How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[TimG]

This made me laugh:

Can renewable energies provide all of society's energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is

conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables

will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole

is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

This Easter Bunny fable is the basis of 'policy' thinking of many liberal politicians. Yet when

such people are elected to the executive branch and must make real world decisions, they end up

approving expanded off-shore drilling and allowing continued mountaintop removal, long-wall

coal mining, hydro-fracking, etc. maybe even a tar sands pipeline. Why the inconsistency?

Because they realize that renewable energies are grossly inadequate for our energy needs now

and in the foreseeable future and they have no real plan. They pay homage to the Easter Bunny

fantasy, because it is the easy thing to do in politics. They are reluctant to explain what is

actually needed to phase out our need for fossil fuels. Reluctance to be honest might seem

strange, given that what is needed to solve the problem actually makes sense and is not harmful

to most people. I will offer a possible explanation for their actions below.

The author is none other than James Hansen of NASA fame.

It great to see some alarmists are starting to realize that renewables are a sham.

Edited August 13, 2011 by TimG

[Barts]

If this has been noted in a previous post, my apologies. I haven't canvassed the entire thread. However, the fact is that with the exception of many poor people, the price of energy could double in Canada and most Canadians could conserve well-enough that their energy costs would not rise. It is better to increase energy costs and use less energy (i.e. conserve) and keep the out-of-pocket expenditures the same than increase the use of fossil fuels.

[Michael Hardner]

This made me laugh:

The author is none other than James Hansen of NASA fame.

It great to see some alarmists are starting to realize that renewables are a sham.

'Starting' implies that Hansen had a change of heart. Is that so?

[TimG]

'Starting' implies that Hansen had a change of heart. Is that so?

Good question. I certainly don't recall him being an advocate for nukes before but I dont read everything he writes. I was thinking of a number of leading greens (monbiot, lynas) who have come out strongly in favour of nuclear power since Fukushima.

In any case, it is not just AGW sceptics that view renewables as inadequate. If someone really cares about AGW then there is really no option other than nukes and all of the risks and costs that go with them.

Edited August 14, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

This made me laugh:

The author is none other than James Hansen of NASA fame.

It great to see some alarmists are starting to realize that renewables are a sham.

it is heartening to see you come around to accepting Hansen's carbon pricing position... good on ya!

[waldo]

If this has been noted in a previous post, my apologies. I haven't canvassed the entire thread. However, the fact is that with the exception of many poor people, the price of energy could double in Canada and most Canadians could conserve well-enough that their energy costs would not rise. It is better to increase energy costs and use less energy (i.e. conserve) and keep the out-of-pocket expenditures the same than increase the use of fossil fuels.

inherent 'conservation' is an accompanying by-product of TimG's now favoured Hansen position ala tax & dividend

[waldo]

...leading greens (monbiot, lynas)...

wow! Just what does it say about you when your characterization of "leading greens" is centered on... 'journalists'! Since you are loath to actually define the "alarmists" you keep barking about, we could begin a list. Can we put these 2 guys on your list?

[TimG]

it is heartening to see you come around to accepting Hansen's carbon pricing position... good on ya!

I know you are being sarcastic, however, I would actually support a modest revenue neutral carbon tax provided geography is taken into account. i.e. it should not be a transfer of wealth from places with geography that does not support low carbon energy like hydro to places with such advantages. The revenue should always go back to the community/region where it is collected.

[TimG]

wow! Just what does it say about you when your characterization of "leading greens" is centered on... 'journalists'! Since you are loath to actually define the "alarmists" you keep barking about, we could begin a list. Can we put these 2 guys on your list?

I dont understand why it is do difficult for you to infer: An alarmist is anyone who panics about CO2 and insists that the only way to deal with it is with large CO2 emission reductions. Many scientists are also alarmists.

[dpwozney]

No one has yet proven that man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause any alleged global warming or supposed climate change.

Therefore, people should not have to pay higher prices for energy because of regulations and standards created on the basis of mere unproven allegations.

[waldo]

No one has yet proven that man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause any alleged global warming or supposed climate change.

please, you need to more clearly delineate your denial. If you would indulge:

- do you deny warming?

- do you deny climate change?

- do you deny carbon dioxide levels have dramatically risen?

- do you deny mankind is the principal cause of the increase in carbon dioxide levels?

- do you deny mankind's causal link to increased CO2 levels associates with the burning of fossil fuels?

if... if... you accept a significant increased warming has occurred in the relatively recent decades, yet deny everything else... what are you prepared to offer as the causal link to that warming. Equally, what is your proof of an alternate causal tie; one other than mankind's burning of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect?

