Resisting Climate Hysteria

[drsmith]

Seems like we might have to be more worried about freezing to death than being cooked...

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/11/16/186371_movies.html

Dear oh dear!

It might be worth watching purely for amusement value.

 

[Julia]

The government are ramping up the pressure, viz Greg Combet on "PM" this evening kindly advising us that putting a price on carbon will make electricity cheaper. Sadly, he failed to explain why this would be so.

We will all just have to take his word for it and be grateful to have such a caring Climate Change Minister who is acting purely in our best interests.

 

[derty]

There is no evidence of human global warming:
....
In 1995 UN IPCC scientists reported five times that there was no evidence of human warming. Yet UN IPCC politicians reported to national governments and media, quote: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”.

The scientific conclusion that there is no evidence of human global warming has been repeated many times since by UN IPCC scientists. Please refer to UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, PhD scientist Dr Vincent Gray who reviewed all four UN IPCC reports—1991, 1995, 2001, 2007. He says there’s no evidence anywhere. www.conscious.com.au​

To be an 'expert reviewer' you simply had request a copy of the draft report and sign to say you wouldn't publicly comment on the report before it was published. He was not an official reviewer. I could have asked for a copy and claim to be an IPCC expert reviewer.

I had a quick look through some of his recommended changes. Most of the were just 'replace this with that' or 'insert this on the end of such and such line'. He provided very few references for his changes. Apparently he made over 1800 requested changes.

Dr Vincent Gray is a chemist not a climate scientist and has never conducted climate research or published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal. His work has been in the coal industry and his last publication was 22 years ago.

 

[derty]

has never conducted climate research or published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal.

I was wrong with this statement, though most of them are opinion pieces and not research. Also Energy and Environment is not a science journal and is classed as a trade journal.


Gray V R 1994. The Greenhouse Effect and its Consequences, Chemistry in New Zealand 58 (2) 31-40.

Gray V R 1995. Climate Change 1994; Chemistry in New Zealand 59 (9) 30-33.

Gray V R 1996. Climate Change ’95 ; New Zealand Science Review 53 58-62.

Gray V R 1998 The IPCC Future Projections: are they Plausible? ; Climate Research 10 155-162.

Gray V R 2000 . The Cause of Global Warming; Energy & Environment 11 (6), 613-629.

Gray V R 2006. Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere ; Energy and Environment 17 (5) 707-714

Gray V R 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Summary for Policymakers.; Energy and Environment 18 (3+4) 433-440.

 

[derty]

At the end of the day we are locked in - the required changes to simply slow the increase in the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere are going to be technically extremely difficult and politically near impossible. To stabilise CO2 at around 450ppm will require a global cooperative effort that is laughable in it's magnitude.

I found this quite sobering. Notes from Steward Brand on a talk by Engineer Saul Griffiths (link):

The world currently runs on about 16 terawatts (trillion watts) of energy, most of it burning fossil fuels. To level off at 450 ppm of carbon dioxide, we will have to reduce the fossil fuel burning to 3 terawatts and produce all the rest with renewable energy, and we have to do it in 25 years or it’s too late. Currently about half a terrawatt comes from clean hydropower and one terrawatt from clean nuclear. That leaves 11.5 terawatts to generate from new clean sources.

That would mean the following. (Here I’m drawing on notes and extrapolations I’ve written up previously from discussion with Griffith):

“Two terawatts of photovoltaic would require installing 100 square meters of 15-percent-efficient solar cells every second, second after second, for the next 25 years. (That’s about 1,200 square miles of solar cells a year, times 25 equals 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic cells.) Two terawatts of solar thermal? If it’s 30 percent efficient all told, we’ll need 50 square meters of highly reflective mirrors every second. (Some 600 square miles a year, times 25.) Half a terawatt of biofuels? Something like one Olympic swimming pools of genetically engineered algae, installed every second. (About 15,250 square miles a year, times 25.) Two terawatts of wind? That’s a 300-foot-diameter wind turbine every 5 minutes. (Install 105,000 turbines a year in good wind locations, times 25.) Two terawatts of geothermal? Build 3 100-megawatt steam turbines every day ”” 1,095 a year, times 25. Three terawatts of new nuclear? That’s a 3-reactor, 3-gigawatt plant every week ”” 52 a year, times 25″.

In other words, the land area dedicated to renewable energy (“Renewistan”) would occupy a space about the size of Australia to keep the carbon dioxide level at 450 ppm.

Here is the task described another way. Basically it's not going to happen.

The main scary part is the astounding magnitude of this project, and how far we are from doing anything remotely close. Griffith describes it as not like the Manhattan Project, but like World War II ”” only with everyone on the same side.

The relative power densities available to us are described here. Another interesting way at looking at energy is the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) and the lack of any real contenders to replace fossil fuels. Especially pertinent when looking for a solution for looming peak oil. Coal has a good EROEI though that would be for electricity generation, you start making oil out of it and it will drop drastically.

