I have posted on this a zillion times over here, and most of you are up to speed on this, but I posted this for my Coyote Blog readers and thought it would be good to repost over here.
Take all the psuedo-quasi-scientific stuff you read in the media about global warming. Of all that mess, it turns out there is really only one scientific question that really matters on the topic of man-made global warming: Feedback.
While the climate models are complex, and the actual climate even, err, complexer, we can shortcut the reaction of global temperatures to CO2 to a single figure called climate sensitivity. How many degrees of warming should the world expect for each doubling of CO2 concentrations (the relationship is logarithmic, so that is why sensitivity is based on doublings, rather than absolute increases — an increase of CO2 from 280 to 290 ppm should have a higher impact on temperatures than the increase from, say, 380 to 390 ppm).
The IPCC reached a climate sensitivity to CO2 of about 3C per doubling. More popular (at least in the media) catastrophic forecasts range from 5C on up to about any number you can imagine, way past any range one might consider reasonable.
But here is the key fact — Most folks, including the IPCC, believe the warming sensitivity from CO2 alone (before feedbacks) is around 1C or a bit higher (arch-alarmist Michael Mann did the research the IPCC relied on for this figure). All the rest of the sensitivity between this 1C and 3C or 5C or whatever the forecast is comes from feedbacks (e.g. hotter weather melts ice, which causes less sunlight to be reflected, which warms the world more). Feedbacks, by the way can be negative as well, acting to reduce the warming effect. In fact, most feedbacks in our physical world are negative, but alarmist climate scientists tend to assume very high positive feedbacks.
What this means is that 70-80% or more of the warming in catastrophic warming forecasts comes from feedback, not CO2 acting alone. If it turns out that feedbacks are not wildly positive, or even are negative, then the climate sensitivity is 1C or less, and we likely will see little warming over the next century due to man.
This means that the only really important question in the manmade global warming debate is the sign and magnitude of feedbacks. And how much of this have you seen in the media? About zero? Nearly 100% of what you see in the media is not only so much bullshit (like whether global warming is causing the cold weather this year) but it is also irrelevant. Entirely tangential to the core question. Its all so much magician handwaving trying to hide what is going on, or in this case not going on, with the other hand.
To this end, Dr. Roy Spencer has a nice update. Parts are a bit dense, but the first half explains this feedback question in layman’s terms. The second half shows some attempts to quantify feedback. His message is basically that no one knows even the sign and much less the magnitude of feedback, but the empirical data we are starting to see (which has admitted flaws) points to negative rather than positive feedback, at least in the short term. His analysis looks at the change in radiative heat transfer in and out of the earth as measured by satellites around transient peaks in ocean temperatures (oceans are the world’s temperature flywheel — most of the Earth’s surface heat content is in the oceans).
Read it all, but this is an interesting note:
In fact, NO ONE HAS YET FOUND A WAY WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA TO TEST CLIMATE MODEL SENSITIVITY. This means we have no idea which of the climate models projections are more likely to come true.
This dirty little secret of the climate modeling community is seldom mentioned outside the community. Don’t tell anyone I told you.
This is why climate researchers talk about probable ranges of climate sensitivity. Whatever that means!…there is no statistical probability involved with one-of-a-kind events like global warming!
There is HUGE uncertainty on this issue. And I will continue to contend that this uncertainty is a DIRECT RESULT of researchers not distinguishing between cause and effect when analyzing data.
If you find this topic interesting, I recommend my video and/or powerpoint presentation to you.
Renewable,
As the price of oil goes up, the more competative alternative sources of energy will become. So, if oil crosses a certain threshold, things like the Leaf will start to look good on their own merit. Wouldn’t you think this a good thing?
However, even if this starts to happen, what will cause a recession is if our government continues to feed suboptimal energy sources with tax payer money. The only current viable alternative is nuclear, with large scale plug-in hybrids for automotive transport, and saving petrolium products for air transport and shipment of goods (you aren’t going to get a hybrid to work on a semi-truck). And they will have to be hybrids until battery technology improves. The market simply won’t tolerate the 100 mile range compact car; people will continue to pay for larger vehicles with more or less unlimited range if you consider the relatively tiny amount of time it takes to fill up a gas tank.
Anyway, getting back to the point, this means that if you’re serious about being “carbon-free” you need to stop advocating simple CO2 reduction, and demanding our government make it easier for us to build nuclear power plants. Ultimately our economy will reach a point where current energy sources will simply not allow continued growth (which might not be a bad thing as far as quality of life is concerned so long as population doesn’t continue to explode and technology continues to advance). Whether that’s in 30 years or 200, I don’t know, but it will happen and we need to have a realistic plan. That plan is nucs.
Wally:
That’s great you think that. But it is irrelevent. Just prove what ever they are saying is wrong. Everything else is just mindless distraction.
##########################################################
Wikipedia is based on sources of information.
Quoting lobbyists means you aren’t doing the work of filtering out where they are coming from.
##########################################################
Now you’re attacking my motives. This isn’t just about “conveniences”, this about life or death. Large scail reduction of CO2 emitions will kill people NOW. Especially those in developing or poor nations. Depending on just how much we want to reduce them in developed nations, it could kill people here to, by inflicting greater rates of poverty, hunger and starvation. Thus, it is quite important we truly understand the “harm” being done.
