« Study: Even Low Levels of Air Pollution May Pose Stroke Risk, Current Standards May Be Insufficient | Main | Unicell Shows Quicksider Electric Delivery Vehicle in Toronto »

More Scientists Say 50% Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050 Is Not Enough

1 June 2008

In a commentary piece in Nature Reports Climate Change, three of the scientists who led the impacts assessment for the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) argue that the 50% reduction in greenhouse gas being discussed as a global target is far from sufficient to avoid the dangerous global impacts of climate change. Their position echoes that of a number of other experts such as Dr. James Hansen who argue that we have underestimated the risks of climate change and need to implement more stringent mitigation measures. (Earlier post.)

The authors, Martin Parry, Jean Palutikof and Clair Hanson—the co-chair, head and deputy head, respectively, of the Technical Support Unit of Working Group II—and Jason Lowe, a climate scientist in the UK Met Office who provided the underlying scenarios, argue that we are now probably witnessing the first genuinely global effects of greenhouse gas warming.

The steep increases in food prices around the world are the result of rising costs and demand aggravated by drought in food-producing regions—in the case of Australia, probably due in part to global warming — and by a poorly conceived experiment in climate policy that has converted cropland to biofuel plantations. This should serve as a wake-up call: impacts of climate change can surprise us, especially when they act in combination with other pressures.

At the UN climate change conference in Bali last December, more than 200 members of the climate science community, including many involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), issued a declaration calling for global emissions to be cut at least 50% by mid-century. The authors of the commentary, however, support the position taken by Germany, which is calling for an 80% cut by 2050.

Referring to the tables of expected impacts in the 2007 IPCC assessment report, the authors note that:

The figures speak for themselves, and they are not at all encouraging. First, a 50 per cent reduction of global emissions below 1990 levels by 2050, widely considered to be the most stringent achievable target, will not avoid major global impacts. At this level of emissions, there is a good chance in 2050 of avoiding a temperature rise of 2°C above pre-industrial levels (equivalent to 1.6°C above 1990 global temperatures), which is the European Union’s target. That misleadingly appears to be a satisfactory outcome, but it omits that, even with further reductions after 2050, we would be locked into a warming trend until at least 2100 owing to inertia in the climate system, and damages would therefore accumulate beyond mid-century. By 2100 there would be a greater than 50 per cent chance of exceeding the 2°C target—assuming the same percentage reductions in emissions continue annually from 2050 through to 2100.

Even if 2100 seems like a far-off destination from a policy perspective, a 50 per cent emissions cut also commits the world to substantial harm in the shorter term: there is an even chance of around 1 billion people being short of water by 2050, a number that rises as high as 2 billion by 2100. Limiting impacts to acceptable levels by mid-century and beyond would require an 80 per cent cut in global emissions by 2050. This cut would stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas levels at 400–470 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalents instead of the 450–550 parts per million that would be reached if we cut emissions by 50 per cent from 1990 levels.

The data now clearly support the 10-year old contention of one of the authors, Martin Parry, that adaptation would be unavoidable.

Much more importantly, we now have the knowledge to make a more informed choice regarding the optimal balance between mitigation and adaptation, and we know that immediate investment in adaptation will be essential to buffer the worst impacts. This does not mean that mitigation can be delayed, but quite the opposite: the longer we delay mitigation, the more likely it is that global change will exceed our capacity to adapt.

We have lost ten years talking about climate change but not acting on it. Meanwhile, evidence from the IPCC indicates that the problem is bigger than we thought. A curious optimism—the belief that we can find a way to fully avoid all the serious threats illustrated above—pervades the political arenas of the G8 summit and UN climate meetings. This is false optimism, and it is obscuring reality. The sooner we recognize this delusion, confront the challenge and implement both stringent emissions cuts and major adaptation efforts, the less will be the damage that we and our children will have to live with.

Resources

• Martin Parry, Jean Palutikof, Clair Hanson & Jason Lowe (2008) Squaring Up to Reality, Nature Reports Climate Change Published online: 29 May 2008 doi: 10.1038/climate.2008.50

June 1, 2008 in Climate Change, Emissions | Permalink | Comments (175) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/29650574

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Scientists Say 50% Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050 Is Not Enough:

Comments

31000 scientists sign Oregon GW Skeptic Petition
By Dennis Avery Saturday, May 24, 2008

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3214

In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, posted his first Global Warming skeptic petition, on the Institute’s website (oism.org). It quickly attracted the signatures of more than 17,000 Americans who held college degrees in science. Widely known as the Oregon Petition, it became a counter-weight for the “all scientists agree” mantra of the man-man Global Warming crowd.

Recently, with America being dragged toward Kyoto-style energy limits by cadres of alarmists, Robinson mailed a new copy of the petition to his original signers, asking them to recruit additional qualified scientists. Now his list includes nearly 32,000 American man-made warming skeptics with science qualifications. More than 9,000 hold scientific PhDs. Almost 32,000 thousand skeptics happens to be twelve times as many scientists as the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a scientific consensus.

Last week Robinson held a press meeting at the National Press Club in DC, followed by a luncheon on Capital Hill, to which members of Congress and their aides were invited. Not surprisingly, attendance was low.

Robinson’s petition states a truth: “There is no convincing evidence that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

What do these approx 32,000 scientists believe has caused the earth’s warming since 1850 if it isn’t CO2? He points to the sun. Robinson notes that over the past 150 years the sunspot index has predicted the Earth’s temperature changes—with 79 percent accuracy—about ten years before they happen. The sunspots actually predicted the 2007 global temperature decline; the index turned down in 2000. The computer models didn’t foresee it.

The correlation between Earth’s temperatures and CO2 is only at the “accidental” level—22 percent and declining sharply over the past decade as the temperatures have refused to increase with the CO2 levels. Robinson says the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and past Earth temperatures proves that CO2 is not dominating our climate.

The Oregon chemist warns that “no other major scientific problem has ever been tackled the way the UN has approached global warming.” The UN hosted a big meeting of scientists, he says, and then a small group of “authors” summarized the discussions into a global action plan. But the UN has never produced any evidence that humans are warming our climate. The UN panel says CO2 became the culprit “by the process of elimination” but such a process is neither scientific nor admissible in a court of law.

The forecasts of desperate temperature increases all come from computer climate models, notes Robinson. But the computer models keep forecasting more warming than we get. In fact, 70 percent of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, while virtually all of humanity’s greenhouse gas emission has occurred since that date. The Earth’s net warming since 1940 is a tiny 0.2 degree C.

“If CO2 isn’t causing our tiny warming, then banning all our energy will simply make people poor and helpless, says Robinson, “The cold spells and heat waves nature will always throw at us, will then indeed, threaten human lives on the planet.”

Posted by: Esabre | Jun 1, 2008 1:57:35 AM

the signatures of more than 17,000 Americans who held college degrees in science.

Pull your head out of your ass.

Posted by: DS | Jun 1, 2008 4:09:08 AM

I think the increase in carbon emissions caused by humans could hit a brick wall long before 2050. The question then becomes whether natural emissions such as methane then take over. Some say world crude oil production is declining by at least 4% a year and it is doubtful whether biofuel, tar sands and gas/coal-to-liquids can plug the growing gap. Extra coal fired electrical generation for transport electrification may hit bottlenecks, steep price rises and the threat of carbon taxes whether they eventuate or not. Heavy coal use in China and India is causing its own problems. So I question whether we'll even make it to 2050 in one piece.

Posted by: Aussie | Jun 1, 2008 5:39:58 AM

“We have lost ten years talking about climate change but not acting on it.”

This is the problem with the AGW fear mongers. They would rather work on climate research than work on solutions.

For those who missed it, the Bush administration establish reducing ghg emissions as a priority in the May of 2001 with the National Energy Policy. It is interesting that you do not need an treaty or an army of new regulators to do the right thing.

The first step is to ban jet setting climate professional and AGW fear mongers,

“UN climate change conference in Bali last December”

I would suggest cultural reeducation centers in North Dakota. We would retrain all these useless folks to do maintenance on wind turbines. A little safety training and send them to chip ice at the top. A winter in North Dakota would be followed a summer in the desert cleaning solar panels.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 1, 2008 7:37:09 AM

Aussie "The question then becomes whether natural emissions such as methane then take over."

An excellent point - but quite unrelated to your questionable prediction of peak energy. I don't believe that you're talking about runaway atmospheric temperatures due to the sudden release of methane hydrates.

The slow inexorable release of methane due to the warming of tundra combined with the rot from deforestation, as well as an ever increasing population of large ruminants (for our consumption) will increasingly become a significant contributor to warming.

As per the report, the predictions are dire, so bold steps are required.

Solutions?

1) In the short run, require industry to get as much natural gas production up to speed as possible (despite the cost), followed by oil. Then ban the burning of coal if at all possible. If a total ban is not possible, then institute a punitive tax on coal burning. Ban all subsidies for petroleum and its distribution. Subsidize the decommissioning of coal industry.

2) Spend billions upon billions on family planning and education to actively promote small family size. Empower women worldwide.

3) Spends billions upon billions to teach efficient farming methods, and to provide rational assistance with irrigation, seed and fertilizer. Ban all farm subsidies worldwide. Ban grazing on marginal lands, especially that which is owned by governments.

4) Spend billions upon billions on a crash program to develope solar energy. Subsidize the production and distribution of electricity from solar energy.

5) Institute a punitive tax on the production of ruminant animals. Progressive punitive taxation on the production of inefficient and polluting foodstuffs should be implemented.

6) Develope and implement strict heating and cooling standards for existing and future buildings. Subsidize the insulation of existing structures.

7) Require the use of best methods to reduce energy use in industry. Subsidize the transition to low energy input and low polluting production.

8) Develope and implement strict efficiency standard for transportation. Ban the use of trucking when rail is an avaiable option. Subsidize the removal of inefficient machinery from existing stocks.

Hey, number 8 is our subject. Wasn't this fun!

JC

Posted by: JC | Jun 1, 2008 7:44:58 AM

Acquired behavior (and believe) is difficult to change. Any fix has to hit hard enough to hurt. One good example is fuel price. We all noticed a change in vehicle purchase behavior when fuel price reached $4+/gal.

The message would be a lot stronger when fuel price reaches $8+/gal. However, it may take something around $12+/gal to convince the hard core.

To get from $4/gal to $8/gal will require oil price of about $200/barrel + and increase in fuel/carbon tax to at least an additional $1/gal. To reach $12/gal we need a progressive monthly increase in fuel tax equivalent to another $4/gal.

Increase in CO2, GHG and/or global warming are not suffisant to change our behavior. The $$$ is a much stronger change factor and will have to be used.

Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 1, 2008 8:02:51 AM

The best way to minimize world wide Co2 output is to deal with coal fired generation in the coal rich countries. The American approach to meet this challenge was FutureGen; a clean coal technology. Why was this critical project canceled? It was pork barrel politics.

From this Boston Globe article …

“The Department of Energy said it withdrew its 75 percent support from FutureGen last month because its cost had almost doubled, from $1 billion to $1.8 billion. Some have suggested the real motive might have been lingering opposition to the choice of Mattoon by administration officials from Texas, which lost out in the selection process. A former aide to a Texas congressman who is now an Energy Department official, C.H. "Bud" Albright, has said the department axed FutureGen because it was not interested in "building Disneyland in some swamp in Illinois."

The problem here is not technology but myopic politics. Keep this point in mind when you next vote.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 1, 2008 9:50:41 AM

@ Esabre ~> I just wonder how tightly Arthur Robinson and his almost 32,000 thousand skeptics happen to be connected to OIL Companies. It seems that every time we dig into these 'anti-change' groups we find people making Oil money.
As for the solar component of climate change .. yes, there is one. Trouble is, we can't exactly change what the sun does, but we can change what we do. Getting off oil should be a goal for many reasons, and global warming is only one of them.

@ JC ~> I like your list but have a few additional suggestions for getting off oil / coal / gas and onto renewable energy on a world wide basis. Note that ruminants making CO2 are also eating plants that absorb CO2, so their contribution to the problem is somewhat mitigated.

To get off OIL

1 ) Make a “world standard plug” for recharging Battery Electric Cars (BEV) and Plug in Hybrid Electric Cars (PHEV). Have these mandatory at all public parking in shopping large plazas, theaters, restaurants, etc. Begin with mandating one installed, then increase as the numbers of BEV's increased.

2 ) Have a world competition for BEV technology. An X-prize would encourage more startups.

3 ) Mandate car manufacturers to market at least one BEV along with their line up of cars, even if they have to be 're-sellers' and not the original maker. Subsidize BEV and other zero emissions cars only.

4 ) Have an X-prize for small (householder affordable) wind machines. These would obviously be 5 to 10 kw. Making these available to homeowners would reduce grid load tremendously. Do a similar project for solar.

5 ) Place a small wind turbine on every telephone / hydro pole in the country. The net power generated would be significant.

6 ) Subsidize the installation of wind farms and solar farms, river power, wave generating and geothermal energy production.

7 ) Convert coal and gas generating facilities to Hydrogen, then make the hydrogen when wind and solar are over producing, and use it during wind and solar shortages.

At this point we no longer need fossil fuels, we no longer have an acid rain problem, Global CO2 should begin decreasing, and our negative global footprint would be much reduced.
The question is, how fast can we make the switch to green energy?

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 1, 2008 10:19:47 AM

I can’t understand the logic on this tread.

John Taylor: … 3 ) Mandate car manufacturers to market at least one BEV along with their line up of cars, even if they have to be 're-sellers' and not the original maker. Subsidize BEV and other zero emissions cars only

Due to its gigantic coal reserves, Pennsylvania produces a large faction of the electricity consumed on the east coast through coal fired generation. They have identified at least 100 years of CO2 sequestration capacity but won’t implement sequestration until the technology is proven.

You can convert all the cars on the east coast to electricity, but Pennsylvania will still be pumping out the same prodigious amount of CO2 plus 35% more to support these electric cars.

JC:…Then ban the burning of coal if at all possible…

It won’t happen…period.

JC: …If a total ban is not possible, then institute a punitive tax on coal

The only thing that will happen is the price to the customer for electricity (i.e. the electric car owner) will rise in proportion to the tax or the CO2 cap fine.

Guys, Look for the donut and not the hole!!!

Posted by: Axil | Jun 1, 2008 11:08:42 AM

Dr. Hansen is THE CO2 AGW hysterical scientist. He said 12 years ago that if CO2 wasn't coming down significantly to below 1990 levels, in 8 years, (4 years ago!), the human race was then DOOMED. It would be too late to do anything, about AGW.

So why is this guy now saying we need to do something, at all? He has already said it is 4 years too late.

Maybe he means it really isn't too late, at all; and he was exagerating for effect. So why believe him now, after a decade of stasis and cooling?

He was also the guy who predicted that the temperature would have climbed by a full degree and half in the past decade. Wrong once again.

I respect Dr. Hansen. He is a good scientist who has a blind spot with respect to AGW. He has also been well rewarded for his climate frightening act. As I recall, he was claimng censorship by NASA, even as he had his 45th press conference on NASA premises in some 30 odd days. Some Censorship.

At last count he has been awarded $2.12 million, as bonuses or "Prizes" for his work in Global Warming, in addition, to his excellent salary and perks. The remuneration for his hysteria act has certainly been pretty good.

Posted by: | Jun 1, 2008 1:24:38 PM

Let's suppose that the probability of a worst case AGW scenario is proportional to the percentage of scientists that believe in the scary outcome. For example purposes, let's set the proportion of scientists that support a nasty AGW scenario (i.e., the probability of its occurrence) at 60%.

Next, let's define the worst case damages scenario from unmitigated AGW in economic terms, as an annual loss of property, lives, habitat, etc., [caused by drought, rising sea levels, wild fires, more intense storms and summer heat waves] and value these losses at something like 8% of world GDP by 2050. This may not be a bad worst case estimate, since China's economy is growing above that rate, and many analysts have argued that the environmental and health damages in China from criteria air and water pollution are now large enough to wipe out the benefits of much of their recent economic growth no matter what happens to global temperatures, sea level, etc.

Next we assess the economic cost to the Global Economy over the next 40 years of reducing GHG emissions by 80%. This is a difficult number to nail down, but the worst case scenario is more likely than not to be 3 or 4% of World GDP by 2050. However, this cost must be offset by the economic and health benefits of AGW mitigation measures that accrue regardless of whether they have any impact on global warming.

In other words, the direct economic and health benefits of higher energy efficiency, lower criteria pollutants, a more robust ecosystem, a reduced heat island effect in cities, greater energy security, fewer oil wars [$1 Trillion dollars/Iraq], and job creation from new sustainable industries, can be conservatively estimated to be between two and three percent of GDP, so that it only takes a fairly low probability of damaging AGW to justify an aggressive implementation of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions.

The bottom line is that from a policy perspective, the arguments of the AGW critiques can be ignored by politicians, and government and industry should implement policies that promote electrification of transportation, renewable generation of electricity, higher energy efficiency throughout the economy as an insurance policy against the risk of damaging AGW, but more importantly to provide a host of other economic and health benefits to the economy and consumers.

As a side bar, the critiques of AGW also need to contend with the fact that despite their many arguments, common sense supports the current scientific consensus on the issue. Methane, CO2, water vapor from cooling towers, oxides of nitrogen, chlorinated and fluorinated carbons are proven greenhouse gases emitted in significant quantities by human activities. The physics of these heat trapping gases if and when they build up in the atmosphere is indisputable.

In fact, NASA is considering future projects whereby greenhouse gases would be released in the Martian atmosphere to warm up that planet for human settlement. How odd that releases of these gases by humans would warm up Mars fairly quickly, (perhaps in as little as a decade) but the same humans that release these gases on earth have no impact on the planet?

The AGW critiques often site evidence from earth's history showing that in the ancient past global temperatures often began rising before a significant build up in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and therefore concluded that either higher temperatures cause higher greenhouse gas emissions [e.g., release of methane hydrates], or there is no causal relationship between the two variables. The latter argument is likely nonsense. The ancient earth experienced enormous episodes of volcanism, which often preceded or were concurrent with massive emissions of greenhouse gases. It should not be surprising to find evidence of either rising [Geothermal heat] or falling [Nuclear Winter] temperatures on the planet's surface and in the ancient oceans in the immediate aftermath of these massive volcanic episodes. However, what matters is what happened in the next 100,000 or million years after the volcanic episodes and release of the greenhouse gases, and on this score the evidence in fossil record of massive extinctions of species is very clear.

Posted by: MeanandGreen | Jun 1, 2008 1:26:08 PM

Nuclear power can quickly reduce gross emissions. This will, however, defund some pretty gross people.

Therefore it is very good news that net emissions can also be reduced, even while civil servants and angry pensioners continue to get their petro-pogey.

How motoring gains nuclear cachet

Posted by: G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 | Jun 1, 2008 1:34:02 PM

As one of the thoughtful 17,000 and now one of the 32,000 on the second Oregon Petition, the issue is no longer even up for debate. Several coleagues hwo were originally ambivalent, are now not even skeptical.

Modern Science of the 21st century, continually calibrates AGW and CO2 in particular, to have two orders of magnitude weaker effects, than the qualitative hypotheses in the 1960s proposed.

In short, MUCH Ado about Nothing!

I predict that the IPCC, which has already in AR4 layed the groundwork, will, in AR5, opt for at least one order of magnitude weakening, via re-adoption of the validity of Henry's Law of Solubility.

That IPCC upate is due for publishing around 2012, will say so explicitely as they promised in AR4 too.

The only ones scared by AGW are the new religious converts to GAIA, who get their Science from newspaper headlines, and a knothead who flunked one of the two Science courses he every took and got a D in the other, while making hundreds of millions of dollars,scaring the bejesus out of everyone.

Those two courses are actually a lot of Science, for a fellow majoring in giving "fire and brimstone" sermons at a Baptist Divinty School. Too Bad he didn't succeed at that either. He quit before flunking out, I understand.

Posted by: stas peterson | Jun 1, 2008 1:46:23 PM

Interesting article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/137501

Micropower delivers a sixth of total global electricity, a third of all new electricity and from a sixth to more than half of all electricity in 12 industrial countries (in the United States it's only 6 percent). In 2006, the global net capacity added by nuclear power was only 83 percent of that added by solar cells, 10 percent that of wind power and 3 percent that of micropower. China's distributed renewables grew to seven times its nuclear capacity and grew seven times faster. In 2007, the United States, China and Spain each added more wind capacity than the world added nuclear capacity. Wind power added 30 percent of new U.S. and 40 percent of EU capacity, because it's two to three times cheaper than new nuclear power.

The punch line: nuclear expansion buys two to 10 times less climate protection per dollar, far slower than its winning competitors. Spending a dollar on new nuclear power rather than on negawatts thus has a worse climate effect than spending that dollar on new coal power.

Including factual back-up:
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf

What about living in a fact-based world for a change?