[joeblack]

Once the costs are on par with "normal" energy, then I might be convinced.

[dpwozney]

please, you need to more clearly delineate your denial.

There is an important difference between a denier and a skeptic. A denier asserts that some claim is not true. A skeptic asserts that some claim is not certain.

If you would indulge:

- do you deny warming?

- do you deny climate change?

I am a skeptic of various claims that man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause any alleged global warming or supposed climate change.

- do you deny carbon dioxide levels have dramatically risen?

- do you deny mankind is the principal cause of the increase in carbon dioxide levels?

- do you deny mankind's causal link to increased CO2 levels associates with the burning of fossil fuels?

Continuous direct measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been performed only since 1958 (at Mauna Loa, Hawaii) unlike carbon dioxide measurements before 1958, shown in red in the graph displayed here and in non-green in this chart. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries A.D., many direct measurements of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide were higher than present-day carbon dioxide measurements and there was no runaway greenhouse-gas global warming effect.

[waldo]

If you would indulge:

- do you deny warming?

- do you deny climate change?

There is an important difference between a denier and a skeptic. A denier asserts that some claim is not true. A skeptic asserts that some claim is not certain.

I am a skeptic of various claims that man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause any alleged global warming or supposed climate change.

however you want to mince words, your skeptical denial appears to ignore actually answering the questions. Again:

If you would indulge:

- do you deny warming?

- do you deny climate change?

Continuous direct measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been performed only since 1958 (at Mauna Loa, Hawaii) unlike carbon dioxide measurements before 1958, shown in red in the graph displayed here and in non-green in this chart. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries A.D., many direct measurements of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide were higher than present-day carbon dioxide measurements and there was no runaway greenhouse-gas global warming effect.

interesting... clearly, with your blog link... blog science rules! I see your blog link references to the paper by a "grammar school biology teacher", Ernst-Georg Beck... as published in the skeptics favoured and wholly discredited journal, Energy & Environment. Why... I do believe I've had something to say about Energy & Environment in the past:

The E&E journal - the last resort for skeptics when their hopelessly flawed papers get punted from real scientific journals. One only needs to look at the E&E journal's editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen - her background... her comments, to realize the level of Riverwind "unbiased" journalism.

Skeptics get a journal

If the manuscripts of climate-change skeptics are rejected by peer-reviewed science journals, they can always send their studies to Energy & Environment. “It’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published,” explains Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the journal’s editor.

According to a search of WorldCat, a database of libraries, the journal is found in only 25 libraries worldwide. And the journal is not included in Journal Citation Reports, which lists the impact factors for the top 6000 peer-reviewed journals. The journal remains unknown to most scientists. “I really don’t know what it is,” says Jay Famiglietti, editor-in-chief of Geophysical Research Letters.

“I’m definitely a political scientist,” says Energy & Environment editor Boehmer-Christiansen. A reader in geography at the University of Hull (U.K.), Boehmer-Christiansen describes her doctoral work as covering international relations, but says she consults others before publishing any studies in her journal. “My science is Alevel chemistry, physics, one year of geography at university, and a bit of math.” She adds that her husband has a Ph.D. in physics.

She says that the more mainstream climatologists agree, the more suspicious she becomes about claims that human activity is causing global warming. Citing her upbringing in what was then East Germany, she states, “I was born in the Nazi era with one set of consensus, then brought up by the communists where there was also strong consensus. So just by nature, I’m very suspicious.

”

but it just gets better...

-

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is an advising member of the “Scientific Alliance”

-

a sourcewatch listing for the "Scientific Alliance"

-

another advising member of the "Scientific Alliance" - Jack Barrett

of course, the thrust of your favoured paper, as published in the discredited journal E&E, has the author Beck claiming that there were wild fluctuations in CO2 concentration that suddenly ended... when the most accurate Mauna Loa measurements started. Quite the timing by Beck, wouldn't you agree?

in any case, the reputable and much esteemed scientists, Prof. Dr. Harro A.J. Meijer & Prof. Dr. Ralph F. Keeling, saw fit to debunk the Beck paper through these separate comments:

and since you dipped your wick in blogDenialTown, I won't hesitate to do the same with this quite cutting rendition that does a real number on your boy Beck's "earth/science shattering piece of wonderment" - here...

So what does the new (Ernst-Georg Beck) CO2 “reconstruction” look like? For example, within 15 years CO2 levels rose from about 290ppm (1925) to about 470ppm (1942). Worse, within only 10 years these huge CO2 levels were absorbed again and came back to boring mainstream values of about 300ppm.

