I like it round here, everything looks really dark and sandy.
November 3, 2006 at 10:05 AM
Anonymous
said...
The "greens" are very close to getting power...within inches now. Look at when Peter Hitchens (the Daily Mail version, not the much loved one here) questioned Global Warming on Question Time last night and how the brainwashed mass in the audience jeered. Or pehaps the audience comprised a lot of people with PhDs in Climatology or Meterology? The "green" agenda is basically fascist. It hates our capitalist way of life and wants to fundamentally change the way we live through coercion. Climate change is not a reason for them, but an excuse and lever to power. I fear the voice of sanity has already lost.
November 3, 2006 at 10:07 AM
Anonymous
said...
"Dishonourable" This coming from a man who has been shagging his cousin behind his wifes(another cousin) back. "Get a proper job instead of trying to peddle your shite publication and gambling all day you silver spooned wanker!" (thats goldsmith guido , not you)
November 3, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Anonymous
said...
Nigel shouldn't worry - its all hot air and the government wouldn't dare take any serious measures. Those of us still around in 30 years or so will get to see the experimental outcome.
And what's wrong with being anti-human? Taking a random sample from the population - eg the House of Commons - how many are actually useful?
We can have our cake and eat it. Quite soon we will be able to drive and fly to our heart's content with very little in the way of emissions. We don't need doom merchants or naysayers!
November 3, 2006 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous
said...
I like it round here, nobody else has moved on.
November 3, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Anonymous
said...
I love you right-wing nutjobs.
Just when Dishy Dave manages to sweep the European issue under the carpet - and so starving all the Little-Englander Tories of an issue to carp on about on in the media - you pop up with another, more ridiculous argument than the "European Conspiracy": that Global Warming isn't real.
If you want to see what people think of the proposition that Climate Change is a "Gaia Conspiracy" track down a copy of Lawson's appearance on Newsnight on Monday. The rest of the panel (and most of the viewers I'd wager) were laughing up their sleeves at him.
November 3, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous
said...
I like it round here, when I chew the carpet everyone joins in.
I don't know much about climate change, because I'm not a climatologist. But I know what to call a movement where you have slavishly to follow the orthodoxy otherwise a)you are a bad person and b)something as yet unexplained but definitely bad will happen to you.
I'd be a sight more convinced by the green champions if they could decide exactly what is going to happen. And I'd love to know why asking for some evidence or proof before imposing swingeing taxation and hamstringing the economy is somehow more head-in-the-clouds than running around with fingers jammed firmly in ears shouting "the end is nigh!" This may mean my head is in the sand, but i'd rather it was there than up my fundament
November 3, 2006 at 10:27 AM
Anonymous
said...
being Friday, I guess today is a fun day! :)
November 3, 2006 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous
said...
I'll accept the hypothesis of global warming but can someone answer these questions for me?
- If global warming threatens Florida, Bangladesh etc, why can't they build flood defences? 27% of the Netherlands is below the sea level after all. - If Britain was evacuated tomorrow, global carbon emissions would fall by 2%. So if everyone in Britain buys energy saving bulbs or cycles to work, they might save money or get healthier but they won't make much difference to global warming. - Will green taxes see taxes rise or will be get a matching fall in income tax, VAT and corporation tax? - Politicians love expanding their franchise, just as Bush loves to whip up fear of "terror" in the US, are Europe's politicians trying to cower their populations with scare stories of warm-weather? - Why not spend some, just some, of the money to be allocated towards cutting carbon emissions on helping to provide drinking water, vaccinations and basic medicines to the third world instead?
November 3, 2006 at 10:34 AM
Anonymous
said...
Aaah, home at last.
November 3, 2006 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous
said...
"Scratch the surface of even the most harmless cuddly Green and you find an agenda which is a totalitarian..." Zac Goldsmith is quite cuddly, though...!
November 3, 2006 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous
said...
Adaam smith U' Akhbar!
November 3, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Anonymous
said...
I urged people to read the entire Lawson piece. It is very good, and the punchline about Iraq is excellent.
Nice to see the old fella still mixing it in areas of public controversy and reminding us that he was once one of the more credible politicians, and not just Nigella's dad.
November 3, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Anonymous
said...
"based on "Gaia" mysticism" but they don't even understand Gaia!
She's a touchy feely form of Le Chatelier's principle - if the planet warms by, say, 1 °C it doesn't warm evenly. The poles have a neglible difference whereas the tropics heat up by more than 1 °C. Consequently, there is a greater amount of evaporation of water, consequently there is a greater amount of precipitation (rain/snow/sleet/hail etc) most of which ends up over the poles. Consequently the poles get thicker; consequently when the annual freeze thaw process occurs, the thaw happens to a lesser extent, 'cos the ice is thicker; hence, the ice sheets expand. This ends up cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight, etc etc etc ...
(The electron capture detector on my GC is still cool, though !).
November 3, 2006 at 10:51 AM
Anonymous
said...
Rather than just increase tax on Her Majesty’s subjects to reduce their carbon use, why not let energy saving measures adopted in the home (or to a car) be a) free of VAT, b) deductible from income tax. This would give a real boost to the energy conservation business as well as providing real incentives to ordinary people to become more energy efficient. It’d also piss off Gordon. However this govt. seems more interested in raising taxes and restricting behaviour than doing anything for the people.
November 3, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous
said...
Try this eco baiting technique to test if they really have got the planet as their major concern.
Tell them that the problem of climate change has been solved without us having to alter our consumption through the use of a new mathematical model which shows a carbon neutral result is possible though just altering the energy base a fraction. This has already been done and so the model shows no more climate change happening.
See how many feel disappointed rather than happy at the wisdom of man - see the hidden agenda pop out!
It really is a battle of emotion verses content. Its a shame burning Environmentalists is such a carbon rich policy because it would certainly flow with their population reduction policies.
November 3, 2006 at 10:56 AM
Anonymous
said...
Scratch the surface of even the most harmless cuddly right-winger and you find an agenda which is selfish and based on "Market" mysticism cloaking an essentially anti-human tendency which values "The Market" as more important than humanity.
November 3, 2006 at 10:58 AM
Anonymous
said...
gizza link to the lawson piece then
November 3, 2006 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous
said...
Zac has his father's openness towards contrary opinion..........and his graciousness in dealings with others.......
My, I am satirical today
November 3, 2006 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous
said...
F0ul - do you know where such a such a new mathematicla model can be found? I'd like to have my facts lined up before the baiting begins.
November 3, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous
said...
I know Global Warming is going to happen because Hollywood said so in the Day After Tomorrow. No wait, the scientist got it wrong, it was an ice age.
Still, I'll definitely know it's been avoided when Bollywood does a remake.
November 3, 2006 at 11:09 AM
Anonymous
said...
good article. but surely many of the people wanting to save the planet are not secular but religious in inclination ? they may believe that we humans have an obligation to look after 'creation'?
there is an element of shooting the messenger [Stern] here. agree that as with doctors, it is possible to always find scientists who will give you the answer you want to hear. but given the weight of evidence, isn't a precautionary approach justified & sensible ?