Posted by: | Jun 1, 2008 2:41:21 PM

How many here are disgusted with the ad hominem attacks on all those who dare doubt dogma? "Scientific American" embarrassed itself greatly when it went after a former Greenpeace member and danish professor who did dare to honestly look at the DATA. Those that engage in it here equally embarrass themselves. Are there ANY pro-GWH voices willing to acknowledge that many knowledgeable people do not believe that the DATA supports GWH, and that they do so honestly and with conviction?

To paraphrase from another debate: Where are the moderate environmentalists?

Posted by: Hybrid fan | Jun 1, 2008 2:48:01 PM

@ Axil ... "I can’t understand the logic on this tread.

John Taylor: … 3 ) Mandate car manufacturers to market at least one BEV along with their line up of cars, even if they have to be 're-sellers' and not the original maker. Subsidize BEV and other zero emissions cars only "

What is to understand about the logic?
If GM were forced to sell ZAP cars, you can bet the Volt would be in production by next weekend.

Also, our governments currently subsidize the big three automakers in whopping amounts each year with little in return. A similar monetary investment in Electric cars would achieve production immediately.

"You can convert all the cars on the east coast to electricity, but Pennsylvania will still be pumping out the same prodigious amount of CO2 plus 35% more to support these electric cars."

Apparently you have a convenient reading disability. Go back and read my suggestions 4 through 7 ...

@ Stas Peterson. ~> Cleaning the grid is important for lots of reasons, our health and a secure source of power being two of the more obvious.
Environment studies by the oil industry are a lot like Health studies by Tobacco companies.

Posted by: | Jun 1, 2008 3:12:35 PM

to hybrid fan:

you stated, ``"Scientific American" embarrassed itself greatly when it went after a former Greenpeace member``

You are referring to Patrick Moore? That guy from Vancouver, as I am, has been on a lifelong vendetta to discredit the environmental movement, after his emotional ousting from Greenpeace decades ago. He has psychological problems, constantly contradicting himself. I would much rather take scientific analysis from someone who is interested more in the facts than simply childishly discrediting his enemies.

Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 1, 2008 4:11:32 PM

to Esabre, the first post, I am wondering what planet the author of your article is on?

He states, ``Robinson notes that over the past 150 years the sunspot index has predicted the Earth’s temperature changes—with 79 percent accuracy—about ten years before they happen.``

Sorry, not true. The relationship largely disappeared once the analysis was corrected for mistakes.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

And your author also states, ``Robinson says the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and past Earth temperatures proves that CO2 is not dominating our climate.``

What!?!? I presume they`ve seen ``The Great Global Warming Swindle``, which featured this graph in an unsuccessful attempt to show that the CO2 vs. temperature relationship went the other way around, but instead only showed that there is a positive feedback relationship between the two (confirming the worst fear of climate scientists):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Even the AGW deniers don`t dispute this graph!! How can anyone look at that graph and say there is a ``lack of correlation between CO2 and past earth temperatures``?

Are they out of their mind, or have they just been corrupted by big oil money?

Posted by: | Jun 1, 2008 4:22:20 PM

me, above

Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 1, 2008 4:22:43 PM

@ J. Taylor,

Here comes the cliche. Anybody who sees through the man-made global warming hoax has to be in the employ of Exxon. (All 32000). It is possible to notice the glaring problems with the global warming propoganda without being in the pocket of "big oil." I've never owned a share of oil company stock that I'm aware of. I'm on the waiting list to by a Phoenix EV and I also think Al Gore is full of...himself.

Also, it is funny how no one ever asks supporters of global warming hysteria about their connections to far left wing political organiaztions, or extremist environmental groups. For some reason only those who doubt man-made global warming are considered possible of having a hidden agenda.

Also, the idea that we should cripple a global economy with a massive massive tax on CO2, just to be on the safe side is absurd. Using the same logic, we should assume the recent cooling trend is the sign of a man-made ice age and we should start pumping CO2 as fast as we can make it. Sure I have no hard evidence but we can't take a chance so let's start making that CO2 now.

Posted by: Esabre | Jun 1, 2008 4:27:29 PM

How many of those 32,000 were publishing climate scientists? I bet less that 1%. Stan Peterson demonstrates the point quite nicely. How long since you published a peer reviewed paper Stan??

Posted by: | Jun 1, 2008 4:31:48 PM

“worst case AGW scenario” is easy to experience by anyone. Just next time you fly to spend a holiday in tropical paradise (Bali, for example, or Hawaii) think for a moment how horrific global warming will be.

Mark:

Are you traveling back in time?

Posted by: Andrey Levin | Jun 1, 2008 4:32:04 PM

Have you ever?

Posted by: marcus | Jun 1, 2008 4:32:21 PM

Have you ever published Stan??

Posted by: | Jun 1, 2008 4:37:46 PM

To Andrey,
I hope you do not own property in Florida.

To Esabre,
please provide some evidence. So far, you have provided nothing but empty political arguments. The Earth`s climate does not operate on political arguments. When you provide something of substance I will consider your arguments.

Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 1, 2008 4:38:44 PM

Mark:

No property in Florida. But I do live in the city which is below ocean high tide. Dykes are doing good job here, and I rather spend my BC carbon taxes on upgrading the dykes, than waste it on AGW bureaucracy.

Posted by: Andrey Levin | Jun 1, 2008 4:56:41 PM

to Esabre,

you ask, ``no one ever asks supporters of global warming hysteria about their connections to far left wing political organiaztions``

I have none. I am a mechanical engineer, currently working on a natural gas-fired combined cycle power plant. I also do a little work on pulp mill recovery boilers. I also have a degree in forest management. If anything, I stand to lose out if the GHG-emitting industries crumble. Rather, what I am doing is using this experience to move on and work towards better technologies for the future.

Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 1, 2008 4:59:01 PM

John Taylor:… Apparently you have a convenient reading disability. Go back and read my suggestions 4 through 7...

The current state of the art in electric grids (the traditional grid) cannot handle the distributed nature of the renewable power generation dream that you reference (4 through 7 ...). The smart grid is a devilishly complicated technical problem that needs a Manhattan project approach to solve. I know that the Pennsylvania grid, managed by PJM, is the world's largest electric grid, serving over 51 million people in 13 states and the District of Columbia. It keeps one or two coal fired generation plants on hot standby not connected to the grid but able to switch on line in a minute in response to an outage. That’s a long way from what you are thinking. Dreams are nice but you got to live in the real world.

Remember John, the devil is in the details.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 1, 2008 5:01:26 PM

to Andrey,

Can you provide an economic analysis, comparing the cost of a 5000 mile dyke around the US, in comparison to producing power from wind and solar farms (which are already or nearly cost-competitive)?

The US can`t even build a fence along the Mexican border, or a dyke around New Orleans, how on Earth are they going to fortify their entire coastline?

Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 1, 2008 5:01:40 PM

to Axil,

Can you please explain how Denmark produces 20% of its electrical power with wind farms, and why North America could not do the same?

Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 1, 2008 5:04:41 PM

32000 BScs? As a BSc myself (computer science) I know exactly what that means in terms of my competency to critique papers outside of even my specific area of experience within my chosen discipline ... exactly squat. (what's your degree in Stan? because unless you're a climatologist your opinion is worth butkuss)

The petition is nothing more than a political stunt.

Posted by: Neil | Jun 1, 2008 5:09:24 PM

Neil:

I cant speak for Stan but, having an MS in chemistry, I do not claim to know all of the ins-and outs of climatology. My feeling on the subject is that even climatologists do not know all of the ins-and-outs of climatology, and many have developed a bit of "group-think" when it comes to AGW, now called "climate change" to cover all of the bases.

I pointed out in this forum a while back a couple of quotes made by scientists studying the loss of polar ice in the North. One stated that the bulk of the cause was an increased amount of solar radiation reaching the ice. It was his feeling that this explanation did not acount for all of the ice loss, so the rest must be due to "global warming". A second scientist claimed that warming currents were the main cause. If I recall correctly, he to felt this did not make up the difference, and the rest must be "global warming".

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what your field of scientific expertise is. Anyone can tell that " It's mostly X, plus something else that we can't identify, so that must be Y" is shoddy science.

Of course the papers ignored the currents and solar radiation, and went straight for "Global Warming".

A lot of intellegent, well-meaning people beleive in AGW. A lot of intellegent, well-meaning people don't. Claiming that the "debate is over", and that all who disagree are pawns of the oil industry is to lean on empty, ad-hominem attacks.

Posted by: tthoms | Jun 1, 2008 5:47:30 PM

Claiming that the "debate is over", and that all who disagree are pawns of the oil industry is to lean on empty, ad-hominem attacks.

And that's a strawman.

Posted by: elias | Jun 1, 2008 6:07:24 PM

@Mark_BC

The big problem is regulation … politic in and out of the power industry ( remember Enron in California)
From the cited smart grid paper as follows

Beyond normal challenges faced by
new technological entrants, smart
grid technologies confront a regulatory
system that often discourages
their adoption.

Smart grid and smart energy technologies face the uphill battles any technological innovation encounters. New devices must prove they operate reliably and offer superior services and/or
economics. But emerging power technologies
face additional hurdles that represent what most
observers regard as the overarching challenge.
Traditional regulation sets up significant economic
disincentives that do not allow utilities to fully
recover investments in new technologies, and financially
punishes utilities when customers install their
own energy systems. Meanwhile, utility restructuring
that aimed at overcoming some of those
disincentives is incomplete and its status is uncertain.
The overall effect is to place utility investment in
both traditional and advanced technologies in a slump.

I told you above to vote if you want things to improve!

Posted by: Axil | Jun 1, 2008 6:17:12 PM

"My feeling on the subject is that even climatologists do not know all of the ins-and-outs of climatology, and many have developed a bit of "group-think" when it comes to AGW, now called "climate change" to cover all of the bases."

If you want us to take you seriously tthoms either publish a paper or at the very least cite one. Otherwise forget it.

Posted by: | Jun 1, 2008 6:59:58 PM

Mark:

My point is that there are thousands real problems to spend money on (dykes in NO for starter), than waste trillions on non-solution of non-existing problem.

Posted by: Andrey Levin | Jun 1, 2008 7:02:24 PM

The British have an really elegant half a trillion dollar solution to the cancelation of the FutureGen project. :-)

Posted by: Axil | Jun 1, 2008 8:19:56 PM

“Can you please explain how Denmark produces 20% of its electrical power with wind farms, and why North America could not do the same?”

Mark, looking at the IEA data for 2007 for OECD countries that provide 'leadership' for wind there is some interesting results:

The winner is Denmark where 83% of electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels. Very very green. The Netherlands in next at 79% fossil. Portugal – 69%, Germany 68%. Spain is not doing too bad at 62% but that may have more to do with 18% nuclear generation than wind and solar.