##########################################################
You haven’t shown how cutting down on carbon hurts the poor.
##########################################################
“El Nino does not disqualify it from being AGW influenced.”
Quite right, but you’re again arguing from ignorance. You simply don’t know if the latest El Nino was even in part anthropogenic.
And that ocean acidification thing has been completely debunked. Please, don’t site wikipedia. That is just pathetic for a scientific discussion.
##########################################################
I don’t see you as having the upper hand on knowledge over me. The idea that you consistently use words like stupid and ignorant is getting a little old. It’s time to bring your demeanor up a notch.
We have 150 years of temperature record. The main driver of the temperature increase over the last 150 years is GHG’s. That occurs with all the other variations. There’s no way around it. I have shown that co2 is the thermostat of the earth. The paper has been presented to you and discussed. Over the last 30 years the scientists have eliminated the other possiblities.
Ocean acidity is being measured and studied. The scientists are identifying some of the species that will be affected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Calcification
CalcificationChanges in ocean chemistry can have extensive direct and indirect effects on organisms and their habitats. One of the most important repercussions of increasing ocean acidity relates to the production of shells and plates out of calcium carbonate (CaCO3).[14] This process is called calcification and is important to the biology and survival of a wide range of marine organisms. Calcification involves the precipitation of dissolved ions into solid CaCO3 structures, such as coccoliths.
Research has already found that corals,[31][32][33] coccolithophore algae,[34][35][36][37] coralline algae,[38] foraminifera,[39] shellfish[40] and pteropods[2][41] experience reduced calcification or enhanced dissolution when exposed to elevated CO2.
##########################################################
With the destruction of shells of different ocean life, there will be some surprising twists and turns.
Wally:
Why do you favor Nukes?
Nuclear can’t survive without subsidies. Should this be a completely market based solution with no government support?
Renewable guy:
I checked the reference you gave me. It touts wind, solar, tidal, etc. Wind and solar are intermittent and are uneconomical without subsidies, even without paying for dedicated standby. I got interested in tidal power, as it is not intermittent, and did some studies of my own. Because of the low hydrostatic head involved, and the need for a shallow off-shore area in which to construct tidal basins, it is very limited in it’s application. Huge basins must be constructed which are vulnerable to storms. Everything mentioned in the referenced article is old stuff that has been shown to be very limited or unworkable. You have shown me nothing new.
The argument that disaster is right around the corner and we must mindlessly do something that is economically suicidal is not a rational argument. Further, if the Indians and Chinese do not some along, it is for nothing.
Repeating what I said before, until there is a viable (not just Al Gore’s rant) alternative energy scheme, and everyone is on board, pushing the AGW thing is nonsense, even if it is true (which is in doubt).
Renewable,
“Wikipedia is based on sources of information.”
Wikipedia is made up of what ever people write into it. It is open source and subject to bias.
“Quoting lobbyists means you aren’t doing the work of filtering out where they are coming from.”
The only filter that matters is taking information that is reasonable supported by facts. Lobbyists, researchers, Hitler, who cares, give me the data and a logical explaination. I don’t care who’s mouth it comes out of, and neither should anyone else. The fact that you’re defending this only makes you look bias yourself.
“You haven’t shown how cutting down on carbon hurts the poor.”
If “Carbon” sources of energy are made more expensive, limited, or replaced with other more expensive sources of energy, it will hurt everyone. The thing is though, us well-of-folk of the modernized world could probably get buy just fine with less. However, those already on the cusp of poverity or in poverty already can not afford a still lower quality of life. Do a quick google search, or google scholar search on the subject, you’ll find this to be a quite common position supported by lobbyists, economists and random individuals a like.
“I don’t see you as having the upper hand on knowledge over me. The idea that you consistently use words like stupid and ignorant is getting a little old. It’s time to bring your demeanor up a notch.”
Right, the guy that quotes wikipedia thinks he’s got the upper hand on knowledge… And I’ll bring my demeanor up a notch as soon as you desirve it. Until then, I will continue to use words like “stupid” or “ignorant” as applicable.
“The main driver of the temperature increase over the last 150 years is GHG’s.”
See, this is you making stupid, ignorant comments again. You can’t prove such a statement. You can’t even reasonable support it, nor have you even tried.
Also, show me the market based study that a new nuclear plant would opperate at a lose. I’d love to see it. Because I’ll I see is request for permits to build nuclear plants being held up. One little tid-bit from America.gov:
“With multiple orders for nuclear reactors, however, capital costs can be brought down to $1,100-$1,200 per kW, Kerekes said. By comparison, capital costs for coal-fired plants are around $1,300 per kW and those of gas-fired plants around $600 per kW, according to industries’ sources.”
Or from your favorite, wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Levelized_energy_cost.jpg
Nuclear beats everything but coal and natural gas. Things like solar and wind are not even close.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Physical-Chemistry-of-Carbon-Dioxide-Absorption.html
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Posted on 23 December 2010 by hfranzen
Guest post by Hugo Franzen
[i] Stull,Wyatt, and Plass, Applied Optics, V.3,No.2, p.250 (1964)
[ii] Burch, Gryvnak, and Williams, Applied Optics, V.9, p750 (1962)
##########################################################
AGW is a pretty old science since the 1800’s. It is actually so well known that you will not be able to disprove it. The arguments for what is not causing AGW are very well known.
