separately.

It is concluded that net heat emissions contributes to 74% of the global warming. The missing heat (26%) must be a result of other causes, the greenhouse effect, natural variation of the climate, and/or underestimation of net heat emissions.

Most measures already taken to combat global warming are beneficial also for current explanation. However, CO2 sequestration and subsequent storage will have very little effect on the global warming. It is also concluded that nuclear power is not a solution but part of the problem."

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Nothing will "save us"

The search for ANY magic solution is doomed. Unless we deal with the realities of our predicament, so are we. Individual technologies will not suffice, though some may be quite helpful.

And, whatever your opinion on nuclear energy may be, reactor-generated heat does NOT do the same thing as greenhouse gas. By far the largest source of heat is the Sun. The problem we have caused is from making the atmosphere a more-efficient greenhouse which traps (some) heat from all sources. I can't imagine that Nordell and Gervet would make a mistake like that. The blurb in Science Daily seems to have a couple of flubs in it -- if someone can post a link to the original (I can only get an abstract), please do.

--d!

[kristopher]

5. I can't find the full text either.

They are proposing that the "CO2 as cause" is only partially correct and that the largest part of the warming is due to additional heat release from the surface. As I read it they are saying the heat we've generated with fossil and nuclear is a larger component than has been realized. Greenhouse effects would be just as important to this theory since the accumulating GHGs would act to ensure that the influence on the energy balance of releasing sequestered heat (will that become a common term) would be enhanced.

I came across an undergrad paper on this a while back and the back of the envelope numbers they used provided me a lot of food for thought.

[defendandprotect]

7. We have to move to electric cars -- and mass transportation . . .

back to bicycles -- tricycles -- and trolleys --

We especially need to empty those town parking lots of all of those cars every day!

But, agree . . . we are in serious trouble which many Americans still don't even realize.

And it's thanks to corporatism and those private individuals who have controlled our natural

resources.

And most of all to an insane economic system called "capialism" --

"for profit" of the few by exploitation -- while we lose humanity and the planet.

[HamdenRice]

9. Sorry, but I don't buy this one

The article is confusing two different things: greenhouse gases and pure "heat pollution."

It is making the somewhat idiosyncratic claim that global warming is primarily caused by heat pollution and not by greenhouse gases. The problem is that this conflicts with the dominant theory of global warming -- that it is caused by greenhouse gases.

In other words, the energy of the sun dwarfs the heat released by humans in their industrial activities. It's not the heat from burning coal that's the problem; it's that CO2 traps the sun's heat, not the heat from the coal.

The heat from geothermal sources -- the nuclear engine inside the earth -- also dwarfs the energy released by humans from either fossil or nuclear sources.

All of this heat is easily radiated out to space and distributed to space by convection of the air currents. Consider the convection currents that power hurricanes and global weather systems and their ability to deliver heat to the upper atmosphere, and this argument seems extremely implausible.

I've never read a credible source that said pure heat pollution was a problem (other than of course local heat pollution problems), although iirc, the Club of Rome toyed with the idea in the 70s.