After all, it took decades to prove conclusively that smoking would kill you. you might have felt smug in waiting until it was proved beyond reasonable doubt, but by then you might have lung cancer. and with the lungs of the planet at stake, can we afford to be as cavalier as you suggest ?
Your point about the choice between humans and the environment is as specious as the old argument that we have to choose between the economy and the environment. If we ruin the latter humans will find it very difficult to make money !
You slate 'gaia' - well she would smell as sweet if you called her mother nature, and her revenge will be just as fierce even if you choose to ignore her by burying your blindfolded head in the sand.
November 3, 2006 at 11:11 AM
Anonymous
said...
On a lighter note, if you haven't yet got the current Private Eye go and get a copy now. It highlights how we have found a new source of energy in these isles. Can't say too much but if I tell you that the source has been found in 'waterstones' and involves burning a certain minister's memoirs....
November 3, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous
said...
Hang on, moonbats; Michael Meacher reckons ‘we are the virus’ infecting the Earth’s body and Tony Banks proposes a motion to the House saying: ‘This House…believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the Earth and wipes them out, thus giving Nature the opportunity to start again’...
...nd we're the 'anti-human' ones? 10.58, you are a pefidious waste perfectly good oxygen.
Nope, I suspect Hislop has more on his plate than I do. Although I could pretend to be him, and we could discuss / whinge / try to solve the problem of lazy journos nicking one's best work and trying to pass it off as one's own to the plebs without the wit and wisdom to read guido/the eye...
p.s. the craig brown piece about the nonsense people having been talking about those bloody veils is well worth a look as well..
Hang on, is that the same Nigel "BOOM-BUST" Lawson who was responsible for the recession of 1991/92? I wouldn't trust him to read my meter and would happily shove my redundancy notice from 1991 up his rectum.
November 3, 2006 at 11:26 AM
Anonymous
said...
It occurs to me that multiculturalism was beyond (even reasoned) criticism until quite recently, but that particular bandwagon is now shedding wheels fairly steadily.
One wonders if the climate change industry might be under similarly sceptical scrutiny five years hence?
November 3, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Anonymous
said...
frank caspar - some good points here, but the one about the flood defences misses the point. Stern is trying to say that the old way of treating only the symptoms of climate change will not work, and may ruin the economy.
Flood defences in Britain might work on one beach, but just push the problem to another part of the coast. Once the sea has invaded there the flood defence is pointless because the water leaks in behind it from the land side.
Good point about the clean water. However worth thinking that for areas near the coast rising salty sea water levels can cause many problems here, as they did for the countries affected by the tsunami.
November 3, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Anonymous
said...
The reason the Green lot look and sound like a religious organisation is that almost all human organisations end up looking like one - its built in to our character. Gordon and Tony sound like they are leading a religion half the time, albeit one teetering on schism.
Religious organisations are always based on retaining or gaining power, even if the original tenets of the religion itself are reasonable.
The bizarre thing is, is that if the Greens really believed in James Lovelock's "Gaia", they'd wouldn't worry too much about the planet, as it could be expected to get rid of the cause of the problem - ie us. Some of them sound anti-human, but fundamentally they are trying to maintain control of the planet to suit humans.
Anyway, I'm glad to see Nigel Lawson is still about, I thought he hadn't been that well recently. Didn't he bring in the fuel escalator, though?
November 3, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Anonymous
said...
The Stern Report is the usual leftie scare mongering to get their opinions foisted onto a disbelieving world and put into practice at any cost. The Flash Gordon principle of only having hours to save the world. Nice to see a counter opinion given with style, supported by Lomborg's earlier comments, arousing the ire of the eco/green fascists who would have us believe that they and only they have the solution.
The Gaia hypothesis implies that the earth will act to protect itself and anything we do is irrelevant. If global warming results in mass starvation, mass drowning and diminished economic activity it will, in the medium term, restore balance to the climate by reducing carbon emmissions. Bangladesh's carbon footprint will be washed away by the incoming tide. So will much of China's and India's. It will be an interesting period to live through, and those old enough to remember David Cameron's attempts to forestall disaster by cycling through the London traffic will at least have an amusing anecdote to dine out on.
November 3, 2006 at 11:36 AM
Anonymous
said...
What! The statistics in Stern are spurious? Has anyone told him? You'd better give him the correct numbers quick ...
I reckon it was this bit you didn't like ... "Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen." (from the Executive Summary).
I count myself a Green, you'd have to ask my wife about my cuddliness, to say I care more about the environment than people is an insulting and false choice, I care about the environment not for any mystical, psuedo-religious reason. I care about the environment because it's where we live .
The most probable outlook is that there will indeed be "the most profound adverse effect on people’s lives,", however the people affected, at least at first, will mainly be poor and a long way away, so no need to worry about losing the Hummer just yet.
Exactly what would form "a basis for policy decisions?"
November 3, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Anonymous
said...
There has been a trend for a number of years of what can be called the Liberal Industries. These include the aid industry in Africa and the Environmental industry the rise in the Charitable Non-Government Sector, Health and Safety as well as Human Rights and Legal Aid.
There are more aid workers in Africa today than there were administrators during colonialism. I don't think anybody is to blame or that there is a conspiracy but people simply convince themselves that being Liberal is correct. In the same way that during the Thatcher era too many people became self-employed and believed that was correct.
November 3, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Anonymous
said...
Guido - glad to see you are on the 'right' side of this argument now, apparently. A couple of weeks ago, you appeared to be taking the other side, ie a bit doomy, greeny etc and mocking the sceptics. What's happened?
Were the hippies right, I wonder? Despite the dreadful haricuts, they did have very similar ideals to you Guido. Actually - the hairstyles are similar...... However - I agree - the 'Green' agenda seems to be largely about taking us back to a stone-age with health and safety.
November 3, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Anonymous
said...
An opportunity missed
Surely you could have squeezed a picture of Nigella in somewhere?
November 3, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
It's awfully expensive to be green; and if Brown gets the Precious all the greenery is going to be taxed as well, particularly pleasant green environments, and cost even more. Couldn't there just be condemnation of the poor and dirty like there used to be, and no tax rises on the newly comfortably off?
November 3, 2006 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous
said...
The very fact that both the Conservative and Labour enviroment spokesmen like to stick their knobs up other mens bottoms tells me all I need to know about their judgement.
November 3, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
'Peter Hitchens' at 12:31
"The very fact that both the Conservative and Labour enviroment spokesmen like to stick their knobs up other mens bottoms tells me all I need to know about their judgement."
Where would he prefer to see them stuck? Or is this a plea for sexual equality? How does he feel about goats, chickens, donkeys etc? Clarifications please...
I wouldn't say that europe is in the grip of an enviro-religious revival and that the continent is full of fundamentalist, intolerant, gaia believers. I live in one of the more (supposedly) environmentally aware countries (Germany) and can assure you that the love of the fast car and "unbegrenzte Geschwindichkeit" on the autobahn will be defended to the last breath by many citizens.