Wally:
Right, the guy that quotes wikipedia thinks he’s got the upper hand on knowledge… And I’ll bring my demeanor up a notch as soon as you desirve it. Until then, I will continue to use words like “stupid” or “ignorant” as applicable.
##########################################################
You have crossed the line Wally!
Wally says: ‘Right, so we can’t prove that something is NOT a pollutant. I also can’t prove there is not a God. Lets get a little more specific shall we.’
We can’t prove that something is not a pollutant no. The dictionary definition is vague enough to allow that. I agree that a more specific term would be useful but that doesn’t change the fact that Renewable used the word in a permissible way.
Yes, this also assumes that harm is going to arise. And if this is the only source of our disagreement, and not the fact that it is also naturally occurring like you said earlier, then fine. I Agree to be done with it.
But re. harm by ocean acidification. Could you show us where the phenomena has been debunked?
Renewable,
I’m sorry your so sensitive, but if your arguments are stupid or ignorant I will say so. Especially if you repeat them mindlessly, and copy-pasting garbage from wiki as others point out flaws. So, if you want a different treatment, stop moving the goals posts, making arguments from ignorance (and please look up what that means, it appears you’re ignorant of this), or making simplistic reductions.
Ted Rado:
Repeating what I said before, until there is a viable (not just Al Gore’s rant) alternative energy scheme, and everyone is on board, pushing the AGW thing is nonsense, even if it is true (which is in doubt).
###########################################################
Tieing this in with the theme of the blog, because the feedbacks are dominantly positive from GHG’s
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature_prt.htm
and oil and coal add co2 to the atmosphere, humans are the driver of AGW.
Below is an article from an Engineer in Norway who works on integrating wind into the utility system.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7404?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theoildrum+%28The+Oil+Drum%29
Shills,
“I agree that a more specific term would be useful but that doesn’t change the fact that Renewable used the word in a permissible way.”
Sure, it’s “permissible” but without a more specific clarification it was meaningless regarding the debate, thanks to the vagueness of the definition. Which is why it became an issue, but then we went off on the tangent of what a pollutant is in general.
“And if this is the only source of our disagreement, and not the fact that it is also naturally occurring like you said earlier, then fine.”
This wasn’t my only reason, thanks for the reductionism though….
“But re. harm by ocean acidification. Could you show us where the phenomena has been debunked?”
Oh boy, where to start. First, historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations and ocean pH have no correlation (I’ll have to let you pull that data and do it yourself). Second, acidification rates in the ocean are anything but unprecedented, and we’ve in fact seen much steeper changes within the last few hundred years (Lie et al., 2009; Pelejero 2005). Also coal extension and calcification are not correlated with pH nor Aragonite saturation. Plus, ocean pH appears to me heavily correlated with Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (Pelejero, 2005).
This is another case of people looking at a short term trend, extending it, and coming up with reasons why it will be bad, when there is little proof that this short term trend will even continue, and when their reasoning is flawed.
Back to ocean acidification:
With a doubling of co2 in the earth’s atmosphere from 280 ppm to 560 ppm climate scientists have worked out the earth will increase in temperature between 2oC to 4.5oC agreeing on 3oC as an average. Of the 31 billion tons of co2 we put in the air, 40% is absorbed by the ocean. Which is about 12 billion tons per year. Below is a video of a professor who studies the ocean living systems.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/NCSE.html
Whoops, that should be “coral” there towards the end not “coal”.
“Also coral extension and calcification are not correlated with pH nor Aragonite saturation. Plus, ocean pH appears to me heavily correlated with Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (Pelejero, 2005).”
Ocean Acidification:
http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/03S2_KCaldeira_OceanPh.pdf
Based on the record9 of atmospheric CO2 over the past 300 myr and our
geochemical model7,8, we conclude that there is no evidence that ocean pH was more
than 0.6 units lower than today. Our GCM results indicate that continued fossil-fuel
burning with atmospheric CO2 release could lead to pH decreases of ~0.7 units. Thus, we
conclude that unabated CO2 emissions over the next several hundred years may produce
changes in ocean pH greater in magnitude than any experienced in the past 300 myr, with
the possible exception of rare catastrophic events in Earth history7,11.
##########################################################
From Ken Caldeira’s paper, it is possible to exceed ocean acidity of the last 300 million years with continued fossil fuel use.
Funny thing, I found this on http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/EDIT.php
Its a denier’s haven for information an interpretation into science denial.
Right, based on their model. How much confidence do you have in their model predicting something that would historically unprecedented happening over the next 300 years? And does it even matter? In 300 years, do you think we’ll still actually be using gasoline to get around? Coal to light our houses? Seems likely that CO2 emissions will go up for the foreseeable future, but how long is that? 30 years, 50 maybe? If this is how far you want to stretch it, I don’t see urgency.
And then their is the question of just how much it will matter if we go down .1 pH below historic lows excluding rare events???
