Microsoft and Security

On Valentine's Day this year, I went to my workstation to discover a polite message from Microsoft that they had, without my knowledge or permission, downloaded a software update to my computer. Not only this, but they had also rebooted my computer, destroying all of the placemarks and work-in-progress that I had left up and running so that I could continue working on it the next morning. Thanks Microsoft!

This issue relates to "green" because the proper functioning of the Internet relates to "green," assuming that the Internet helps us to be "greener." (That the Internet does this has been disputed. However, my experience with the Internet as an expediter of productivity and an alternative to physical transportation indicates to me that almost any detailed calculation of electricity use by computers will be swamped out by these energy saving factors. It is sort of like comparing the green-ness of the New York City subway system to having all of those people driving cars instead. It almost does not matter how inefficient the subway is. Because of economies of scale, it will still be vastly "greener" than a system that requires people to drive in invidual vehicles.)

Microsoft has done something similar at least once before. About six months ago they had what they considered to be another security update, and I had elected not to download and install it. This update would verify [for Microsoft] that my operating system was a legitimate licensed version of the Microsoft XP operating system. Well, I already knew that, many times over. I had purchased my Hewlett-Packard computer from a legitimate store, and it came with the operating system installed. I knew Microsoft had checked it many times over the Internet, whenever I did an update from their website. I also, out of curiosity, had run their internal operating system check to verify that this was a legitimate version. Enough is enough. So I elected for a long time not to download this verification system. Then one day, the option to download it had disappeared. I doubted that it disappeared because Microsoft simply averred in its persistence.

It is time for Microsoft to reduce or drop its paranoia within the boundaries of America. Yes, I can understand their paranoia with respect to China, for the stories are many about piracy there. Such piracy simply does not make a lot of sense when most computers are sold with the Microsoft operating system already installed. I remember some years ago when Microsoft first came out with its inflated figures for how many of their operating system instances they thought had been installed or pirated. My reaction to that was to note the larger number of copies of Microsoft operating systems my businesses and I had disposed of than we were currently using. Many of them I have never registered formally with Microsoft, because it took time and offered little to me. So I figured that MS must be counting all of those unregistered operating systems, and many of those discards as pirated operating systems, even though they clearly were not. If Microsoft were not using statistics like this in a key way, then how else would they be divining the huge numbers they claimed for piracy?

Summary conclusion: Microsoft paranoia and resulting public relations is not adequate justification for their tampering with computers. I now always make a point of physically disconnecting my computers from the Internet when I am away. I am also one large step further along in dropping Microsoft in favor of Linux or Mac. It is not easy given that I am fluent in Microsoft Access and Microsoft Basic, but it will eventually happen.

Detroit Mis-Attitudes

How can I not comment on General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz's remarking and then backing these remarks? Below is the text of a Reuters article, as well as a pointer to it.

1. Lutz surely understands that what he says as a corporate leader influences at least all those who are under him.

2. Lutz may not be aware of the way his expressed values influence his personal decision making, but they do influence it.

3. One of the problems with filling key positions in major corporations with 40-year-old hotshots is that most of the lack maturity. The shift that is currently underway to enable our society to survive requires that many such corporate leaders have moved on to "generativity" so that they are prepared to take consideration of generations to come.

4. There is longstanding awareness that Detroit (which includes GM) has looked to special consideration from the government instead of getting off the dime about its poor energy and environment performance. Partly this has been made OK by politicians and business advocates who have championed the notion of relying on "market forces" ... as long as those market forces go to their advantage and they still get their special considerations. Advocating reliance on "market forces" can be useful in many circumstances, as long as the advocates are not hypocritical. In Detroit's case hypocrisy has been a loose-loose proposition for all parties concerned. Special consideration as a result of lobbying Washington has led to weaker American auto companies and a weaker America.

