So - while I try and pry some time loose to read papers and map influence and catalog sources - it seems like a good idea to put a stake in the ground and say what I believe today about global warming and the correct policy responses to it.
Is there AGW? Maybe. Even before Climategate, I was uncomfortable with the way the science was being handled and the way that obvious questions were only answered behind closed doors. But - I also think where there's enough manure there well could be a pony, and we'd be foolish to completely ignore the risk given even moderate amounts of evidence.
I own fire extinguishers and guns and first aid gear and insurance policies because something might happen (and remember that in my case, it did). I spend money and time and effort to hedge the risk of the highly improbable. So do most of the climate skeptics out there.
So the idea that it's 'fake' and therefore should be completely ignored is - to me - kinda foolish.
Equally foolish is the idea that we should harshly reshape society in a way that coincidentally meets the pre-existing prejudices of many of those who have found a new religion in AGW. That's kind of like looking at a sex predator who conveniently discovers a religion that requires the people he chooses to have sex with him at will.
But I'm betting that there are things we can and should do that represent 'affordable' insurance policies.
Consultants are fond of four-square boxes...you know, quadrants. In this case, [easy/hard] and [high impact/low impact]. I might make it 3-dimensional and add [serves other goals/only for preventing AGW].
It seems like a no-brainer that we ought to decide on the [easy/high-impact/serves other goals] and do all that stuff now - while we're figuring things out and trying to improve the science.
So I'm interested in what people think fits into that box. Comment away...
-
Nukes.
Architectural solar.
Battery research.
On-shore natural gas production.
and we'd be foolish to completely ignore the risk given even moderate amounts of evidence.
And we would be even more foolish to implement the barbaric solutions proposed by the left wing political class. The problem of reducing emissions isn't that technically difficult to deal with, the difficulties are political. For instance, if you can't build transmission lines, nuclear power plants, and other assorted energy infrastructure without spending years in court and maybe losing, then there really isn't much choice but to decimate the population and reduce most to serfdom.
Beyond that, I think any sensible person would see global cooling as a larger problem. Look at the extent of the last glaciation and ask yourself what would happen if it returned. And there is no reason to think it won't. As to warming, the world has done just fine with temperatures about 10C higher than at present.
First there is a fundamental flaw in your presentation. It is 2 dimensional. there is a glaring third dimension that it does not take into account, which is of course time. If the problem gets progressively worse along a time line, then the quadrant template you have proposed is meaningless.
I also think that the economic argument against the switch away from Hydrocarbons for the U.S. may well be radically flawed, if the time dimension is taken into account.
Again, I refer you to a talk given at TED which I found pretty interesting. It is called Winning the Energy Endgame.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html
The stimulus produced the following grants to various Research Centers Here is the list
http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/EFRC_Award_List.pdf
Very interesting stuff, especially the storage and basic materials research. All is aimed at economic benefits to the economy, whether there is AGW or not.
There has also been a similar set of grants for grid efficiency.
Then, of course, there is the National Security issue in dealing with the endless and growing demand on our resources to secure hydrocarbons.
In the Film above, Lovins talks about how much the Military detests hydrocarbons.
In any case, the whole discussion about AWG may well prove to be irrelevant as it will be absorbed into the greater economic and National Security benefits discussions that point to hydrocarbon dependency being deleterious to both our economic well being and our national security concerns.
Being a capitalist, I see the largest industry in the history of mankind forming right before our eyes. I also see The USA being the country best positioned to benefit by it. One only has to look at the inellectual power that has been marshalled in the ERFC Awards link list posted above.
One other thing about a year ago, I began to make a list of who was showing up at Sustainable Energy Trade Shows. I find some of them to be very interesting.
I am a real believer in "Following the Money" to find out what is really going on and I do not think it is AWG. I think it is Sustainable Energy, especially for the industrialized world.
