Monday, February 26, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Winter Moisture Problems
RLC Engineering, LLC.
Winter Moisture Problems
Craig DeWitt, PhD, PEJanuary 3, 2002
Click here for printerfriendly version
Moisture levels inside homes in winter can sometimes be high enough to cause mildew and other problems. On the other hand, winter dryness inside some homes is also a problem. Therefore, controlling moisture levels inside a house in winter is desirable.
Winter moisture problems can usually be divided into two groups: those caused by liquid water, and those caused by moisture in the air. Other than the usual plumbing and roof-leak type liquid water problems, the most significant winter liquid water problem is an ice dam. Ice dams occur on the roof when outside temperatures are below freezing, and some precipitation has or is falling. Heat from inside the house causes snow or ice on the roof to melt and run further down the roof. Once this liquid water hits an unheated section, like an overhang, the water freezes causing a dam. Liquid water builds up behind the dam and runs back under shingles, and into the house. Quite often, an incomplete coverage of insulation or air leakage from the house causes an ice dam situation.
Other winter-time moisture problems are situations created by moisture in the air. Relative humidity (RH) is based on temperature. Warming air (without adding moisture) reduces the relative humidity, while cooling air (without removing moisture) increases relative humidity. Quite often, the coldest place in a house in the winter is a window. Condensation on a window indicates that the window is cold enough to increase the RH to 100% at the window surface. Mold on the inside of exterior walls or on ceilings around the perimeter of the house are also indications that these surfaces are cold enough to cause an increase in the RH near those surfaces. Mold may also grow on clothes and shoes in closets, where the temperature is lower than in the adjoining room.
Controlling condensation and mold growth requires either warming the surface or drying the air. In some instances, adding insulation is an option. Closets can be warmed by installing louvered doors, or by adding a heat register in the closet. Window surfaces can be warmed by adding an exterior storm window, adding a heating vent located beneath the window or by replacing the window with more a energy efficient window. Contrary to popular opinion, turning a light on in a closet does not discourage mold because of the light. Rather, the light produces heat, which in turn lowers the relative humidity, and that discourages mold.
If moisture condenses between the permanent window and the storm window, leakage of air around the permanent window is allowing warm moist air from inside the house to seep into the air space between the glass panes. In this case, an effort should be made to seal the leaking spaces. Another option is to ventilate the air space between the two windows. Do this by drilling two 3/8" diameter holes at the top and bottom of the storm window or loosen the storm window slightly.
Drying the air requires knowing the source of moisture. Crawl spaces can be a significant amount of moisture. If the crawl space soil is not covered with a ground cover, one should be added. Another major source of moisture in a house is an unvented combustion device, such as a gas fireplace or kerosene heater. Burning one gallon of kerosene produces about one gallon of water. Burning a 20,000 BTU gas fireplace for one hour produces about 1.5 pounds of water. Venting a clothes dryer inside can produce about five pounds of water per load. Other sources of moisture include people, pets, plants, cooking, cleaning, bathing and hobbies. In high moisture producing areas (kitchens, baths, and laundry), ventilation is required.
Only 4 to 6 pints of water are necessary to raise the relative humidity of a 1000 square foot house from 15% to 60%. A comfortable winter-time level would be between 30% - 50%.
At other times, or even in other locations in the house, excessive drying may occur in the winter. As outside air enters the house and is heated, the RH decreases. Wood and other materials exposed to this dry air may shrink, resulting in cracks, squeaks or gaps in floors, cabinets, doors or sheetrock. Hardwood floors may even warp as the underside dries more than the upper side.
In these overly-dry situations, the best solution is to decrease the rate of outside air entering the house. Look for leaks in ductwork, leaks around windows and doors, and through other penetration through the floors, walls and ceilings. Dampers should also be closed on fireplaces when not in use.
Contrary to popular opinion, heat pumps do not produce dryer or wetter air than furnaces or other heating systems. Often times, though, a house with ducts in the crawl space or attic may bring in more outside air that, when heated, tends to dry out the house.
The best solution to winter-time moisture problems is to create a tight house with a continuous, contiguous insulation barrier and air barrier, then control internal sources of moisture. This solution will also help alleviate or prevent summer-time moisture problems as well.
Winter Moisture Problems
Craig DeWitt, PhD, PEJanuary 3, 2002
Click here for printerfriendly version
Moisture levels inside homes in winter can sometimes be high enough to cause mildew and other problems. On the other hand, winter dryness inside some homes is also a problem. Therefore, controlling moisture levels inside a house in winter is desirable.
Winter moisture problems can usually be divided into two groups: those caused by liquid water, and those caused by moisture in the air. Other than the usual plumbing and roof-leak type liquid water problems, the most significant winter liquid water problem is an ice dam. Ice dams occur on the roof when outside temperatures are below freezing, and some precipitation has or is falling. Heat from inside the house causes snow or ice on the roof to melt and run further down the roof. Once this liquid water hits an unheated section, like an overhang, the water freezes causing a dam. Liquid water builds up behind the dam and runs back under shingles, and into the house. Quite often, an incomplete coverage of insulation or air leakage from the house causes an ice dam situation.