4. Lutz was correct about GM's compromised market position. Many of us have been predicting for years that this would happen. Lutz said that it was a mistake to allow Toyota to seize "the mantle of green respectability and technology leadership" with its market-leading Prius hybrid. Lester Brown says that he thinks GM has learned a lesson, that it is really working hard to get the Volt out before Japanese makers get their electric cars into the market. Time will tell.

5. Here is hoping that Detroit learns this time around. I'm sure they can do it if they really want to!

_________________________________________________________________

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2237297620080222?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
GM exec stands by calling global warming a "crock"
Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:08pm EST
DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a "total crock of s---," saying his views had no bearing on GM's commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.
Lutz, GM's outspoken product development chief, has been under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when he was quoted as making the remark to reporters in Texas.
In a posting on his GM blog on Thursday, Lutz said those "spewing virtual vitriol" at him for minimizing the threat of climate change were "missing the big picture."
"What they should be doing in earnest is forming opinions, not about me but about GM and what this company is doing that is ... hugely beneficial to the causes they so enthusiastically claim to support," he said in a posting titled, "Talk About a Crock."
GM, the largest U.S. automaker by sales and market share, has been trying to change its image after taking years of heat for relying too much on sales of large sport-utility vehicles like the Hummer and not moving faster on fuel-saving hybrid technology.
"My thoughts on what has or hasn't been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors," he wrote.
Lutz said GM was continuing development of the battery-powered, plug-in Chevy Volt and other alternatives to traditional internal combustion engines.
GM is racing against Toyota Motor Corp to be first to market a plug-in hybrid car that can be recharged at a standard electric outlet.
Lutz has previously said GM made a mistake by allowing Toyota to seize "the mantle of green respectability and technology leadership" with its market-leading Prius hybrid.
A 40-year auto industry veteran who joined GM earlier in the decade with a mandate to shake up its vehicle line-up, Lutz is no stranger to controversy.
As part of a campaign against higher fuel economy standards, Lutz wrote in a 2006 blog posting that forcing automakers to sell smaller cars would be "like trying to address the obesity problem in this country by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell smaller, tighter sizes."
Automakers ended their opposition to higher fuel standards in 2007 when it became clear that proposed changes would become law with or without their support.
In December, President George W. Bush signed a law mandating a 40 percent increase in fleetwide fuel economy by 2020, the first substantial change in three decades.
(Reporting by Kevin Krolicki, editing by Toni Reinhold)

Mort Webster (MIT) on Uncertainties in Models

Based on his talk at MIT in January. The issue to be drawn from Mort Webster's presentation is whether climate models are maybe a little too conservative, and even more important, whether they are interpreted too conservatively in terms of policy initiatives. Coming soon.

Nobska Point Wind

Yesterday I called George Woodwell and we spent some time walking around looking at potential sites for a wind turbine. The Nobska Point area is one of the prime Class 6 wind sites in Massachusetts. Wind comes over a vast expanse of ocean right on to Nobska Point. I have had my eye for years on getting a turbine placed on the lighthouse property, and arranged for an introduction to the lighthouse keeper, but everyone agrees that people's visual sensibilities will prevent any such wind turbine placement. I keep pointing out that the radio tower next to the lighthouse is vastly uglier than a wind turbine, or almost anything else for that matter. People did not complain about that ... or maybe it just went in so many years ago that people did not have a chance to complain.

There are lots of sites in the area for 2 kW turbines. Not so many for 100kW turbines ... which is the size we would like to get in place for the neighborhood. Let's start close to home. George and I are both prepared to site a turbine in our back yards, which are contiguous but for a road between them. The road is owned by a third party, so in the best of circumstances, we all must reach an agreement to proceed, and then get the town bylaws changed so that we can agree to allow a fall zone to extend over our property lines. We looked at my backyard, and the turbine would be too close to my house. It is one thing to place a 2 kW turbine with its skinny pole within falling distance of a house. Quite another to place a 100kW turbine there with its climb-through structure that rises at least 100 feet and a payload weight well in excess of a ton. Looking at George's back yard, well, it is shielded from the wind by my house.