FINANCIAL
Babcock & Brown Environmental Investments Ltd. (BEI)
Claymore/Mac Global Solar Index
Climate Change Capital
EcoMind
Englefield Capital LLP
Farmergy
First Trust Portfolios
Generation Investment Management
Marathon Capital, LLC
The NASDAQ® Clean Edge® U.S. Index
The Sustainables - General - General Energy Exchange (Asia) Pte Ltd
Viscardi AG
ABN Amro
AgCert International plc
AIG Sustainable Investment Group
Allianz Climate Solutions
Allied Irish Banks, plc
Augusta & Co plc
Avista
Bank of Scotland
Bank of Tokyo - Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.
Barclays Bank plc
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG
Birch Tree Capital
Calvert Social Investment Fund
Camco International Limited
Cantor CO2e
Carbon Solutions Group
Chicago Climate Exchange
Claymore/LGA Green ETF (GRN)
Clean Edge
Commerzbank AG
Credit Suisse
Dexia Credit Local
Dresdner Bank AG
Dutch Infrastructure Fund - DIF Renewables
Ecofin
EcoSecurities Group plc
Ecoventures
European Climate Exchange
Ferris Baker Watts
GE Energy Financial Services
Goldman Sachs
Guinness Atkinson Sustainables - General Energy Fund
IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG
International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)
Investec Bank (UK) Limited
KfW Development Bank
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Lightspeed Venture Partners
Low Carbon Accelerator Limited
Market Vectors-Global Sustainables - General Energy ETF
N M Rothschild & Sons Ltd
New Enterprise Associates
Pacfic Growth Equities
PowerShares Cleantech Portfolio (PZD)
PowerShares Global Clean Energy Portfolio (PBD)
PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy Portfolio (PBW)
Rabobank International
Royal Bank of Canada
Trading Emissions PLC
Trillium Asset Management Corporation
Tufton Oceanic
UmweltBank AG
Van Eck Securities Corp.
Warburg Pincus
Climate Exchange Plc i
LEGAL
Andrews Kurth
Baker & McKenzie
Bird & Bird
Bond Pearce LLP
Chadbourne & Parke
Day Pitney, LLP
Fredrikson & Byron
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Sibeth Partnership
Vinson & Elkis
WilmerHale
DLA Piper
Eversheds LLP
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.
Linklaters
Watson, Farley & Williams LLP
I understand the frustration of not understanding the research (or fears that GW might be overstated). Basically, the data isn't clear enough that there will continue to be confusion, on both sides.
So I've switched arguments. I think it's better to look at this from an energy-efficiency/contamination/foreign policy methedology. Our efficiency is crap. We all know this, but energy companies hold a large sway in how we do business. And so the focus for too long is "How do we get more energy" instead of "how do we get more with less?". Both are important, but we had lost sight of the second until recently. The fact that much of our energy comes from unsavory characters doesn't help matters.
The other problem is contamination. Let's face it, even if we completely ignore CO2 contamination, there are loads of other problems with the energy we make. Oil pollution, toxins in coal, nuclear energy "leakage". I think these problems are more serious, and dangerous, in the short term than global warming.
Luckily, we can reduce both problems with efficiency, and rising proficiency in "green" energy. So, I end up at the same place, GW or no.
Luckily, we can reduce both problems with efficiency, and rising proficiency in "green" energy. So, I end up at the same place, GW or no.
This is known as "rationalization". AL does it, you do it, with the added bit of calling the energy producers as an unsavory bunch and blaming them for the current mess. I don't agree, I think environmentalists through government are mostly responsible for the current mess. This is what happens when society contains a large fraction of religious fanatics.
And no, the latter is not a groundless insult. I went to Denver for my dad's 90'th and was immediately struck by the pseudo religious atmosphere of the place, starting at the airport. If you spend all your time hanging out in spots like that you are likely to become desensitised to the smell in the air, but to an outsider it is unmistakable.
A.L.,
"harshly reshape our economy. . ."
I'd like to see the raw data and models which suggest that lowering carbon emissions will have a catastrophic, or harsh, or even negative impact upon the global economy.
My fear is that many economists are using inadequate models with fudged or incomplete data to make predictions about incredibly complex future economic events and that those predictions, conveniently or coincidentally, favor policy decisions in line with the pre-existing partisan political beliefs of those economists.