Other winter-time moisture problems are situations created by moisture in the air. Relative humidity (RH) is based on temperature. Warming air (without adding moisture) reduces the relative humidity, while cooling air (without removing moisture) increases relative humidity. Quite often, the coldest place in a house in the winter is a window. Condensation on a window indicates that the window is cold enough to increase the RH to 100% at the window surface. Mold on the inside of exterior walls or on ceilings around the perimeter of the house are also indications that these surfaces are cold enough to cause an increase in the RH near those surfaces. Mold may also grow on clothes and shoes in closets, where the temperature is lower than in the adjoining room.
Controlling condensation and mold growth requires either warming the surface or drying the air. In some instances, adding insulation is an option. Closets can be warmed by installing louvered doors, or by adding a heat register in the closet. Window surfaces can be warmed by adding an exterior storm window, adding a heating vent located beneath the window or by replacing the window with more a energy efficient window. Contrary to popular opinion, turning a light on in a closet does not discourage mold because of the light. Rather, the light produces heat, which in turn lowers the relative humidity, and that discourages mold.
If moisture condenses between the permanent window and the storm window, leakage of air around the permanent window is allowing warm moist air from inside the house to seep into the air space between the glass panes. In this case, an effort should be made to seal the leaking spaces. Another option is to ventilate the air space between the two windows. Do this by drilling two 3/8" diameter holes at the top and bottom of the storm window or loosen the storm window slightly.
Drying the air requires knowing the source of moisture. Crawl spaces can be a significant amount of moisture. If the crawl space soil is not covered with a ground cover, one should be added. Another major source of moisture in a house is an unvented combustion device, such as a gas fireplace or kerosene heater. Burning one gallon of kerosene produces about one gallon of water. Burning a 20,000 BTU gas fireplace for one hour produces about 1.5 pounds of water. Venting a clothes dryer inside can produce about five pounds of water per load. Other sources of moisture include people, pets, plants, cooking, cleaning, bathing and hobbies. In high moisture producing areas (kitchens, baths, and laundry), ventilation is required.
Only 4 to 6 pints of water are necessary to raise the relative humidity of a 1000 square foot house from 15% to 60%. A comfortable winter-time level would be between 30% - 50%.
At other times, or even in other locations in the house, excessive drying may occur in the winter. As outside air enters the house and is heated, the RH decreases. Wood and other materials exposed to this dry air may shrink, resulting in cracks, squeaks or gaps in floors, cabinets, doors or sheetrock. Hardwood floors may even warp as the underside dries more than the upper side.
In these overly-dry situations, the best solution is to decrease the rate of outside air entering the house. Look for leaks in ductwork, leaks around windows and doors, and through other penetration through the floors, walls and ceilings. Dampers should also be closed on fireplaces when not in use.
Contrary to popular opinion, heat pumps do not produce dryer or wetter air than furnaces or other heating systems. Often times, though, a house with ducts in the crawl space or attic may bring in more outside air that, when heated, tends to dry out the house.
The best solution to winter-time moisture problems is to create a tight house with a continuous, contiguous insulation barrier and air barrier, then control internal sources of moisture. This solution will also help alleviate or prevent summer-time moisture problems as well.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Acid Oceans Threatening Marine Food Chain, Experts Warn
Acid Oceans Threatening Marine Food Chain, Experts Warn
Acid Oceans Threatening Marine Food Chain, Experts Warn
Scott Norris in San Francisco, Californiafor National Geographic News
February 17, 2007
The world's oceans are turning acidic due to the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, and scientists say the effects on marine life will be catastrophic.
In the next 50 to 100 years corrosive seawater will dissolve the shells of tiny marine snails and reduce coral reefs to rubble, the researchers say (coral photos, facts, more).
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Cold-Water Corals at Risk From Fishing Nets, Acidic Oceans (May 1, 2006)
Corals Photo Gallery
Warming Oceans Put Kink in Food Chain, Study Says (January 30, 2007)
Four leading marine experts delivered this grim prognosis yesterday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco, California.
The scientists stressed that increased ocean acidity is one of the gravest dangers posed by the buildup of atmospheric CO2.
"Ocean chemistry is changing to a state that has not occurred for hundreds of thousands of years," said Richard Feely of Seattle's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory.
"Shell-building by marine organisms will slow down or stop. Reef-building will decrease or reverse."
Already, Feely said, ocean acidity has increased about 30 percent since industrialization began spurring harmful carbon emissions centuries ago. Unless emissions are reduced from current levels, an increase of 150 percent is predicted by 2100.
Such an increase would make the oceans more acidic than they've been at any time in the last 20 million years, he added.
Sea Creatures' Uncertain Fate
The organisms most directly affected are those that build hard shells or other mineral structures of calcium carbonate. These include numerous species of corals, marine snails, and crust-building algae.
As oceans absorb CO2 from the air, the gas reacts with water to produce carbonic acid. The acid in turn consumes the carbonate that sea creatures need to build their shells.
"This is a problem that no living corals have encountered in their past evolutionary history," said Charlie Veron, of the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Over time, coral reefs have been able to adjust to changes in ocean temperature and sea level, Veron said. But acidification appears to be a problem that the ancestors of today's corals were unable to solve.