Walking over to the neighbors who have homes on the ocean, the situation changes. One neighbor with arguably the best site looks in one direction all the way to Martha's Vineyard, and in another direction all the way to Long Island (if one could see that far). They would not even need a very large tower. The best location would be on the rocky beach on the side of the house from which trees block the view. George and I agreed that the owners would never place a turbine in their line of site to the Vineyard.

I really do not have to go any further to point out the pattern. In so-called desirable locations on the coast (or in fact anywhere), there is typically already a heavy population density. It is difficult to find a turbine placement that is safe. Even if a turbine whispers (and that is about all the industrial scale turbines do) it could be disruptive to sensitive people's sleep during quiet nights if it is literally located in a small back yard. Further, the locations that are otherwise acceptable often compromise precious viewsheds. In other words, it is one thing to have a large turbine out there in the water at a distance of a half mile or more, and quite another thing to have it 100 yards away.

I have seen this in many situations. As full awareness of the energy and environment situation grows, I recognize that there will be wind turbines put into lots of places that, today, people would not think of placing them. The question is how we get from here to a moderated version of there.

Lieberman-Warner and House Select Committee

Stephanie Herring, PhD , a science policy advisor /ACS fellow for Congressman Ed Markey ,in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming , spoke at the Weston Public Library at 7 p.m. February 13th. Dr. Herring focussed her discussion on the Lieberman-Warner Bill in Washington to address climate change and promote energy independence. This bill has emerged from committee and appears to be the basic structure around which future debates will be centered. Language from other bills will be inserted if and as appropriate. The event was sponsored by the Weston Climate Group. I was originally scheduled to be in Maine for a call-in program about Wind energy, but was recovering from a bout of the flu and could not engage in an 11-hour junket. Two colleagues carried through on the Maine engagement, and freed me to spend two hours on this event.

Part of Stephanie's involvement is identifying the impacts of global warming on people, a topic near and dear to my heart. Trained in the health sciences, Stephanie could be focussing on being a doctor, but one of the biggest public health issues is in fact these impacts. A common attitude is that people will adapt to whatever climate changes occur, but that is not true. If heat waves are a degree or a few degrees hotter, many more people will die. If there are more severe storms, there will be much more property damage and dislocation, and again more people will die. This important work is almost surely not properly considered in Lieberman-Warner. Stephanie's work will help bring it properly in to play.

"Lieberman-Warner" (Senate Bill # 2191) can be found in its latest version http://www.thomas.gov/. A search under 2191 may not yield a hit, so it may be necessary to search under Lieberman or Warner. Its sections are below my comments.

Thomas.gov is the best place to access the most recent versions of bills. It is updated more frequently than individual senators' web sites.

Bingamon-Specter is not out of committee, and probably won't make it out, indicating at this point that it will be used only to extract added language to update Lieberman-Warner.

The Bill charges the EPA with designing and operating systems for implementing management of GreenHouse Gases (GHG). There is to be a Greenhouse Gas Registry with an advisory board. All information is to be public, with electronic reporting and audits for verification. I asked whether this was similar to the Inventories that many corporations are beginning to perform and publish on the web; the answer was "yes." An issue being debated is what entities to regulate in various sectors of the economy. There are also some problems with this provision. The legislation also depends on EPA leadership for implementation. This means that the implementation will be politicized to a certain extent, a concern for those of us who view global warming as a non-political issue that can be made political to the detriment of all. Additionally, there is nothing in Bush's budget for rulemaking, indicating that there is a shortfall of commitment to this legislation.