So Mark if can explain how we

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 1, 2008 9:15:21 PM

can build 'renewable energy other' fast enough to keep up with US demand I would be interested.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 1, 2008 9:16:39 PM

Question: aside from GHGs, has anyone got numbers for the total amount of heat released each year from the burning of fossil fuels (Is it enough to have an impact all by itself?)

tthoms: What of course colors the intelligent, well-meaning that don't think AGW is a problem is the fact that there is an enormous industry/army of exxon supported trolls spewing total (obvious) bull in an attempt to make joe public think that AGW is just a hoax. I'm not exactly an AGW true believer (my area of expertise is computer modeling and simulation) but the organized troll factor makes me awfully suspicious.

Posted by: Neil | Jun 1, 2008 9:37:55 PM

Elias:
" 'Claiming that the "debate is over", and that all who disagree are pawns of the oil industry is to lean on empty, ad-hominem attacks.'

And that's a strawman."

How so?

Anonymous:
If YOU want to be taken seriously, please post a name. Since you are not interested in using the search function on this site, here are the words of the researchers themselves:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/17/america/NA-GEN-US-Low-Ice.php
"The center said this led to an unusually high amount of solar energy being pumped onto the Arctic ice surface, which accelerated the melting process. Fairly strong winds also brought in some warm air from the south.

But, Serreze said in a telephone interview, while some natural variability is involved in the melting, "We simply can't explain everything through natural processes."

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1351264.php/Danish_researchers_warn_of_melting_Arctic_ice_cap

"Global warming was a contributing factor, but this year strong currents have also swept large masses of ice from Siberia via the North Pole past eastern Greenland and further south where it melted, Pedersen said."

So we have two measurable reasons for the ice reduction; fast currents and unusually high solar energy. It is believed that these factors don't account for everything, so the unmeasured factor must be man-made global warming.

I'm sorry, but that's a crappy conclusion. It assumes that they have such a detailed comprehension of the climate engine that they know every possible variable and its effects, ergo; the only factor that remains is CO2 emissions.

So, I've said my piece. If you have a reasonable counter-argument, or articles you'd like to reference, great.

Posted by: tthoms | Jun 1, 2008 10:26:37 PM

Neil:

"tthoms: What of course colors the intelligent, well-meaning that don't think AGW is a problem is the fact that there is an enormous industry/army of exxon supported trolls spewing total (obvious) bull in an attempt to make joe public think that AGW is just a hoax. I'm not exactly an AGW true believer (my area of expertise is computer modeling and simulation) but the organized troll factor makes me awfully suspicious. "

Fair enough. Their are a lot of people working/proseletizing against AGW because it threatens their livelihood. There are of course, armies of bureaucrats, corporations, politicians, and grant-funded scientists working/proseletizing for AGW because it will bolster their livelihood, and increase their powerbase.

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

Posted by: tthoms | Jun 1, 2008 10:36:31 PM

Kit P, the critiques of AGW never want to talk about the widespread "heat island effects" from human activities. Changes in localized albedo, the combustion of fossil fuels, operation of HVAC systems, etc., can raise temperatures and humidity in urban areas by perhaps 10 degrees C and 10 percent respectively. The buildup of heat trapping greenhouse gases is likely
to compound the local impacts.

The argument dismissing the issue is that the waste heat generated is minimal relative to absorbed solar insulation and geothermal heating, and just radiates harmlessly into space. However, heat stroke episodes occur in urbanized areas, so the heat island effect, compounded by rising temperatures, may be more of a killer than other environmental influences.

Some renewable energy advocates also like to ignore localized heat impacts since Solar Thermal and Solar PV have relatively low conversion efficiencies, which may translate into more localed heat in desert areas where large scale solar electric plants are located.

We need to plant more trees in urban areas to mitigate the impact of heat islands, and perhaps utilize super high efficiency solar assisted heat pumps for space conditioning.