Mass extinctions of marine life in the distant past, he said, were probably caused by chemical changes similar to those happening today.
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Cold-Water Corals at Risk From Fishing Nets, Acidic Oceans (May 1, 2006)
Corals Photo Gallery
Warming Oceans Put Kink in Food Chain, Study Says (January 30, 2007)
"It took coral reefs about four to ten million years to recover each time," he added.
In shallow waters where most corals presently grow, carbonate is not in short supply. But at greater depths carbonate concentration decreases until it reaches a point beyond which shell- and reef-production is no longer possible.
That critical threshold is rising closer to the surface as oceans grow increasingly acidic, limiting the depths at which corals and other organisms can live.
Feely said that this limit has already risen several hundred meters, particularly in the Indian and Pacific oceans. Recent measurements in the Gulf of Alaska found that carbonate was in short supply less than 325 feet (100 meters) below the surface.
James Orr, of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Marine Environmental Laboratory in Monaco, said that by the end of this century, shell- and reef-building sea creatures will be unable to live at any depth across a huge area of the world's oceans.
"Two-thirds of cold-water corals will be exposed to corrosive waters by 2100," Orr said.
Far-Reaching Effects
Initial concerns about ocean acidification have focused on corals, which are already experiencing die-offs and "bleaching" due to warmer water temperatures.
(Read related story: "Global Warming Has Devastating Effect on Coral Reefs, Study Shows".)
Unfortunately, Veron said, "the very corals that will escape mass bleaching are those most prone to the effects of ocean acidification."
Scientists now recognize that the danger extends to other organisms as well. Robert Buddemeier, of the Kansas Geological Survey, said mineral-producing "coralline" algae are especially vulnerable.
The algaes' cementlike secretions are the "glue" that helps hold coral reefs together, Buddemeier said, and also helps stabilize coastlines in nonreef areas.
Perhaps even more alarming is the threat to marine snails called pteropods.
Populations of these tiny creatures can reach up to ten thousand individuals per cubic meter (35 cubic feet) in the Southern Ocean. Their loss, Orr said, would have far-reaching effects.
"They're an integral component of marine food webs, a huge food source for many marine predators," he said.
The snails' calcium carbonate shells are so thin they are virtually transparent, Orr added, which makes them particularly vulnerable.
"Pteropod shells can start to dissolve in 24 hours," he said, "under [the seawater] conditions we expect for 2100."
Free Email News UpdatesBest Online Newsletter, 2006 Codie Awards
Sign up for our Inside National Geographic newsletter. Every two weeks we'll send you our top stories and pictures (see sample).
Acid Oceans Threatening Marine Food Chain, Experts Warn
Scott Norris in San Francisco, Californiafor National Geographic News
February 17, 2007
The world's oceans are turning acidic due to the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, and scientists say the effects on marine life will be catastrophic.
In the next 50 to 100 years corrosive seawater will dissolve the shells of tiny marine snails and reduce coral reefs to rubble, the researchers say (coral photos, facts, more).
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Cold-Water Corals at Risk From Fishing Nets, Acidic Oceans (May 1, 2006)
Corals Photo Gallery
Warming Oceans Put Kink in Food Chain, Study Says (January 30, 2007)
Four leading marine experts delivered this grim prognosis yesterday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco, California.
The scientists stressed that increased ocean acidity is one of the gravest dangers posed by the buildup of atmospheric CO2.
"Ocean chemistry is changing to a state that has not occurred for hundreds of thousands of years," said Richard Feely of Seattle's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory.
"Shell-building by marine organisms will slow down or stop. Reef-building will decrease or reverse."
Already, Feely said, ocean acidity has increased about 30 percent since industrialization began spurring harmful carbon emissions centuries ago. Unless emissions are reduced from current levels, an increase of 150 percent is predicted by 2100.
Such an increase would make the oceans more acidic than they've been at any time in the last 20 million years, he added.
Sea Creatures' Uncertain Fate
The organisms most directly affected are those that build hard shells or other mineral structures of calcium carbonate. These include numerous species of corals, marine snails, and crust-building algae.
As oceans absorb CO2 from the air, the gas reacts with water to produce carbonic acid. The acid in turn consumes the carbonate that sea creatures need to build their shells.
"This is a problem that no living corals have encountered in their past evolutionary history," said Charlie Veron, of the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Over time, coral reefs have been able to adjust to changes in ocean temperature and sea level, Veron said. But acidification appears to be a problem that the ancestors of today's corals were unable to solve.
Mass extinctions of marine life in the distant past, he said, were probably caused by chemical changes similar to those happening today.
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Cold-Water Corals at Risk From Fishing Nets, Acidic Oceans (May 1, 2006)
Corals Photo Gallery
Warming Oceans Put Kink in Food Chain, Study Says (January 30, 2007)
"It took coral reefs about four to ten million years to recover each time," he added.
In shallow waters where most corals presently grow, carbonate is not in short supply. But at greater depths carbonate concentration decreases until it reaches a point beyond which shell- and reef-production is no longer possible.
