Resisting Climate Hysteria

[drsmith]

As a species we should be aiming to maintain biodiversity and considering engineering solutions as part of this.

 

[explod]

Who said I don't listen? And how does a layman distinguish between the correct and incorrect science? I'm all ears.



That may be the case. I doubt it will rival the asteroid that struck Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula some 65 million years ago. But hey, who really knows? I certainly don't and I'm not going to put my life on hold in anticipation of what may or may not occur.

As they say, life goes on with or without you.

That and the other four previous extinction events are documented.

Anyone really serious about the debate needs to do the legwork and read all of material available. Too much for me, can only go by gut as a lad who grew up on a farm 60 years ago. It is very different today from this simple perspective. But the bit I have read makes me concerned for the future on my Grandkids and regardless of what some unbelievers say, the risk is just too great and we need to stop everthing we think may be causing it now.

 

[So_Cynical]

Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing, NASA Study Finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329132405.htm

Oops the models got that one wrong..

And if we read the content we find

For now, however, there are no signs of a slowdown in the circulation. "The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Willis. "The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling."

If or when the overturning circulation slows, the results are unlikely to be dramatic. "No one is predicting another ice age as a result of changes in the Atlantic overturning," said Willis. "Even if the overturning was the Godzilla of climate 12,000 years ago, the climate was much colder then. Models of today's warmer conditions suggest that a slowdown would have a much smaller impact now.

One of the theories suggests that the conveyor wont slow as such, but shift well to the south...if this theory comes to fruition its expected to be a sudden event that will play out over only a decade or so.

 

[So_Cynical]

As someone who follows the energy industry pretty closely, I'll simply observe that (1) the probability of an ETS or similar direct action to limit CO2 emissions seems to have essentially collapsed recently - it's not dead but it's damn close

While i don't doubt your energy watching credentials or detailed understanding of the current and historic industry, i think its fair to say you haven't been watching the CC debate and industry with the same zeal or attention.

Because if you had been paying attention, there would be no way known that you could even suggest that the inevitable will not happen...the IPCC isn't going to just go away, the science cant be ignored and the political imperative cant be denied.

IPCC First Assessment Report: 1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report

Calendar of WGII meetings for AR5 http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/

This has been going on since the late 80's, Gore is a sideshow and totally irrelevant, its laughable how some posters here seem to think he actually has something to do with this.

 

[Smurf1976]

1. Go for a decent walk in the bush.

2. Think about the whole coal / oil / gas / nuclear / hydro / wood / wind / solar debate while you're walking.

I've been there, done that one countless times now and always come up with much the same conclusion...

Coal, oil and gas are necessary in the medium term but the less we use of them, the better. Coal has an advantage of not being associated with war but has a disadvantage of higher CO2 emissions.

Nuclear based on uranium is the height of arrogance, like the teenage driver believing "it won't happen to me" as they speed past at 200 km/h. Sooner or later, there will be an accident - the only question is when and with what consequences.

Thorium reactors are an unknown. Theoretically a safe and viable alternative that sure ought to beat coal, uraniuim etc. But unproven in actual usage for commercial energy production. Let's build a medium scale one (100 MW) here in Australia and see how it goes in practical operation.

That leaves wind, solar, hydr, wood and geothermal as the best of a bad bunch but with one very clear advantage. Even their strongest opponents readily acknowledge that the damage caused is largely or completely reversible in a matter of decades or centuries at most, a very different situation to that applying with fossil fuels or nuclear with their 20,000+ year legacies. There are some locations that ought to be off limits, I'm not advocating logging / damming / wind farming the whole lot, but we could do a lot more with these energy sources given a willingness to think rationally.

 

[brty]

Explod,

the evidence in that text indicates strongly that the change this time is heading to the greatest calamity the planet has ever faced since living things existed on it.

I don't have that text, could you please summarize what the 'evidence' is.

Historically, as in over millions of years, whenever the CO2 levels (as in 1600-2000 ppm) and climate are warmer, there has been greater diversity of life on the planet.

Sneak'n, you avoided the evidence shown about sea-ice, just like every other true believer. You want to dismiss the fact that Antarctica sea ice is growing (as in the IPCC report at 1% per decade), and are blind to the fact that every model of global warming has Antarctic sea ice stable for now or declining. With the Arctic CURRENTLY also increasing in sea-ice area (another aspect that all the models say isn't happening) the "science" you portray is currently a joke.