Posted by: MeanandGreen | Jun 1, 2008 10:55:51 PM

The real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science

"The answer is that ideology trumps rationality. Most conservatives cannot abide the solution to global warming-strong government regulations and a government-led effort to accelerate clean energy technologies into the market."

~~~~~

Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology

"An ideologue doesn't believe that he needs to know the details of an issue in order to make policy decisions because his ideology provides him with a ready formula for solving all problems. Where ideologues run into difficulties however, is when the real world throws up problems that don't fit the ideology's problem categories.

For conservative/libertarian ideologues who compose the overwhelming majority of denialists, Climaticide is just such a case. If a conservative/libertarian ideologue were to accept global warming as real then he/she would be forced to admit that the problem is so big and so complex that government action is required to deal with it. But for an conservative/libertarian ideologue that is impossible because he/she believes that government is the cause of ALL problems and that the solution to all problems is "freedom".

Denialists frequently make this attitude explicit when they accuse the "liberals" concerned about climate change of having invented it as an excuse to expand government. The latest version of this tactic that I've encountered is that none of the science in support of global warming need be taken seriously because it is the product of government-paid scientists who are only doing their bureaucratic masters' bidding, apparently forgetting that the current "masters" are themselves Climaticide denialists....

That there are no facts outside the "truths" of one's ideology is a basic, if not always publicly expressed, tenet, of all ideologues be they religious zealots, communists, fascists or libertarian-conservatives.

Arguing with such people is a waste of time because they only listen to facts in order desperately to compose counter arguments. I say desperately because ideologues find psychological safety from an uncertain world in the certainties of their ideology. What you think of as an argument about global warming, they perceive as an attack on their entire world view. And they're right of course, even though it's not your intention."

Posted by: | Jun 1, 2008 11:08:31 PM

Actually, besides running 21% Windpower, Denmark runs mainly efficient power and heat co-generation plants.

So unlike the U.S. which unintelligently runs coal power plants and gas/oil heaters separately, Denmark utilizes its fossil fuels very efficiently.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 12:04:24 AM

The reason why Denmark is able to generate close to 20% of their electricity by wind is that Denmark was early adapter, and was able to suck in maneuverable reserves of enormous German electricity grid and especially highly maneuverable hydro electricity of Scandinavia. This trick will not work for anyone.

Current state of electricity grid limits highly intermittent wind generation to about 5%, with appropriate backing of idling natural gas combustion turbines. Which overall makes wind electricity much more expensive to average kWh consumer.

Moreover, wind electricity robs the grid from maneuverable reserves, which could be utilized ten times more efficiently to balance input of zero-carbon nuclear power plants.

Realistically, any one concerned with CO2 emissions (and hawing single functional cell in the brain) should be fierce proponent of nuclear electricity balanced by existed and newly constructed hydro.

Posted by: Andrey Levin | Jun 2, 2008 1:12:18 AM

I was once a member of Sierra Club.

If anyone wants to trot out lame arguments of political ideology on the issue of global warming, they're most welcome. But the adhominem attacks are childish and emotional rants irrational at best.

Some are failing logic. Thoms had a good example put forth, not a strawman argument of why we must be cautious going forward.

Plotting consiracy theories is weak to for either side.

Hansen has admitted a glaring problem with data for the due to the Y2K bug. After readjusting for the bug, it was discovered that his alarmism was just that, alarmist. The Media, NASA, Congress, IPCC, UN all hyped his bad data to the world that a coming disaster was upon us. He was wrong.

One must understand who are the individual powers driving these studies, their motiviations as well. While most of it is good, honest people desiring a good healthy planet, there are the powerful elite who attempt to control everything, especially out of Europe.

The Rothchilds, the Soros, and all the big financial Trust behind these movements end up producing far-fetched claims by irrational alarmist who can no more predict a hurrican next week or the temperature, yet want us to believe they can predict next decade or 50 years from now.

There is a huge failure to understand the most rudimentary elements in Climate science modeling. They are only beginning to make major corrections. And so far all of their models have been wrong.

They did not predict the drop of 2007 based upon their models, nor did they predict the 10 year flatline since 1998. It would help if everyone would stop panicking and calm down.

Planting trees is a good thing. Preventing large forest destruction is a good thing. Putting forth a reasonable and cost effective plan, incentives for clean transport and energy are all good things. But to insist the earth will reach some maximum tipping point of disaster for us all tomorrow, 10 years or 50 years from now is insanity. It is not science. It is the equivalent of psychic babble in tabloids.

To start calling for vast mandates across multiple industries is an overreaction to guesses of future modeling we know to have already failed in their predictions.

And yes each side has their scientist paid for and with incentives to prove the other wrong. But there is middle ground upon which we all should be able to agree upon without lasshing out at each other.

I think the progress being made to date is quite extraordingary by many diffrent fields. Free Market is working and even China gets it to some degree. The incentives are driven by price, usability and practicality. To act like some Orwellian future thought police and grant powers over all our living habits is not what any of us wants or desires.

Solar, battery, EV, Wind are moving forward at great rates. Nuclear power should not be banned, but used carefully as stop gap measures. What should be allowed as a compromise is for opening of oil and natural gas leases in America to ease a transtion from fossil fuels over to green fuels. All this other banter is mainly just panic. We can allow China to drill in our frontyard pool, dirty it up. Or we can allow American companies that answer to Americans drill it cleanly.

The first moment we allow the American companies to be on the same playing field as Russia, Iran, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, will be the day we can all complain about prices. But right now, they are tied up with no where to go but third world countries. The moment we allow them the same freedoms as nationalized countries, many that are our enemies, the price of oil will drop and slowly decline to a more reasonable price range. That is how business is normally done in a free society. Why we treat our oil companies worse than China or Sudan is mind-boggling.

The world is not coming to an end by CO2. But it sure can slow way down to everyones despair if allowed to by frantic people thinking frantic thoughts and acting upon their frantic ideas.

There is far to much panick attacks in here for sensible people. Especially engineers. We live in an Open System, not a Closed one. Anyone with knowledge of Thermodynamics should understand that our dynamic climate system is constantly in flux of self-correcting modes even with added humans to the mix.

Posted by: Michael | Jun 2, 2008 1:14:26 AM

Missing the Market Meltdown

"Renewable energy is attracting Wall Street but nuclear power isn't. Why? Simple economics.

Capitalists have already scuttled Patrick Moore's claimed nuclear revival. New U.S. subsidies of about $13 billion per plant (roughly a plant's capital cost) haven't lured Wall Street to invest. Instead, the decentralized competitors to nuclear power that Moore derides are making more global electricity than nuclear plants are, and are growing 20 to 40 times faster.

In 2007, decentralized renewables worldwide attracted $71 billion in private capital. Nuclear got zero. Why? Economics. The nuclear construction costs that Moore omits are astronomical and soaring; low fuel costs will soon rise two-to fivefold. "Negawatts"—saved electricity—cost five to 10 times less and are getting cheaper. So are most renewables. Negawatts and "micro-power"— renewables other than big hydro, and cogenerating electricity together with useful heat—are also at or near customers, avoiding grid costs, losses and failures (which cause 98 to 99 percent of blackouts).

The unreliability of renewable energy is a myth, while the unreliability of nuclear energy is real. Of all U.S. nuclear plants built, 21 percent were abandoned as lemons; 27 percent have failed for a year or more at least once. Even successful reactors must close for refueling every 17 months for 39 days. And when shut by grid failure, they can't quickly restart. Wind farms don't do that.

Variable but forecastable renewables (wind and solar cells) are very reliable when integrated with each other, existing supplies and demand. For example, three German states were more than 30 percent wind-powered in 2007—and more than 100 percent in some months. Mostly renewable power generally needs less backup than utilities already bought to combat big coal and nuclear plants' intermittence.

Micropower delivers a sixth of total global electricity, a third of all new electricity and from a sixth to more than half of all electricity in 12 industrial countries (in the United States it's only 6 percent). In 2006, the global net capacity added by nuclear power was only 83 percent of that added by solar cells, 10 percent that of wind power and 3 percent that of micropower. China's distributed renewables grew to seven times its nuclear capacity and grew seven times faster. In 2007, the United States, China and Spain each added more wind capacity than the world added nuclear capacity. Wind power added 30 percent of new U.S. and 40 percent of EU capacity, because it's two to three times cheaper than new nuclear power. Which part of this doesn't Moore understand?

The punch line: nuclear expansion buys two to 10 times less climate protection per dollar, far slower than its winning competitors. Spending a dollar on new nuclear power rather than on negawatts thus has a worse climate effect than spending that dollar on new coal power. Attention, Dr. Moore: you're making climate change worse."

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 1:22:24 AM

The glibertarians rush forward to prove the point.

Posted by: l | Jun 2, 2008 1:24:52 AM

Somehow, France reliably generates 79% of it electricity by nuclear, with 18% coming from hydro. France has cheapest electricity prices over all Europe, and is the biggest supplier of electricity to EU market.

Why US (having the biggest nuclear generating system in the world, which reliably, cleanly, and cheaply generating 18% of electricity for more than 40 years) is stuck with dirty coal plants and expensive NG generation?

Environmentalist retards, served by traitors highjacked US Democratic Party ( Clinton administration completely closed advanced nuclear reactor research, banned development of shale oil in Colorado, banned ANWAR oil exploration, banned Prudhoe Bay NG pipeline, banned off-shore drilling, banned explorations of cleanest in the world Utah coal deposits, etc.) are choking energy bloodline of the modern economy, and that’s why US nuclear plants were facing construction delays and run-out costs.

Posted by: Andrey Levin | Jun 2, 2008 2:31:34 AM

No, France doesn't have the cheapest electricity prices in Europe.

And if France wouldn't have all the wasteful electric heaters running at night and couldn't depend on the load leveling storage lakes in the Alps, it would not know what to do with its inflexible nuclear power.

Ironically, France still consumes way more energy from oil than from nuclear.
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf
(page 27)

There are definitely cheaper religions than nuclear.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 3:04:46 AM

Most of the skeptics are flattering themselves. In reality they are merely believers of a competing religion.

Believing that nothing (noteworthy) will happen is just as stupid and unfounded as believing the world as we know it will come to an end.

At some point in the future, our planet will prove which religion was right and which was wrong.

Posted by: Anne | Jun 2, 2008 3:33:08 AM

@Micheal:

end up producing far-fetched claims by irrational alarmist who can no more predict a hurrican next week or the temperature, yet want us to believe they can predict next decade or 50 years from now

Poof, there went all the hot air out of your post.

Anyone who fails to understand the difference between weather and climate should not make a fool of himself posting his opinion about the subject.

Posted by: Anne | Jun 2, 2008 3:41:58 AM

Why is the energy consumption per capita in the US double than that of Switzerland? Why is the average living standard in Switzerland higher than in the US?

Are the US Democrats forcing the American population to waste more energy?

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 4:47:23 AM

Climaticide ... committing the world to catastrophic climate change by refusing to change insane business practice.

@ Esabre ~> “Here comes the cliche. Anybody who sees through the man-made global warming hoax has to be in the employ of Exxon. (All 32000).”

There are two types of oil shills.
1 ) Those who knowingly distribute disinformation because they stand to gain a perceived benefit from Oil money. (shills)
2 ) Those who buy into the fibs honestly believe the nonsense, and pass it on without doing their homework. (pawns)

I have no respect for either.

“Also, the idea that we should cripple a global economy with a massive massive tax on CO2, just to be on the safe side is absurd.”

Yes, that idea is absurd. It is also a straw-man argument because this is not even a suggestion let alone a policy. CO2 limits and credits and any tax involved would be well within the scope of ongoing business to handle, and just provide an additional incentive to clean up, often by improved efficiency. This saves companies even more money.

@ Axil ~> “The current state of the art in electric grids (the traditional grid) cannot handle the distributed nature of the renewable power generation dream that you reference (4 through 7 )”

Get real Axil. Do your homework. Our grid is designed to respond to loads turning off and on erratically, and small wind generators are simply reverse loads. They integrate without a problem. As you note, we already see grids keeping coal fired standby, so why is it such a mind bender to realize we could be using a more earth-friendly method of standby power?
However, you very correctly point out that Political impediments to “smart-grid” technology are counterproductive and need removed.