That critical threshold is rising closer to the surface as oceans grow increasingly acidic, limiting the depths at which corals and other organisms can live.
Feely said that this limit has already risen several hundred meters, particularly in the Indian and Pacific oceans. Recent measurements in the Gulf of Alaska found that carbonate was in short supply less than 325 feet (100 meters) below the surface.
James Orr, of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Marine Environmental Laboratory in Monaco, said that by the end of this century, shell- and reef-building sea creatures will be unable to live at any depth across a huge area of the world's oceans.
"Two-thirds of cold-water corals will be exposed to corrosive waters by 2100," Orr said.
Far-Reaching Effects
Initial concerns about ocean acidification have focused on corals, which are already experiencing die-offs and "bleaching" due to warmer water temperatures.
(Read related story: "Global Warming Has Devastating Effect on Coral Reefs, Study Shows".)
Unfortunately, Veron said, "the very corals that will escape mass bleaching are those most prone to the effects of ocean acidification."
Scientists now recognize that the danger extends to other organisms as well. Robert Buddemeier, of the Kansas Geological Survey, said mineral-producing "coralline" algae are especially vulnerable.
The algaes' cementlike secretions are the "glue" that helps hold coral reefs together, Buddemeier said, and also helps stabilize coastlines in nonreef areas.
Perhaps even more alarming is the threat to marine snails called pteropods.
Populations of these tiny creatures can reach up to ten thousand individuals per cubic meter (35 cubic feet) in the Southern Ocean. Their loss, Orr said, would have far-reaching effects.
"They're an integral component of marine food webs, a huge food source for many marine predators," he said.
The snails' calcium carbonate shells are so thin they are virtually transparent, Orr added, which makes them particularly vulnerable.
"Pteropod shells can start to dissolve in 24 hours," he said, "under [the seawater] conditions we expect for 2100."
Free Email News UpdatesBest Online Newsletter, 2006 Codie Awards
Sign up for our Inside National Geographic newsletter. Every two weeks we'll send you our top stories and pictures (see sample).
Acid Oceans Threatening Marine Food Chain, Experts Warn
Acid Oceans Threatening Marine Food Chain, Experts Warn
Acid Oceans Threatening Marine Food Chain, Experts Warn
Scott Norris in San Francisco, Californiafor National Geographic News
February 17, 2007
The world's oceans are turning acidic due to the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, and scientists say the effects on marine life will be catastrophic.
In the next 50 to 100 years corrosive seawater will dissolve the shells of tiny marine snails and reduce coral reefs to rubble, the researchers say (coral photos, facts, more).
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Cold-Water Corals at Risk From Fishing Nets, Acidic Oceans (May 1, 2006)
Corals Photo Gallery
Warming Oceans Put Kink in Food Chain, Study Says (January 30, 2007)
Four leading marine experts delivered this grim prognosis yesterday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco, California.
The scientists stressed that increased ocean acidity is one of the gravest dangers posed by the buildup of atmospheric CO2.
"Ocean chemistry is changing to a state that has not occurred for hundreds of thousands of years," said Richard Feely of Seattle's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory.
"Shell-building by marine organisms will slow down or stop. Reef-building will decrease or reverse."
Already, Feely said, ocean acidity has increased about 30 percent since industrialization began spurring harmful carbon emissions centuries ago. Unless emissions are reduced from current levels, an increase of 150 percent is predicted by 2100.
Such an increase would make the oceans more acidic than they've been at any time in the last 20 million years, he added.
Sea Creatures' Uncertain Fate
The organisms most directly affected are those that build hard shells or other mineral structures of calcium carbonate. These include numerous species of corals, marine snails, and crust-building algae.
As oceans absorb CO2 from the air, the gas reacts with water to produce carbonic acid. The acid in turn consumes the carbonate that sea creatures need to build their shells.
"This is a problem that no living corals have encountered in their past evolutionary history," said Charlie Veron, of the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Over time, coral reefs have been able to adjust to changes in ocean temperature and sea level, Veron said. But acidification appears to be a problem that the ancestors of today's corals were unable to solve.
Mass extinctions of marine life in the distant past, he said, were probably caused by chemical changes similar to those happening today.
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Cold-Water Corals at Risk From Fishing Nets, Acidic Oceans (May 1, 2006)
Corals Photo Gallery
Warming Oceans Put Kink in Food Chain, Study Says (January 30, 2007)
"It took coral reefs about four to ten million years to recover each time," he added.
In shallow waters where most corals presently grow, carbonate is not in short supply. But at greater depths carbonate concentration decreases until it reaches a point beyond which shell- and reef-production is no longer possible.
That critical threshold is rising closer to the surface as oceans grow increasingly acidic, limiting the depths at which corals and other organisms can live.
Feely said that this limit has already risen several hundred meters, particularly in the Indian and Pacific oceans. Recent measurements in the Gulf of Alaska found that carbonate was in short supply less than 325 feet (100 meters) below the surface.
James Orr, of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Marine Environmental Laboratory in Monaco, said that by the end of this century, shell- and reef-building sea creatures will be unable to live at any depth across a huge area of the world's oceans.