4.Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html
##########################################################
Funny thing about the Pelejero paper. Its hidden behind a pay wall so I can’t find much information on what it really says. But if you were to read co2 science, he uses it to prove that ocean acidification is just bunk.
So here is a sight that seeks to distort science vs skeptical science that gives you the straight dope. A source with low integrity has to be looked at several times to see where they are pulling the wool over your eyes.
So Wally, why can’t you show us where your information came from? You aren’t able to be honest with everyone here.
Wally:
Right, based on their model. How much confidence do you have in their model predicting something that would historically unprecedented happening over the next 300 years? And does it even matter? In 300 years, do you think we’ll still actually be using gasoline to get around? Coal to light our houses? Seems likely that CO2 emissions will go up for the foreseeable future, but how long is that? 30 years, 50 maybe? If this is how far you want to stretch it, I don’t see urgency.
And then their is the question of just how much it will matter if we go down .1 pH below historic lows excluding rare events???
##########################################################
I posted a video from a prominent scientist on the effect of a changing warming climate on the ocean systems
Actually Renewable Guy, if you studied the economics a bit farther you’d notice that Nuclear power is very economically viable. The main impediment is arbitrary and inflicted by government, in the form of incredibly onerous regulations designed not to secure safety but to address fears not supported by any track record of loses. If coal mining was held to the same standard we’d be paying ten times the current market price for coal. Fortunately social insanity doesn’t extend to folks absolutely beggaring themselves for no good reason. The main obstacles are excessive and unreasonable regulation and reporting requirements, imposed for largely irrational reasons. In the absence of these and ridiculous and frivolous litigation fostered by a torts system, left to the market, Nuclear power competes very favorably with oil and gas, and in the area of externalities fares much better…. But then a lot of ‘environmentalists’ really don’t care at all about the environment, so such arguments don’t always matter anyway, at least to the more ideologically driven of such pretend ‘progressives’.
Wally says: ‘Sure, it’s “permissible” but without a more specific clarification it was meaningless regarding the debate, thanks to the vagueness of the definition.’
Meaningless? How so?
Wally says: ‘This wasn’t my only reason, thanks for the reductionism though….’
Well what other reasons be they? If you are referring to the subjectivity of the word then I thought we had that sorted. Something to do with your meaning for ‘LIFE’ perhaps?
Wally says: ‘Oh boy, where to start.’
Have you checked out any meta-studies on it?
Shills,
“Meaningless? How so?”
Seriously? Didn’t we just go over this.
“Well what other reasons be they?”
Uh, the lack of being able to objectively prove what “harm” is. We went over this as well. Do you have amnesia?
“Something to do with your meaning for ‘LIFE’ perhaps?”
Nice, MY meaning….I think you mean everyone other than you… LIFE is a much larger concept that just any one single oganism or species…look it up…
“Have you checked out any meta-studies on it?”
I’ve looked at many things, but I’d be happy to look at something you specificly reference.
Though I must say, you sound pretty defeated here Shills. You’re acting far more desperate than usual.
Renewable,
“I posted a video from a prominent scientist on the effect of a changing warming climate on the ocean systems”
Gosh, a video by a scientist…as a scientist, I’m wholely underwelmed. This is just one assumption piled on top of another assumption.
Renewable,
First, why can’t you reply to a single post with a single post?
“So here is a sight that seeks to distort science vs skeptical science that gives you the straight dope. A source with low integrity has to be looked at several times to see where they are pulling the wool over your eyes.”
So, you’re attacking my argument using a paper published in SCIENCE, the absolute top of tier of journals, because some site you find distrustful used it in their argument? On what planet did you learn logic and reason?
“So Wally, why can’t you show us where your information came from? You aren’t able to be honest with everyone here.”
What the hell are you talking about? I gave you the lit. reference. My information comes from THOSE sources. If you don’t have access to peer reviewed journals, that’s YOUR problem.
Nice post ADiff,
I’d love to see some sort of statistic like deaths per kwh. I think maybe then people would understand the safety and attractiveness of nuclear a little better than they currently do…
I doubt we’ll get through to Renewable however. His model seems to be: Make simplistic and ignorant argument, have others rebuke it, ignore valid criticisms, make new simplistic and ignorant argument. A true believer.
ADiff:
Actually Renewable Guy, if you studied the economics a bit farther you’d notice that Nuclear power is very economically viable.
##########################################################
Wall street will not invest without the help of governement.
And why does the Republican party want to give 100 billion dollars to nuclear if they don’t need it.
So Wally, why can’t you show us where your information came from? You aren’t able to be honest with everyone here.”
What the hell are you talking about? I gave you the lit. reference. My information comes from THOSE sources. If you don’t have access to peer reviewed journals, that’s YOUR problem.
##########################################################
No Wally, your information came off of CO2 science. You have misquoted the paper in its origonal meaning. You should of quoted CO2 science that misquoted the science for you.
Wally:
I doubt we’ll get through to Renewable however. His model seems to be: Make simplistic and ignorant argument, have others rebuke it, ignore valid criticisms, make new simplistic and ignorant argument. A true believer.
##########################################################
Since you are right and I am wrong in your view, show us the real deal. Change the world Wally and let the scientists of the world know just how wrong they are.
