Thank You Senator Graham

Hello Reader,

If you have followed my posts in the past, you have hopefully noticed that for the most part I try to avoid commenting directly on politics. I have also attempted to steer away from fluffy opinion-based posts in favor of academic and informative posts. I fully intend to stick to this formula as much as possible. However, in this case I need to tread dangerously close to both of those boundaries.

Essentially, I wanted to thank Senator Graham (R) from South Carolina for taking a stance on climate change legislation that was covered by a New York Times article today. To very briefly summarize the article, Sen. Graham has been working with Sen. Kerry (D) and Sen. Lieberman (I) on comprehensive energy and climate policy legislation. However, Sen. Graham recently announced that he would stop working on the bill due to the political wrangling in the Senate to simultaneously address immigration policy and climate legislation, which are both expected to be tough issues for gaining bipartisan support.

Now, you might expect that it is odd that I would applaud Sen. Graham's move to stop working on climate legislation. However, this is one of the few definitive public announcements regarding aggressive action on climate change legislation that I can remember. The U.S. federal government has fallen behind the governments of most developed countries and even many states on putting together comprehensive climate change legislation. Even China has moved ahead of the U.S. in the climate policy arena.

In addition to international and state pressure to regulate climate change in a manner that makes sense for the U.S., the court ordered E.P.A. ruling about the need for the E.P.A. to regulate greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide) under the Clean Air Act will mean that GHGs will be regulated soon whether or not Congress acts. Unfortunately, the manner in which the Clean Air Act is structured GHG regulation will likely be clunky and inefficient. Read this as wasting taxpayer dollars and causing hassle to business owners and citizens that could be avoided by new legislation.

Thus, it seems imperative that the U.S. Congress address climate change and energy policy before the legislators are side-tracked by elections and ultimately break up at the end of their term this year. Otherwise, it could take an entire extra election cycle or two to implement any effective climate change legislation if it happens at all. In the meantime the effects of climate change will continue to move toward undesirable consequences, and the E.P.A. will continue to do its best to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act. It seems as though that such a scenario would be a lose-lose situation.

Therefore, I would like to thank Sen. Graham for his tough action in the Senate to bring the spot light on climate and energy policy. Far from viewing this as the obstructionist narrative that the Democratic leadership have (rightly or wrongly) constructed about the current Republican strategy in Congress, I see this move as a bold statement about the urgency of addressing an issue with huge consequences that only grow larger the longer we wait to respond to them.

It is in the best interest of all parties, people, and businesses to have a new set of climate change and energy legislation in the U.S. before the end of the year. Even if you do not believe that climate change is occurring and no matter your party affiliation, I highly recommend that you urge your Senators to ensure that there is new legislation to regulate GHG emissions by the end of the 2010.

For my part, I hope that Senators Spector and Casey from Pennsylvania will take this as my personal request as a constituent to ensure just that.

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond

This post refers to:
Graham Pulls Support for Major Senate Climate Bill
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: April 24, 2010
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/politics/25graham.html

Climate Change: A Societal Cancer

Hello Reader,

Today, as I was reviewing past news articles and academic journal articles in preparation for an upcoming class assignment, I thought up an analogy that I thought I ought to share. The analogy is best described through the metaphor:

"Anthropogenic climate change is a global societal cancer."

Please think about this for a second. After I thought up the metaphor, I was struck by its potency. I thought about its implications.

Imagine for a second that you have not been feeling well, so you set up an appointment for an examination at the doctor. You don't feel completely overwhelmed by sickness, but you just don't seem to be feeling as well as you normally do. You go in for your appointment. A few weeks later, you get an ominous call from the doctor's office. It turns out you have cancer. What do you do next? What are your immediate thoughts?

Naturally, you are likely to be shocked or scared. Do you need to get a second opinion? You want to know if it is serious... how serious?  Are you going to have to have an operation? How much is this going to cost? Do you have enough money saved up to cover the costs? Will your insurance cover the costs? Is there technology or medicine to deal with the type of cancer you have?

