The Evolving Narrative on Global Temperatures and the Danger of Solar Geoengineering

By now, many of my readers may have heard about the United Kingdom's plan to fund certain climate-based experiments through its Advanced Research + Invention Agency (ARIA).  According to the Agency's website, the group has the following core beliefs about "Future Proofing Our Climate and Weather":

The goal of ARIA is to "gather critical missing data and answer fundamental scientific questions on approaches that could help prevent humanity from experiencing climate tipping points" and to "explore whether approaches designed to delay, or avert, climate tipping points could be feasible, scalable, and safe."

ARIA claims that it is committed to responsible stewardship, transparency, accountailbilty and good governance and states the following about its funded research:

1.) Deliver valuable knowledge that can address the most pressing critical scientific questions surrounding these approaches

2.) Minimise risk by design

3.) Engage with, and respect local communities

4.) Be transparent, open and honest at programme and project level

5.) Communicate proactively

6.) Remain cognisant of the broader implications of research

7.) Be willing to adapt to lessons learned

8.) Adhere to our well-defined framework for responsible research.

The programme's independent oversight committee, made up of international experts, is designed to strengthen the governance of the programme. 

Basically, ARIA wants to fund geoengineering technologies that are designed to responsibly and artificially cool the earth.

According to the Guardian, the U.K. government through ARIA will fund £50 million ($66.65 million USD) of geoengineering, most particularly solar geoengineering also known as solar radiation management:

 

Here's a quote from the article with my bolds: 

"UK scientists are to launch outdoor geoengineering experiments as part of a £50m government-funded programme.

The experiments will be small-scale and rigorously assessed, according to Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria), the UK government agency backing the plan, and will provide “critical” data needed to assess the potential of the technology. The programme, along with another £11m project, will make the UK one of the biggest funders of geoengineering research in the world."

Here is a graphic showing five methods for solar radiation managemen from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or NOAA:

While the prospect of sun-dimming technology is rather frightening given that the negative repercussions could be catastrophic, a look back in time to 1975 shows us just how unscientific climate science really is:

As reported in Newsweek in 1975 (thanks to Tony Heller for the link), climate scientists were concerned about global cooling:

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically.

The evidence in support of these predictions (drop in global temperatures that have led to a shortening of the growing season) has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it.

The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earths climate seems to be cooling down.  Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions.  But they are almost unanimous that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

...a study released last month by two NOAA scientists noted that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1972." 

My how things have changed over fifty years.  In the mid-1970s, apparently climate scientists were extremely worried about global cooling and were looking at solutions like melting the arctic ice caps to increase the world's temperatures and stated that if planners delayed, it would be more difficult to cope with that particular version of climate change.  Now, five decades later, climate scientists are grasping at technological straws in an attempt to cool the planet down by experimenting with the earth's atmosphere to reduce solar radiation. 

Perhaps, it would be best if mankind just let nature act as it always has; unpredictably and in cycles.  Rather than trying to control nature, it would be wise to let the climate change as it has for millennia (and much longer) without interfering with natural processes by using technology with unknown short-, medium- and long-term consequences.  Unfortunately, the decision makers that are funding these experiments with our tax dollars have no clue whatsoever about climate science...or any science for that matter.

America's "Atlantis"

While a significant portion of the population doesn't believe in the concept of global warming and its consequences, what if it really happened?  What would the impact be on the coastal United States?  A study by researchers at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science looks at the possible impact on one of America's largest cities, Miami.

Let's open with a map showing the coastal elevations in Florida:

As we can easily see, a very significant area of southern Florida is barely above sea level.

Let's now look at the changes in sea level in the Miami area.  Since 1996, measurements of sea level taken on the small island of Virginia Key located south of Miami Beach show the following trend:

By 2014, mean sea level has risen by 3.7 inches from their 1996 levels.

Not only is sea level rising in the Miami area, the rate of the rise is accelerating as shown on this graphic which plots the daily highest tide mark.  Please note that each five year period is given a different colour:

Note that the slope of the line that is calculated using a 31 day running mean of all 19 years of data.  Over the past 15 years, the average high tide has increased by 0.3 inches per year, however, over the past 5 years, the high tide level has increased at an average rate of 1.27 inches per year.