Global warming is real. i.e. the planet is getting warmer - no arguments about that from anyone. The probability that a significant proportion of the warming is caused by industrial emissions is very high. The vast majority of scientists conclude so. A few dissent and offer alternative explanations. In general, science can offer no proof a priori of MMGW. All looks into the future are based on climate models, which, though very complicated, are still gross simplifications of the Earth's oceans and atmosphere. Nonetheless, if these models capture the dominant driving forces of climate and their interactions, they won't be that far wrong. This is true for all forms of modelling prediction in Earth Sciences where 2nd and 3rd order effects are simply ignored, with little discernible effect on verifiable outcomes. The vast majority of climate models are forecasting 2.5-7C warming by 2100 depending partly on how successfully we contain carbon emissions.
For all Nigel Lawson's pontificating, he remains a high priest of another, much more destructive and anti-social religion - economics. As such, I fear he is blind himslef to another forthcoming problem, cheerfully ignored by economics. We are soon to start running out of oil. Yippee. Global warming solved? Well, maybe, maybe not. But the difficulties it could pose for the economist's perpetual motion machine don't bare thinking about.
I remain of the opinion that our only way out of both messes, climate and oil depletion, is technological advance. Quite how to achieve it in the optimal and most timely manner, I cannot say. However, the laissez-faire market driven solution will fail, either completely or for a significant (decadal) period, and lead to mass catastrophe.
There, I've been serious on Guido's blog...
November 3, 2006 at 12:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
macles said:"Global warming is real. i.e. the planet is getting warmer - no arguments about that from anyone."
Actually there are arguments about that, but let's agree the evidence is looking stronger. The question is by how much and what is causing it. The Green doomsayers are coming up with lower and lower estimates all the time. A degree or two over the next century is meaningless - which is pretty much where the Green consensus lies. The other question is what is causing it and as that is largely unknown it is too soon to leap to huge social changes just in case.
macles said:"All looks into the future are based on climate models, which, though very complicated, are still gross simplifications of the Earth's oceans and atmosphere. Nonetheless, if these models capture the dominant driving forces of climate and their interactions, they won't be that far wrong."
Except that the atmosphere is too complicated to be modeled. It is chaotic (or more accurately non-linear) and so any model is an approximation of more or less zero-worth. The question is whether they can accurately model the past - and not one single model if given the weather up to 1950 can get close to accuracy for 1955 much less 2000. Of course given the science is so poor, they are also based on guesses about what causes global warming - so if you program the damn things to start from the position that CO2 causes Global Warming, the models, big surprise, often find Global Warming is caused by CO2 rises.
macles said:"For all Nigel Lawson's pontificating, he remains a high priest of another, much more destructive and anti-social religion - economics."
How is economics destructive? This goes to the heart of hatred of humanity the Greens hold dear. What is wrong with the process that has lifted billions of people out of poverty and hunger and made the world a better place? Do you really hate your fellow men that much? Who is more anti-social - Greens who want most people to die or economists who want them to be rich and happy?
macles said:"We are soon to start running out of oil. Yippee."
Yes, as Asterix's chief always said, "I fear nothing but the sky falling tomorrow". Let us know when oil does actually run out, or even start running out, or even showing signs that it is about to start running out.
macles said:"I remain of the opinion that our only way out of both messes, climate and oil depletion, is technological advance."
You mean those economists may be on to something with their perpetual motion machines - as long as human enginuity does not fail?
macles said:"However, the laissez-faire market driven solution will fail, either completely or for a significant (decadal) period, and lead to mass catastrophe."
Spot the article of religious faith. Why do you believe that?
November 3, 2006 at 1:03 PM
Anonymous
said...
In 100 years we will look back at the 20th century as the age of petrol.
Politics unfortunately will go on forever.
P.S. Just bought a copy of the Spectator - it has improved greatly in it's utility in the past few months as they have down graded their paper quality.
November 3, 2006 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
URGENT MESSAGE:
Could Guido remind all these bores of the posting rules?
Go and argue on the WWF, FoE websites!
November 3, 2006 at 1:08 PM
Anonymous
said...
Maccles 12:52 F******* Hell a boring German! Vee haf vays of making zee glass eye fall alseep.
"zer I haf bin serious on Gvidos blog" Listen Herman , we didnt kick your arse in two world wars to have you coming on to our blogs boring us to death with your tedious green guilt ridden bollocks. I visted germany once and it was crap , full of beer halls ugly women and sex shops. Apparently most of you spend your free time pissing on each other in rubber lined rooms, I suppose we should all be grateful if it takes your minds off those other popular German pastimes, genocide and invading other peoples contries.
You would have to clarify what is in doubt about the warming trend in climate of the past 150 years. If you mean the "hockey stick" debate, that is a separate issue. It does not change trends in temperature records of the last century.
To clarify. I accept economics is the best (though highly imperfect) underpinning of a collaborative effort for society. However, how well it can effect a transition to an as yet unspecified, sustainable energy system for the globe is highly questionable. Of all the markets riddled with subsisdies in every direction, and utter lack of transparency, energy is the worst.
Also, to clarify, I want the "perpetual motion" to carry on. However, I've peeked behind the curtain and know that there isn't really a wizard. There isn't really magic in the air. Economic activity is completely bound to energy provision. Economic growth requires steady growth in energy consumption. If you look at the figures, you will see we are already close to consuming the energetic equivalent of all photosynthetic production. But remember, we have to eat and maintain some biodiversity, so, close is already dangerous. But, I don't want to reduce the standard of living of anybody. And hence, since I know finite means finite means finite, I consider alternative sources of energy. They exist. Solar cells capture much more energy per square metre than plants, so that's one way of giving ourselves wiggle room. Wind can be used with little (though some) consequence. Nuclear may be a necessary evil. But if you want that option, I'd invite you first to seriously consider how to safely dispose of high level radioactive waste.
Your point about chaos is illuminating. In fact, we are not modelling weather when simulating climate. We are modelling large, coupled systems, and balancing, at system's scales, heat and heat transport, in coupled fluid media of vastly differing viscosity. It's a tricky problem in itself, but actually involves solutions of coupled partial differential equations which though non-linear, still have reasonably stable bounds to their solution spaces. A hurricane hear or a tornado there makes absolutely no difference.
Your point about climate models being unable to predict a century's past climate is actually wrong. Indeed, it is the very test applied to climate models that they first simulate the record from 1900 onwards before propagating the solution into the future.
As to the remark about calling the sky falling in, on such a site as this, you might want to ask Guido what he thinks. I suspect he is well-versed on the issue of resource problems and wouldn't be surprised at all if he hasn't made some derivative bets on oil depletion already. I cannot say when oil will reach peak production. Like climate prediction, it is not an exact science. Indeed, there are no "pde's" even to solve. It relies on curve fitting based on past discoveries, past and current production - the only hard data points available, and the fitted curve is "devoid" of physics. However, there are troubling facts about current production (for instance oil majors, or even certain giant oil fields - Canterell in Mexico, and it appears, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia), and well known data about the drying up of past discoveries over the last 40 years. What you haven't found, you will not be able to produce. Seems reasonable, no?