I am a sceptic, because all the evidence I have found is compromised. Temperature statistics, "adjusted" show warming. Raw figures when you come across them don't. Satellite temperature measurements unadjusted showed no warming, then they were also "adjusted" and voila warming.

Another aspect is that if the climate over the last 120 years had changed due to CO2 levels, it is very minor over that time. With CO2 levels rising for the last 250 years due to the industrial revolution starting it all, then the likely changes are going to be slow. As the holocene period is more than likely going to end within the next thousand years as it is already much longer than previous interglacials, then warming the planet up maybe exactly the right thing to do, and it could take 100's of years to do it!

Adapting to change is the correct thing to do, not trying to stop change. The climate is always changing and if we don't change with it we are likely to perish on a large scale.

brty

 

[Smurf1976]

While i don't doubt your energy watching credentials or detailed understanding of the current and historic industry, i think its fair to say you haven't been watching the CC debate and industry with the same zeal or attention.

Because if you had been paying attention, there would be no way known that you could even suggest that the inevitable will not happen...the IPCC isn't going to just go away, the science cant be ignored and the political imperative cant be denied.

IPCC First Assessment Report: 1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report

Calendar of WGII meetings for AR5 http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/

This has been going on since the late 80's

The debate has actually been around since at least the 1950's in a very limited way, and was used (ineffectively) to some extent during the nuclear and hydro debates internationally and within Australia of the 70's and 80's. The notion of climate change, then known as "the greenhouse effect", gained little traction however, overshadowed by concern about wild rivers and alarm at the prospect of nuclear accidents.

But the reality in 2010 is one of a NSW government that quite intentionally has opened the door to new coal-fired power construction. A reality that there is a growing acknowledgment that new brown coal generation in Victoria is going to happen also. Meanwhile international coal demand is soaring, largely for power generation.

There may well be a long term move to do something about CO2, but perception at the moment certainly seems to be that CO2 has plunged down the list of government priorities with the failure of the ETS.

Engineers would note that the ETS is fundmentally a financial market instrument. Engineers would also note that it is only the financial system which is preventing the development of vast amounts of clean, renewable energy right now.

Renewable energy made a lot of sense years ago in the era of rational economics where real value creation was the aim. Back then the only real renewable technology was hydro, hence so many hydro dams built in NSW, Vic, Tas, NZ etc.

Then in came the era of accountants in control, central banks running everything, inflation everywhere etc. And at that point it became cheaper to spend $150 million a year on oil or gas than to spend $1000 million once and then have a century of energy at no ongoing cost. That's where the wheels fell off renewable energy (and nuclear) in a big way - when the notion that paying $15 billion is actually cheaper than paying $1 billion came into being.

Bottom line is that an obsession with the short term, rather than the long term, has made renewables unattractive and it's much the same with nuclear and even higher efficiency fossil fuel plants. Hence all those open cycle (low efficiency, high emissions) gas turbines built in recent years. Save some $ on construction now, and pay 50% higher fuel costs forever - but it's actually profitable under the finanical system we have today.

The great barrier to cutting CO2 is not technical. It is the insistence of the finanical system that there must be a return on investment greater than that available through some paper money making scheme that is the problem. The system places no value on actual real wealth creation, referencing everything to the paper profits attainable through speculation and bubble creation.

Renewable energy, which requires large capital investment, simply can not compete against lower investment / higher ongoing cost fossil fuels in this environment. We're going to cook the planet not through lack of technical ability or resources, but because speculation was deemed a better use of capital than production. Hmm...

 

[So_Cynical]

Thorium reactors are an unknown. Theoretically a safe and viable alternative that sure ought to beat coal, uraniuim etc. But unproven in actual usage for commercial energy production. Let's build a medium scale one (100 MW) here in Australia and see how it goes in practical operation.

Thorium reactors are far form unknown...from my limited understanding there seems to be alot if interchangeableness as far as fuels for nuclear reactors goes....the linked document give a great oversight of the early US industry development and some of the thinking behind there decisions.

MOLTEN-SALT REACTOR EXPERIMENT

With the ARE having shown the feasibility of molten-salt fuel, ORNL persuaded the AEC to fund a study of molten-salt power reactors. Two concepts were evaluated, both graphite moderated and based on the U-233/thorium fuel cycle. In one, the uranium and thorium were in the same salt. In the other, a thorium salt that formed a fertile blanket was kept separate from the fuel salt by a graphite barrier. The single-fluid concept was simpler, but a net breeding gain appeared to be possible in a two-fluid reactor.