What does all of this mean to the Miami metropolitan area, home to just over 5.5 million people?  More than 10 percent of land in Miami-Dade lies at least than 1 foot above sea level, 20 percent at less than 2 feet and 25 percent at less than 3 feet.     Here is a map showing how much of central Miami will be inundated at high tide with a three foot rise in sea level:

As well, the same area would be flooded during significant rain events (i.e. hurricanes) during even the lowest of tides.

Miami is suffering from a two-edged sword.  Municipal wells that provide water for both residential and agricultural use are pumping water from a porous and permeable limestone aquifer.  As shown in this diagram, as the fresh water is pumped out of the aquifer, saltwater from the ocean advances into the aquifer in a process known as saltwater intrusion:

As a result of saltwater intrusion, some cities in Florida have had to shut down some of their fresh water wells because the water has become contaminated (brackish).  As sea level rises over the coming decades, the saltwater will exert more pressure on the freshwater in the aquifer, pushing the freshwater further from the coast and toward the surface.  This means that the depth to the water table will decrease as time passes.  Another problem connected to the porosity of the bedrock underlying south Florida is that seawalls cannot block seawater; during storm surges, seawater will move inland under any seawalls that are constructed.

A study by Forbes Thompson and Christina DeConcini at the World Resources Institute observes that sea level in southeast Florida has risen by 12 inches with the annual se level rise between 1993 and 2010 being twice the rate that was observed from 1901 to 2010.  

Over the next 20 years, Florida's problems with sea level changes will become more apparent.  By 2034, sea level is expected to rise by about 6 inches meaning that flooding from heavy rains will become more of a problem, particularly for residents that live very close to sea level.   By 2060, sea levels along Florida's coastline will rise by between 9 inches and two feet.  This will have a massive impact on Florida's economy as the cost of post-storm cleanups increase in lock-step with the damage being done.  To give us a sense of the size of the problem, the 2005 Hurricane Wilma caused $2.21 billion in damage to the Miami-Dade area.  The seven foot storm surge that caused this amount of damage had the likelihood of occurring only once in 76 years.  If the sea level along Miami-Dade's coastline rises by one foot, the same seven foot storm surge will have a likelihood of occurring once in 21 years and if the sea level rises by two feet, the same seven foot storm surge would have a likelihood of occurring once every five years!  

Florida is the most vulnerable state to changes in sea level and Miami-Dade has more people living less than four feet above sea level than any other state excluding Louisiana.  Miami has the nation's largest amount of exposed assets and has the world's fourth largest population vulnerable to a rising sea level.  Whether the cause of global climate change is related to man-made/anthropogenic causes or is just part of a natural warming cycle it matters little to the future residents of Miami and Dade County.  It's not a political issue.  It's an issue that will impact us all, particularly given that billions of dollars worth of homes and infrastructure lie within the target zone.

Will Global Warming Legislation Actually Kill Americans?

Updated December 2016

A recent analysis by the Institute for Energy Research looks at the potentially high human cost of the American "Clean Power Plan" for the nation's existing power plants.  In this plan, the Obama Administration has set "strong but achievable standards" for power plants and "customized goals" for states to cut the level of carbon pollution that is leading to global climate change.  Through this plan, the EPA hopes to cut carbon pollution to show the world that the United States is serious about addressing climate change.  

The Clean Power Plan creates a partnership between the Environmental Protection Agency and state governments by setting carbon dioxide emission performance rates for fossil fuel-fired electric power generation units that will be implemented over the period between 2022 and 2029 with the goal of meeting performance targets by 2030.  This can be done in one of the four following ways, termed "building blocks":

Building Block 1: reducing the carbon intensity of electricity generation by improving the heat rate of existing coal-fired power plants.

Building Block 2: substituting energy generation from lower emission sources (i.e. natural gas) for higher emission sources (i.e. coal).

Building Block 3: substituting energy generation from zero emission sources (i.e. wind and solar) for higher emission sources (i.e. coal).

Building Block 4: increases in end user efficiencies.