The Bill proposes what is basically a cap-and-trade system. There is to be a penalty for over-emitting: $200 per ton of CO2 over your allowance. Legislators may consider something like 3 times the vaue of carbon on the market. The legislation aims to curb 85% to 95% of our emissions by focussing on large businesses, but the initial legislation has some holes in it. Perhaps this is reasonable, if not good. Since "small businesses" would be exempt from this legislation, the logic would be that the huge task of setting up a system could be done with a relatively small sample of entities, making it more feasible. Also, small businesses do not have the resources to deal with the set-up process. Once the system is set up, it could be extended to small businesses. Of course a company that has 400-500 people is not what a lot of us would call a small business, so there is a potential or actual hole there. For example, with the fragmentation of the electric power industry, there may be major polluters that generate electricity with coal or oil and yet qualify for the small business exemption. Meanwhile the high employment part of the industry is in distribution, which would have a comparatively low carbon footprint with or without the legislation.

So there is the big question: What holes does this legislation leave open?
Then there is also another question that emerges: What if this legislation does not tackle the challenge aggressively enough? What if we cannot afford those holes? What if the problem is bigger and more pressing that we thought it was? There is already evidence that the researchers and their models are too conservative in their predictions. Additionally, as Stephanie pointed out, when researchers find that they do not know how to include methane from thawed permafrost in their models, they simply ignore it.

Agriculture represents a very challenging and ambiguous area for the legislation because it proves difficult to know what the carbon footprint is for agriculture, forestry and land use. Stephanie was familiar with the recent research out of Princeton that reconsidered the boundaries for evaluating the net carbon footprint for corn-ethanol. This indicates that reliance on such ethanol increases the carbon in the atmosphere. Is this really all that surprising when we consider the complications and demands of large scale agriculture? I found myself itching to tell the story of how agriculture is now heavily dependent upon petro-chemicals. When I visited an ancestral homestead in Minnesota some years ago, I stood next to the gravesite in the corner of the 40 acres. It was at the level of my eyes as I stood at the level of the cultivated land. The message is that the topsoil has been eroded by wind and water; we have mined out the wealth that was in that deep Midwestern topsoil. We need to shed our illusions about argiculture, petroleum, and carbon.

There is to be a Carbon Market Efficiency Board with 5 members of both parties appointed by the sitting President serving for 15 year terms to insulate them from politics. When the price of carbon reaches the point of impacting our economy, this board can adjust the numbers in the system to ameliorate the effect. It is indeed reasonable to have some sort of mechanism like this. Yet it could be abused. I again raised a question. Why are we so worried about a point or two of economic growth when our entire society and way of life are at stake? Because of this, it will be very important to select good people to this Board, and to make sure that they have the tools and the advice necessary to do their job well. It is perhaps a little like the Federal Reserve Bank in its subtle but considerable power. In the present, with a Bush administration that remains largely committed to a high carbon footprint, early passing of this Bill would then enable Bush to subvert the legislation by appointing troglodytes as Advisors.

Allocation addresses who gets to emit the actual carbon that is emitted. The U.S. is attempting to learn from the Europe's debacle that resulted from giving away all the allowances, which were actually worth a great deal. European energy companies had a windfall profit, for which consumers paid higher rates. Instead, the legislation calls for 26.5% of the allowances to be auctioned in 2012. The remainder are to be given away. I cannot comment at this point on the prudency of this approach, but the question does arise: Why not auction off all allowances, and let market forces play out. Isn't this what Conservatives have always argued for in the public forum, but now that they can get a government dole to their advantage, they embrace the dole rather than their own principles?

Fossil fuel fired electric plants are to receive 19% of the free allowances, while 10% go to energy intensive industries such as steel and cement. 5% go to organizations that have already done things to significantly reduce their carbon footprint. And so forth. I raised this question: If the fossil fuel-based industry is already getting $12B in subidies from the Feds, then why should they get another 19% free allowance to keep the cost of fossil-fuel-based electricity down? A penny or two per kiloWatt hour makes the difference between being competitive and not competitive, and thus the difference between building more fossil fuel plants for electric generation, and alternative energy plants for electric generation. This gift creates an immense government bias in favor of the fossil fuels whose consumption we must reduce, and against the wind, solar and alternative energy approaches whose consumption we must foster.