November 3, 2006 at 1:32 PM
Anonymous
said...
RE green baiting the most useful line i have found is a scientifically robust one.
CH4 (methane)hs about 20x the heat retetion properties of CO2 and is emitted by runinants (cows, sheep etc.). The grwoth in livestock is directly proportional to population growth and rising living standards.
In fact agriculture (ie food) is as big a source of rising man made warming gasses as transport, industry, and property combined.
Genetic engineering and crop GM modification can dramatically reduce a herd's methane emissions.
Rund that past a green and find where their heart really lies. they are happy to promote the science pointing to climate change, but recoil from other scientists which could mitigate the potential impact.
Flat earth, pesimistic, mankind hating wnakers the lot of them. Probably fiddle their taxes too.
Sorry f I broke the posting rules a couple of times. Peter Hitchens - very funny - I know not to take you seriously, and Im sure I have "ways of making you talk". The rubber suits/pissing sounds vaguely like something the house of commons members might enjoy hey? Oh, and I vote for an MP in Britain, because that's my nationality.
November 3, 2006 at 1:35 PM
Anonymous
said...
"A degree or two over the next century is meaningless - which is pretty much where the Green consensus lies "
Yeah 2% is nothing, a mere flesh wound, I've had worse ...
"Ecosystems will be particularly vulnerable to climate change, with around 15 - 40% of species potentially facing extinction after only 2°C of warming. And ocean acidification, a direct result of rising carbon dioxide levels, will have major effects on marine ecosystems, with possible adverse consequences on fish stocks."
Sorry, cod's off. I can offer you Quorn fillet and chips ..."
"water availability and crop yields in southern Europe are expected to decline by 20% with a 2°C increase in global temperatures."
and the chips are £5 a portion ...
"the Amazon rainforest could be significantly, and possibly irrevocably, damaged by a warming of 2 - 3°C."
Is it me or is it stuffy in here, could you open a window, can't seem to catch my breath .. Oh the window is open.
though that last one is based on a guess or 'model' so probably not reliable ...
All quotes from the Executive Summary of the Stern report, which also states ...
"On current trends, average global temperatures will rise by 2 - 3°C within the next fifty years or so. 5 The Earth will be committed to several degrees more warming if emissions continue to grow"
No basis for policy change there, then.
Sleep tight.
November 3, 2006 at 1:39 PM
Anonymous
said...
There is an recent interesting book by a bloke called Diamond about how societies collapse. It got some good reviews, so you may have heard about it: the thing that got the most mentions was about the people of Easter Island cutting down their last tree so they could no longer build boats to fish or to escape. The last bit of the book is about how societies go into denial and refuse to face up to the mounting evidence of growing challenges or of the fatal consequences of doing nothing. I think Diamond would like this blog: there are lots of examples of "denial". This blog shows the resourcefulness of the human mind in thinking up excuses for doing nothing. The one about "Greens have made this up so that they can boss us about" is a fascinating example of this kind of inventiveness.
November 3, 2006 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous
said...
Good god, what ever happened to gossip and dirty jokes? Am I on the wrong blog?
Anyway, Boris Johnson said exactly the same thing and Nigel months ago, and better. Not that he was right then, or ever, but he does write such beautiful fiction.
November 3, 2006 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous
said...
as* Nigel sorry, typing fingers not up to speed yet.
November 3, 2006 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous
said...
anyone who swallows the line that a 2c rise in temperature will led to 15-40% of species becomin extinct should be sent to special school.
The world has witnessed greater change since the middle ages with no such effects.
This debate reminds me of MNight Shalen's fils "The Village" - a bunch of well meaning elite liberals attempt to scare eyerone else into a middle ages lifestyle by the threat of phantom bogeymen.
Ecofundamentalism is the new communism, if if left unchallenges with be just as damaging to mankind's development.
guano: I think the Easter Island story about the last tree is apocryphal...but, cannibalism did occur after a rip-roaring expansion of population allowed by generally unsustainable agricultural practices. There's a rather brutal film-dramatisation of the supposed end of the Easter Islanders - can't remember the title.
raincoaster: it's not really a dirty joke's topic unless you want to go on about the - wtf is he doing with his sister-in-law,/cousin? - bedroom practices of Zac Goldsmith. The hook is real in this topic, and it sets some people off (me for instance) - but no, it's not religion or fundamentalism. It is science, it's uncertain, but there is very strong evidence what we think will happen, will happen, and that's scary. As soon as I mention oil depletion, people get really touchy, because that is a fait accompli, unlike "voluntarily" or rather "being volunteered to" give up oil before it has actually run out in the name of climate change mitigation.
I'd like a joke on a dull Friday afternoon, but it works best on the subject of NuLab lackies and police investigations usually.
November 3, 2006 at 1:51 PM
Anonymous
said...
macles do you bore for England or Germany? You're a fucking champion.
peter - how do you manage to stay in character so well? Ever thought of doing a Borat type movie? You cuddly, rightwing parody thingy, you.
November 3, 2006 at 2:38 PM
Anonymous
said...
Easy macles, Im in a good mood, it was Halloween this week, a day when I get to open the door to trainee parasites and their obese parents and tell them to fuck off when they try and bilk me out of some sweets. I love the look of horror on their faces, even better when their dad dares to give me a mouthful back, I get to escort him and his brats down my drive with a boot up his arse and its all nice and legal, I would get a dog but it would deprive me of the pleasure. Christmas is even better, and woebetide any fucker who wishes me happy new year.
peter - you must make that film-documentary. There's money in it, I swear.
November 3, 2006 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
Tim Worstall makes an interesting point here: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/ "One final small joy though is the way that Pigou and Pigouvian taxes are lauded, along with a calculation of the costs of a tonne of CO2 emissions: $85. If we are indeed to tax the externalities of CO2 then it is easy enough to calculate that the correct Pigovian tax on a litre of petrol is about ten pence. As it is currently taxed at some fifty pence look out for an interesting speech by Gordon Brown soon: fuel duty should, if he accepts the report, be coming down."
When you question a completely alarmist report on global warming they call you a denier.
Lomborg showed their propaganda for what it was years ago. He accepts that global warming is a fact but showed that all the reports were based on really bad statistics. For his troubles he has been painted as a person who denys the facts of global warming.
I accept that it is happening, but believe that the lefty cure is much worse than the disease.
November 3, 2006 at 3:27 PM
Anonymous
said...
Gunslinger - do you suggest that all of science is wrong then?
You would be the one in the stone age if it wan't for people who didn't believe that.
People thought the earth was flat, then that the earth was a sphere. Both were wrong, but if you think that they are equally wrong then you've got problems....
November 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM
Anonymous
said...
Guano
You are full of it.
November 3, 2006 at 3:45 PM
Anonymous
said...
I think you will find that good old water vapour is 95% to blame for the greenhouse effect and that co2 is negligible. Try not to let off to much hot steam, sometimes closing the mouth on a subject helps, ask Monica Lewinsky.