Typical EROEI's
Natural gas: 10:1
Coal: 50:1
Oil (Ghawar supergiant field): 100:1
Oil (global average): 19:1
Tar sands: 5.2:1 to 5.8:1
Oil shale: 1.5:1 to 4:1

Wind: 18:1
Hydro: 11:1 to 267:1
Waves: 15:1
Tides: ~ 6:1
Geothermal power: 2:1 to 13:1
Solar photovoltaic power: 3.75:1 to 10:1
Solar thermal: 1.6:1

Nuclear power: 1.1:1 to 15:1

Biodiesel: 1.9:1 to 9:1
Ethanol: 0.5:1 to 8:1

Some interesting articles on energy and the issues at hand over at the Azimuth Project site:
Power Density
Energy Return on Energy Invested
Future
Stabilization Wedges

I really want the anti-AGW movement to be right. I just can't see it. I don't see a global conspiracy in the scientific community. It really doesn't make sense to me. I see a disinformation campaign that has become a self perpetuating monster and I see parasitic carbon based financial system that is being built up on the issue that will just result in the further consolidation of wealth into the hands of the few. To undertake any significant action will be politically and economically devastating with current technologies, so at best we will see token efforts. We are along for the ride. Wherever that takes us.

Image: projected CO2 levels with varying CO2 emission scenarios.

 

[sails]

And the likes of Al Gore really don't seem to be concerned with their own CO2 excesses...

Gore Pocketed ~$18 Million from Now-Defunct Chicago Climate Exchange

Carbon Trade Ends on Quiet Death of Chicago Climate Exchange - not before Gore pockets $18M

Obviously, it's all about the money - carbon is simply the excuse...

 

[OzWaveGuy]

To be an 'expert reviewer' you simply had request a copy of the draft report and sign to say you wouldn't publicly comment on the report before it was published. He was not an official reviewer. I could have asked for a copy and claim to be an IPCC expert reviewer.

I had a quick look through some of his recommended changes. Most of the were just 'replace this with that' or 'insert this on the end of such and such line'. He provided very few references for his changes. Apparently he made over 1800 requested changes.

Dr Vincent Gray is a chemist not a climate scientist and has never conducted climate research or published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal. His work has been in the coal industry and his last publication was 22 years ago.

Thanks Derty for the clarification. You've raised a very good point on the strength of the IPCC "scientific" capacity. Many expert reviewers were simply ignored by the IPCC if their views didn't support the IPCC political agenda on climate change.

I've asked questions in this forum before but have yet to have anyone answer them to any reasonable satisfaction, one in particular:

"Why did the IPCC change the temperature histories between the AR 1/2 and AR 3 to remove the Medieval Warming Period that was previously published? Can you clarify which expert reviewer(s) with climate qualifications decided this to become fact and scientifically justified through peer review process?"​

Do you agree with the IPCC changing of temperature history that shows the Medieval warming period with higher temperatures than today swapped for the Hockey Stick that shows "unprecedented" and higher temperatures in the 1900's? If so, why?

 

[Logique]

....Dr Vincent Gray is a chemist not a climate scientist and has never conducted climate research or published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal. His work has been in the coal industry and his last publication was 22 years ago.

And Tim Flannery is a paleontologist. His work has been in the ideological warmist/alarmist field. He specializes in opinion pieces, especially to camera. So perhaps they'll both have to sit on the sidelines?

 

[Knobby22]

And Tim Flannery is a paleontologist. His work has been in the ideological warmist/alarmist field. He specializes in opinion pieces, especially to camera. So perhaps they'll both have to sit on the sidelines?

The point is that Dr Vincent Gray is under the pay of the coal industry and pushes their interests. Come up with someone better to agree with your needs.

 

[Logique]

Flannery has a pecuniary conflict of interest as well:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion-old/science-of-the-smear/story-e6frfifx-1111113148474
AS Tim Flannery shamefully proves, the pet weapon of global warming alarmists is now, The Smear. See a scientist who dares to doubt that the world is frying so fast we'll all die?
Then don't answer his arguments with facts and reason. Smear him instead...

...And how he's pushed geothermal -- in which water is pumped to hot rocks underground to create steam for power.
How often he's demanded we back this industry, especially in the Hunter Valley, in articles and interviews in The Age (twice), the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, the West Australian, the Border Mail, ABC's Lateline, ABC's PM, ABC's Jon Faine show, Cosmos magazine, AAP and more.

But only twice have I seen him reveal what he should always declare -- that he holds shares in a very active geothermal company, Geodynamics, which has a project in . . . the Hunter Valley.

 

[derty]

And Tim Flannery is a paleontologist. His work has been in the ideological warmist/alarmist field. He specializes in opinion pieces, especially to camera. So perhaps they'll both have to sit on the sidelines?

Fine by me.

 

[derty]

The point is that Dr Vincent Gray is under the pay of the coal industry and pushes their interests. Come up with someone better to agree with your needs.