@ tthoms ~ If you think that all climatologists take only their own little sliver of expertise into account, and “guess” that global warming accounts for all unknowns ... then you have not a clue how science works. I have no idea if you are a shill or a pawn, but you are running a straw man argument. As for “trolls spewing total (obvious) bull” ... you are one of them.

@ Kit P ~> “explain how we can build 'renewable energy other' fast enough to keep up with US demand”

The fastest power growth in the world is wind power. Production doubles every year. Wind farms come on line as fast as they are installed, and experience very little down time. When considered as a group over a wide area, these provide a very steady power supply despite some being in still air. Try to remember than no single generating plant provides power 100% of the time, and all are subject to erratic shutdowns. Over a large area, wind farms are much more reliable than other power sources.

@ MeanandGreen ~> “Changes in localized albedo, the combustion of fossil fuels, operation of HVAC systems, etc., can raise temperatures and humidity in urban areas.”

You are very correct. Urban area “heat islands” are a huge factor. Simply changing to white roofing shingles rather than black would reduce our heat footprint enormously. Now someone needs to develop white pavement.

@ Andrey Levin ~> “any one concerned with CO2 emissions (and hawing single functional cell in the brain) should be fierce proponent of nuclear electricity”

NO freekin' way is nuclear a solution. Even with a 90% government subsidy a nuclear plant cannot be competitive with wind energy.

“Current state of electricity grid limits highly intermittent wind generation to about 5%”

Again, total BS. Wind is not limited to a single wind farm in a single area. When the larger area is considered, and lots of wind turbines are involved, the net power supplied becomes far more consistent and reliable the larger the system is.

@ Michael ~> What should be allowed as a compromise is for opening of oil and natural gas leases in America to ease a transition from fossil fuels over to green fuels.

You were doing good noticing we need a transition, but pimping for Oil is a very bad solution. Why not just make the new investments in green power rather than continuing with outdated fossil technology that is counterproductive, and destructive to our planet?

@ Andrey Levin ~> “Clinton administration completely closed advanced nuclear reactor research, banned development of shale oil in Colorado, banned ANWAR oil exploration, banned Prudhoe Bay NG pipeline, banned off-shore drilling, banned explorations of cleanest in the world Utah coal deposits, etc.” (psst .. there is no such thing as 'clean' coal).

Wow, I think Hillary deserves far more support! All those things banned by the Clinton administration were boondoggle tax money wasters. No wonder the American Economy boomed under Bill's guidance.

Wind power added 30 percent of new U.S capacity, because it's two to three times cheaper than new nuclear power, and even less costly than coal fired generators, and more reliable. New “green-energy” is far more cost efficient than any other.

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 2, 2008 4:52:07 AM

“The fastest power growth in the world is wind power.”

Aside from not being true, so what?

If you are trying to reduce ghg related to making electricity wind and solar are insignificant. Who cares what the rate of growth is for technology that can not fast enough to keep up. It is necessary to look at the big picture.

Again looking at the IEA data for 2007 for OECD countries”

- Switzerland 3% fossil, 40% nuke, and the rest hydroelectric.
- Sweden 9 % fossil, 40% nuke.
- France at 12% fossil, 85% nuke.
- Slovak Republic 27 % fossil, 51% nuke.

The largest reductions in ghg gas in the United States is improvements in the performance of nuke plants followed by methane capture using 1990 as a baseline. Biomass is the largest source of renewable energy and also the showed the largest growth in the US in 2007.

That wood pile back behind the shed is very comforting on a cold winter day in case there is a massive ice storm and power is lost for days.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 2, 2008 6:06:32 AM

Actually looking at the big picture: Only 14% of the Energy needs in France are covered with nuclear. (And of course less than 10% is covered with nuclear in Switzerland, Sweden and Slovak Republic.)

Apparently French trucks, ships, aircrafts, oil- and gas heaters are still not nuclear powered.

And looking at the very big picture:
More electricity is produced worldwide with efficient decentralized power plants than with nuclear power and this despite the fact that nuclear has and still receives enormous subsidies:
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf

And of course: 6 times more energy is produced with renewable than with nuclear power:
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 6:26:22 AM

Michael: "Plotting consiracy theories is weak to for either side." ... it sure is. The only problem is that you then launch into your own "European elite" conspiracy theory (the Illuminati?) Pretty weak stuff. Oh and the "flat since 1998" wont fly around here, we all know that that was an unusually warm year.

Andrey: "5%" limit on wind? ... I don't think so! I've seen British studies that place that number closer to 25% with properly distributed placement of the wind farms to average out the wind.

Posted by: Neil | Jun 2, 2008 7:03:13 AM

There is hope but not at the pace we are going.
Nuke, Generation IV
Home heating and cooling geothermal with PV. $$$$$$$$ How many billion spent on Iraq?
PHEV - with new battery tech. Then Electric
Wind turbines in the middle of the country with a Gas turbine Hybrid Systems for loads.
Algae biofuels with sugar feed stock. biomass.
Distributed power, 10% gain.
Carbon fiber car parts. $$$ but getting cheaper.

Posted by: paul | Jun 2, 2008 7:17:44 AM

It's cheaper to save fuel than to buy fuel.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 7:32:25 AM

@ Kit ~> “Aside from not being true, so what?”

Excuse me? What part isn't true?

How many new nuclear power generating stations will start up in the USA this year? None.
A new nuclear power plant has not been ordered in the U.S. since 1973. Few new plants have come on line within the past fifteen years.
Even with President George W. Bush’s $15 billion federal subsidy no one will invest their own money in Nuclear energy.
As a future saver, it fails spectacularly. Plutonium-239 will remain hazardous for over 250,000 years.

A few nuclear plants managed to become slightly more efficient and generate more power. The improvements mostly had to do with the steam side efficiency, not the actual nuclear capacity. The world total additional power from nuclear sources was less than the additional power from newly installed solar batteries last year.

Meanwhile, the number of kWh produced by wind power doubled last year, and is expected to double again this year, mostly because of China.

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 2, 2008 7:56:40 AM

John, you may want to spend some time checking your facts.

Wind generation has a tremendous year in 2007 and the US led led world in new wind generation. Even then the amount of new electricity supplied to the grid was about the same for both wind and nuke. Where you may be confused in that the new nuke generation is available 99% of the time when we need electricity the most. Wind turbines have a very low capacity factor but not compared to wind. Biomass has a high capacity factor.

“A few nuclear plants managed to become slightly more efficient and generate more power.”

That increase is equivalent to building 26 or so new nukes since 1990.

“A new nuclear power plant has not been ordered in the U.S. Since 1973.”

Until 2008, the number is 8 and counting.

I think it is good that the US is building wind at a record pace but John you may want to put the amount of new wind generation (do not forget to dive by 3) and compare it it to new fossil generation.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 8:39:33 AM

John Taylor:

"@ tthoms ~ If you think that all climatologists take only their own little sliver of expertise into account, and “guess” that global warming accounts for all unknowns ... then you have not a clue how science works. I have no idea if you are a shill or a pawn, but you are running a straw man argument. As for “trolls spewing total (obvious) bull” ... you are one of them."

I see that you read my post, noted my comment about ad hominem attacks, and decided that I needed an example. Thank you for providing one. It was very gracious of you.

Posted by: tthoms | Jun 2, 2008 8:52:58 AM

I see that you read my post, noted my comment about ad hominem attacks, and decided that I needed an example. Thank you for providing one. It was very gracious of you.

An ad hominem whine about ad hominem. It is to laugh.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 9:27:31 AM

@ ? “Until 2008, the number is 8 and counting.”

Ouch. Yep, at least three of the 8 funded are 'in progress' ... Final approval to build is not yet achieved.

President Bush is prepared to dole out billions of taxpayer dollars to Vice President Cheney's friends to construct new nuclear reactors.
They won't put their own money in, but will reap any accrued benefits.
The same investment would buy over three times the amount of wind power.

Sadly for the country and green thinking, there are lots of 'true-nuke' believers who hop on the Nuke bandwagon without checking a single fact.

As an added incentive, the new nuclear designs lack containment domes to protect the public from a catastrophic release of radiation.

My expectation is that the government will spend several billion on the project then scrap it and all loans will be defaulted without penalty.

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 2, 2008 9:29:42 AM

Actually, 2007 over 20 GW of wind power was intalled world wide.

Between 2004 and 2007 only 1.5 GW of nuclear power was added per year worldwide.
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf

And of course nuclear power is definitely not available 99% of the time and in fact less reliable than wind power:
The unreliability of renewable energy is a myth, while the unreliability of nuclear energy is real. Of all U.S. nuclear plants built, 21 percent were abandoned as lemons; 27 percent have failed for a year or more at least once. Even successful reactors must close for refueling every 17 months for 39 days. And when shut by grid failure, they can't quickly restart. Wind farms don't do that.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/137501

Ironically, a Swiss nuclear power operator is currently running an ad against renewable power claiming that it is not reliable. Needless to say: The same nuclear power operator just had a single nuclear power plant normally providing almost 20% of Swiss electricity not working for 6 month.
I wonder - what was the last time when a thousand wind-turbines weren't running for 6 month altogether?

What is so appealing about this nuclear religion?

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 9:42:37 AM

For all you denialsts out there its simple. Show us the papers!

Until then you are asking us to trust you over the professional scientific community and all the data they have accumulated. Do you think this is even remotely likely? Get real!

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 9:54:50 AM

Re Your questions about publications.

It has been almost twenty five years, since I last published a paper.

Neither paper of the two, concerned itself with climatology, as I was working in another another field.

There is another publication of which I am most proud, but unlike the other two, it is without attribution, since it represented the collective effort of many individuals in many countries.

But it did pass the ISO as both a draft IS, was voted on by a group of Countries, and has been adopted as an International Standard.

When DID YOU last publish a peer reviewed paper, Sir?

Have you ever? Or do you even have a scientific degree?

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 9:54:57 AM

I didn't know you could publish a peer reviewed paper anonymously ;)

Posted by: Neil | Jun 2, 2008 10:34:20 AM

"Neither paper of the two, concerned itself with climatology, as I was working in another another field."

This illustrates the point entirely Stan. While I am not a climate scientist either, I am not the one trying to convince people that I know more about the climate than climate scientists! Your background and track record on this blog shows us exactly the type of person that added their names to that silly "scientist" skeptic petition. I published my last peer reviewed paper last year in Cell, impact factor 29.2.

Posted by: marcus | Jun 2, 2008 10:44:50 AM

"What is so appealing about this nuclear religion?"

I dunno ... maybe fuel energy densities millions of times larger than chemically fueled plants? The prospect of billions of years of energy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

"The AP1000 will be manufactured in modules designed for rail or barge shipment. This will allow constructing many modules in parallel, and the plant is designed to have fuel load 36 months after concrete is first poured. This construction period is considerably shorter than earlier generation designs, and if achieved in practice will greatly decrease the overall capital cost of the plant. Such reductions would make the design much more economically competitive against other power sources than previous generation nuclear plants."

The AP1000 produces 1GWe. How long would it take to erect ~3000 1MW wind turbines? Five years is about 1500 days, so that would be at least two a day. Always that nagging question of scalability...

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 11:00:08 AM

The Nuclear Renaissance is proceeding for advanced GEN III+ standardized and pre-certified nuclear plants. I for one will not support any GEN IV effort, except to build a one-off Actinide Burner.

There are now 34 advanced LWR plants in the pipeline, in the USA alone. Italy, Britain, and Germany have all decided to go Nuclear again, while France, China and India are still doing so as well, along with Korea, South Africa, Russia, Canada, and Japan.

The US 34, up from zero two years ago, are at various stages of preparation to be built. Using standardized and pre-certified designs, no concrete will be poured until all the preliminary work, like obtaining an EIS, COL licenses, approval for emergency evacuation plans, cooling provision approval and or cosntruction, and other ancillary items have been completed.

That does not mean that money in the multi-millions have not been spent, already, toward building each of these plants. Nor does it mean that some of the 34, may not proceed to construction.

It costs a lot to identify and justify the need, seek and obtain internal, and than state approval, seek, purchase, and approve a site, seek a construction and operating license, hire a construction firm, place a contract with a contractor, and then a plant vendor, order long lead-time items, and plan the availability of equipment for manufacture at the vendors factory. Only then will earth be turned for the plant itself.