November 3, 2006 at 3:46 PM
Anonymous
said...
I think you will find that good old water vapour is 95% to blame for the greenhouse effect and that co2 is negligible. Try not to let off to much hot steam, sometimes closing the mouth on a subject helps, ask Monica Lewinsky.
this is worth checking out, it is a movie from an Irish bloke about the moralistic and slightly condescending aspect of western environmentalism http://www.mineyourownbusiness.org/index.htm. There is even a Spinal Tap tilt to the idea of measuring wealth by how often a poor family smiles.
...not that all science is wrong, but merely science is not always right, one does not imply the other - it represents our best understanding at a point in time, nothing more, nothing less.
November 3, 2006 at 3:54 PM
Anonymous
said...
Macles I would suggest that your desire that the world is running out of oil is littl emore than an environmenatlists wet dream, versions of this scenario have been repeated since the 1920's - perhaps they may be correct sooner or later.
I am more inclined to side with Sheikh Yamani and the oft repeated view “The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” Essentially markets and technology will solve the problem if interfering Green bastards hands are kept off the levers of power to fuck it all up.
November 3, 2006 at 3:55 PM
Anonymous
said...
Smoking doesn't cause cancer ... .. The earth is flat.
...all views science has held at one time or another...
and which were demonstrated to be false, using er, science.
Funny you should mention DDT - there still are advocates for DDT over on JunkScience.com. where they also are sceptical about global warming, and curiously, the same scumbags who were paid to deny the smoking/cancer link by Philip Morris et al are now turning their PR skills to climate change denial at the behest of Exxon...
hovis, I hope very much sheikh Yamani is right. But he is working on a false time scale, since oil actually physically running out would take an eternity, whilst global depletion causing consistent year on year falls in production (potentially catastrophic) is likely (no one can say for sure beforehand) beginning now. The world is managing a measly 1% increase year on year, and production data are highly unreliable. But we know to a fair degree of accuracy how much we have been discovering over history, and the rate dropped below production replacement a good 20 years ago. There is nothing coming on stream in the future capable of absorbing the likely declines of several super giant fields around the planet. We are in a mess, and much as I hope ingenuity will get us out of this quicker than the problem can develop, I doubt it. Our economic system and financial markets don't have a capacity to accurately predict the future in this case. The failure to do so could be calamitous. I am not saying that because I am an environmentalist either. I am saying it because I fear the end of the standard of living to which me and billions of other humans are nowadays accustomed, with all its consequences. Argue with the laws of thermodynamics if you wish but it is about as futile as a struggle against gravity.
November 3, 2006 at 4:21 PM
Anonymous
said...
There is a load of Bollox on this site today!
You can see why Science is not the subject being taught in schools anymore - it would reduce the number of eco mentalists who would join all these NGO's!
No one has explained the environmental advantage of the Stern report being 700 pages of paper - there might be more energy in burning that than in burning a hippy!
November 3, 2006 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous
said...
Smoking doesn't cause cancer; Asbestos is 100% safe (ditto Lead and DDT); Ulcers are caused by good living; The earth is flat. ...all views science has held at one time or another...
Yes, gunslinger.
To which you could add:
We're all about to be plunged into an new ice age... (That was the settled view of today's global warming crowd about 20 years ago.)
When people start saying, "the science is settled"," as the greenies do now about GW, you can be sure of a couple of things:
(1) They are scientifically illiterate. (2) They are wrong.
Science is NEVER settled; that is its point, every scientific conclusion is always provisional. Only religion (or religion masquerading as science) is ever "settled".
I see Blair has just admitted he was no good at science at school. It shows when he goes on about global warming being the worst thing ever.
November 3, 2006 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous
said...
I think the point we are all missing here is just how massive Nigella lawsons tits are. I would love to spend an hour with her in a hot bath with a bar of soap ,many of the worlds problems could be solved if we all did the same.
Macles apart, what a distressingly unenlightening thread.
November 3, 2006 at 4:42 PM
Anonymous
said...
A couple more points:
(1) If we really are running out of oil, the global warming danger will go away anyway, without new taxes or whatever. (Sorry, Gordon)
(2) There's a simple, easy and actually (believe it or not!) LESS damaging 'cure' to global warming that Stern:
If GW turns out to be real after all, what we need is a small nuclear war. After all, the same people who promised us global warming (or was that an ice age?) also tell us that a nuclear war will cause what they called a nuclear winter. So all we need is a small nuclear war to correct for all that warming... or don't they believe themselves anymore?
November 3, 2006 at 4:50 PM
Anonymous
said...
peter
That water vapour got into the atmosphere by evaporation - which is driven by temperature. More co2 => more temperature => more water vapour => still more temperature.
It would be possible for this effect to run away and evaporate the entire ocean, depending on the feedback factor. Fortunately, at the moment the factor on earth is < 1 and therefore a runaway greenhouse effect doesn't happen. Current theory suggests that you get and additional 0.67C rise due to H20 for every 1C due to other factors, although this might change if we force the climate and screw up the carbon cycle.
Its extremely unlikely that we'll get a runaway greenhouse here, but on our evil twin planet, Venus, it did happen. It seems all the water there evaporated in a runaway greenhouse, and was broken down in the upper atmosphere, leaving the place with no carbon cycle (no dissolving in the ocean), and temperatures of 500C. Oops.
November 3, 2006 at 4:51 PM
Anonymous
said...
To which you could add:
We're all about to be plunged into an new ice age... (That was the settled view of today's global warming crowd about 20 years ago.)
To which you could add ...
The worldwide total of glaciers that are declining is seven (eight at most).
which was the settled view of 2br02b just two days ago.
November 3, 2006 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
2b0r02b
What do you suggest policy decisions should be made on?
Keeping our fingers crossed and hoping for the best? Whatever gets NuLab elected? Whatever gets NuCon elected? Whatever allows you to keep flying to Venice for the weekend (whilst it exists)? Small green pieces of paper? (See Tulips for why this doesn't always regulate well)
Or maybe on the best available evidence at the time?
November 3, 2006 at 5:13 PM
Anonymous
said...
I can't be bothered with this wanking green business. Zac Goldsmith is a self indulgent precious twat. I prefer his crooked dad Sir Jams Goldsmith of Cavendish fame. He lied and cheated his way to a fortune but how sad for him to spawn this egotistical wanker who wants to save the planet. Get a proper job defrauding shareholders you stupid twat.
November 3, 2006 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous
said...
macles said:"You would have to clarify what is in doubt about the warming trend in climate of the past 150 years."
I do not have to clarify a thing. You have to prove that human activity is responsible and given most of that warming took part in the first half of the last century that would be kind of tough. The climate has always varied. So what?
macles said:"To clarify. I accept economics is the best (though highly imperfect) underpinning of a collaborative effort for society."
Really? You don't mean economists are not, as you seemed to be claiming, the most anti-social religious believers out there?
macles said:"However, how well it can effect a transition to an as yet unspecified, sustainable energy system for the globe is highly questionable."
