Welcome to Energy & Climate Change

Interdisciplinary Studies 01:556:143

1) Goals and Philosophy

2) Nuts and Bolts
3) The topic
Alan Goldman

Sept. 3, 2014
Welcome

an unusual course

Several very ambitious goals, which we

might put into two general categories:

Goals

Goal #1: To learn about one of the most important topics

facing society today: humanitys large and increasing demand
for energy and the resulting potential for climate change and
other possible impacts on society.
"If we can't cure cancer in 50 years, it will be tragic but life will go
on. But if we can't develop carbon-neutral fuel sources, life will
change for everyone.
-Steven Chu, Nobel Laureate and Secretary of Energy

Learning the views currently held by scientists (and others, e.g.

economists) on this topic is necessary..but not sufficient.

Learn the topic1

Understand the debate and critically analyze it:

Are we certain that global warming, climate change, are real?
How much should we be willing to sacrifice?
Evaluate the merits (and very serious problems) of
The Hydrogen economy; Clean coal; Bio-ethanol; Fracking;
Electric Cars; Solar; Nuclear; Regulations; Cap-and Trade
But our understanding will change.
The arguments will change.
The issues will change.
The ability to recognize nonsense that passes as scientific
reporting in the media, to critically analyze science-related
issues will become even more important as science and
technology play an even larger role in our lives.
Learn the topic2

Goal #2: To understand the fundamentals of science.

Physics, Climatology, Chemistry, Biology, as well as
energy-related social sciences Economics & Policy
To learn how natural scientists and social scientists think
about problems.
For example:
What is a theory? What determines how good it is?
Round-earth theory?
Atomic theory?
Heliocentric theory?

How do you know?

The same analytical skills needed to understand energy

will be applicable to many other issues faced by society.
Fundamentals

The Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle is expected to achieve

city fuel economy of at least 230 miles per gallon, using a draft EPA
federal fuel economy methodology for labeling for plug-in electric vehicles.

10 x better than a regular car!

So only 10% as much Greenhouse gas as a regular car?
Buy a Chevy Volt and Save the Planet!!

Or maybe not? Maybe this claim is total bullsh*t and it

is actually worse than a regular car?
Chevy
Volt

The Hydrogen Economy

A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen
generates energy, which can be used to power a car,
producing only water, not exhaust fumes.
With a new national commitment, our scientists and
engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from
laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child
born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.
George Bush
State of the Union speech, January 29, 2003

Doesnt seem to be working out that way

But was it a good idea, at least in principle?
H2 economy

Nuts & Bolts of the ECC course.

NutBolts

About the format of this course.

Energy is a very broad topic, spanning areas such as
chemistry, economics etc.
By learning from an expert in climatology, or chemistry or
economics etc., we hope you will you be able to learn
more than the facts and theories, but also see how people
think about problems in these fields.
Hence this course is taught in separate modules.

Format -note

Lectures WF 9:50-11:10 AM and your recitation section (Mon or Tues)

Module I. Climate

September 5 - 17

Prof. Tony Broccoli

Module II. Physics/Energy

Sept. 19 - Oct. 1

Prof. Ron Ransome

Module III. Chemistry/Energy Oct. 8 - 22

Prof. Alan Goldman

Module IV. Biology and Energy Oct 24 - Nov. 5

Prof. Lily Young

Overview

Nov 7

Prof. Alan Goldman

Module V. Economics and Policy Nov. 12 - 19

Prof. Joseph Seneca

Module VI. Policy & Public Opinion Nov. 21Dec. 3 Prof. Rachael Shwom
Entire Course (all modules):
Recitation instructors:
Andrea Casuras, Nicholas Lease, Dr. Lauren Klein Juneau
Course Coordinator: Dr. Jason Hackenberg jasonh1@rci.rutgers.edu
Full syllabus, readings, announcements,
scheduling, etc: sakai.rutgers.edu
Modules 1-5

Readings:
Readings will be assigned by module lecturers; will be on Sakai.
Suggested textbook:
The Sciences: An Integrated Approach
by James Trefil and Robert M. Hazen, John Wiley & Sons
(4th or 5th Ed; no significant differences between editions).
We will put all readings on Sakai (as long as the Rutgers lawyers let us).
Suggested accompanying book:
Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines by
Richard A. Muller, available online (including Kindle edition)
From Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (National Academy of Sciences):
The Basics of Climate Change (posted on Sakai) -- by Wed. Sept 10
Climate Change Q&A (posted on Sakai -- by Wed. Sept 17
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-basics.pdf

Required : i>clicker (available at campus Bookstore)

Reading

Grading:
Homework 20% (Short quiz-like assignments.)
Quizzes
25%
Attendance/participation
10%
Essay
15%
Final
30%
(For most clicker questions, all answers will be given full credit;
for those that will be graded, it will be indicated as such when the
question is given.)