The fact is that nobody really knows what's going to happen to the economy in the future and the belief that reducing emissions will have severe negative consequences is just a theory dreamed up by conservative economists that the conservative media, conservative bloggers, conservative think tanks and business interests have dressed up and spread around without examining the actual data upon which this unproven theory is based. It's just a lot of group-think, if you ask me.
laughs...one for you, Mark...
Marc
calling the energy producers as an unsavory bunch...
I'm not referring to corporations, instead I'm referring to the governments of Saudi Arabia, Coastal Guinea, Venezuela. I think it's bad for our national interest to be paying them money. But let me know why you think is a good thing.
I think environmentalists through government are mostly responsible for the current mess.
I think there's plenty blame to go around.
you are likely to become desensitized to the smell in the air
I assume you mean the political climate? You know it's funny. My parents used to work downriver from the Hanford nuclear power plant/waste dump. Apparently that smell was also unmistakable.
Alchemist, forgive me for saying this, but the issue isn't remotely "not understanding the research" and it's kind of contemptable of you to suggest that.
I don;t understand a lot of things, but I do understand the process by which science is supposed to be done - and that process involves reproducible, independently verifiable, falsifiable, open research.
I'll cut industrial scientists in pharma or elsewhere a little slack on this because of the commercial issues.
But when it comes to basic science, and particularly basic science which purports to drive urgent policy decision - I'm not grading on a curve.
So if you think you can defend the process that's been undertaken in climate science, have at it, mount a defense. It's looking kinda bleak for that team right now.
Marc
Ah, so let's just run a big government mandated social experiment, eh? Agricultural collectivisation in the Ukraine, the Great Leap Forward, the return to the land in Cambodia, what could go wrong with a program run by zealots? Current trial experiment: save the fish, let's see how the central valley fairs without water.
But what are you proposing for energy production, AL? And how to you plan to distribute it to California. And how are you going to pay for it? Lord knows the rest of us aren't big on bailing California out of its current mess.
Chuck, I think you missed the <sarcasm> tag, too...
Marc
A few years back I was on a Federal job site for business taking to the project engineer. Somehow we got on to the subject of alternative energy. He told me he was looking into investing in alternative energy with an accountant friend of his. I said something to the effect 'your an engineer, you know this alternative energy stuff is not a solution'. Paraphrasing, his response was 'yes, I know, but you can't loose money on it'.
As far as energy needs go we have 2 distinct issues. Transportation and everything else. If we were able to put up enough nuclear plants tomorrow to satisfy all our electric needs our oil consumption would hardly budge.
Then there is the myth of energy efficiency. I live in the northeast. I hear how we can save X amount of energy if we replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents. I say how so? During the heating season (which is 8 or 9 months for me) my incandescent bulbs are 100% efficient. The extra heat they produce over the compact fluorescents contributes to the required energy to keep my house warm. In effect that extra energy is energy that my furnace doesn't have to supply. The laws of thermodynamics being what they are, the net energy savings during the heating season is zero.
Apologies, Marc,
I missed the "k" in Mark. I can't find the sarcasm tag either.
This would all be highly entertaining if so much wasn't at stake: economic liberty, efficient use of funds, and the well being of the middle classes. The same could be said of the medical revamp underway in congress.
Not to beat on the NYT too much but they can make a mountain out of a mole hill for an environmental story. The story from the NYT claims 346 billion cubic feet from the natural gas industry in 2006. Over at the EIA we find total consumption. A little math we find the losses are about 1.6% of total consumption. A updated study by the EPA in 2005 gives us an idea where those losses are at least percentage wise.
Going with 21% we can estimate the total emissions from all sources in the U.S. in 2006 to be 1648 billion cubic feet. On page 12 we get a breakdown of sources from the natural gas industry. Sealing the tank leaks would reduce the emissions by 67.5 billion cubic feet or about 4% of current emissions.
It would be nice if the NYT put things in prespective once in a while.
I missed this Gallup Poll from March - Increased number think Global Warming is Exaggerated.
The demographics are interesting. Surprisingly, belief in Global Warming is strongest by far among seniors. It's weakest - evenly split with lots of undecideds - among adults under 30, who just graduated from the cheesy model rain forest we call a public school system.