Wally:
Renewable,
“I posted a video from a prominent scientist on the effect of a changing warming climate on the ocean systems”
Gosh, a video by a scientist…as a scientist, I’m wholely underwelmed. This is just one assumption piled on top of another assumption.
##########################################################
Any discussion Wally. This guy is a renowned world authority. Would you care to even say how stupid he is?
left to the market, Nuclear power competes very favorably with oil and gas, and in the area of externalities fares much better
##########################################################
The market driven way puts safety at the bottom of the pile. The profit driven way of life needs a little help to make sure society is protected from things like oil spills and nuclear accidents.
Nuclear does have a place in counteracting the effect of positive feedbacks from co2 and other GHG’s.
Adif:
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/wallstreet.pdf
At the behest of the nuclear industry, the energy bill now before Congress
shifts financial risk from Wall Street to taxpayers.
The legislation authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) to “guarantee up to 100 percent of
any loan or debt obligation” for energy projects, as long as the loan is no more than 80 percent
of the total cost of the project.2 Two years earlier the Congress authorized the DOE to provide
loan guarantees for energy projects in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but set a limit of 80%.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry’s lobbying arm, some 17
companies and consortia are currently pursuing licenses for 31 new reactors, which would
require more than $100 billion in loans.
##########################################################
So do think the taxpayer should pay the burden of Nuclear Power’s risky investment?
This is from a doubter typer website, but I believe the information is accurate.
Renewable,
“Wall street will not invest without the help of governement.”
Source? And you don’t think there are other investors?
“And why does the Republican party want to give 100 billion dollars to nuclear if they don’t need it.”
As if the government giving money to something ever means it is needed….
“No Wally, your information came off of CO2 science.”
So I guess a blog used the same sources I found, that doesn’t mean I used the blog. This issue is immaterial. Do you think I don’t have access to journals behind paywalls or something? I work at a university jack-ass…
“You have misquoted the paper in its origonal meaning.”
If I did, you haven’t explained how. Its pretty easy to just blindly claim something like this. And I know I did not. I mearly stated the data shown. And if you can’t get the original papers how do you even know?
I think you’re being dishonest here.
“This guy is a renowned world authority. Would you care to even say how stupid he is?”
I don’t care WHO he is. Its a video. If he has something important to share with us all, I’m sure he wrote a few peer reviewed journals about it…
“The market driven way puts safety at the bottom of the pile.”
This is a completely ignorant statement. The Free Market is perfectly well motivated to keep workers and the public safe through the tort system.
“The profit driven way of life needs a little help to make sure society is protected from things like oil spills and nuclear accidents.”
You mean like being liable for damages as decided on by a court…couldn’t be…
“So do think the taxpayer should pay the burden of Nuclear Power’s risky investment?”
Nucs are hardly a risky investment. And no, the public does not need to pay for them, nor back the loans. If the free market won’t do it on its own, so be it, but I don’t see a damn thing supporting that idea. From the info about, they would need about 3 Billion per reactor. If we basically clone the Palo Verde Nuclear plant in AZ, and the next generation of technology could surely do better (Palo Verde is now 22 years old), that means they could supply power at around a cost of 2.8 cents/Kwh (including assumptions on investment cost spread over the life of the plant). Market costs of power are anywhere from around 6 cents/Kwh to 15 cents Kwh, depending on geographic region. So, it seems pretty clear nuclear power is a profit maker to me…
Nuclear Power is Uneconomical:
Since its beginning, nuclear power has cost this country over $492,000,000,000 — nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined. In return for this investment, we have an energy source that, until the mid-1980’s, gave us less energy in this country than did the burning of firewood! In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption. In Illinois these percentages are much greater due to Commonwealth Edison’s over-reliance on nuclear power.
Since 1950, nuclear power has received over $97,000,000,000 in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, artificially low limits on liability in case of nuclear accidents, and fuel fabrication write-offs. No other industry has enjoyed such privilege.
According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison’s customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.
Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the “decommissioning” (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning — from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!
##########################################################
Nuclear has a long history of cost overruns and very expensive cleanup after they are done. You have the art of being dismissive down pat. 97 billion is no small chunk of change.
To get to a carbon free society, nuclear probably will get a place in it. It is quite short sighted to dismiss the serious side of nuclear problems.
The AGW proponents’ early argument was based mainly on the “hockey stick” and the fact that ice core data showed temperature and CO2 tracking together. The hockey stick has been thoroughly discredited and the temperature went up 800 years ahead of the CO2, thus eliminating the ice core argument. The main thing left to the AGW folks is their computer models, which have been way off in their predictions. Despite this, we are urged to destroy the modern industrial economy, and we are horrible people who want to ruin the earth if we do not. Shame on those of us who want rational scientific and engineering study in lieu of zealotry and hysteria.
Before I retired, I spent many years modelling chemical processes and plants. I could write a program proving that all men will become mothers next week. GI GO. A computer model proves nothing until it has been thoroughly validated. We would never have considered making decisions based on a computer model that was not clearly demonstrated to be correct. That only involved millions of dollars. We are now asked to screw up the whole world based on models that don’t work. What nonsense.