Logistics

A few words about studying for this course, and for college
more generally.
It is expected that students will spend more time doing coursework outside
of class than time spent in class.
Typically at least 2 hours studying per week per credit.
e.g. 15 credits = 15 hours class time + 30 hours per week = 45 hours/week.
This course: 4 credits = 4 hours class time + 8 hours studying per week
On average -- but there are normally big advantages to spreading out
those hours each week.
You will better understand the material in lectures - and this course
is based entirely on understanding the lectures.
Keeping up with the class allows you to ask questions at recitations,
through email, chatroom, etc. when there are things you don't understand
College

 This course (and the exams) are based on the lecture, NOT a
textbook or readings. If you dont understand what was taught in class
you wont do well.
Never cut class. Come on time, and sit where you can see and hear
clearly.
Review your class notes as soon as possible after class (or even
better, before).
When something is unclear or doesnt make sense, get it clarified
immediately. Try the Sakai chatroom, your TA, or the professor for that
lecture.
Study actively, not passively. Ask yourself questions. What does
that mean? The goal is to understand (not memorize).
Anything that you can memorize.will probably be given to
you on the exams!
Tips

The Topic
Energy and Climate Change

topic

The Global Energy System

ENERGY

Frank Felder, Rutgers

Venn Diagram

Understanding the energy picture requires

some knowledge of basic economics
"I've been rich and I've been poor. Believe me, honey,
rich is better.!
!
- Mae West (1893-1980)

MaeWest

The link between wealth and

energy use is very strong..

GDP

Energy use largely means fossil fuel burning.

Big Three: Oil (CH2) followed by gas (CH4) and coal (CH)
37

(US: 2.3%)

US values in blue
21

(US: 8.3%)

Coal
27%

25

(US: 2.9%)

Gas
22%
(US: 30%)

(US: 20%)

3
5

Oil
30%
(US: 37%)
Big 3

U.S. Energy Consumption by Source 2011

Natural Gas 27%

So.83% of US energy is fossil fuel (global = 87%).

Of the rest, 8% is nuclear, 3% is hydro
(neither is likely to increase soon)
http://www.dailyenergyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/US-Energy-Consumption2.jpg

Two problems with fossil fuel: (1) Not enough of it..

US oil reserves: 44 B bbl
US consumes: 6.9 B bbl/year

World reserves: 1700 B bbl (+)

World consume: 33 B bbl/year
OK, so still a fair
amount available
from elsewhere
Proven world
oil reserves

42 years of reserves at current rate of consumption.

In fact much more will be discovered.
But world consumption rate will greatly increase.

OilReserves

The link between war and energy - oil in

particular - is very strong.

War

Pursuit of alternatives to fossil fuel are

costly and sometimes have serious risks.

Oil floats ashore, Louisiana, 2010

Japan, 2011

Oil spill

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/05/27/GA2010052705419.html?hpid=topnews

Two problems with fossil fuel: (1) Not enough of it..

US oil reserves: 35 B bbl
US consumes: 6.8 B bbl/year

World reserves: 1700 B bbl (+)

World consume: 30 B bbl/year

FossilFuelsNotEnough

Two problems with fossil fuel: (1) Not enough of it..

(2) Too much of it
Enough proven oil to raise atmospheric CO2 by about 50%.
Much more will be discovered.
Coal reserves are much greater (2.5x more energy) than oil
(and produce more CO2 per unit energy).
Huge amounts of tar sands, shale, gas..

FosssilFueldTooMuch

CLICKER QUESTION

Statement: CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels have risen

over 40% in the past 100 years.
In the scientific community...[choose best answer]
a) There is disagreement about this.
b) There is no dispute about this - but the
question of whether it is anthropogenic
(human) origin is debated.
c) There is no dispute about the increase
and there is full agreement that it is of
anthropogenic origin.
d) I dont know.

CLICKER QUESTION

Statement: Increased atmospheric CO2 levels

will cause warming of the planet.
In the scientific community...[choose best answer]
a) There is some dispute about this.
b) There is no significant dispute about this, but there
is great uncertainty about the magnitude of
expected warming.
c) There is no significant dispute about this, and
there is general agreement about the
magnitude of expected warming
d) I dont know.

To the best of your knowledge, what proportion of

scientists think that global warming is happening?
a) 81 to 100%
b) 41 to 80%
c) 21 to 40%
d) 0 to 20%
e) Dont know

(100%)

Virginia Commonwealth University Life Sciences Survey.

May 12-18, 2010. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE 3.7

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf

Poll

U.N. Draft Report Lists Unchecked Emissions Risks

By JUSTIN GILLIS New York Times AUG. 26, 2014

Runaway growth in the emission of greenhouse gases is swamping

all political efforts to deal with the problem, raising the risk of severe,
pervasive and irreversible impacts over the coming decades,
according to a draft of a major new United Nations report.
The earth has so far warmed by about 1.5 F and that seemingly
modest increase is causing the effects already being seen around the
world. A continued rapid growth of emissions in coming decades could
conceivably lead to a global warming exceeding 8 F, the report
found. Warming that substantial would almost certainly have
catastrophic effects, including a mass extinction of plants and
animals, huge shortfalls in food production

Is global warming all a big hoax?