First concrete will likely not be poured prior to 2011 for any of the new plants. But 36-54 months later, under hitherto unavailable terms, fixed price and fixed time contracts, depending on the design and vendor, electricity will start flowing to the grid.

These nuclear plants will be joining the grid to provide base load generation, and clean electricity, to power the horde of PHEVs pouring forth from the automakers by that time.

To make mindless assertions that no place can be found to house all the high level waste that worldwide would fit on a single basketball court, is absurd in the extreme.

As for long-lived isotopes that will exist for "thousands of years", there is now a technological answer. "Actinide Burners", a new technology to transmute transuranics, will be built and high level waste will be safe, after storage of but a few hundred years, and no longer thousands of years.

Unlike old 1970 era plans, with lots of buried fissile materials to attract the equivalent of Pharoah's grave robbers, it can safely decay without being disturbed. Why? Because there is nothing of value buried there, but waste; no fissile material more valuable than Gold, to some.

Using only the Yucca Mountain Repository, designed to take 70,000 tons of high level waste, the entire world's high level waste, from the very beginning, from the 1940s until now, with Actinide burning, can be reduced to some 3800 tons.
There is room, going forward for a couple of hundred years. All the waste can be stored there, in a deep mine, at the edge of Death Valley, until it is rediologically safe in 300 years.

Another old bugaboo about Nuclear electric generation is the so-called threat from "proliferation". Not a single country, even the rogue states, like North Korea, Iran, Syria, or Iraq under Saddam, has ever used civilian nuclear plants as a source of fissile materials. But unlike the fear from the 1970s, literally ten thousand or more of the Nuclear warheads from the Cold War inventories of the superpowers have been, are being, or will be burned up in the fleet of civilian nuclear reactors.

Even if in some future tomorrow, a rogue group manages to steal and contruct a bomb or two from nuclear waste, the World is already far ahead in building and using these nuclear bomb incinerators, called LWR nuclear plants.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 11:12:01 AM

Wow. A rollicking discussion. Note that the most vituperative comments all come from one "religion" (thanks Anne.) While there are substantial political, social and science reasons to pursue the sustainable agenda - the AGW motivator is proving to be a stumble. Fear and loathing has-been a successful approach in the past. Today however, there are too many leaks in once airtight information management. Too many people are able to access balanced points of view and make their own decisions; (some call it "free will.")

This may very well mitigate the mitigation - a mildly unfortunate side effect of education. But a better educated public will become a more responsible public, arriving at the mitigation goal through sound reasoning and informed consent. That's the point of AGW, right? It is going to happen - just not using the old formula.

Posted by: sulleny | Jun 2, 2008 11:18:04 AM

Here is a published paper pointing to our future source of clean energy as a major contributor to GW!!

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

Posted by: sulleny | Jun 2, 2008 11:54:19 AM

The AP1000 is a PWR nuclear reactor which will produce a net over 1000 MWe for an estimated US$2 billion. $2,000,000,000 Two thousand million, 2x 10^9
Four are to get built in China, and possibly 8 in the USA.

Megawatt The megawatt (symbol: MW) is equal to one million (10^6) watts.

The average price for large, modern wind farms is around 1 000 USD per kilowatt electrical power installed. the average wind turbines will return 2,300 hours of full load operation per year. To get total energy production you multiply the 1000 MW of installed power with hours of operation. An average is 2,300 = 2,300,000 MWh = 2.3 TWh of energy. (Or 2,300,000,000 kWh).
The kilowatt (symbol: kW), equal to one thousand watts (10^3 watts)

If I've done my math right, wind costs less than 1/3 of Nuclear.

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 2, 2008 11:55:10 AM

If that nuclear plant is down for service, it will return to service when repaired and/or refueled.

I can show you a thousand windmills not working any time you wish.
Simply go to Altamount or the Pass leading to Palm Springs/Palm Desert California, and you are apt to find more than a thousand windmills, no longer working. Furthermore, many or most, will never work again. They were erected to obtain tax subsidies. Since the tax subsidies have now expired, they are abandoned, and simply rusting away in the desert.

They represent lots of hard earned taxpayer money, frivolously wasted, to no good purpose save a momentary headline for a politician. There is plenty of steel, concrete, copper and other materials wasted as well. What kind of conservationist/Green can support such nonsense?

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 12:03:35 PM

Sulleny if people chose to give the billion talking heads of the web equal footing to published science that is a failure of our education system, not a success. Just who do we assign as having a "balanced" opinion? Should we perhaps take a poll? Perhaps we should all take a vote on the laws of physics? I'm sure we could create a wonderful universe! How long do you think we would survive subscribing to such a theoretical but wonderful creation?

Posted by: marcus | Jun 2, 2008 12:10:32 PM

Missing the Market Meltdown

"Renewable energy is attracting Wall Street but nuclear power isn't. Why? Simple economics.

Capitalists have already scuttled Patrick Moore's claimed nuclear revival. New U.S. subsidies of about $13 billion per plant (roughly a plant's capital cost) haven't lured Wall Street to invest. Instead, the decentralized competitors to nuclear power that Moore derides are making more global electricity than nuclear plants are, and are growing 20 to 40 times faster.

In 2007, decentralized renewables worldwide attracted $71 billion in private capital. Nuclear got zero. Why? Economics. The nuclear construction costs that Moore omits are astronomical and soaring; low fuel costs will soon rise two-to fivefold. "Negawatts"—saved electricity—cost five to 10 times less and are getting cheaper. So are most renewables. Negawatts and "micro-power"— renewables other than big hydro, and cogenerating electricity together with useful heat—are also at or near customers, avoiding grid costs, losses and failures (which cause 98 to 99 percent of blackouts).

The unreliability of renewable energy is a myth, while the unreliability of nuclear energy is real. Of all U.S. nuclear plants built, 21 percent were abandoned as lemons; 27 percent have failed for a year or more at least once. Even successful reactors must close for refueling every 17 months for 39 days. And when shut by grid failure, they can't quickly restart. Wind farms don't do that.

Variable but forecastable renewables (wind and solar cells) are very reliable when integrated with each other, existing supplies and demand. For example, three German states were more than 30 percent wind-powered in 2007—and more than 100 percent in some months. Mostly renewable power generally needs less backup than utilities already bought to combat big coal and nuclear plants' intermittence.

Micropower delivers a sixth of total global electricity, a third of all new electricity and from a sixth to more than half of all electricity in 12 industrial countries (in the United States it's only 6 percent). In 2006, the global net capacity added by nuclear power was only 83 percent of that added by solar cells, 10 percent that of wind power and 3 percent that of micropower. China's distributed renewables grew to seven times its nuclear capacity and grew seven times faster. In 2007, the United States, China and Spain each added more wind capacity than the world added nuclear capacity. Wind power added 30 percent of new U.S. and 40 percent of EU capacity, because it's two to three times cheaper than new nuclear power. Which part of this doesn't Moore understand?

The punch line: nuclear expansion buys two to 10 times less climate protection per dollar, far slower than its winning competitors. Spending a dollar on new nuclear power rather than on negawatts thus has a worse climate effect than spending that dollar on new coal power. Attention, Dr. Moore: you're making climate change worse."

More electricity is produced worldwide with efficient decentralized power plants than with nuclear power and this despite the fact that nuclear has and still receives enormous subsidies:
Missing the facts

And of course: 6 times more energy is produced with renewable than with nuclear power

I dunno ... maybe fuel energy densities millions of times larger than chemically fueled plants? The prospect of billions of years of energy?
ROFL, most people just need a hot shower or a hot coffee and don't actually want to blow anything up. And aircrafts requiring the highest energy/power density are ironically not even nuclear powered. But of course any religion has to worship something.

Ironically the nuclear contribution to the world energy needs is between 2 and 3% and according to IAEA (nuclear lobby) the known uranium reserves last 80 years at this ridiculous contribution and there are still no affordable breeder reactors or working fusion reactors insight.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 12:11:13 PM

"Here is a published paper pointing to our future source of clean energy as a major contributor to GW!"

Sulleny please point us to a reference showing this is a peer reviewed article. As far as I can tell this is from a magazine.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 12:22:40 PM

What kind of conservationist ... can support such nonsense?

A phony one who is actually a gas shill. That would explain the frequent references to a major gas shillery shop.

Posted by: G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 | Jun 2, 2008 12:23:04 PM

@ ? "If that nuclear plant is down for service, it will return to service when repaired and/or refueled."

You then have the unmitigated gall to suggest that wind machines are not similarly repairable.

Just because a slick operator took advantage of subsidies then ditched is no reason to blame the technology.

No wonder you failed to sign your name to this.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 12:23:10 PM

@ Harvey D,

I fully support the termination of "Future Gen". The world has had way too many tiny "demonstration" activities of CCS.

I fully support spending the money instead on a fully sized and useful CCS adjunct added to a much cleaner, Integrated Gas and Combined Cycle, IGCC, plant.

Modern coal plants, with 10% higher thermal efficiencies then "Future Gen" already exist. Such IGCC plants exist in fully scaled up production form, and orderable plants from the plant makers, are available today. Right now, there are a few such IGCC plants adding power to the grid.

Spending money on an actual IGCC plant with a fully sized and operable CCS installation, as they plan to do as an alternative, is much to be preferred over yet another subsidized, no real test, "demonstration", pork barrel programmed to go to the politically connected.

Even if successful, the "Future Gen" plant wil not be as thermally efficient, nor as intrinsically emissions free, and still not have a functioning CCS capability.

So why bother?

That's the question that was asked and answered when the governmental overseers, actually behaved intelligently for once, despite political pressure.

Hoorah!

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 12:25:32 PM

@sulleny

...It is going to happen - just not using the old formula...

I don’t know about that. It’s the Department of Energy (DOE) that is going to be the prime mover here. Unless things change fast, pork barrel politics will rule the day no matter how much sound reasoning and informed consent there is. There is a layer of stupidity and arrogance at high levels personified by the current DOE chairman that will stop forward progress. The sustainable agenda is stumbling because of a collapse in representative politics in favor of “well connected” corporatism. The cancelation of the FutureGen project that I mentioned in my first post is an example of a blocking force in our leadership. Is that what you mean by the the old formula? By the statement … But a better educated public will become a more responsible public, arriving at the mitigation goal through sound reasoning and informed consent did you mean the public will do what’s required to adjust political priorities and direction? If that’s true, I fully support you.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 2, 2008 12:35:25 PM

I am the source of much pain and suffering.

Posted by: Stan's Intractable Loneliness | Jun 2, 2008 12:36:42 PM

A degree or even Dr. degree does not equate to understanding GW science. Unfortunately, most people and the signers of this bunk petition suffer form unconscious confirmation bias, which allows them to easily dismiss ideas that perterb them, instead of seeking out and understanding the science based truth.

Posted by: GdB | Jun 2, 2008 12:49:40 PM

@anonymous

---So why bother?---

Carbon sequestration technology needs to be perfected no mater what variety of coal fired plant results. As an engineering precept, the nearer the solution is to the problem (atmospheric CO2 increase caused by current coal fired plants), the less costly it will be.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 2, 2008 12:58:29 PM

Scientists say a 50% reduction in green house gas by 2051 is not enough?? My gosh, the governments of the planet haven't been able to force their subjects to reduce emmissions by even 1%. Dream on scientists!!

Posted by: A.Syme | Jun 2, 2008 1:14:17 PM

You are obviously correct. The 32,000 people with scientific training, are certainly not all in the science of climatology.

There are not 3200 climatologists in the entire world. Nor are there likely to be as many as 320 Doctorates in the field, for that matter.

So what is the point? Among the petitioners are many pre-emminent men in the field of climatology.

Dr. Richard Lindtzen, who might called the "Father of Climatology" is but one such, and he might be considered the most pre-eminant of all climatologists. He says GW is possible; but AGW is improbable. And AGW large enough to go beyond benign, to harmful, is very unlikely.

By comparison Dr. Hansen, champion of the AGW proponents, isn't a climatologist either; he is a computer modeler. Just because he can program GCM models, does not necessarily qualify him to develop climatology theory. By your views, he should be therefor be ignored.

But I don't criticize the field in which he contributes. He has a valid right to contribute to the debate. And he does.

But apparently, you don't agree.

But these (we) 32,000 do have scientific experience. They can read a scientific paper without intimidation. They (we) do understand scientific principles, things such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics and can usually detect scientific doubletalk being expressed and "sold" to them.