At the end I asked Stephanie the question that, before her talk, I had warned her would come. I discussed my previous blog entry, and work at MIT that looks at the uncertainties in the models. The spread in the models gives a peak of about 4 degrees Centrigrade as the temperature rise as of 2100, but with consideration of uncertainties and data error, that peak could go much higher. With Ravelo's finding that the Pliocene had temperatures 4 to 9 degrees higher than now with similar carbon in the atmosphere, and measured GHG concentrations already higher than predicted by the models, the question might be "How fast will the global temperatures rise to Pliocene levels or higher?" It would seem likely that excessive moderation right now might be a mistake. Yet Lieberman-Warner assumes a middle-of-the-models challenge and seeks to ameliorate that. What if the challenge is much greater than that? Isn't it more prudent to tackle this problem aggressively? Then if we find we have created slack, we can back off in our efforts? Cannot we learn from the McKinsey Report, implement in the right way, grow our economy in a green direction, and profit economically as a society?

Readers may want to check out the select committee's website at http://globalwarming.house.gov/.

S.2191
America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)
BeginningOctober 18, 2007
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
TITLE I--CAPPING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSSubtitle A--Tracking Emissions
SEC. 1101. PURPOSE.
SEC. 1102. DEFINITIONS.
SEC. 1103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
SEC. 1104. DATA QUALITY AND VERIFICATION.
SEC. 1105. FEDERAL GREENHOUSE GAS REGISTRY.
SEC. 1106. ENFORCEMENT.Subtitle B--Reducing Emissions
SEC. 1201. EMISSION ALLOWANCE ACCOUNT.
SEC. 1202. COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION.
SEC. 1203. PENALTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.TITLE II--MANAGING AND CONTAINING COSTS EFFICIENTLYSubtitle A--Trading
SEC. 2101. SALE, EXCHANGE, AND RETIREMENT OF EMISSION ALLOWANCES.
SEC. 2102. NO RESTRICTION ON TRANSACTIONS.
SEC. 2103. ALLOWANCE TRANSFER SYSTEM.
SEC. 2104. ALLOWANCE TRACKING SYSTEM.Subtitle B--Banking
SEC. 2201. INDICATION OF CALENDAR YEAR.
SEC. 2202. EFFECT OF TIME.Subtitle C--Borrowing
SEC. 2301. REGULATIONS.
SEC. 2302. TERM.
SEC. 2303. REPAYMENT WITH INTEREST.Subtitle D--Offsets
SEC. 2401. OUTREACH INITIATIVE ON REVENUE ENHANCEMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS.
SEC. 2402. ESTABLISHMENT OF DOMESTIC OFFSET PROGRAM.
SEC. 2403. ELIGIBLE AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY OFFSET PROJECT TYPES.
SEC. 2404. PROJECT INITIATION AND APPROVAL.
SEC. 2405. OFFSET VERIFICATION AND ISSUANCE OF ALLOWANCES FOR AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY PROJECTS.
SEC. 2406. TRACKING OF REVERSALS FOR SEQUESTRATION PROJECTS.
SEC. 2407. EXAMINATIONS.
SEC. 2408. TIMING AND THE PROVISION OF OFFSET ALLOWANCES.
SEC. 2409. OFFSET REGISTRY.
SEC. 2410. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.
SEC. 2411. PROGRAM REVIEW.Subtitle E--International Credits
SEC. 2501. USE OF INTERNATIONAL ALLOWANCES OR CREDITS.
SEC. 2502. REGULATIONS.
SEC. 2503. FACILITY CERTIFICATION.Subtitle F--Carbon Market Efficiency Board
SEC. 2601. PURPOSES.
SEC. 2602. ESTABLISHMENT OF CARBON MARKET EFFICIENCY BOARD.
SEC. 2603. DUTIES.
SEC. 2604. POWERS.
SEC. 2605. ESTIMATE OF COSTS TO ECONOMY OF LIMITING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.TITLE III--ALLOCATING AND DISTRIBUTING ALLOWANCESSubtitle A--Early Auctions
SEC. 3101. ALLOCATION FOR EARLY AUCTIONS.Subtitle B--Annual Auctions
SEC. 3201. ALLOCATION FOR ANNUAL AUCTIONS.Subtitle C--Early Action
SEC. 3301. ALLOCATION.
SEC. 3302. DISTRIBUTION.Subtitle D--States
SEC. 3401. ALLOCATION FOR ENERGY SAVINGS.
SEC. 3402. ALLOCATION FOR STATES WITH PROGRAMS THAT EXCEED FEDERAL EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS.
SEC. 3403. GENERAL ALLOCATION.Subtitle E--Electricity Consumers
SEC. 3501. ALLOCATION.
SEC. 3502. DISTRIBUTION.
SEC. 3503. USE.
SEC. 3504. REPORTING.Subtitle F--Bonus Allowances for Carbon Capture and Geological Sequestration
SEC. 3601. ALLOCATION.
SEC. 3602. QUALIFYING PROJECTS.
SEC. 3603. DISTRIBUTION.
SEC. 3604. 10-YEAR LIMIT.