If some or all of these questions were at the top of your list, I would guess that you are not alone. I know that they would be at the top of mine. Now, let's follow the analogy using these questions (or similar questions).

We -the world- have been told we have societal cancer (a case of anthropogenic climate change). It is not a societal Ebola virus. We will not suffer a catastrophic, definitive, world-ending "Day After Tomorrow" fever. However, we have gotten a second opinion, and a third, and a fourth... and well, likely more than any cancer patient can ever dream of, to be honest. The issue is we don't know (and can't ever know - thanks to the chaotic nature of the Earth's climate system and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) how serious the cancer is going to be until it happens.

Now, our doctors (scientists) have used all of their mental and technological capacity to estimate what the likely effects will be and what the "worst possible" effects may be. In any case, the possibilities don't look great.

At the best the result may just a few aches and pains; however, this is not likely (a note to bankers and gambling addicts: if this statement excited you, please seek help now!). The doctors have estimated that instead it is likely (although not certain) that if the cancer goes untreated there could be severe consequences.

Of course, the doctors can't be specific about the rate at which or how or where the cancer will manifest itself, so there is a chance it will take a relatively long time (20-80 years in the case of climate change for society could be compared to 20-80 months in the case of cancer for an individual) before the worst effects would be felt and only a few body parts (countries or groups) may be lost. It is also possible that some of the more resilient body parts will remain more-or-less fully intact!

Of course, even with the loss of a few parts, the body can still live on, and it is unlikely that any one particular ailment will cause a catastrophic death on its own. Plus, on the positive side, the doctors have told us they know what the cause is and even given some options about how to prevent the cancer from getting worse!

The question is: "What do we do now?"

Do we wait to see how bad it gets and hope that surgical techniques are up to par in the future? Are we willing to accept the potential loss of a few countries or regions? Do we take our chances of going painfully and quietly into the night?

OR

Do we take some pills that might be tough to swallow and possibly even more expensive than aspirin? Do we start to enact a rigorous treatment process to prevent the spread and even reverse the negative effects of our disease?

In all honesty, the cure to anthropogenic climate change will not be pain free, but it is virtual certainty that the cure will be less painful and less deadly than not addressing the issue.

The sad part is that many individuals, communities, and leaders have not taken the time to fully comprehend the graveness of the diagnosis. Can you imagine reacting to a cancer diagnosis in this manner, even after multiple second opinions? Unfortunately, this is what most people, industries, and countries have done.

Still others have decided that it is not convenient for them to deal with climate change. Many of these people have taken every opportunity to prove to themselves (and others) that the scientific reports are phony and drafted by quacks. In even more devious attempts, some corporations have hired their own group of "experts" to craft reports that indicate that climate change does not exist, is not caused by humans, is not serious, etc. Fortunately, for the most part the worst of these offenders' efforts have failed.

In light of this, I have to ask again: Can you imagine a cancer patient reacting do a diagnosis in this fashion to the point that it kills them? Unfortunately, the answer may very well be yes. Without a strong and global effort that is (perhaps oxymoronically) based on practical, localized initiatives to effectively address the causes of climate change it is entirely possible that this is what we will do.

If you feel that I have oversimplified the matter, you are correct. This is the nature of analogy. It is not perfect. It only serves to illustrate a specific point. If you were struck by this analogy, I encourage you to take it to heart. Please start searching the internet for more information about climate change. Just be aware that there are some people who will be bending the truth without telling you. For my part I can only explain that I have developed my opinions after a lot of academic reading about the science of climate change, and other than my attempts to "leave the world a better place than I found it" and perhaps enjoying a reasonable standard of living in the process I am not trying to gain from this message.

Thanks for your time,
Sean Diamond

Dissertation Proposal: Energy Storage

Hello Reader,

As I promised in my previous post, this post includes part of my dissertation proposal. I have decided to spare everyone the mundane details surrounding my time table and contingency plans. I hope this post gives you a good sense of the need for studying electrical energy storage.
----------------------------------------

SUMMARY

In the context of global climate change, energy consumed to generate electricity for regional electric utility grids plays a significant role. The need for a comprehensive simulation focused on optimizing greenhouse gas emissions on a contemporary, developed electric utility grid through the use of viable, large-scale energy storage is established. A methodology for developing such a simulation and a schedule for producing a study are proposed. Contingencies to potential problems are also addressed.