In all fairness Knobby, he was involved in the coal industry for much of his career and now states he does not personally receive any money from industry. He is involved with some think tanks/groups that receive undisclosed industry support and has been obsessed with repudiating global warming since he retired in 1991.

 

[ghotib]

Geez, I'm away for a couple of weeks and this thread goes feral. Just to respond to one point that was raised back in October:

I've asked questions in this forum before but have yet to have anyone answer them to any reasonable satisfaction, one in particular:

"Why did the IPCC change the temperature histories between the AR 1/2 and AR 3 to remove the Medieval Warming Period that was previously published? Can you clarify which expert reviewer(s) with climate qualifications decided this to become fact and scientifically justified through peer review process?"​

Do you agree with the IPCC changing of temperature history that shows the Medieval warming period with higher temperatures than today swapped for the Hockey Stick that shows "unprecedented" and higher temperatures in the 1900's? If so, why?

Changes to the temperature histories, like all advances in knowledge, were a result of continuing investigations. Our picture of how characteristics are passed from one generation to the next is very different in 2010 from what it was in 1910. Is that sinister? Of course not. It's what you'd expect after intensive study by a large number of researchers. Genetics in 2010 still has many areas of uncertainty and questions requiring further intensive and expensive study. Is that sinister? Of course not. There's a very old saying that "the more you know, the more you know you don't know."

In the particular case of how the IPCC reports discussed the Medieval Warming Period, it would help if you point to the relevant sections. It's hard to have a useful discussion about 3rd hand paraphrases of descriptions of diagrams.

 

[Logique]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010
If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

 

[derty]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010
If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

When you read the translation of the interview with Ottmar Edenhofer you will see that he is talking about climate change POLICY, not science. He talks about effects of climate change and limiting CO2 to limit temperature increase and clearly supports anthropogenic CO2 is related to climate change.

To claim that "the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth" is disingenuous when the man whose discussion is being used to support the claim clearly believes that AGW is real.

 

[wayneL]

When you read the translation of the interview with Ottmar Edenhofer you will see that he is talking about climate change POLICY, not science. He talks about effects of climate change and limiting CO2 to limit temperature increase and clearly supports anthropogenic CO2 is related to climate change.

To claim that "the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth" is disingenuous when the man whose discussion is being used to support the claim clearly believes that AGW is real.

You should read up a bit on psychology to understand such beliefs.

 

[Bat_Ears]

It is one thing to say that there is corruption in the global warming debate but is that a good reason to say that there is no global warming happening. There is a lot at stake here and an obsene amount of money involved so there is bound to be corruption. Because there is corrupt operators is that a good reason to deney that there is a problem.

Face the facts. If there is we are in deep whatsit if we dont act. If there isnt and we do act then what do we have to lose. Maybe a little money. but ,hell that is made round to go round anyway. Even the flat stuff that you can stack can only be stacked so high.

So on one hand we can lose everything and on the other we lose a little cash. The answer is a nobrainer to me.

Then again there is no doubt whatsoever that we are polluting our planet. We are fouling our own nest. If we stop that then we correct both problems.
We can act or we can pay others to act for us. Maybe a carbon tax is the answer. We can act ( I have solar power, solar hot water and today I planted over 100 plants, dug in 2 tonne of mulch. that cost time and money)
or we can pay via a carbon tax.)

Anyone that doesn't agree is in my mind either mean, lazy or lives in fairy land. OR both.

That still resists Climate Hysteria but accepts Climate facts.

Do you also believe in God?

What you have just stated is another form of Pascal's Wager?


Also, if the Earth is warming, and if it is NOT caused by humans, should we still act to stop the warming?

 

[wayneL]

Climategate revisited:

 

[nioka]

Do you also believe in God?

What you have just stated is another form of Pascal's Wager?


Also, if the Earth is warming, and if it is NOT caused by humans, should we still act to stop the warming?

What a ridiculous question. Does it matter if I do or I don't. Polution is caused by both the believers and the non believers. Pollution is there whether you believe or not believe in global warming,

From the tone of most posts on the topic it is evident that a lot of non believers are non believers because they fear that believing will cost them money. Just because some opportunists are using "believing" to cash in on the business of prevention does not prove the case one way or the other.

Forget "global warming". THINK "Fix the pollution". THEN see if it helps. What is there to lose? A little cost maybe but even the employment that is there to make the changes may even fix the world economy. (and give the ASF capitalists an investment opportunity.

 

[drsmith]

Forget "global warming". THINK "Fix the pollution". THEN see if it helps. What is there to lose? A little cost maybe but even the employment that is there to make the changes may even fix the world economy. (and give the ASF capitalists an investment opportunity.

If we forget "global warming", then in that context, we are saying it ain't broken.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Obviously, the context of how we manage the planet is much broader, but how we change energy generation involves a comprehensive understanding of the current problems and of the impact of any potential solutions. So far, the problems and the solutions have been presented in a political context with other objectives such as increased taxation being a significant priority. This won't lead to either the best environmental or economic outcome.