Fox News:
CERN has concluded that it is
the sun's rays, not human
activity, which controls the
Earths climate.
New research settles climate
debate(!)
Are the Greens prepared to
back down now that the science
has proved them wrong?

The meticulousness that CERN used...to prove without any other

variables that it was the rays that caused the earth warming, how are
the Greenies gonna get out of this one?
The experiment outside the window proves them wrong every year.

NATURE VOL 476, 25 AUGUST 2011, Kirkby et al. (available on Sakai or

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The research "actually says nothing

about a possible cosmic-ray effect
on clouds and climate," according
to the lead author, Jasper Kirkby.
The research doesn't call into question
the basic science of greenhouse gas
warming, Kirkby emphasized, but
rather refines one facet of the
research.
"It's part of the jigsaw puzzle, and you
could say it adds to the understanding
of the big picture," he said. "But it in no
way disproves the other pieces.

Even if the paper did suggest that increased cosmic rays

led to increased cloud formation and cooling, that could only
account for the warming trend if there was a decreasing
trend in cosmic rays which there is certainly not.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

Forbes, May 26, 2013:

To The Horror Of Global Warming

Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-ofglobal-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

Problem: People in the media are not paid to be right;

they are paid to attract and retain audience.
This is achieved only by giving people whatever they
want to hear.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions,

but they are not entitled to their own facts.
-Daniel Patrick Moynihan

FACTS

UNKNOWN
HYPOTHESES

Moynihans

A few facts.
(1) Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs
infrared (IR) radiation.
Infrared lamps raise the
temperature of a flask filled
with CO2 more than air.

CO2 absorbsIR

The earth is surrounded by a vacuum.

A vacuum cannot conduct heat.
So why doesnt the earth continually
get warmer?

Vacuum

Everything emits light. Everything. Always.

Things not very hot emit invisible (infrared)
light.

GreenhouseEffect

A few facts (contd)...

(2) The Greenhouse Effect is real, and a very
good thing.
If there were no atmosphere the average
temperature of the earth would be about
-18C (0F) vs. actual +15C (59F).
So we have the Greenhouse Effect to thank
for a difference of about 59 F.

Greenhouse Effect good

A few facts
(3) Atmospheric CO2 is rising, fast. ~ 2.4 ppm year.

June 2014:
June 2013:
June 2012:
June 2011:

401.2 ppm
398.6 ppm
395.8 ppm
393.7 ppm

Mauna Loa

(4) It is anthropogenic (human caused).

We can easily calculate the amount we emit from burning fossil
fuel and it is even more than the amount accumulating in the
atmosphere. (The rest ends up mostly in the oceans.)

A few facts.
(5) The earth has gotten warmer over the past 100 years
Global Top 11 Warm Years
(10 are in the last 12 years!)
Anomaly
C
F
2010
0.66
1.19
2005
0.65
1.17
1998
0.63
1.13
2013
0.62
1.11
2003
0.62
1.11
2002
0.61
1.10
2009
0.59
1.07
2006
0.59
1.07
2007
0.59
1.06
2004
0.57
1.04
2012
0.57
1.03

2014 is currently at
0.66 C above mean

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html

Temps1

Summary
(1) Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs infrared (IR) radiation.
(2) The Greenhouse Effect is real
(3) Atmospheric CO2 is rising, fast. ~ 2.2 ppm year.
(4) It is anthropogenic (human caused).
(5) The earth has gotten warmer over the past 100 yrs

So the FACTS are:

(1) We ARE increasing CO2 levels which
(2) DOES exert a warming effect and
(3) The earth IS warming.
Unfortunately life gets more complicated from here..
IPCC (2007): Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic GHG concentrations. This is an advance since the 2001
conclusion that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to
have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations
2013: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal... It is extremely likely that
human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the
mid-20th century.
IPCC definitions:
Very likely: > 90%

Likely: > 66% probability

Extremely likely: > 95%

*TAR = Third Assessment Report (2001)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-human-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Niels Bohr

Prediction is very difficult,

especially if it's about the future.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nielsbohr130288.html#KQlY6KeDAU1WFRH1.99

Lots of well established facts.

Butalso great uncertainty about the predicted
magnitude of temperature change.
And even more
uncertainty
concerning the
results of any
given increase in
temperature.
This all leads to
what some
economists call
a super-wicked
problem
IPCC-4 Projected Global Surface Warming
Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report
Summary for Policymakers p7 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

IPCC-warming

Even if US and Europe cut back tremendously by itself that would make little difference