As opposed to the wisdom of the central planners of the past century or so? Tell me what great triumphs Stalinism, or Nehru's Permit Raj or any other form of state planning you care to name has brought us? The market gave us Hong Kong. Planning gave us Canberra. Tell me why anyone in their right mind would trust anyone else but the market to do anything?
macles said:"However, I've peeked behind the curtain and know that there isn't really a wizard. There isn't really magic in the air."
What evidence is there that humans can not think their way out of any large scale problem? What evidence is there that there is no wizard in the enormous capacities of a wealthy and prosperous mankind?
macles said:"Economic activity is completely bound to energy provision. Economic growth requires steady growth in energy consumption."
I tend to think so but in fact Japan and some other places suggest not. You can have lower energy consumption and growth but I feel that fundamentally you should not so I won't argue it.
macles said:"If you look at the figures, you will see we are already close to consuming the energetic equivalent of all photosynthetic production."
World energy consumption is 380 quad BTUs. Sun light is about 2.0x10^23. Photosynthesis is about 4 percent efficient. I still get a whole order of magnitude difference. Perhaps I misplaced a decimal - can you tell me where? Even if this was so, so what? Photosynthesis is crassly inefficient.
macles said:"But remember, we have to eat and maintain some biodiversity, so, close is already dangerous."
Only if you take energy from the plants in the system and given that there is some 96 percent of the Sun's energy to play with I don't see why anyone would.
macles said:"I consider alternative sources of energy. They exist."
Sure they do. Which proves that the Green panic is bollocks.
macles said:"But if you want that option, I'd invite you first to seriously consider how to safely dispose of high level radioactive waste."
Transmutation and/or deep burial.
macles said:"It's a tricky problem in itself, but actually involves solutions of coupled partial differential equations which though non-linear, still have reasonably stable bounds to their solution spaces."
Uh huh. I used to work in this area as a post-grad. The short answer is, wanna bet?
macles said:"Your point about climate models being unable to predict a century's past climate is actually wrong. Indeed, it is the very test applied to climate models that they first simulate the record from 1900 onwards before propagating the solution into the future."
Again, wanna bet?
macles said:"I cannot say when oil will reach peak production. Like climate prediction, it is not an exact science."
Well actually this ought to be. The simple fact is that too much is secret (Saudi reserves for instance) and too much in unknown. But one of the reasons it is so unknown is that the world is not yet showing signs of running out of oil yet.
macles said:"However, there are troubling facts about current production ... and well known data about the drying up of past discoveries over the last 40 years. What you haven't found, you will not be able to produce. Seems reasonable, no?"
It does. But notice the finds in the Gulf of Mexico recently. Notice that the record for this alleged "peak" is all of two years old. Notice the vast reserves of shale oil we know we have. Look at the vast reserves of coal - which are suspiciously located in industrial countries suggesting large reserves in Africa and Latin America. Above all, notice places like Iraq have been closed to exploration for a long time. Who knows what is there?
November 3, 2006 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anonymous:"That water vapour got into the atmosphere by evaporation - which is driven by temperature. More co2 => more temperature => more water vapour => still more temperature."
Umm, no or rather we don't know. More water vapour in the atmosphere also means more clouds and more rain. Which means more sunlight reflected into space and more CO2 absorbed by plants.
The chances that the Earth's climate has a positive feed back loop is next to nil. The Earth has been around a while. It has been hit by asteroids more than once which presumably put more water vapour and CO2 into the atmosphere than we could dream of. Yet here we are. All without Zac Goldsmith and his Green Ecofascist regulators. Who would have thought it?
November 3, 2006 at 5:23 PM
Anonymous
said...
Good God Guido do something about the comments on this thread. If I wanted a GCSE in geography I'd go and buy one.
November 3, 2006 at 5:25 PM
Anonymous
said...
I'm listening to a mad git on Radio 4 saying that Bonfire Night is deeply polluting - fireworks and bonfires create CO2 and therefore we should start scaling back immediately. Is this an unholy alliance between Health & Safey and the ecomentalists?
Everyone should know that the BBC stuffs the audience for "Question Time" to represnet it's own far-left views.
November 3, 2006 at 5:30 PM
Anonymous
said...
anonymous 5:23pm
I didn't say it will run away...it clearly won't, unless something really really bad happens. Though its interesting to note that it did happen elsewhere.
I'm just pointing out that those saying water vapour drowns out everything that we can do because it is 90% (or whatever) of the effect and CO2 is only 2%(or whatever) are wrong.
Also, more water vapour doesn't necessarily mean more clouds - the higher temperature means that it takes more water to form them. In fact, most climate models seem to predict the humidity will remain constant, which would mean the water cycle is just a bit longer and the amount of clouds and rain is more or less the same...
November 3, 2006 at 5:35 PM
Anonymous
said...
anonymous, 5:30pm
Yes, it was a complete nutter. If you are burning biomass from your garden then your bonfire is carbon neutral. God knows where they dug him up.
Of course, if you burnt it in your house to keep yourself warm, that would be better, but the clean air act has ended any chance of that...
This is the problem - a real issue gets clouded by a bunch of nutters - but it is still a real issue.
"The probability that a significant proportion of the warming is caused by industrial emissions is very high"
Based on mathemeatically meaningless calculations. Such as "Averaging the differences between models" when the errors aren't known.
Climate modelling is the BIGGEST LIE ever. It's Recursive nature creates an error exponential behaviour that is tweaked to give the answer that provides the highest funding and PR. One thing they can never do is model what the future of the planets climate will do.
Allways ask people who tell you "the sky is falling" if they know how little CO2 is in the atmosphere.
CO2 is airborne plantfood.
Why do greens call food for plants a pollutant?
An overlarge state such as we have in the UK is an (inneficient) transfer agency. How will raising taxation do anything for the environment? It will just transfer money to politicians who will transfer it to favoured groups to spend (in probably more polluting ways as they have less market influence). Unless melon taxes are RINGFENCED to genuinly green things such as rewarding "CO2 sinks" (forests etc) and the tax will only make politicans more powerful and the general public less wealthy.
Notice what I said - the warming trend - I didn't refer to whether or not it was caused by man. I thought wyou were actually denying climatic warming entirely.
We are not succedding in transitioning to renewable energies fast enough. Central planning in terms of CO2 release is a disaster - China is proof of that. They still plan for all of their riverboat gambling, gung ho capitalism, and at the moment they are planning coal fired power stations.
Global power demand 1.3x10^13 Watts. Global photosynthetic productivity - 5x10^13 Watts. Forecast global power demand for 2050 4x10^13 Watts. I said close. Not exceeding. The problem is the future rise in demand, which has virtually nothing to do with us in the developed world (at least this side of the Atlantic) and everything to do with the developing world where people want, quite legitimately, what we already have. 1-2 billion new consumers. The rise in energy demand globally will occur and be of that magnitude. |
Yes photosynthesis is crassly inefficient (in fact it is much worse than you state - it is bleow 1% on average). Hence, solar energy collection by a range of human contraptions offer a future.