"Two-thirds of cold-water corals will be exposed to corrosive waters by 2100," Orr said.
Far-Reaching Effects
Initial concerns about ocean acidification have focused on corals, which are already experiencing die-offs and "bleaching" due to warmer water temperatures.
(Read related story: "Global Warming Has Devastating Effect on Coral Reefs, Study Shows".)
Unfortunately, Veron said, "the very corals that will escape mass bleaching are those most prone to the effects of ocean acidification."
Scientists now recognize that the danger extends to other organisms as well. Robert Buddemeier, of the Kansas Geological Survey, said mineral-producing "coralline" algae are especially vulnerable.
The algaes' cementlike secretions are the "glue" that helps hold coral reefs together, Buddemeier said, and also helps stabilize coastlines in nonreef areas.
Perhaps even more alarming is the threat to marine snails called pteropods.
Populations of these tiny creatures can reach up to ten thousand individuals per cubic meter (35 cubic feet) in the Southern Ocean. Their loss, Orr said, would have far-reaching effects.
"They're an integral component of marine food webs, a huge food source for many marine predators," he said.
The snails' calcium carbonate shells are so thin they are virtually transparent, Orr added, which makes them particularly vulnerable.
"Pteropod shells can start to dissolve in 24 hours," he said, "under [the seawater] conditions we expect for 2100."
Free Email News UpdatesBest Online Newsletter, 2006 Codie Awards
Sign up for our Inside National Geographic newsletter. Every two weeks we'll send you our top stories and pictures (see sample).
Acid Oceans Threatening Marine Food Chain, Experts Warn
Scott Norris in San Francisco, Californiafor National Geographic News
February 17, 2007
The world's oceans are turning acidic due to the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, and scientists say the effects on marine life will be catastrophic.
In the next 50 to 100 years corrosive seawater will dissolve the shells of tiny marine snails and reduce coral reefs to rubble, the researchers say (coral photos, facts, more).
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Cold-Water Corals at Risk From Fishing Nets, Acidic Oceans (May 1, 2006)
Corals Photo Gallery
Warming Oceans Put Kink in Food Chain, Study Says (January 30, 2007)
Four leading marine experts delivered this grim prognosis yesterday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco, California.
The scientists stressed that increased ocean acidity is one of the gravest dangers posed by the buildup of atmospheric CO2.
"Ocean chemistry is changing to a state that has not occurred for hundreds of thousands of years," said Richard Feely of Seattle's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory.
"Shell-building by marine organisms will slow down or stop. Reef-building will decrease or reverse."
Already, Feely said, ocean acidity has increased about 30 percent since industrialization began spurring harmful carbon emissions centuries ago. Unless emissions are reduced from current levels, an increase of 150 percent is predicted by 2100.
Such an increase would make the oceans more acidic than they've been at any time in the last 20 million years, he added.
Sea Creatures' Uncertain Fate
The organisms most directly affected are those that build hard shells or other mineral structures of calcium carbonate. These include numerous species of corals, marine snails, and crust-building algae.
As oceans absorb CO2 from the air, the gas reacts with water to produce carbonic acid. The acid in turn consumes the carbonate that sea creatures need to build their shells.
"This is a problem that no living corals have encountered in their past evolutionary history," said Charlie Veron, of the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Over time, coral reefs have been able to adjust to changes in ocean temperature and sea level, Veron said. But acidification appears to be a problem that the ancestors of today's corals were unable to solve.
Mass extinctions of marine life in the distant past, he said, were probably caused by chemical changes similar to those happening today.
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Cold-Water Corals at Risk From Fishing Nets, Acidic Oceans (May 1, 2006)
Corals Photo Gallery
Warming Oceans Put Kink in Food Chain, Study Says (January 30, 2007)
"It took coral reefs about four to ten million years to recover each time," he added.
In shallow waters where most corals presently grow, carbonate is not in short supply. But at greater depths carbonate concentration decreases until it reaches a point beyond which shell- and reef-production is no longer possible.
That critical threshold is rising closer to the surface as oceans grow increasingly acidic, limiting the depths at which corals and other organisms can live.
Feely said that this limit has already risen several hundred meters, particularly in the Indian and Pacific oceans. Recent measurements in the Gulf of Alaska found that carbonate was in short supply less than 325 feet (100 meters) below the surface.
James Orr, of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Marine Environmental Laboratory in Monaco, said that by the end of this century, shell- and reef-building sea creatures will be unable to live at any depth across a huge area of the world's oceans.
"Two-thirds of cold-water corals will be exposed to corrosive waters by 2100," Orr said.
Far-Reaching Effects
Initial concerns about ocean acidification have focused on corals, which are already experiencing die-offs and "bleaching" due to warmer water temperatures.
(Read related story: "Global Warming Has Devastating Effect on Coral Reefs, Study Shows".)
Unfortunately, Veron said, "the very corals that will escape mass bleaching are those most prone to the effects of ocean acidification."
Scientists now recognize that the danger extends to other organisms as well. Robert Buddemeier, of the Kansas Geological Survey, said mineral-producing "coralline" algae are especially vulnerable.