Rational study and discussion of climate phenomena is to be encouraged. Mindless zealotry (on either side) certainly does not help this process.
Renewable guy:
The French produce 80% of their electricity via nuclear energy. Many other countries are following their lead. Perhaps you shoud explain to the French that they are all screwed up, and that our AGW people could show them the truth.
Ted Rado:
The AGW proponents’ early argument was based mainly on the “hockey stick” and the fact that ice core data showed temperature and CO2 tracking together. The hockey stick has been thoroughly discredited and the temperature went up 800 years ahead of the CO2, thus eliminating the ice core argument. The main thing left to the AGW folks is their computer models, which have been way off in their predictions. Despite this, we are urged to destroy the modern industrial economy, and we are horrible people who want to ruin the earth if we do not. Shame on those of us who want rational scientific and engineering study in lieu of zealotry and hysteria.
##########################################################
CO2 lags the orbital forcing because the orbital forcing came first. As the earth warms gradually on a geologic time scale (800 years) CO2 solubility in the oceans and land decreases gassing co2 into the atmosphere. CO2 becomes a feedback to the orbital forcing. As the orbital forcing heads towards cooling the solubility of the ocean and land increase abosorbing the co2 back into the earth.
Today the co2 has been emitted as waste from burning carbon based fuels. The ocean and land have a limited speed of absorbing co2. The remaining co2 is residing in our atmosphere now. CO2 does the same thing now that it did during the whole time on earth. Nothing has changed.
##########################################################
We are now asked to screw up the whole world based on models that don’t work. What nonsense.
#########################################################
Scientists are zealots for the truth of what they are studying. Including yourself while you were an engineer. You would want your program to reflect to reflect reality as best you can, and keep track of the uncertainties in your system. I would think that the climate computer modelers are just as diligent if not more so than you were.
##########################################################
There is more than one hockey stick, there is a whole league.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-or-hockey-league.html
Ted Rado:
Renewable guy:
The French produce 80% of their electricity via nuclear energy. Many other countries are following their lead. Perhaps you shoud explain to the French that they are all screwed up, and that our AGW people could show them the truth.
##########################################################
I suppose anyone idealize any industry they want. The French have had their problems with nuclear power also. They also had a great deal of gov subsidy to do it.
I live in Norther Illinois where we are 60% nuclear power. I’ll take it over coal.
I’m for being realistic about the problems.
From what I can see I’m pretty certain Renewable Guy has a major monitery interest in alternative energy, ie wind/solar/etc. He is either a manufacture of such or other wise dependent on that rather false industry. Probably was expecting to make a killing getting into it and getting rich rich rich. Instead AGW which was driving it is falling apart and people and nations are finding out that wind/solar etc don’t actually do very well as main core power generation systems.
Instead such systems are and will essentially remain despite efforts to the contrary a boutique power appropriate for small scale specialized applications. There is nothing wrong with wind/solar/etc if you use them where they are a good fit, but they will never replace other power generation methods due to built in flaws that they have.
Without AGW to drive an artificial demand for them they will always remain an interesting and useful sideline but nothing more. They particularly will lose the government subsidies that make them attractive at this time for people to even consider.
Again I’m pretty certain from his behavior so far Renewable Guy is just an alternative energy industry person pushing for his special interest.
TomT:
Again I’m pretty certain from his behavior so far Renewable Guy is just an alternative energy industry person pushing for his special interest.
##########################################################
I play the AGW game because I enjoy the discussion and its an ever huge place to learn new things. My main living isn’t from R.E. I am one of the founding members of IREA to promote RE on a home level.
##########################################################
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf
The Atlantic ocean in the northeast is one of the ideal places for great energy generation
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf
This one is a study at stanford to Renew the world.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7404?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theoildrum+%28The+Oil+Drum%29
This guy is the professional helped to integrate wind into Norway Danish system. It can be done. Your thinking is still stuck in the 1990’s
Wally says:’Though I must say, you sound pretty defeated here Shills. You’re acting far more desperate than usual.’
Hmm. I don’t know Wally. Maybe I sound that way, but let’s look at the argument itself:
Lets do a quick recap: You and another thought the use of the word was incorrect. You said: ‘However, “pollutant” generally means that this chemical makes something “harmful”. Considering that CO2 is naturally occuring, and can not be considered dangerous without some gross misrepresentation of the facts and specific definition of “danger”….then no, its not a pollutant.’
The point about being naturally occurring, you seem to take that back because it is irrelevant. Thanks. Also back then you seemed to be thinking that ‘harm’ and ‘danger’ could be derived from facts, otherwise there would be no facts to or definitions to misrepresent.
You now see ‘harm’ as too hard to identify, and so by extension the word ‘pollution’ becomes meaningless. Well that change of heart is fine, but I would agree with your former self that ‘harm’ at least in this context is identifiable. But as you stand now, the word is meaningless and so there is no point trying to identify instances of harm.
So the word you once thought was incorrect, you now see as permissible, if meaningless. Some how I have come across as defeated-sounding to you, but our argument can’t be the reason, can it?