SEC. 3605. EXHAUSTION OF BONUS ALLOWANCE ACCOUNT.Subtitle G--Domestic Agriculture and Forestry
SEC. 3701. ALLOCATION.
SEC. 3702. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY GREENHOUSE GAS MANAGEMENT RESEARCH.
SEC. 3703. DISTRIBUTION.Subtitle H--International Forest Protection
SEC. 3801. FINDINGS.
SEC. 3802. DEFINITION OF FOREST CARBON ACTIVITIES.
SEC. 3803. ALLOCATION.
SEC. 3804. DEFINITION AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
SEC. 3805. INTERNATIONAL FOREST CARBON ACTIVITIES.
SEC. 3806. REVIEWS AND DISCOUNT.Subtitle I--Covered Facilities
SEC. 3901. ALLOCATION.
SEC. 3902. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.
SEC. 3903. DISTRIBUTING EMISSION ALLOWANCES WITHIN THE ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR.
SEC. 3904. DISTRIBUTING EMISSION ALLOWANCES WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR.TITLE IV--AUCTIONS AND USES OF AUCTION PROCEEDSSubtitle A--Funds
SEC. 4101. ESTABLISHMENT.
SEC. 4102. AMOUNTS IN FUNDS.
SEC. 4103. TRANSFERS TO FUNDS.Subtitle B--Climate Change Credit Corporation
SEC. 4201. ESTABLISHMENT.
SEC. 4202. APPLICABLE LAWS.
SEC. 4203. BOARD OF DIRECTORS.Subtitle C--Auctions
SEC. 4301. EARLY AUCTIONS.
SEC. 4302. ANNUAL AUCTIONS.Subtitle D--Energy Technology Deployment
SEC. 4401. IN GENERAL.
SEC. 4402. ZERO- OR LOW-CARBON ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES DEPLOYMENT.
SEC. 4403. ADVANCED COAL AND SEQUESTRATION TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM.
SEC. 4404. FUEL FROM CELLULOSIC BIOMASS.
SEC. 4405. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING INCENTIVE PROGRAM.Subtitle E--Energy Consumers
SEC. 4501. PROPORTIONS OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY.
SEC. 4502. RURAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.Subtitle F--Climate Change Worker Training Program
SEC. 4601. FUNDING.
SEC. 4602. PURPOSES.
SEC. 4603. ESTABLISHMENT.
SEC. 4604. GRANTS TO STATES.
SEC. 4605. TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.Subtitle G--Adaptation Program for Natural Resources in United States and Territories
SEC. 4701. DEFINITIONS.
SEC. 4702. ADAPTATION FUND.Subtitle H--Climate Change and National Security Program
SEC. 4801. INTERAGENCY CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
SEC. 4802. FUNDING.Subtitle I--Audits
SEC. 4901. REVIEW AND AUDIT BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.TITLE V--ENERGY EFFICIENCYSubtitle A--Appliance Efficiency
SEC. 5101. RESIDENTIAL BOILERS.
SEC. 5102. REGIONAL VARIATIONS IN HEATING OR COOLING STANDARDS.Subtitle B--Building Efficiency
SEC. 5201. UPDATING STATE BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODES.
`SEC. 304. UPDATING STATE BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODES.
SEC. 5202. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.TITLE VI--GLOBAL EFFORT TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
SEC. 6001. DEFINITIONS.
SEC. 6002. PURPOSES.
SEC. 6003. INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS.
SEC. 6004. INTERAGENCY REVIEW.
SEC. 6005. PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS.
SEC. 6006. INTERNATIONAL RESERVE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM.
SEC. 6007. ADJUSTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESERVE ALLOWANCE REQUIREMENTS.TITLE VII--REVIEWS
SEC. 7001. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REVIEW.
SEC. 7002. TRANSPORTATION SECTOR REVIEW.
SEC. 7003. ADAPTATION REVIEW.TITLE VIII--FRAMEWORK FOR GEOLOGICAL SEQUESTRATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE
SEC. 8001. NATIONAL DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS.
SEC. 8002. ASSESSMENT OF GEOLOGICAL STORAGE CAPACITY FOR CARBON DIOXIDE.
SEC. 8003. STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINES AND GEOLOGICAL CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION ACTIVITIES.
SEC. 8004. LIABILITIES FOR CLOSED GEOLOGICAL STORAGE SITES.TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 9001. PARAMOUNT INTEREST WAIVER.
SEC. 9002. CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS.
SEC. 9003. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
SEC. 9004. RETENTION OF STATE AUTHORITY.
SEC. 9005. TRIBAL AUTHORITY.
SEC. 9006. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Pliocene Era and Global Warming