The algaes' cementlike secretions are the "glue" that helps hold coral reefs together, Buddemeier said, and also helps stabilize coastlines in nonreef areas.
Perhaps even more alarming is the threat to marine snails called pteropods.
Populations of these tiny creatures can reach up to ten thousand individuals per cubic meter (35 cubic feet) in the Southern Ocean. Their loss, Orr said, would have far-reaching effects.
"They're an integral component of marine food webs, a huge food source for many marine predators," he said.
The snails' calcium carbonate shells are so thin they are virtually transparent, Orr added, which makes them particularly vulnerable.
"Pteropod shells can start to dissolve in 24 hours," he said, "under [the seawater] conditions we expect for 2100."
Free Email News UpdatesBest Online Newsletter, 2006 Codie Awards
Sign up for our Inside National Geographic newsletter. Every two weeks we'll send you our top stories and pictures (see sample).
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Cheap Oil to Last, "Doomsday" Fears Overblown, Author Says
Brian Handwerkfor National Geographic News
February 14, 2007
Is the era of cheap oil really at an end? Or could a glut send prices into a freefall? Should Western countries fear energy blackmail from oil-rich powers?
There's no crystal ball to predict oil's future, but Leonardo Maugeri believes that much can be learned by looking at the industry's past.
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Lebanon Oil Spill Makes Animals Casualties of War (July 31, 2006)
"End of Cheap Oil" in National Geographic Magazine
Addicted to Oil: How Can U.S. Fulfill Bush Pledge? (February 14, 2006)
Maugeri is the author of The Age of Oil: The Mythology, History, and Future of the World's Most Controversial Resource. As a senior vice president at the Italian oil corporation Eni SpA, he's also an oil-industry insider.
In his book Maugeri explains how prices affect the cycle of oil production and why he believes oil "doomsday theorists" are tapping an empty well.
Maugeri's theories often challenge conventional wisdom but are likely to become an essential part of the debate on oil's future.
He discussed his controversial ideas in an interview with National Geographic News.
Some experts believe we're at or near a point where world oil supply will be unable to meet demand—with potentially devastating consequences. Are we close to this point of "peak oil"?
It's so seductive, in a way, to speak of a coming catastrophe—but we're not on the brink of a catastrophe.
People usually assume that the planet is thoroughly explored [for oil], but this is not true. The United States and Canada are the most thoroughly explored, and the latest discovery by Chevron in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates that they are not really so [thoroughly] explored.
Other parts of the world are really not explored at all. Even today more than 70 percent of the world's oil exploration wells are concentrated in the U.S. and Canada—countries that hold only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Conversely, only 3 percent of the world's exploration wells are drilled in the Middle East.
Many countries, Saudi Arabia in particular, have discovered oil fields in the past but have never developed them because of their fear of creating excess capacity.
No one knows how much oil there is. But all the hints we have—for example surveys made the U.S. Geological Survey—indicate that the world still has really huge oil resources in its soil.
The problem is that in order to bring this oil onstream, you need to be sure what the price of oil will be in the future—so you need to know how long [current] consumption levels will remain.
Some enormous proven fields exhibit slowing oil production, but you stress that new technologies can boost these rates?
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Lebanon Oil Spill Makes Animals Casualties of War (July 31, 2006)
"End of Cheap Oil" in National Geographic Magazine
Addicted to Oil: How Can U.S. Fulfill Bush Pledge? (February 14, 2006)
Yes. I'll give you an example.
Yukos, the Russian company destroyed by Vladimir Putin, doubled its production in four years by one simple [act].
They hired Schlumberger, [the U.S. oil-technology company] with great experience in the drilling and management of oil fields. The recovery rate for Yukos went from 9 percent to 26 percent without any new discovery.
What's behind today's relatively high oil prices?
These prices are not due to the world's oil drying up—they are simply derived from the low investments of two decades. In the 1990s OPEC repeatedly asked countries to find an agreement in order to sustain prices, because prices were very low due to overproduction.
OPEC continually [said], if you don't ensure markets for new capacity, we won't spend money [on development]. And sooner or later, if we don't spend money, the current capacity will be overloaded, and a crash will come.
Now the production crash has come. We're paying today for the low prices of yesterday.
Refining is another pillar of the current crisis. Right now there's not enough refining capacity in the world, but the world is not running out of refining capacity, because humans build refineries.
You believe that these developments are part of a historical pattern?
Westerners think about the problem of oil security in terms of security of supply. But if you speak with the large producers, their tragedy has been that throughout history, prices have [suddenly] collapsed.
Many times it was because of a combination of excess development of production capacity and a sudden decline in global demand.
This happened during the time of the Wall Street crash in 1929, just when new discoveries in Texas put a lot of new oil in the market. It happened again in the 1950s and 1960s and again in the 1980s.
In the minds of the great producers, the problem is that the growth of demand is not sure, and there is a long delay before consumption reacts to the price of oil.
Sooner or later demand will cool or decline, so they are very concerned about the possibility of sustaining future demand in order to make these [increased production] investments. We don't usually take that point of view into account. On November 1 of last year OPEC ministers cut production by 1.2 million barrels a day in response to falling prices. How might this impact future markets?