The list of arguments against such variability in the carbon cycle is too long even for a post on RC but here are a few of the main ones:

- The fluxes necessary to produce such variations are just unbelievably huge. Modern fossil fuel emissions are about 7.5GT (Giga Tons) Carbon per year which would correspond to about 3.5ppm increase per year (except that about half is absorbed by natural sinks in the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere). Beck’s supposed 150ppm source/sink in a decade corresponds therefore to a CO2 production/absorption about ten times stronger than the entire global industrial production of 2007 (putting aside for the moment additional complications since such CO2 levels had to be equilibrated at least partly with the ocean and the real CO2 source must even be larger).

- Such huge biospheric fluxes would leave an enormous 13C signal in the atmosphere. Nothing remotely like that is observed in tree ring cellulose data.

- Beck makes an association of some of the alleged huge CO2 peaks with volcanic eruptions. The Mauna Loa CO2 record started by Charles Keeling 1955 (

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/,

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf

) however doesn’t show much variability associated with the big eruptions of El Chichon, Agung or Pinatubo. (Readers should know however that on much longer, geologic, timescales, CO2 levels are heavily influenced by volcanic and tectonic activity, but that is not important on the interannual (or even centennial) timescale).

- The paper suggests that the CO2 peak in the 1940 is forced by the first temperature rise in the 20th century. That would make 150ppm due to a temperature shift of 0.4°C. What happened then with the next rise from the 1970s to today? The observed about 0.5°C rise corresponded to “only” 70ppm always assuming that fossil fuel combustion does not leave any remains in the atmosphere….

- And most importantly, we know from ice core analysis the CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial to modern times. The results of three different Antarctic cores broadly confirm the picture of an accelerating rise of CO2 above levels of natural variability over the last 650.000 years.

since I appear to be on a... roll... it's been way too long since I posted the following - enjoy!

[Saipan]

- do you deny warming?

Depends where and when. In Northern hemisphere warming ends by end of July. Then it's "global" cooling.

- do you deny climate change?

NO ONE does. It's going on for millions of years. I.e. millions of years before we started using SUVs.

- do you deny carbon dioxide levels have dramatically risen?

Dramatic is in the eye of a beerholder. Nothing to do with the subject.

- do you deny mankind is the principal cause of the increase in carbon dioxide levels?

Of course. But mankind is the pricipal cause of animal, human, and economic sarifices as well as rain dances.

a significant increased warming has occurred in the relatively recent decades

Actually it didn't. It was much warmer for example during the Great Depression. ALSO some 1,000 years ago when Vikings were happily faming Greenland. And even more so during the Holocene Maximum, 4-6,000 years ago. No SUVs then.

The real disater for mankind on this planet is COOLING. And ice ages are consideraly longer on this planet than warming periods. We are VERY lucky to live in this time. But is won't last forever before another cooling sets in. And there are some indications already.

mankind's burning of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect?

Burning fossil fuels was linked to global cooling in the 70's. "New Ice Age" era of the "energy crises" of Jimmy Carter. "pollution causes equivalent of nuclear winter" (we all gona freeze) At that time all Midwest rivers froze preventing more effecive distribution of heating fuel by barges. Emergency situation! "We will be out of out of oil by mid 80's "scientists" forecasted. Florida swamps were selling like hotcakes. Panickers heading South.

Animation of the ice moving South was shown on TV. "Will be" and "will happen" were the buzzwords of the day - just like now.

If the scientists say the sky is green there will be many sceptics at first, but eventually more and more people will see it green. Sort of greenish indeed......

Shouldn't we be experiencing increasingly more severe hurricanes every year since Katrina. What happen?

[dpwozney]

however you want to mince words, your skeptical denial appears to ignore actually answering the questions. Again:

If you would indulge:

- do you deny warming?

- do you deny climate change?

I have already answered your questions by stating:

(a) I am a skeptic of various claims that man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause any alleged global warming or supposed climate change; and,

(b ) There is an important difference between a denier and a skeptic. A denier asserts that some claim is not true. A skeptic asserts that some claim is not certain.

I do not assert that warming is not true. I do not assert that climate change is not true.

I assert that various claims, that man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause any alleged global warming or supposed climate change, are not certain.

... the author Beck claiming that there were wild fluctuations in CO2 concentration ...

The “fluctuations in CO2 concentration” are not so “wild”, once one is aware of certain extra mechanisms which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Certain extra mechanisms, not yet described publicly, remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which results in the so-called “missing carbon sink”. These extra mechanisms, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, need to be adequately explained and understood if the extent of human impact on the global carbon cycle is to be acceptably assessed and reliably predicted.