On February 11, 2008 I attended a presentation by Christina Ravelo of U Cal Santa Cruz to an audience at Harvard and the Radcliffe Institute. She talked in terms of there being two categories of models for climate change. The now traditional model addresses the dynamics of the earth's systems and calculates incremental changes to global temperature. The other looks back millions of years to determine what global conditions were when the earth was warming and the CO2 concentrations comparable to today's. Her argument is that we as a community can perfect today's global models by seeing if we can make them work in relation to the situation in the Pliocene Era (4.5 M to 3.0 M years ago). I agree with that, with the caveat that the oceans may have had a significantly different thermal and chemical structure then as compared to today.

[As you can see from the graph to the left, CO2 is rising rapidly, and even the slope may be increasing. Cause for concern.]

[In the graph to the left, there is a range of uncertainty to the current models. These uncertainties turn out to be very important, as I will be discussing in a later post. Global warming could be greater than is commonly projected for use in government policy decisions.]

In addition there is a more controversial conjecture that I would make. If you look at the analytical climate models of today you see projections of several degrees of temperature rise by 2050 or 2100. If you look at the MIT model (which I will discuss in a later entry), you see that the global temperature is still rising at 2050 or 2100 even if we keep CO2 equivalents down to the present level. This is consistent with a longterm asymptotic temperature shift such as Christina found in the geologic record: 4 to 9 degrees centigrade. This is of course much greater than the temperature change predicted by analytical models. These values could be conservative because of the large amounts of anthropogenic carbon introduced through burning of fossil fuels as well as conversion of biomaterials currently frozen into permafrost to methane. If these asymptotic values are accurate then the big question is the rate at which the asymptotic limits are achieved.

The intriguing pattern that Christina noted was that much of the global warming effect for the U.S. geographical area during the Pliocene was a warming in the northern parts of North America (pretty nice except for the resulting melting of the permafrost) and increased El Nino effects where they are only occasional now in the Southwest. Here is the map of effects:

You see the term El Padre that she has created. She uses that term because it is like El Nino but different in that it can be more usual and the conditions that lead to it can be quite different from what currently creates El Ninos.