I.    INTRODUCTION

As developed countries seek to modernize their electric utility grid, whether for the sake of cost savings, the environment, energy security, grid stability, or some combination thereof, many utility companies have started to implement or consider the use of large-scale energy storage (ES) systems to meet present and future demand. Careful consideration of present and future grid scenarios and issues such as inefficiencies in traditional non-renewable energy generation (Dell and Rand 2001), the intermittency of renewable energy sources (Pickard et al 2009), the increased use of distributed generation technologies (Bayod-Rújula 2009), and the introduction of plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) (Verhaegh et al 2010) provide a number of opportunities to implement energy management ES systems that reduce the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a grid thereby lessening the region’s impact on anthropogenic climate change.

II.    JUSTIFICATION

Sims et al (2007) explain that energy use currently accounts for 70 percent of global GHG emissions and of this 40 percent is used to produce electricity. Furthermore, approximately two-thirds of electricity is generated through the combustion of fossil fuels (i.e. coal, lignites, natural gas, and oil), which creates direct GHG emissions (Sims et al 2007). As a result, comprehensive attempts to mitigate anthropogenic climate change will likely involve addressing electricity generation and use in some form or another.

Due to the contemporary structure of electric grids, electricity must be generated at the time of use, which causes inefficiencies that exacerbate the associated impact on anthropogenic climate change. Even everyday conditions such as diurnal fluctuations in demand are a source of avoidable emissions (Dell and Rand 2001). The inclusion of ES systems on a grid can decouple electricity supply from demand, reducing the impact of such inefficiencies (Chen et al 2009, Dell and Rand 2001).

Chen et al (2009) indicate diurnal and annual demand fluctuations not only cause generation inefficiencies but also require that generation capacity be over-built to meet peak demand that may only last a few hours each year. With sufficient ES capacity to meet such peak-demand the construction of additional primary generation capacity can be delayed or avoided (Dell and Rand 2001).

Dell and Rand (2001) suggest that peak-shaving and load-leveling with ES can reduce the need to maintain plants in “spinning reserve” (i.e. generating electricity at sub-nominal values) to avoid a short-term shutdown. When fossil fuel plants are operating in spinning reserve, the GHG emissions per kWh of generation is greater than emissions during optimal generation (Voorspools and D’haeseleer 2000). Instead, plants can be maintained at optimal generation levels by running at a constant or near-constant rate (load-leveling or peak-shaving respectively), charging ES systems during low-demand and allowing ES systems to meet demand during peak conditions (Chen et al 2009).

In addition to the limitations of traditional energy production, ES appears to play an even greater role in future development plans and attempts to mitigate climate change. Perhaps most significantly, as developed nations look to integrate emission-free renewable energy technologies with intermittent generation into their energy portfolio (e.g. NCSC 2009), the integration of ES systems on the utility grid may be not only desirable but necessary for the practical and economic viability of large-scale implementation (e.g. Pickard et al 2009, Aguado et al 2009, Benitez et al 2008). Additionally, Voorspools et al (2000) has suggested that studies analyzing GHG emissions associated with “emission-free” technologies need to take into account indirect emission embedded in construction in addition to the direct emissions from the fuel cycle, which is traditionally the limit of the scope of energy generation analyses.

Bayod-Rújula (2009) and Verhaegh et al (2010) suggest that the future of the electricity grid in developed countries will likely involve increased distributed (non-centralized) generation and/or the wide-scale use of EVs and residential heat-pumps, which may vastly alter the nature of the contemporary diurnal supply and demand cycles. In the US in particular mass production of EVs seems imminent within the next several years (Woody and Krauss 2010). Thus, earlier studies that have not consider these developments will need to be reexamined or taken with caution.