Re, ocean acid. Here are some meta-analyses:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDV-4XSJVTB-5&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F20%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9d5bda57ed86d4a8eb9560a34c08edde&searchtype=a
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDV-50CV82W-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F20%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2d6454aa248c5fe321fd52cdee64dce4&searchtype=a
It just doesn’t look to me like the idea of ocean acid. is debunked as you claim. Controversy may exist but no debunking. No?
Tom T:
You may well be right on Renewable Guy. There is a whole industry out there suckling on government research grants and subsidies for commercial scale projects. Universities brag about how much grant money they are getting. Many years ago, I was asked to attend a meeting on coal drying in Wyoming. The guy who called the meeting said that we all knew that upgrading low-btu coal via drying was uneconomical, but the US government was passing out hundreds of millions to study it, so lets all get a piece of the action. I am sure this was not an isolated case.
Any engineer can quickly figure out that all the “alternative energy” schemes being touted are very uneconomical, use more energy than they produce, or are a fiasco for any number of other reasons. Yet USG money flows and research organizations proudly flail away. The whole lot, the Dept. of Energy in particular, should have their degrees revoked and be fired or put in jail for fraud.
Ethanol is a great example. In a couple of hours, one can easily demonstrate that all the corn grown in the US will produce about 1.2 mbbl gross or .25 mbbl per day net of gasoline, at high cost. In the meantime, even with the much lower current production, food prices soar and poor countries starve. Yet all the congressmen of both parties from the farm states vote for subsidies. They are either idiots, crooks, or both. I would have been fired in a minute if I had done this kind of work back in my chem. eng. working years.
Everyone asking for a research grant should be asked to present a study showing that, if their scheme is proven to work, it is viable physically and economically. This is done routinely in industry with R&D proposals.
Finally, what in the world is the USG doing picking research projects and winners and losers. Except for military R&D, let business and industry determine priorities. They surely have done a good job in the past. Does anyone want to argue that the USG can run anything better?
Shills,
That’s a funny reconstruction of the “facts.” Naturally occurring, and in what concentration ranges it occurs, is not an irrelevant concept. It is needed to gain a perspective of what kinds of tolerances are likely in place before “harm” could exist. Which is what comes up when you start mentioning a 1% concentration before we feel drowsy. See, we evolved to tolerate CO2 in “normal” ranges, just like everything else. You can’t begin to understand “harm” until you understand what kinds of tolerances LIFE might have. So, while you could say uranium was naturally occurring, its present in such low concentrations naturally to be completely absent from most of the planet. Yet, when we enrich it for a nuclear weapon, or explode one, you find many, many times the naturally occurring concentration (pretty easy when the number is realistically zero). So, in that kind of situation, “naturally occurring” gives you perspective with which to operate from. This shouldn’t be a difficult concept. We evolved in certain conditions, those that have been present for the last several hundred million years, at least, if not a few billion. You start going outside those realms, its a good chance those new conditions will act as selection event.
“Also back then you seemed to be thinking that ‘harm’ and ‘danger’ could be derived from facts, otherwise there would be no facts to or definitions to misrepresent. You now see ‘harm’ as too hard to identify, and so by extension the word ‘pollution’ becomes meaningless.”
This is not my position and never was. While ‘harm’ is subjective, and I never claimed other wise, it is possible for us to define ‘harm’ as it pertains to this discussion, and define it objectively. We do this all the time with English language as words take on different, highly specific meanings inside certain fields, or even just in a given discussion (say “Cowboys” to a poker player, a football fan, or anyone from pre-1900 and see what kinds of responses you get). Generally, we call this jargon. So, if you want to label something a pollutant, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION, you have come up with some objective criteria and prove that they will occur (the part where it could be derived from “facts”). This has been my point through out this entire conversation. I guess I didn’t spell it out completely, I must of mistakenly figured you be capable of understanding.
So, even if you could call the usage original usage of “pollutant” by renewable proper, without further elaboration of what he meant his statement was completely meaningless. Thus, this entire conversation.
And my university doesn’t have access to either of that journal (which weird, because this is the first time this has ever happened, and anything science direct usually works fine), any other place I can find them. I’d sure like to read past the abstract.
And a few posts on the topic
The first is a good examination of flawed economic computer models being missaplied and comparing that to climate models.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/07/garbage-in-money-out.html
Next we have a fairly detailed discussion of why the feedback for CO2 isn’t likely what is claimed.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/03/is-it-wrong-to-apply-a-simple-amplifier-gain-mental-model-to-climate.html
Another good answer to why CO2 isn’t the runaway driver that is claimed by AGW.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/04/ducking-the-point.html
This on ends with the following quote by our host.
“The argument is not that the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 doesn’t exist. The argument is that the climate models built on the rickety foundation of substantial positive feedbacks are overestimating future warming by a factor of 3 or more. The difference matters substantially to public policy. Based on neutral to negative feedback, warming over the next century will be 1-1.5C. According to Joe Romm, it will be as much as 8C (15F). There is a pretty big difference in the magnitude of the effort justified by one degree vs. eight.”