In the last few years there has been a boom in investment, not only for the development of new production capacity but also refineries.
This was created by the increase in the price of oil, so now all the producers are [concerned] about how long demand will last to sustain the huge growth of production capacity which is on the way all over the world.
The more prices are sustained, the more the investment boom will continue, and there is a point—when you've spent 50 or 60 percent of the money—that you can't stop those investments even if prices come down. We still need one or two more years [of current price levels] in order to reach this point of no return.
But if for some reason demand cools or stops dramatically, the large producers in particular will soon stop their investments.
How do you address political fears concerning oil security?
The Middle East has always been an unstable area, and unfortunately oil is not found in Switzerland.
The first interest of Saudi Arabia and other large producers is not to blackmail the West. They want to have a secure demand and stable oil prices in order to make money.
Of course they try to raise the price of oil, because they want money. But this is an economic attitude and not an ideological attitude. So I think the problem of oil security is overrated.
Even at the apex of the Iranian revolution, [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini never used oil as a weapon. Oil is the main source of income for most of the producing countries, and they know very well that you can use oil as a weapon for only a very short period of time until, as in the past, the world is able to react.
Rationing would be a nightmare for them. When the West decided to devise energy policies aimed at curbing consumption, demand for oil [from the West] declined between 1979 and 1983 by more than five million barrels per day—or more than 10 percent of demand at that time.
This was a dramatic response to the two oil shocks [of the 1970s], and the final response was the collapse of prices in 1986.
The producers are very aware of this situation, and they don't want to use oil as a weapon.
Can we ease our "oil addiction" before supplies run short?
The Stone Age didn't finish because of a lack of stone. The Oil Age won't finish because of a lack of oil. Sooner or later, probably in this century, oil will be surpassed by another source of energy.
The most effective way to decrease our dependence on oil is to change our habits. We waste a lot of energy because we are so addicted to cheap oil.
American people consume 26 barrels of oil per person each year. That's down from the peak of per capita consumption of oil—in 1978 each American consumed 32 or 33 barrels per year.
Yet an American still consumes more than twice what a European consumes (less than 13 barrels per year), and we in Europe also waste a lot of oil.
The Chinese consume about 1.7 barrels per person each year, and only about 8 percent of the global demand. My preoccupation is not how much China will consume but how we can reduce the foolish consumption of the Westerners.
Free Email News UpdatesBest Online Newsletter, 2006 Codie Awards
Sign up for our Inside National Geographic newsletter. Every two weeks we'll send you our top stories and pictures (see sample).
February 14, 2007
Is the era of cheap oil really at an end? Or could a glut send prices into a freefall? Should Western countries fear energy blackmail from oil-rich powers?
There's no crystal ball to predict oil's future, but Leonardo Maugeri believes that much can be learned by looking at the industry's past.
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Lebanon Oil Spill Makes Animals Casualties of War (July 31, 2006)
"End of Cheap Oil" in National Geographic Magazine
Addicted to Oil: How Can U.S. Fulfill Bush Pledge? (February 14, 2006)
Maugeri is the author of The Age of Oil: The Mythology, History, and Future of the World's Most Controversial Resource. As a senior vice president at the Italian oil corporation Eni SpA, he's also an oil-industry insider.
In his book Maugeri explains how prices affect the cycle of oil production and why he believes oil "doomsday theorists" are tapping an empty well.
Maugeri's theories often challenge conventional wisdom but are likely to become an essential part of the debate on oil's future.
He discussed his controversial ideas in an interview with National Geographic News.
Some experts believe we're at or near a point where world oil supply will be unable to meet demand—with potentially devastating consequences. Are we close to this point of "peak oil"?
It's so seductive, in a way, to speak of a coming catastrophe—but we're not on the brink of a catastrophe.
People usually assume that the planet is thoroughly explored [for oil], but this is not true. The United States and Canada are the most thoroughly explored, and the latest discovery by Chevron in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates that they are not really so [thoroughly] explored.
Other parts of the world are really not explored at all. Even today more than 70 percent of the world's oil exploration wells are concentrated in the U.S. and Canada—countries that hold only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Conversely, only 3 percent of the world's exploration wells are drilled in the Middle East.
Many countries, Saudi Arabia in particular, have discovered oil fields in the past but have never developed them because of their fear of creating excess capacity.
No one knows how much oil there is. But all the hints we have—for example surveys made the U.S. Geological Survey—indicate that the world still has really huge oil resources in its soil.
The problem is that in order to bring this oil onstream, you need to be sure what the price of oil will be in the future—so you need to know how long [current] consumption levels will remain.
Some enormous proven fields exhibit slowing oil production, but you stress that new technologies can boost these rates?
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATED
Lebanon Oil Spill Makes Animals Casualties of War (July 31, 2006)
"End of Cheap Oil" in National Geographic Magazine
Addicted to Oil: How Can U.S. Fulfill Bush Pledge? (February 14, 2006)
Yes. I'll give you an example.
Yukos, the Russian company destroyed by Vladimir Putin, doubled its production in four years by one simple [act].