Chen et al (2009) have thoroughly explored the state of ES technologies in the present and near-future. Their analysis roughly divides ES technologies into two categories (see TABLE J1), those that are useful for power quality management (capable of making short-term, high power, low energy interventions) and those that are useful for energy management (capable of mediating variations in supply and demand). Though power quality management ES technologies have a definite role to play to play in the future stability of the electricity grid (e.g. Shayeghi et al 2009 and Hartikainen et al 2007), their likely contributions seem difficult to quantify in an absolute manner. Therefore, it seems more reasonable and useful to focus on energy management ES and the tangible effects it could have on GHG emissions in the near-term. Of course, focusing on the near-term means that some technologies are not yet viable on a commercial (large-) scale (Chen et al 2009). In fact without even considering cost limitations, only pumped-hydro power, compressed-air, and certain types of batteries and flow-batteries have examples of successfully developed MW-scale systems capable of operating for multiple hours.

Voorspools and D’haeseleer (2000) stress the need for a simulation tool, stating: “Since it would be impractical to constantly monitor the instantaneous composition of the power system and to calculate (or measure) the corresponding emissions… [f]or studies or scenarios carried out for future or hypothetical developments, monitoring is not even an option and, hence, a simulation tool is essential.” They also highlight the need for “instantaneous” rather than “linear” emission approximations (i.e. not using daily or annual average figures) to accurately determine GHG emissions under varying demand-supply scenarios (Voorspools and D’haeseleer 2000). Despite the need for a sufficiently resolved time-scale, the duration need not be exceptionally long. For example, Verhaegh et al (2010) elected to focus on one week periods during different seasons (e.g. winter and summer), which suggests that this is a reasonable approach to avoid simulating an entire year’s worth of data.

Finally, while a number of energy simulation studies have examined some combination of traditional generation, intermittent generation, and ES systems, the majority of recent studies appear to have optimized their results for financial gain (e.g. Aguado et al 2009, Benitez et al 2008, and Crampes and Moreaux 2010); however, optimizing a system for financial gain will likely result in inefficiencies with regard to GHG emissions (Voorspools and D’haeseleer 2000). Thus, with the issue of global climate change in mind, there is a distinct need to consider situations optimized to reduce GHG emissions.

III.    OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to assess the potential near-term impact on greenhouse gas emissions of a large-scale implementation of energy storage systems on an electric utility grid in a region with a fully developed grid system. To achieve this objective, technical data will be collected and a simulation will be developed.

<---sections omitted here--->

VII.    OUTCOME

This study should fill a significant gap in the literature by combining ES with a variety plausible demand and supply scenarios and focusing on GHG emissions optimization rather than pure fiscal optimization. The final results of this study should offer insight regarding the degree to which the addition of energy storage on an already-developed, though evolving electricity grid can enable GHG emissions reductions. These results should be particularly valuable as utility companies and regulators evaluate their options to meet and develop current and near-term energy portfolio standards.

For a list of references please see the accompanying post.

Dissertation Proposal References

This post provides a list of references from the accompanying post.

REFERENCES

Aguado, M., E. Ayerbe, C. Azcarate, R. Blanco, R. Garde, F. Mallor, and D.M. Rivas, 2009: “Economical assessment of a wind-hydrogen energy system using WindHyGen® software”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34, 2845-2854.

Bayod-Rújula, A.A., 2009: “Future development of the electricity systems with distributed generation”, Energy, 34, 377-383.

Benitez, L.E., P.C. Benitez, and G.C. van Kooten, 2008: “The economics of wind power with energy storage”, Energy Economics, 30, 1973-1989.

Crampes, C. and M. Moreaux, 2010: “Pumped storage and cost savings”, Energy Economics, 32, 325-333.

Chen, H., T.N. Cong, W. Yang, C. Tan, Y. Li, and Y. Ding, 2009: “Progress in electrical energy storage system: A critical review”, Progress in Natural Science, 19, 291-312.

Dell, R.M. and D.A.J. Rand, 2001: “Energy storage – a key technology for global energy sustainability”, Journal of Power Sources, 100, 2-17.