And last an analysis of economic models that have failed badly and comparing them to climate models again.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/10/science-or-alchemy.html
I’m a computer programmer so I know the things that can go wrong with computers and I have a solid understanding of modeling. This is one of the big reasons I don’t trust computer modeling to be a reliable source of proof for AGW. It might give you something to ponder but you must demonstrate your proof with something other than a computer model. The climate is far to complex to use a simple computer model on. None of the known computer models has a even a fraction of the needed variables being input into them to give reliable long term future forcasts.
Look predicting the weather just a few weeks out using computer models decreases in reliability the further out you go beyond a week they start going off and beyond 2 well you might as well be throwing darts at a dart board. They can be helpful and save a lot of time but they can’t reliably replace a trained weatherman who has experience with predicting short term weather. And you are asking people to trust computers models to be predicting the climate at a longer range than a couple of months?
Ted Rado:
Renewable Energy has a lower ROEI (return on energy investment). Fossil fuels have a higher ROEI so far. I know the tar sands in Canada aren’t much higher than renewable energy in ROEI. With peak oil on us now, the time to invest in the next way to get our energy is now. Otherwise we are going to be stuck with high priced oil until we can invest out of it.
Renewable,
You can’t invest your way out of a crappy investment…
Wally says: ‘Naturally occurring, and in what concentration ranges it occurs, is not an irrelevant concept. It is needed to gain a perspective of what kinds of tolerances are likely in place before “harm” could exist.’
I mean it is irrelevant to the definition of ‘pollutant’, which is the context in which you used ‘naturally occurring’ at the start:
You said: ‘However, “pollutant” generally means that this chemical makes something “harmful”. Considering that CO2 is naturally occuring, and can not be considered dangerous without some gross misrepresentation of the facts and specific definition of “danger”….then no, its not a pollutant.’
Your quote reads (as does Adam’s) as if the ‘naturally occurring’ part needs consideration in determining if it is a pollutant or not by definition. You might be right that it is helpful to know if something is naturally occurring when analysing harm, but your quote sets out the ‘naturally occurring’ part as if it is a criteria on its own rather than merely a tool for helping ID harm.
Wally says: ‘So, even if you could call the usage original usage of “pollutant” by renewable proper, without further elaboration of what he meant his statement was completely meaningless. Thus, this entire conversation.’
Given the context of this wider discussion and the motivations behind slowing AGW, the meaning within his statement is pretty clear–the predicted harm to human civ., biodiversity loss, and all that other stuff we are so familiar with and why we get called alarmists. I have never meant to suggest that because it could be harmful to something out there anywhere, in some way, then it can be called a pollution.
The only disagreement (it appears) we have re. ‘harm’ is the truth behind said (quite clearly) harms, not what constitutes harm.
Wally says: ‘And my university doesn’t have access to either of that journal…’
Well just by looking at the abstracts, are you still convinced the whole issue is debunked?
Renewable Guy
Renewable Energy has a lower ROEI (return on energy investment). Fossil fuels have a higher ROEI so far. I know the tar sands in Canada aren’t much higher than renewable energy in ROEI. With peak oil on us now, the time to invest in the next way to get our energy is now. Otherwise we are going to be stuck with high priced oil until we can invest out of it.
———————————————————–
That sounds like a sales pitch for “Renewable Energy”. And the return on investment is only lower because the government massively subsidies “Renewable Energy”. If it didn’t have these subsides it wouldn’t be remotely cost effective.
And Peak Oil? Really? Pull my other foot.
Renewable Guy:
Investing in alternative energy is fine, provided it has been determined via paper studies that if the technology works, it is physically feasible, and is economically viable. None of the schemes proposed to date pass the test. The ROI on renewables is not lower, it is negative. Because we are concerned about running out of fossil fuels in the future should not be a reason to plunge off after schemes that can be shown to be unworkable with inexpensive paper studies. Let’s make our mistakes on paper rather than in multibillion dollar government subsidized programs. If paper studies whow that the idea, if it works, is feasible, then and only then spend big bucks. No such studies seem to be made. We just charge off and spend money.
Another point to consider: If we pay a researcher to study nonsense, he is not working on something that has potential. We thus lose two ways, research time as well as money.
Solar is increasing ramping up at about 30% a year. Tell these people they are all wrong. NASA runs their satellites with solar. The space station runs with solar. Do you think NASA doesn’t study this ahead of time. I have a BSEET. YOu have got to do a better job of making your arguments.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/02/solar-pv-becoming-cheaper-than-gas-in-california
The ROI is positive. You have made a lot of statements without doing your homework.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_photovoltaic_energy
EROI = (cumulative electricity generated) / (cumulative primary energy required)
This article reviews 51 different PV systems from thirteen distinct analyses, ranging in publication date from 1995 to 2010. A significant number of the studies we analyzed are based on conceptual models of PV systems due to the lack of readily available data from of operational systems. This survey shows average EROI for all studies (operational and conceptual) of 6.56 (n=60 std. dev=4.69).
Back to feedback, my favorite topic. WIth co2 the thermometer of the earth, we are turning up the heat. Positive feedbacks dominate in our scenario at this point.
If you have read the some of my previous posts, the feedbacks have been determined from paleoclimatic data that from a doubling of co2 there is about a 3oC rise in temperature. Its more than just computer modeling. All avenues of information come to an agreement in an independent way that show humans are driving the present climate warmer