They hired Schlumberger, [the U.S. oil-technology company] with great experience in the drilling and management of oil fields. The recovery rate for Yukos went from 9 percent to 26 percent without any new discovery.
What's behind today's relatively high oil prices?
These prices are not due to the world's oil drying up—they are simply derived from the low investments of two decades. In the 1990s OPEC repeatedly asked countries to find an agreement in order to sustain prices, because prices were very low due to overproduction.
OPEC continually [said], if you don't ensure markets for new capacity, we won't spend money [on development]. And sooner or later, if we don't spend money, the current capacity will be overloaded, and a crash will come.
Now the production crash has come. We're paying today for the low prices of yesterday.
Refining is another pillar of the current crisis. Right now there's not enough refining capacity in the world, but the world is not running out of refining capacity, because humans build refineries.
You believe that these developments are part of a historical pattern?
Westerners think about the problem of oil security in terms of security of supply. But if you speak with the large producers, their tragedy has been that throughout history, prices have [suddenly] collapsed.
Many times it was because of a combination of excess development of production capacity and a sudden decline in global demand.
This happened during the time of the Wall Street crash in 1929, just when new discoveries in Texas put a lot of new oil in the market. It happened again in the 1950s and 1960s and again in the 1980s.
In the minds of the great producers, the problem is that the growth of demand is not sure, and there is a long delay before consumption reacts to the price of oil.
Sooner or later demand will cool or decline, so they are very concerned about the possibility of sustaining future demand in order to make these [increased production] investments. We don't usually take that point of view into account. On November 1 of last year OPEC ministers cut production by 1.2 million barrels a day in response to falling prices. How might this impact future markets?
In the last few years there has been a boom in investment, not only for the development of new production capacity but also refineries.
This was created by the increase in the price of oil, so now all the producers are [concerned] about how long demand will last to sustain the huge growth of production capacity which is on the way all over the world.
The more prices are sustained, the more the investment boom will continue, and there is a point—when you've spent 50 or 60 percent of the money—that you can't stop those investments even if prices come down. We still need one or two more years [of current price levels] in order to reach this point of no return.
But if for some reason demand cools or stops dramatically, the large producers in particular will soon stop their investments.
How do you address political fears concerning oil security?
The Middle East has always been an unstable area, and unfortunately oil is not found in Switzerland.
The first interest of Saudi Arabia and other large producers is not to blackmail the West. They want to have a secure demand and stable oil prices in order to make money.
Of course they try to raise the price of oil, because they want money. But this is an economic attitude and not an ideological attitude. So I think the problem of oil security is overrated.
Even at the apex of the Iranian revolution, [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini never used oil as a weapon. Oil is the main source of income for most of the producing countries, and they know very well that you can use oil as a weapon for only a very short period of time until, as in the past, the world is able to react.
Rationing would be a nightmare for them. When the West decided to devise energy policies aimed at curbing consumption, demand for oil [from the West] declined between 1979 and 1983 by more than five million barrels per day—or more than 10 percent of demand at that time.
This was a dramatic response to the two oil shocks [of the 1970s], and the final response was the collapse of prices in 1986.
The producers are very aware of this situation, and they don't want to use oil as a weapon.
Can we ease our "oil addiction" before supplies run short?
The Stone Age didn't finish because of a lack of stone. The Oil Age won't finish because of a lack of oil. Sooner or later, probably in this century, oil will be surpassed by another source of energy.
The most effective way to decrease our dependence on oil is to change our habits. We waste a lot of energy because we are so addicted to cheap oil.
American people consume 26 barrels of oil per person each year. That's down from the peak of per capita consumption of oil—in 1978 each American consumed 32 or 33 barrels per year.
Yet an American still consumes more than twice what a European consumes (less than 13 barrels per year), and we in Europe also waste a lot of oil.
The Chinese consume about 1.7 barrels per person each year, and only about 8 percent of the global demand. My preoccupation is not how much China will consume but how we can reduce the foolish consumption of the Westerners.
Free Email News UpdatesBest Online Newsletter, 2006 Codie Awards
Sign up for our Inside National Geographic newsletter. Every two weeks we'll send you our top stories and pictures (see sample).
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
From The Sunday Times
February 11, 2007
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) {
var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&§ionName=UK','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655');
}
Background
‘Blame cosmic rays for warming up the planet’
No excuse for soft climate change laws
Jeremy Clarkson: Cornered by the green lynch mob
Related Internet Links
New Scientist on Climate Change
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.
The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.
What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.
Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.
Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.
The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
The Chilling Stars is published by Icon. It is available for £9.89 including postage from The Sunday Times Books First on 0870 165 8585
February 11, 2007
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) {
var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&§ionName=UK','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655');
}
Background
‘Blame cosmic rays for warming up the planet’
No excuse for soft climate change laws
Jeremy Clarkson: Cornered by the green lynch mob
Related Internet Links
New Scientist on Climate Change
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.
The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.
What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.
Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.
Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.
The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
The Chilling Stars is published by Icon. It is available for £9.89 including postage from The Sunday Times Books First on 0870 165 8585
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)