Hartikainen, T., R. Mikkonen, and J. Lehtonen, 2007: “Environmental advantages of superconducting devices in distributed electricity-generation”, Applied Energy, 84, 29-38.

NCSC (North Carolina Solar Center), 2009: “Pennsylvania Incentives/Policies for Renewable & Efficiency”, DSIRE (Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency), , last accessed 22 FEB 2010.
 
Pickard, W.F., A.Q. Shen, and N.J. Hansing, 2009: “Parking the power: Strategies and physical limitations for bulk energy storage in supply-demand matching on a grind whose input power is provided by intermittent sources”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 1934-1945.

Shayeghi, H., H.A. Shayanfar, and A. Jalili, 2009: “Load frequency control strategies: A state-of-the-art survey for the researcher”, Energy Conservation and Management, 50, 344-353.

Sims, R.E.H, R.N. Schock, A. Adegbululgbe, J. Fenhann, I. Konstantinaviciute, W. Moomaw, H.B. Nimir, B. Schlamadinger, J. Torres-Martinez, C. Turner, Y. Uchiyama, S.J.V. Vuori, N. Wamukonya, and X. Zhang, 2007: “Energy Supply”, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution fo Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.

Verhaegh, N., P. deBoer, and J. van der Burgt, 2010: “Distributed Generation: Intelligent E-Transportation Management”, Leonard Energy, www.leonard-energy.org, 1-15.

Voorspools, K.R. and W.D. D’haeseleer, 2000: “The influence of the instantaneous fuel mix for electricity generation on the corresponding emissions”, Energy, 25, 1119-1138.

Voorspools, K.R., E.A. Brouwers, and W.D. D’haeseleer, 2000: “Energy content and indirect greenhouse gas emissions embedded in ‘emission-free’ power plants: results for the Low Countries”, Applied Energy, 67, 307-330.

Woody, T. and C. Krauss, 2010: “Cities Prepare for Life with the Electric Car”, New York Times, available online 15 FEB 2010.

Wind Turbine Intermittency

Hello Reader,

I wanted to draw your attention to a New York Times article from the past week that highlights one of the major challenges facing developed countries as we try to connect increasing numbers of wind turbines to national and regional electricity grids. That is: intermittency.

Wind turbines are notorious for generating intermittent energy. From a physical perspective this makes sense, because wind does not blow at the same speed all the time. However, when it comes to the electricity grid intermittency can be a huge issue.

On a very small scale, such as a single isolated wind turbine on a farm, this issue can be over come by simply combining the wind turbine with a battery storage system. In such cases, intermittency is not really an issue unless the wind simply stops blowing for days at a time.

On a somewhat larger scale, such as the current state of the US electricity grid, where wind turbines only make up a small percentage of electricity generation the fluctuations are manageable. That is the gaps in generation caused by wind turbine intermittency can be filled in by other generation sources.

Of course, as the article indicates when wind energy starts to make up larger percentages (e.g. 20%) of generation sources, intermittency can pose serious risks to grid stability (e.g. increasing the risk of brownouts and blackouts). The article suggests studies are testing the possibility of connecting multiple turbine farms together to level off the effects of intermittency and provide a more consistent power source. From a physical perspective this also makes sense because when the wind is blowing in one location it may not be blowing in another and vice versa. This means electricity generation will be averaged out.

While this does appear to be a crucial step towards large scale implementation of wind energy, more infrastructural concerns must be addressed. One such step includes the mass introduction of electrical energy storage, which allows electricity to be produced at one point in time (e.g. when the wind is blowing hardest) and used at another point in time (e.g. when you wake up and turn on your electric razor). Unfortunately, the current structure of the electricity grid is not compatible with this concept. As it stands, electricity must be produced as it is being used and at no other time.

Not only is this an issue for installing wind turbines, but it also has massive impacts on the efficiency of traditional fossil fuel and nuclear plants as well. As such, energy storage is the topic of my postgraduate dissertation. Next week I will post part of my dissertation proposal, which explains more about the issue and the need for research into the field. In the meantime, I encourage you to look into the topic for yourself.