They are no more accepting of theological arguments about creationism, from some preacherman than climatology BS, expressed by an uneducated preacherman, either.

BS is BS. Hopefully, a scientific education prepares those 32,000 when scientific BS is tossed at them, better than the uneducated lay person on the street, awed by "headlines".

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 1:20:30 PM

@ Marcus:

I said it was published. By Physics Today, the flagship publication of the American Institute of Physics, the parent of American Geophysical Union, American Physics Society, American Astronomical Society among others.

No, the authors are not climate scientists - nor must they be to establish a relationship between solar activity and temperature. Nobody says you have to believe their paper - you could refute it or deny its existence. It's a free country. But denying its existence after publication is a little like censoring yesterday's newscast. Of course the members of AIP and its societies could all be "gas shills" too. And it was the U.S. government who demolished the World Trade Center...

Posted by: sulleny | Jun 2, 2008 1:29:27 PM

As I've said before, a petition is irrelevant. Show me the papers or forget it.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 1:31:11 PM

Sulleny, I'm not denying its existence, I'm denying its credibility in the world of professional science. Peer review is the standard and the better the journal, the more credibility it has. Opinion pieces in magazines just don't cut it I'm afraid.

Posted by: marcus | Jun 2, 2008 1:34:05 PM

At least I provide unintended comic relief from time to time.

"Dr. Richard Lindtzen, who might called the "Father of Climatology"

Posted by: Stan's Intractable Loneliness | Jun 2, 2008 1:34:26 PM

While my comment was primarily aimed at the person refusing to sign their name who questioned my link to Physics Today - it also applies to Marcus. Marcus, I think the paper can be considered a slight balance from accredited researchers.

According to denialists here the 32,000 petition signers are also "gas shills" probably working for the same gas shop that blew up the World Trade Center.

For that matter why should we believe any petitions? Like ones to stop strip mining or deforestation? Those people are probably "tree shills." From a well known "tree shillin' shop." What a country.

Posted by: sulleny | Jun 2, 2008 1:44:19 PM

Lieberman and Warner Unveil Bipartisan Climate Proposal .During its debate today, on the floor of the senate senator Warner said “Implementation of carbon sequestration is not an option”. What sweet music that.

The debate was as far reaching and raucous as it is here on this thread but more respectful. Maybe my option of the political process is not hopeless. Time will tell.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 2, 2008 1:56:07 PM

Power generation varies a lot between countries. USA generates almost 80% of its electrical power with fossil fuel. France generates almost 80% with nuclear. We generate almost 96% with Hydro.

For areas with flexible hydro power plants and large water reservoirs, the introduction and integration of variable power sources such as wind, solar etc could be very easy. Make the variable sources supply base demand and use accumulated water power for peaks and when variable sources are not producing enough. This way, you can use almost 100% of the power generated by large wind wind farms and solar systems without large expensive batteries or hydrogen converters-generators. Colocated Hydro-Wind-Solar units would be most efficient but wind-solar units could be located anywhere near the power lines. The current 20% limits for Wind/solar could easily be raised to 50% where the water reservoirs are large enough.

The output from most modern hydro power plants can be remotely or automatically varied rather quickly to satisfy demand and/or replace non-productive wind-sun units.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 2:20:17 PM

Forgot again. What's wrong with the post? Manual ident?

Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 2, 2008 2:22:06 PM

@ Marcus & unsigned:

We know you love peer reviewed papers so here's one that meets your demands:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

The reason the AGW campaign stumbled is because it erroneously thought it could control all forms of information. Old formula. Those days are over. The tree of knowledge is within reach. Arrogance of old formula can only cause backlash and subsequent loss of public confidence. The challenge remains: do the job (sustainability) and tell the truth. Sure it's hard. That's why it's called work.

Posted by: sulleny | Jun 2, 2008 2:33:38 PM

@HarveyD

The output from most modern hydro power plants can be remotely or automatically varied rather quickly to satisfy demand and/or replace non-productive wind-sun units.

A very good idea, but the supporting grid would have to extend country wide to get power from the north and west where the dams are to the east and south where most of the users are, with automatic load leveling and failure mitigation response. Such a grid would be really fun to implement. Let’s put that in our dream bag.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 2, 2008 2:49:21 PM

The reason the AGW campaign stumbled is because it erroneously thought it could control all forms of information. Old formula. Those days are over. The tree of knowledge is within reach. Arrogance of old formula can only cause backlash and subsequent loss of public confidence. The challenge remains: do the job (sustainability) and tell the truth. Sure it's hard. That's why it's called work.

Glib, meaningless crapola.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 2:55:39 PM

Sulleny at no point does this paper negate or even argue against AGW. I don't think you even read it.

"The reason the AGW campaign stumbled is because it erroneously thought it could control all forms of information."

Sulleny, you've revealed yourself to be a rather looney conspiracist. This is getting kind of silly.

Posted by: marcus | Jun 2, 2008 4:09:10 PM

100 posts wow

synopsis

“We need to reduce GHG”

“Lets deny that we need to reduce GHG”

“Wind power would be a great option”

“%&^* wind. Bush is spending 8 Billion on Nukes”

“Nukes are the worst possible 'off oil' choice on a per dollar basis”

“Lets deny that ...”

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 2, 2008 4:18:19 PM

Marcus & nameless:

The peer reviewed paper shows the IPCC’s estimate of 3 degrees C (avg) for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5 degrees C) to be wrong. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Schwartz's paper suggests that an increase of 0.6C is accurate. But it's not enough for hysteria, or gloom or abandoning beachfront property.

So even when you are shown peer reviewed science that demonstrates IPCC exaggeration you want to declare it invalid. And you deny the credibility of anyone who brings the science to the table. The very reason the AGW campaign has failed - intolerance. You're still clinging to the has-been old formula. That show's over. Now let's get back to the real work of achieving sustainability without the histrionics.

Posted by: sulleny of glibness | Jun 2, 2008 5:22:12 PM

John and the Lovins RMI clone are an examples of those who are not really serious about AGW solutions. They want to reject the best alternatives using reasons that they should know are silly.

“As an added incentive, the new nuclear designs lack containment domes to protect the public from a catastrophic release of radiation.”

All modern commercial reactors have containment buildings.

“What is so appealing about this nuclear religion?”

Being of the pragmatic skepticism faith, I like coal, natural gas, nukes, biomass and hydroelectric because it produces 99.2% of our electricity. The point 0.8% 'renewable energy' share of electricity mix is very interesting but is not worth mentioning in a serious conversations.

I like having electricity and I like how my utility protects the environment. RMI, Greenpeace, NRDC, et al do neither.

Posted by: Kit P | Jun 2, 2008 6:31:48 PM

I like Microsoft because they have 95% market share. Aren't I brilliant?

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 7:19:09 PM

But can it make your toast?

Posted by: TheLastWord | Jun 2, 2008 7:37:18 PM

From the paper Sulleny

The resulting climate sensitivity is 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2); for forcing corresponding to doubled CO2 taken as F2 × = 3.7 W m-2, the corresponding equilibrium increase in global mean surface temperature for doubled CO2, is ∆T2×≈1.1 ± 0.3 K.

While this is still lower than the IPCC estimate the authors conclude:

"The estimated increase in GMST by well mixed greenhouse gases from
preindustrial times to the present, 0.7 ± 0.3 K; the upper end of this range approaches the threshold for "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system," which is considered to be in the range 1 to 2 K [O'Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002; Hansen, 2004].

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 7:39:22 PM

"still clinging to the has-been old formula." Someone trumped sulliny?

Posted by: change | Jun 2, 2008 8:08:07 PM

We should save the Earth ... it's the only planet with chocolate.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 9:13:58 PM

noname:
And what you conveniently left out was the sentence directly following your quote:

"This climate sensitivity is much lower than current estimates, e.g., the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC, 2007], ΔT2× ≈ 3 ± 1.5-1 K."

Also from the paper's conclusion:

"This value is well below current best estimates of this quantity, summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [2007] to be "2 to 4.5 K with a best estimate of about 3 K and ... very unlikely to be less than 1.5
K".

And the phrase "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system," is in quotes in as much as it does not reflect the paper's author.

While you're at it take a look at the long list of statements from good scientists in the Senate EPW Report:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Are all these scientists wrong?

Posted by: sulleny | Jun 2, 2008 9:59:55 PM

@change

… and keep it cool enough so that the chocolate doesn’t melt in your hand.

Posted by: TheLastWord | Jun 2, 2008 10:17:37 PM

Sulleny what you don't seem to understand is that our best estimate of what is going on is determined by the balance of evidence. Evidence that is published in the scientific literature. Picking out a single paper suggesting a lower CO2 sensitivity or a list of people cherry picked by Inhofe is simply not going to do it. Until we see paper after paper in high ranking journals disputing AGW your case is hopeless. Accept it. This is my last reply to your time wasting efforts.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 10:52:30 PM

I like having electricity and I like how my utility protects the environment.

And you love nuclear power and you love to pay any subsidies necessary to protect your religion from the evil facts.

50 billion dollar tax safety net for nuclear industry:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15545418

Up to 24 billion Dollars for only 2 nuclear reactors (1154 MW per reactor). And the consumers are forced to foot the bill in advance.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837

Yucca mountain: The repository project's price tag could total in the range of $77 billion http://www.lvrj.com/news/10257277.html

Between 1974 and 2002 60% of all OECD-energy-research subsidies went into Nuclear. Only 8% went into Solar, Wind, Biomass, Tidal, Wave, Hydro and Geothermal and yet more power and way more energy is produced with renewable and there is still no affordable breeder or working fusion reactor insight.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 11:55:13 PM

There is still a bit of room for debate on just how much CO2 will cause how much warming, but no real debate on it causing warming. My own preference is the study of Antarctic ice showing levels of temperature co-related with levels of CO2. It's a good guess that what happened last time will also happen next time (this time).

There is also a bit of room to debate the amount of warming earth can deal with before calling it a catastrophe, but little room to wiggle on realizing every single increment of global heating causes greater problems. Last year 50% of arctic ice melted. This year we could see the other half break up. I'd say that is cause for a bell ringing, not time to make the problem worse.

In short, the debate is about how soon we need to get off our buts and fix things, not if we need to fix them.

@ chocolate ~> Yes. We should save the chocolate.

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 2, 2008 11:57:09 PM

More electricity is produced worldwide with efficient decentralized power plants than with nuclear power and this despite the fact that nuclear has and still receives enormous subsidies: http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf

6 times more energy is produced with renewable than with nuclear power. http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf

And btw the average living standard in Switzerland is higher than in the US and yet the average American double the amount of energy.

It's cheaper to save fuel than to buy fuel.

Posted by: | Jun 2, 2008 11:57:22 PM

The Bush boondoggle on funding Nuclear projects is a crime. I hope Congress quashes the project. Putting the same money into just about any other energy type (even coal) would be an improvement.

The best choices are
1 ) Negawats. Saving energy is far better than making it. The savings continue year after year with zero additional input.

2 ) Small scale co generators. Using fuel to make electricity, then for heat is a double dip. Re using waste heat is a further savings.

3 ) Wind generating. Wind farms need to be spread out and built on a massive scale so that they are always producing some power. A reserve system that saves some power for peak or emergency situations is also necessary. The return on Wind power is huge as the fuel is as free as the breeze, and manufacturing / installation costs are coming down quickly.

4 ) Natural Gas, Oil, and coal fired plants all produce CO2 and need phased out, even the cleanest ones. One good suggestion is to convert them to Hydrogen, then produce the hydrogen from excess wind power, and let them be 'backup' power generating.

5 ) Nuclear is such a high cost disaster for every watt generated that we should toss these, not invest billions in them. A terrorist attack at a Nuclear plant could make a new Chernobyl altogether too easily. Worse, they promote Nuclear weapons proliferation. Why is the USA building 4 Nukes in China? The only advantage to Nuclear power is that it makes some of Dick Cheney's friends even more filthy rich.

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 3, 2008 12:41:24 AM

@sulleny:
Have you read the conclusion of the paper?
"Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question
must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its
key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it
might have to be said that it remains to be seen."

Might as well want to read: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/

Posted by: randomdude | Jun 3, 2008 12:43:14 AM