Here is a map showing the target carbon dioxide emission rate reductions that will be required for each state that will allow them to meet the 2030 target relative to the 2012 emission rate:

States can also meet their emissions goal through emissions trading.  States must submit a final plan by September 6, 2018 which must meet the goal of reducing U.S. power plant carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent in 2030 (compared to the 2005 emission levels).

Let's look at what the Environmental Protection Agency has to say about the benefits of implementing the Clean Power Plan.  The EPA projects that implementation of the Clean Power Plan will result in the following financial benefits:

1.) climate benefits of $20 billion

2.) health benefits of $14 to $34 billion

3.) net benefits of $26 to $45 billion

The EPA notes that electricity costs would increase only slightly in the early years of the Plan's implementation and would save consumers money on their electricity bills by 2030.

Since carbon pollution is associate with other dangerous air pollutants, the Plan will also protect human health in the following ways:

1.) annual reduction of 3,600 premature deaths by 2030

2.) annual reduction of 1,700 heart attacks

3.) annual reduction of 90,000 asthma attacks

4.) annual reduction of 300,000 missed work and school days

Now, let's look at what the Institute for Energy Research (IER) has to say about the Clean Power Plan.  The analysis begins by noting that there will a significant cost to implementing the Plan, totalling $479 billion over the 15 year period from 2017 to 2031 if only the first two building blocks are implemented (as noted above) according to a study completed for the coal industry (among others) by NERA Economic Consulting (National Economic Research Associates).   Consumers and businesses would pay $41 billion or more for electricity annually and residents in 43 states would see 12 to 17 percent increases in their electricity bills over the 15 year period.  Here is a map showing the price increases from 2017 to 2031 on electricity prices if Building Blocks 1 to 4 are implemented:

Here is a map showing the price increases from 2017 to 2031 if Building Blocks 1 and 2 are implemented:

Thanks to higher energy costs, the NERA study estimates that there will be a $366 billion loss in GDP by 2031 and another study by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association estimates that GDP losses could total $5.4 trillion if electricity prices rise by 25 percent.  The 25 percent increase in electricity prices would also result in the loss of 2.2 million jobs by 2021.

The IER goes on to note that the benefits of implementing the Clean Power Plan would be far outstripped by the costs since the Plan would limit global warming by only 0.02 degrees and sea level rises by 0.01 inch.

Now, let's look at the really scary part of the IER analysis.  While the EPA estimated that there would be an annual reduction in the number of premature deaths, rising from 200 in 2020 to 1900 in 2025 and 3600 in 2030 for total avoided premature deaths of 21,000 between 2020 and 2030.  IER and NERA note the following:

"At the same time, however, the EPA ignores the health-wealth link that demonstrates that the plan could actually have a large negative impact on health in America. By closing down existing coal-fired power plants and replacing them with new, costly alternatives like wind and solar power, the plan will increase electricity prices, destroy jobs, and decrease Americans’ disposable income. This is especially true for the poor, sick, and mentally ill, who spend a greater percentage of their income on energy."

IER and NERA estimate that the health-wealth connection to the implementation of the Clean Power Plan could result in 35,000 premature deaths in total by 2030 meaning that implementation of the Plan would cause 14,000 more premature deaths than it prevents (35,000 minus 21,000).

In closing, now that you've read through this entire posting and absorbed the results of the IER analysis, you might find the following information interesting.  The Institute for Energy Research was founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization that was registered by Charles G. Koch, one of the Koch brothers of Koch Industries fame.  IER describes itself as:

"...a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.

Founded in 1989 from a predecessor organization, IER is a public foundation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and is funded entirely by tax deductible contributions from individuals, foundations and corporations. No financial support is sought for or accepted from government sources." 

  

Government funding sources would be the least of IER’s problem.  Since 1998, ExxonMobil has donated $307,000 to IER.  Keeping in mind that the American Energy Alliance describes itself as the "independent grassroots affiliate of the Institute for Energy Research", here is a listing of donors to the group(s):

Just in case you wondered, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce is the funding arm of the political network backed by the Koch Brothers.

This tells us why it's always important to understand who is funding anti-climate change research!