The article I referenced within this post is:
A Grid of Wind Turbines to Pick Up the Slack
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
Published: April 12, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/13obwind.html

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

Demonstration to Explain Climate Change

Hello Reader,

I was recently asked by a friend about how to explain to people that one particular weather event (e.g. excessive snow fall in the US) can be reconciled with long-term climate change. As a result, I came up with a "demonstration" of sorts to explain the difference between climate and weather. Please feel free to try it out, and let me know how effective (or ineffective) it may be for explaining climate change. Of course, it is only a metaphoric demonstration, so it will by no means be able to thoroughly explain climate change. (If you can come up with that, I'm sure there will be a Noble prize waiting for you.)

At any rate, to do this demonstration, you will need a pencil and paper, an ordinary deck of 52 cards, someone (0r a group of people) who is confused about how climate change is real when it is not always hot outside, a little bit of time, and a lot of patience. Good luck!

Setting the stage:

Prior to the demonstration, you need to explain the difference between climate and weather. Now, there are a lot of different ways to do this depending on how technically inclined your audience is. However, for the purposes of this demonstration, it will suffice to explain that weather is what is happening in the atmosphere at any particular point in time (or day) and climate is what you will expect to happen during a particular time of year based on the average weather for that time of year. While climate and weather include all conditions that describe the atmosphere, this demonstration will stick to temperature at first.

While you are discussing the difference between climate and weather, you will need to separate the cards into different piles: Ace-5, 6-10, Jack-King. During the first phase of the demonstration, you will need all of the ace-5 cards, a pair of each of the 6-10 cards (one black and one red each), and four Queens. Set the rest of the cards aside out of the way, and shuffle together the cards you plan to use.

Explain that:
-all Queens are going to represent a value of "zero"
-all Aces are going to represent a value of "one"
-all red cards (other than the Queens) represent a positive number of degrees Fahrenheit
-all black cards (other than the Queens) represent a negative number of degrees Fahrenheit

Round 1: the Climate

After the deck is well shuffled, instruct one of the participants to draw 5 cards. Explain to them that each of these cards represent the temperature in a 5-day weather forecast (or actually the difference between the average temperature for that month of the year and the high temperature recorded for that particular day). (e.g. if you are using February as the month and New York City as the place it would be reasonable to use 35 degrees Fahrenheit as your average temperature.) Of course, this will be different for every place and every month, so if you don't what the average temperature should be just use a best guess for the purpose of the demonstration.

As an example, let's assume that 35 deg F is our average temperature, and the first 5 cards drawn are:
5 clubs, 2 hearts, 3 diamonds, 4 hearts, Q spades
In this case, the temperatures for the 5-day weather forecast would be:
30 deg F, 37 deg F, 38 deg F, 39 deg F, 35 deg F

Write down the each of the numbers, and then shuffle the cards back into the deck. At this point, it would also be good to calculate an average for the 5-day week, and write that down as well. (For our example it would be 35.8 deg F.)

Depending on how much patience your group has or how much time you have for your demonstration, I would recommend repeating this 5-day forecast process for at least 10 times or so (a.k.a. a decade's worth of "data" for five days in February). Or if you have a larger group and several decks of cards, split up the group and ask each group to repeat the process at least 10 times.

When you have all of your data compare the averages of each week. Are there any outliers (very hot or very cold weeks)? It may be that there are not, but the more chances you have to repeat the process the more likely that there will be at least one outlier. If you have multiple groups, see if there are any major differences between the groups. Finally, find out what the overall averages of all of the weeks that have been recorded. Unless you have only performed a few repetitions or luck is just not on your side, the average you calculate should be close to what you assumed the average was to begin with (in our example: 35 deg F). At this point, it is probably fair to also discuss how weather can of course have a much wider variability than what is represented by this demonstration.

Round 2: Anthropogenic Climate Change so far...