And that's belief in vanilla warming, not anthropogenic warming. And that's before the present scandal, of course.
It's going to take more than bluster and intellectual arrogance to push this rock any farther up the hill.
On page 12 we get a breakdown of sources from the natural gas industry. Sealing the tank leaks would reduce the emissions by 67.5 billion cubic feet or about 4% of current emissions.
Looking at Table 2 in the EPA report, the 67.5 billion appears to be only the storage leaks under "Compressor Stations"; sealing up leaks from other sources would give a sum of 147 billion. That's leaving out the 48 bscf from "underground pipeline leaks" which I'm assuming would be more cost-prohibitive to fix. There's also a portion in the "vented emissions" category which the NYT article mentions could also be stored which would cut on emissions. Given the total emissions of 314 bscf from that same table, 147/314 = a 47% reduction in methane emissions from the natural gas industry.
I think the NYT article may be overstating the total impact this one improvement could make on AGW, but in terms of increasing U.S. energy self-efficiency as well as pollution reduction, on its merits it appears to be a worthwhile program to promote. Considering the costs likely to be associated with more economy-sweeping ways of addressing AGW, this seems like one of the more "low-hanging fruit" approaches available. String together a number of innovations and improvements like this, though, and that'd add up to a significant dent in emissions without massive cost.
This site needs a lot more people like Chris. It is beginning to sound like an echo chamber
but the issue isn't remotely "not understanding the research"
For me, it is. I do not understand the research. Nor do I understand how the e-mails affect the whole stream of research, nor how closely related the data is to the other studies that AGW supporters claim are "completely independent".
In grad school I did get lectures from a prof who measured local wind currents by creating chemical contamination maps from industrial output in greater Arizona. The basic thrust of the research was interesting... until he got to the algorithms for wind flow designed by his research.
Although he attempted to explain every unit, every standard, every variable, it was daunting. It wasnt that the math was beyond me, but without understanding the basic concepts of meteorology, I could not give constructive criticism. That is not to say he lied, just that I couldn't tell the difference if he had.
Now, others have been trying to understand AGW, and the fact that the code has not been openly available is ridiculous, and a betrayal of the code of science.
However, it is not clear to me how that affects all AGW research.... Hopefully we can now go through the code (and others who claim to be independent from this study) and get a better idea of the successes and constraints of the models. But I don't expect that to happen overnight, and I'm still going to need someone to explain it to me when it happens.
So instead, I move on to terms that are better grounded (and that I actually understand)
"However, it is not clear to me how that affects all AGW research.... "
Alch, you've hit the nub of where we are at right now. I think there is a high level of conventional wisdom that there is all kinds of historic climate science from numerous sources, but the more you dig the more you find out that that is absolutely not the case.
Think about it- how do you collect the temperature from the past? You have satellites (about 30 years worth), you have proxies like- tree stumps, (the most famous of which being Briffa which is a huge controversy in its own right), ice cores, sediments, 'historical records' (which are unquantifiable and largely left out), and thermometers.
There are only 3 major 'thermometer' temperature datasets (CRU, GISS, GHCN- and technically there are various versions of same) which all are warehoused by 1 database (GHCN) of temperature stations. But even these are really tough to handle because stations move or close or their environment changes, and of course there is human error like missing measurements. Thats where the whole issue of 'missing data' comes in- the raw data exists but the 'value added' data and metacode that explains it hasn't been released by CRU and appears to be gone. In other words there is a misconception that we have a completely quantifiable historical record, when in fact it is heavily adjusted by hand- and those are the hidden elements.
Those 3 'adjusted' datasets form the basis of a huge amount of science in this field, maybe almost all of it. Just how influential is a very, very good question.
Not quite. People with different points of view?
This is what I was commenting on.
Sure, bring 'em on! People with Chris's approach to debate and/or discussion?
Sure, bring 'em on! People with Chris's approach to debate and/or discussion?
I didn't have any problem, personally. Butr I didn't enter the debate. More than that he certinly held his own and got the site jumping.
His effect is still being felt as this thread attests.
Minarets or no, maybe the Swiss are onto something
Fighting GW the economical way.