For example, within 15 years CO2 levels rose from about 290ppm (1925) to about 470ppm (1942). Worse, within only 10 years these huge CO2 levels were absorbed again and came back to boring mainstream values of about 300ppm.

The list of arguments against such variability in the carbon cycle is too long even for a post on RC but here are a few of the main ones:

- The fluxes necessary to produce such variations are just unbelievably huge. Modern fossil fuel emissions are about 7.5GT (Giga Tons) Carbon per year which would correspond to about 3.5ppm increase per year (except that about half is absorbed by natural sinks in the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere). Beck’s supposed 150ppm source/sink in a decade corresponds therefore to a CO2 production/absorption about ten times stronger than the entire global industrial production of 2007 (putting aside for the moment additional complications since such CO2 levels had to be equilibrated at least partly with the ocean and the real CO2 source must even be larger).

The carbon dioxide measurements before 1958 are very local measurements, at various specific times, and not measurements that should necessarily be extrapolated to the entire biosphere.

Edited August 21, 2011 by dpwozney

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Correct me if I got the wrong idea, Michael. You seem to be implying that those against the man-made climate change issue are all bloggers or rightwing talk show hosts.

Do you really believe this to be true? That there are no or very few real scientists who do NOT subscribe to the AGW position?

If so, I can see why you believe the "science has been done and the debate is over! We are right and everyone else is wrong! It's time to make policy!"

I'm sure Exxon can pay off quite a few scientists to get some dissenting opinion out there.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

If this has been noted in a previous post, my apologies. I haven't canvassed the entire thread. However, the fact is that with the exception of many poor people, the price of energy could double in Canada and most Canadians could conserve well-enough that their energy costs would not rise. It is better to increase energy costs and use less energy (i.e. conserve) and keep the out-of-pocket expenditures the same than increase the use of fossil fuels.

I mentioned that earlier too.

Conservatives hate energy conservation. Most times, (if not almost always) the right thing to do and profitering capitalists don't go together. Energy conservation falls into that category... so conservatives hate it rather than doing the right thing.

Edited August 21, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Michael Hardner]

Burning fossil fuels was linked to global cooling in the 70's. "New Ice Age" era of the "energy crises" of Jimmy Carter. "pollution causes equivalent of nuclear winter" (we all gona freeze) At that time all Midwest rivers froze preventing more effecive distribution of heating fuel by barges.

Saipan, when a poster trots out this argument it tells me that they're totally off the map with knowing what is going on.

The "New Ice Age" was not believed in by climate science - there were more papers at that time talking about global warming, even then.

When a poster starts parroting these internet rumours, it tells me that they are truly deniers.

[bush_cheney2004]

...When a poster starts parroting these internet rumours, it tells me that they are truly deniers.

It was not a rumour....I have already posted the reference that explains the historical context for reports of cooling as supported by data. The point of the exercise is to learn the lesson of that time - predictions are/were not possible based on the current understanding of climate system(s).

[Saipan]

I'm sure Exxon can pay off quite a few scientists to get some dissenting opinion out there.

1) WHY would they? Does OPEC?

2) Where are Gore's millions coming from?

Edited August 21, 2011 by Saipan

[Michael Hardner]

It was not a rumour....I have already posted the reference that explains the historical context for reports of cooling as supported by data. The point of the exercise is to learn the lesson of that time - predictions are/were not possible based on the current understanding of climate system(s).

I thought you posted something about recent cooling. That's a separate issue (also not widely bought into, but the subject of some serious debate at least) and not related to the 1970s red herring. How many papers were published supporting the idea of global cooling, I ask you.

[bush_cheney2004]

I thought you posted something about recent cooling. That's a separate issue (also not widely bought into, but the subject of some serious debate at least) and not related to the 1970s red herring. How many papers were published supporting the idea of global cooling, I ask you.

This is not a battle won by quantity of papers. Count them yourself in the references for this wiki entry, but even that is not all inclusive:

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

Edited August 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Saipan]

I thought you posted something about recent cooling. That's a separate issue

As separate as "global" warming.

How many papers were published supporting the idea of global cooling, I ask you.

Tons daily.

[Saipan]

Saipan, when a poster trots out this argument it tells me that they're totally off the map with knowing what is going on.

If you don't like the message you can always attack the messenger.

The "New Ice Age" was not believed in by climate science

Yes, it was - in your face - everywhere.

there were more papers at that time talking about global warming, even then.

Not at all.

When a poster starts parroting these internet rumours, it tells me that they are truly deniers.

Exactly