While you are having your discussion, it is time to alter the deck(s) and add the influence of anthropogenic climate change. Remove all black 9's and 10's. Remove one black 4 and one black 5 from each deck. Add in all of the red 6's and red 7's

Repeat the entire process as described in Round 1. Make sure to use the same baseline average temperature! (If you started by using 35 degrees, continue to use 35 degrees.) Once you have collected all of your data, compare the averages from each of the two rounds. If you have done a sufficient number of 5-day forecasts, there is a good chance that your overall average has shifted upwards.

Even if it hasn't, you should also ask the audience to count up the number of times that the temperature surpassed or stayed below a certain threshold. In our example a good threshold to use would be 32 deg F (a.k.a. the freezing point of water). How many days were there in each round where the high temperature for the day was below freezing? What implications would this have for the way we experience the weather in a particular year, or our impression of climate? If your example was in the summer time instead, it might be good to see how many days rose above 80, 90, or 100 deg F depending on where you live. If you have access to the thermostat, it might be good to also see how many days have surpassed the temperature that the air conditioning is set at (these are the days that people will have to pay for extra electricity to stay cool).

Round 3: What May Happen...

If you have not gotten your point across yet and/or you would like to make your point just a little bit sharper, you can simulate what scientists expect may happen to the climate in the future. At this point it is fair to warn the audience, what scientists expect may or may not come exactly true. It is only the best guess that can be made using decades of real data from across the globe. And in the real world case, scientists can't know with certainty what the impact of various emissions will be.

However, to make this point, it is time to:
-remove all black cards above 4
-remove one black 4 and one black 3
-remove one Queen
-add in all remaining red number cards

Go through the experiment again and compare the differences between this round and the first two rounds.

Conclusion:

It is important to explain that the extent to which the temperature will rise in any particular place will be different. It is also important to note that the timescale at which these sorts of changes occur is difficult to determine. It may be several years to a couple of decades to an entire century. However, it is likely that the global average will rise quite a bit if nothing is changed about the way that greenhouse gases are emitted. Also, it is difficult to predict at what point "feedbacks" might kick in causing the ever-dreaded run-away climate change.

Possible addition:

If you would really like, you are also able to add in a precipitation factor by using the flip of a coin or the roll of a die to simulate whether or not it is going to rain, sleet, snow, etc. I would not recommend doing this unless you really know more about weather than the average person. Also, it may take a little bit of detective work to figure out a reasonable precipitation rate in your region. However, if you do go through this trouble, you may be able to show why there is a chance that "global warming" could cause increased winter snowfall where you live. The science is there, but it is a bit more technical and more difficult to demonstrate.

Well, in any event, I hope that this has given you another tool in your tool box when it comes to explaining climate change to non-scientist types. Please do let me know if you discover anything drastically wrong with this demonstration or have any tips or personal experiences to enhance it. Feel free to augment this however you need to in order to make sense to your audience. Just be careful not to misrepresent the limits of the analogy presented in this demonstration!

Good luck,
Sean Diamond

Climate Change Economic Policy in a Nutshell

Hello Reader,

Today I stumbled upon the most concise, non-academic, non-skeptical, un-exaggerating article I have read about the economics and policy of climate change. If you are at all interested in the topic of climate change, curious what the real debate is about and why nothing is getting done, then I cannot offer a more straightforward article.

Building a Green Economy

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: April 5, 2010

How we can afford to tackle climate change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html

I am not saying that there is not a plea for action, because there is. However, if you take the time to read through all 10 pages of the article, I believe that you will find two things. The first is that article clearly expresses what the author's opinions and views are and what the current state of scientific and political debate are. Climate change is by no means a straightforward issue, and the author does not cover every possible angle of the debate. Yet the ones that he does cover are some of the mostly likely to be considered the root issues with knowledgeable debaters who are honest with themselves.

After two semesters of graduate study of climate change science and rigorously following the political, economic, and scientific debates to the best of my ability, I cannot find any points of exaggeration within the article. If after reading the article you do find points that you find questionable or particularly illustrative, I would love to hear about it.

Thanks,

Sean Diamond