Transmutation doens't exist. Deep burial is a big, big problem and I do work in the field on the long term problems that most people so cheerfully ignore. In short, high level radioactive waste remains an enormous potential problem.
The modelling study in Nature recently which caused such an outcry (more because of the way results were communcated) continas details of how model runs are acccepted or not according to past climate prediction capability.
All that we know about past oil discoveries tells us all we need to know about our future. The Gulf field which was wildly exaggerated anyway, represents 1/2 a years oil consumption. It isn't even worht thinking about. If we don't find Ghawar 2 today, we are going to hit peak oil. Oil shales are marginal energy producers. Tar sands too, and their maximum production rate will not offset the fall off of conventional oil production.
November 3, 2006 at 5:55 PM
Anonymous
said...
For fucks sake lighten up and dish some dirt on Goldsmith. Transfer the debate on CO2 etc to the Gaia website.
November 3, 2006 at 6:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
As Appleyard says, this is a very unenlightening thread (apart from Macles). Perhaps some of you feel good after your 5 minute hate of the Greens, but it doesn't make the challenges go away.
November 3, 2006 at 6:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
anticitizone:
The CO2 produced from fossil fuels has a different isotope ratio (higher proportion of C12) than the atmosphere. Therefore it is very easy to show we put it there without recourse to any climate models.
November 3, 2006 at 6:06 PM
Anonymous
said...
I'm just pointing out that those saying water vapour drowns out everything that we can do because it is 90% (or whatever) of the effect and CO2 is only 2%(or whatever) are wrong.
... or, "Don't confuse me with the facts."
What twaddle.
What you are actually saying is that because accepting that 90+% GW is due to H2O and only 2% to CO2 would destroy your nice neat "CO2-causes-GW" theory we must ignore the H2O elephant in the CO2 theory room.
As classic an example of fundamentalist religious dogmatism in defiance of logic and evidence as ever there was, I'd say.
Also, more water vapour doesn't necessarily mean more clouds - the higher temperature means that it takes more water to form them.
Rubbish. It does not take more water when temperatures are higher, it just means more clouds. Think about it (if you can remember how to do that for yourself) -- there's a lot more cloud over the Tropics than over the Poles. Why ever should that be? (Based on your fantastical 'theory' it should be the other way around.)
(Gosh, it's a lot warmer over the Tropics than over the Poles! Could that have something to do with it?)
In fact, most climate models seem to predict the humidity will remain constant, which would mean the water cycle is just a bit longer and the amount of clouds and rain is more or less the same...
In fact (I think ALL) climate models completely ignore cloud coverage (because if they don't ignore it, the predicted warming does not happen) which is why they predict contant humidity and is yet another reason why they are worthless.
November 3, 2006 at 6:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
2b0r02b:
If you really really insist....
This is a graph of saturated (ie when clouds start to form) vapour pressure (ie how much water there is in the air) against temperature:
Lawson does not look well-fed - he should ask Nigella to cook for him
November 3, 2006 at 6:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
"Perhaps some of you feel good after your 5 minute hate of the Greens, but it doesn't make the challenges go away."
There's the rub. How to make the Greens go away. The challenges will go with them. I just don't know why people worry so. I reckon I've a maximum of 20 years left to live and I'm enjoying the warmer, longer Summers. They were never this nice when I was a kid.
November 3, 2006 at 6:35 PM
Anonymous
said...
Please enlighten us then, O Bryan.
(Preferably in a better prose style than the one you deployed in Understanding the Present)
November 3, 2006 at 7:25 PM
Anonymous
said...
Good god, people, are you paid by the word or something?
BO-RING. And if an ex-Greenpeace worker and science major like me is telling you you're being boring about climate change, you are being fucking boring.
November 3, 2006 at 8:06 PM
Anonymous
said...
anonymous 6:28
If you really really insist.... Look how the vapour pressure goes up with temperature. Good eh?
Pretty, but irrelevant to this discussion.
Saturated vapour pressure (SVP) determines when clouds form and is in turn determined by temperature, yes. Howecver high altitude atmospheric temperature is cool--very cool--even at the equator.
Meanwhile evaporation from the ocaen surface is not determined by SVP but surface termperature. The warmer the ocean, the more evaporation.
Thus what SVP actually determines is not the quantity of clouding at all, but its altitude, as the cloud-bearing part of the atmosphere tends to cool with height above sea level. Thus tropical clouds form at a much higher altitude than Arctic ones, but because the ocean is warmer, there's more--a lot more--of them.
Want to know where the clouds are? Ask a satellite: Doesn't seem to be more at the equator...
I didn't mention the Equator, I talked about the Tropics. There is a discontinuity at the Equator (lack of prevailing winds, etc.) so it differs from the Tropics above and below it.
The postage-stamp-sized cloud map you have come up with proves little, but the singular lack of cloud coverage in the Arctic (except where caused by the Gulf Stream and its Pacific equivalent) and Antarctic are very noticable. The picture is complicated, of course, by the distribution of land and ocean. For example, the south Atlantic off Brazil is probably relatively cloud free because the've all deposited their rain in the Amazon Basin.
The lack of cloud over the Sahara and Australia, on the other hand, is due to a lack of prevailing westerly winds there.
So just ask yourself, where do you find all the rain forests? The Arctic? No, the Tropics.
What is the essential ingredient for a rain forest?
I better tell you as I don't want to over-tax your few grey cells: rain, which arrives in... (wait for it!) clouds.
So on balance, I think your little map tends to support my point.
November 3, 2006 at 9:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
The Stern Report is just another dodgy dossier, from the same people who brought you:
the 45 minute claim, the Hutton Enquiry, the Butler Report.
Stern, Scarlett, Hutton and Butler, purveyors of fine quality whitewash to a government near you.
As my grand said only the other day "its about time we got some decent weather in this country"
November 4, 2006 at 8:13 AM
Anonymous
said...
2b0r02b:
This is already way too much for Guido (although one suspects that he brought up another AGW thread since the last one brought so many page hits), but....
Yes, cloud bases may just go higher, but it doesn't look likely they will actually increase in coverage. Bad thing for your argument, though, is that the low clouds are the ones that act to lower the temperature, by reflecting radiation out, and the high ones keep the heat in by reflecting ground radiation down....
November 4, 2006 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous
said...
macles said:"We are not succedding in transitioning to renewable energies fast enough."
How do you know? The disaster scenario relies on us being unable or too slow to adjust. Why do you think that? If oil is about to run out why would it run out suddenly?
macles said:"Central planning in terms of CO2 release is a disaster - China is proof of that."
And so why is the solution in your opinion less of that soul-destroying evil that is capitalism and more Green central planning?
macles said:"The problem is the future rise in demand, which has virtually nothing to do with us in the developed world ... and everything to do with the developing world where people want, quite legitimately, what we already have."
Then your mention of photosynthesis is irrelevant because the only energy source that affects is biomass of one sort or another. So let's agree that all those Indians and Chinese will enjoy Western levels of wealth soon. So what?
macles said:"Transmutation doens't exist. Deep burial is a big, big problem and I do work in the field on the long term problems that most people so cheerfully ignore."