The molten-salt development program proceeded well, and by the end of 1959, the Laboratory felt justified in proposing a small reactor to investigate the technologies needed for civilian power. To keep the reactor simple and inexpensive, it had a single region like a converter, but the salt did not contain thorium and in that sense was similar to the core of a breeder.

The fuel salt chosen for the MSRE was a mixture of the fluorides of lithium-7, beryllium, and zirconium selected to have good physical and nuclear properties.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/2009/3445605700845.pdf

So while the MSRE didn't actually run with thorium it could of...have a read of the whole document and you will see that fuels can be used in many combinations in many reactors with similar yet different results.

 

[So_Cynical]

The debate has actually been around since at least the 1950's in a very limited way, and was used (ineffectively) to some extent during the nuclear and hydro debates internationally and within Australia of the 70's and 80's. The notion of climate change, then known as "the greenhouse effect", gained little traction however, overshadowed by concern about wild rivers and alarm at the prospect of nuclear accidents.

But the reality in 2010 is one of a NSW government that quite intentionally has opened the door to new coal-fired power construction. A reality that there is a growing acknowledgment that new brown coal generation in Victoria is going to happen also. Meanwhile international coal demand is soaring, largely for power generation.

There may well be a long term move to do something about CO2, but perception at the moment certainly seems to be that CO2 has plunged down the list of government priorities with the failure of the ETS.

Engineers would note that the ETS is fundmentally a financial market instrument. Engineers would also note that it is only the financial system which is preventing the development of vast amounts of clean, renewable energy right now.

Renewable energy made a lot of sense years ago in the era of rational economics where real value creation was the aim. Back then the only real renewable technology was hydro, hence so many hydro dams built in NSW, Vic, Tas, NZ etc.

Then in came the era of accountants in control, central banks running everything, inflation everywhere etc. And at that point it became cheaper to spend $150 million a year on oil or gas than to spend $1000 million once and then have a century of energy at no ongoing cost. That's where the wheels fell off renewable energy (and nuclear) in a big way - when the notion that paying $15 billion is actually cheaper than paying $1 billion came into being.

Bottom line is that an obsession with the short term, rather than the long term, has made renewables unattractive and it's much the same with nuclear and even higher efficiency fossil fuel plants. Hence all those open cycle (low efficiency, high emissions) gas turbines built in recent years. Save some $ on construction now, and pay 50% higher fuel costs forever - but it's actually profitable under the finanical system we have today.

The great barrier to cutting CO2 is not technical. It is the insistence of the finanical system that there must be a return on investment greater than that available through some paper money making scheme that is the problem. The system places no value on actual real wealth creation, referencing everything to the paper profits attainable through speculation and bubble creation.

Renewable energy, which requires large capital investment, simply can not compete against lower investment / higher ongoing cost fossil fuels in this environment. We're going to cook the planet not through lack of technical ability or resources, but because speculation was deemed a better use of capital than production. Hmm...

Smurf you have just brilliantly laid out why we must have an ETS, without it there's no capital flow to pay for it, without an ETS, Renewable's are too expensive....and that's exactly why its inevitable.

 

[Knobby22]

Smurf you have just brilliantly laid out why we must have an ETS, without it there's no capital flow to pay for it, without an ETS, Renewable's are too expensive....and that's exactly why its inevitable.

My problem with the ETS is how it is all pervasive and heavy government control. Heaps of public servants will be needed to administer it and Macquarie etc. will take their 10% cut to our detriment.

Why can't we have a generator ETS that only relates to generated power?
Simpler and just as effective and will cause less distortion to the economy.

Also...congrats to everyone for raising the debate to a higher level.

 

[sneak'n]

Sneak'n, you avoided the evidence shown about sea-ice, just like every other true believer. You want to dismiss the fact that Antarctica sea ice is growing (as in the IPCC report at 1% per decade), and are blind to the fact that every model of global warming has Antarctic sea ice stable for now or declining. With the Arctic CURRENTLY also increasing in sea-ice area (another aspect that all the models say isn't happening) the "science" you portray is currently a joke.

Had you read through more carefully you would have seen my responses. Some parts of Antarctica are increasing sea ice extent, and other parts are decreasing significantly - as in the Antarctic Peninsular. Other posts in this thread provide reasons for the anomaly.
That said, we need to be looking at global trends and in that regard the evidence of sea ice reduction is statistically significant.

I am a sceptic, because all the evidence I have found is compromised. Temperature statistics, "adjusted" show warming. Raw figures when you come across them don't. Satellite temperature measurements unadjusted showed no warming, then they were also "adjusted" and voila warming.

While reliable temperature measurement instruments have existed for some time, the standards that relate to where they are located, how they are installed, and their height from the ground, vary to this day. I suggest you contact the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia for their unbiased views of our temperature record, and you will learn the trend is clear cut.
Satellite temperature measurements had to be adjusted as the dozen satellites used since 1979 were differently calibrated, plus more - see here - http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/November162005CarlMears.pdf

 

[Calliope]

But the bit I have read makes me concerned for the future on my Grandkids and regardless of what some unbelievers say, the risk is just too great and we need to stop everthing we think may be causing it now

A common thread in the warmists' rantings is their professed concern for the future of their grandchildren, when the truth is that their motives are purely ideology driven. My grandchildren would think I was having a senior moment if I spouted such nonsense.

Those who don't have grandchildren substitute polar bears.

 

[IFocus]

The debate has actually been around since at least the 1950's in a very limited way, and was used (ineffectively) to some extent during the nuclear and hydro debates internationally and within Australia of the 70's and 80's. The notion of climate change, then known as "the greenhouse effect", gained little traction however, overshadowed by concern about wild rivers and alarm at the prospect of nuclear accidents.

But the reality in 2010 is one of a NSW government that quite intentionally has opened the door to new coal-fired power construction. A reality that there is a growing acknowledgment that new brown coal generation in Victoria is going to happen also. Meanwhile international coal demand is soaring, largely for power generation.

There may well be a long term move to do something about CO2, but perception at the moment certainly seems to be that CO2 has plunged down the list of government priorities with the failure of the ETS.

Engineers would note that the ETS is fundmentally a financial market instrument. Engineers would also note that it is only the financial system which is preventing the development of vast amounts of clean, renewable energy right now.

Renewable energy made a lot of sense years ago in the era of rational economics where real value creation was the aim. Back then the only real renewable technology was hydro, hence so many hydro dams built in NSW, Vic, Tas, NZ etc.

Then in came the era of accountants in control, central banks running everything, inflation everywhere etc. And at that point it became cheaper to spend $150 million a year on oil or gas than to spend $1000 million once and then have a century of energy at no ongoing cost. That's where the wheels fell off renewable energy (and nuclear) in a big way - when the notion that paying $15 billion is actually cheaper than paying $1 billion came into being.

Bottom line is that an obsession with the short term, rather than the long term, has made renewables unattractive and it's much the same with nuclear and even higher efficiency fossil fuel plants. Hence all those open cycle (low efficiency, high emissions) gas turbines built in recent years. Save some $ on construction now, and pay 50% higher fuel costs forever - but it's actually profitable under the finanical system we have today.

The great barrier to cutting CO2 is not technical. It is the insistence of the finanical system that there must be a return on investment greater than that available through some paper money making scheme that is the problem. The system places no value on actual real wealth creation, referencing everything to the paper profits attainable through speculation and bubble creation.

Renewable energy, which requires large capital investment, simply can not compete against lower investment / higher ongoing cost fossil fuels in this environment. We're going to cook the planet not through lack of technical ability or resources, but because speculation was deemed a better use of capital than production. Hmm...

Nice post Smurf

 

[brty]

Exactly right Smurf....

But the reality in 2010 is one of a NSW government that quite intentionally has opened the door to new coal-fired power construction. A reality that there is a growing acknowledgment that new brown coal generation in Victoria is going to happen also. Meanwhile international coal demand is soaring, largely for power generation.

Not only in Aus, but the exports of coal are growing, to be burnt elsewhere. If we were really serious about global warming this would not be the case from the government perspective.

Sneak'n, beautifully sidestepped again. No answer to the simple fact that increased Antarctica sea ice of 1% per decade is acknowledged by the IPCC but missing from all the models. Failure to accept this as an anomaly in the argument for AGW is one reason why the true believers are not gaining momentum, but in fact losing it.

brty

 

[wayneL]

Peer review anecdote: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...post-by-ross-mckitrick-that-is-worth-reading/

Plus some interesting recent articles http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com

Also... here is a blog that collates articles from both sides of the debate http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

 

[Smurf1976]

Thorium reactors are far form unknown...from my limited understanding there seems to be alot if interchangeableness as far as fuels for nuclear reactors goes....the linked document give a great oversight of the early US industry development and some of the thinking behind there decisions.

I don't doubt that a thorium reactor is possible and could likely be built and operated as a means of large scale (commercial) electricity generation.

But what are the practical aspects of operating such a plant? That's what we need to learn.

Look at the history of brown coal in Victoria - the early plants had lots of problems, Yallourn W ((opened early 1970's) being the first one that actually worked properly from the beginning. The previous Yallourn plants had all sorts of problems as did Hazelwood, the latter taking many years to get working properly (and it still needs lots of maintenance to keep it going).

Same with hydro in Tasmania. Sounds simple and in theory it is. But then you end up with power stations washed away in a flood, penstocks bursting, pipelines rotting out, concrete cancer, dams running dry, machines that vibrate and shear the bolt heads off and so on. There was a learning curve in practical reality, despite the theoretically simple technology and brilliant engineers who designed most of what was built. Practice doesn't always match the theory.

Same with nuclear overseas. Lots of problems with the early plants, many of them only really operating properly in the past decade after all the bugs were sorted. And one of the big problems was, of course, that they cost far more than expected to build, financially crippling their owners in the process.

Hence my view that in order to properly evaluate thorium (or any other technology) we need to have a working plant of reasonable scale to tinker with and get everything right.

Then build a second one using everything learned in the first, after which we'll know what the costs and practical operational aspects are.

I have the same view about geothermal. Just pump in some serious $ and build a 100 MW plant. Given the potential significance of the technology, that seems a reasonable gamble with my taxpayer $ in my opinion. Otherwise, we'll be waiting around for another decade or more whilst funding-constrained companies try and make it happen. Australia needs answers as to whether this technology is a goer or not we need them now - just do it.

Brown coal in Vic would never have happened without the efforts of Sir John Monash, the Victorian government and a few other individuals who, back in 1918, understood the importance of it given the very limited reserves of black coal in Victoria.

Hydo in Tas would never have happened without the vision of the Launceston City Council, Mt Lyell M&R Co, state government and a few individuals who saw the potential given the state's relative lack of other power sources.

What thorium and dry geothermal need is someone to stop talking and actually make a large scale plant happen. It needs vision and engineering, not bean counting and procrastination. It needs long term thinking rather than a focus on next quarter's profits.

 

[Julia]

From today's "Sunday Mail":

The Rudd government has transferred its emissions trading scheme team into the strife prone household insulation program, relegating plans for carbon trading this year to the backburner.

The team of 154 bureaucrats who cost taxpayers an average of $370,000 each to plan for the non existent emissions trading scheme will instead be put to work sorting out problems with the $2.45 billion home insulation program ....

With a budget of $57 million this financial year alone, the public servants are working for the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority - an agency that is little more than a name until the legislation to create an emissions trading scheme passes through federal Parliament.

So much for the greatest social and moral challenge of our time.

 

[sneak'n]

Sneak'n, beautifully sidestepped again. No answer to the simple fact that increased Antarctica sea ice of 1% per decade is acknowledged by the IPCC but missing from all the models. Failure to accept this as an anomaly in the argument for AGW is one reason why the true believers are not gaining momentum, but in fact losing it.
brty

Antarctic sea ice extents have little to do with model parameters. That's because the value impact of increased Antarctic sea ice is zero due to its area being greatest during winter when there is no albedo effect.

If brty were to be consistent in his premise he might have been able to show that the coldest northern winter for decades had led to Arctic sea ice being at its greatest extent for years. Yet, at best, Arctic sea ice areas are struggling to reach "average" levels, and will quickly melt away as each year the ice becomes thinner/newer.

Yet again those who peddle poorly based examples for their cause are caught out by their lack of understanding of the detail.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

So much for the greatest social and moral challenge of our time.

You beat me to it Julia.

Peter Costello wrote an article the other day in the Age:http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...e-x2026-until-the-next-one-20100330-rb8s.html

It was so urgent it had to be legislated before the end of the year, and before the summit in Copenhagen.

What amazes me is the way this greenhouse campaign can be switched on and switched off as quickly as the lights during Earth Hour. And for the moment the government has decided to switch it off so we can all get back to talking about health funding.

I'm interested in what the outcome of this moral issue will be.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Not only in Aus, but the exports of coal are growing, to be burnt elsewhere. If we were really serious about global warming this would not be the case from the government perspective.

It's stuff like letting China expand its car production and usage and the above that doesn't make sense. If there is a real danger that is irreversible then why the expansion of pollution?