Transmutation does exist although no one is spending much on it just yet. After all in most power reactors most plutonium *is* burned up. It happens just not intentionally. There is no reason to think that newer generations of reactors could not be so neutron rich they could burn up most of the transuranics.
macles said:"The modelling study in Nature recently which caused such an outcry (more because of the way results were communcated) continas details of how model runs are acccepted or not according to past climate prediction capability."
I have just spent ten minutes searching the Nature site and I can see no details of much. Link?
macles said:"The Gulf field which was wildly exaggerated anyway, represents 1/2 a years oil consumption. It isn't even worht thinking about."
And yet a few more discoveries and you start to have something to talk about. As it is unlikely anyone is going to find a new Ghawar, what we may see is dozens of smaller finds which add up to something.
macles said:"If we don't find Ghawar 2 today, we are going to hit peak oil."
Sure. And the sky will fall on our heads one day. Just not today.
macles said:"Oil shales are marginal energy producers. Tar sands too, and their maximum production rate will not offset the fall off of conventional oil production."
There's two interesting claims. Why do you think that? Which do you think is more likely - a radical restructing of society a la the Khmer Rouge or enough money and brains put into making the alternatives like shale and tar sands work?
November 4, 2006 at 1:55 PM
Anonymous
said...
ok, for all the eco-converts out there, please can you list out for the non-believers, the Radiative Forcings in the AOGCMS (Climate Models), their magnitudes (and errors), signs (warming or cooling) and the current level of scientific uderstanding of each, cos mostly when I look at any of this stuff I see caveat, caveat, caveat.
Then perhaps you can explain the similarity between a model that predicts past behaviour of the stock market and an AOGCM (clue: I wouldn't bet my house on either).
November 4, 2006 at 2:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
'Third World Poverty is picturesque and simple as well as low in carbon emissions', well, no, none of that's true. Is it necessary to go on for pages and pages now, like all the others on this thread?
November 4, 2006 at 2:32 PM
Anonymous
said...
We should have known that lawson would have the Greens for braekfast. That's why he's such a skinny so and so.
November 4, 2006 at 3:18 PM
Anonymous
said...
This is already way too much for Guido (although one suspects that he brought up another AGW thread since the last one brought so many page hits)
yes; Guido, no-one's fooled...except the tree-botherers who are still posting here...
November 4, 2006 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous
said...
only good think about the Global Warming debate is it's brought the Nuclear Power lobby back into play.
Running out of oil globally will be the same as a continent using up its oil reserves. Not in every last detail, but more or less. This already happened in the continental US. The decline in production was steep, and not reversed. Adding offshore and Alaskan discoveries still did not raise production back above its peak (ca 9mbpd if I remember correctly - today it is - for all US including offshore, around 5mbpd). The US is doing exactly what you suggest might replace Ghawar - namely finding lots of small fields. They do not amount to enough. This is a little bit like earthquake energy release - the one big one is worth an order of magnitude more than the sum of the next smallest ones, even though there are many of them.
Moreover, since the early 70's when US peak was reached, enhanced recovery techniques have become the norm. These allow high production rates to be sustained longer, but also lead to a sharper fall off in production. We will be looking at 1-2% drop off per year minimum. It could be as high as 3%. How fast can we mine coal then?
No ingenuity will solve the problem of slightly mature source rocks (which is oil shale). To get what you want from them, you have to add energy. There is a law called thermodynamics which dictates how much energy that is. You cannot break that law (except in economic modelling). The oil is useful because of its near unique energetic properties. It is possible to justify extracting it even when it requires more energy input than the oil contains even. But it will not replace in any way the net energy input into the global economy of the light crudes which are the most susceptible to depletion today.
Our ingenuity is not what is called for. We know the solutions to our energy crisis. Biofuels are not one of them - nor is any form of biomass. We consume too much energy already for that to work. We are bound to using enhanced renewables, mostly solar, since that is by far the largest energy source available to us. It is possible to extract enough energy from these sources to meet demand at century's end even. However, market solutions are not bringing this about. California has suffered, and will again suffer brown-outs. The past ones took place in the "most efficient energy market in the world" - after all, it was controlled by brilliant derivative trades. The financial engineering that was supposed to make everything perfect neglected one important fact. Hot air generated by financial transactions on paper do not lead to any useable source of energy. It is therefore difficult to see quite what is being sold. Whatever it was, there was periodically not enough of it to keep the lights or the air conditioning on in the supposedly most advanced economy on the planet - a favourite boast always being that California's economy was the "4th biggest in the world" (so is it's budget deficit, but never mind).
Markets can lead to irrational behaviour, and when those markets concern energy, the consequences are very real and disastrous. Gas lines are coming for the US. It isn't far away. How fast can alternative fuels be made available then? Just in time, is unfortunately always to late in this case.
I think to put this in perspective, people should understand that we require a total replacement of our energy infrastructure. This means hydrogen fuel stations instead of petrol. This also means a hydrogen production capacity on a scale equivalent to global oil refining. These types of infrastructure projects take 10's of years. Those 10's of years are likely to be unpleasant.
The Nature article was from the Hadley centre climate group I think. The controversy was generated by the maximum warming prediction which went as high as 11C - this was badly presented since its likelihood is essentially nil, but was pounced on by the media. Unless you have an online subscription to Nature however, you will be unable to access the pdf file.
However, to all climate experts who seem to be rewriting Richard Lindzen's IRIS effect papers (good idea but eventually disproved when sufficient data became available) - if you really have a case, write it up in an article and submit it to a scientific journal. Dead easy, and if you're right, you'll probably win a major prize in science. See if you can do better than Richard Lindzen (a brilliant atmospheric physicist with over 200 publications).
November 5, 2006 at 12:38 AM
Anonymous
said...
Macles has made some excellent points.
It's alarming and astonishing to read so many anti-(A)GW posts on here. I move in different circles and had honestly thought the debate had moved on now. No scientist I know denies that the planet is warming, that the increase has been faster than at any previous recorded time, and that C02 emmissions are now at unorecedented levels. Most scientists now accept that this is due in part or whole to human influence.
I note that Macles is criticised for posting something serious. So the once-excellent Fawkes blog is heading down the pan and fast becoming a schoolboy's joke-swap forum is it? If Guido posts on serious topics, albeit in typically trite fashion, expect a reasonably serious response. Heavens, if the dead-tree Private Eye can manage to combine humour with seriousness I'm sure Fawkes can.
As for adulating that buffoon Lawson ... I nearly choked. The man who brought us boom bust, and probably the worst chancellor of the C20th is now the anti-climate change guru is he? Be sure to check who's fleecing his pocket ...
November 5, 2006 at 6:42 AM
Anonymous
said...
The scientists who publicly dissent with the GW consensus are listed in wiki here.
I'm guessing that because emotions run high on the issue, there may be a few more who choose to keep their heads down.
As for Stern's take on the Hockey Stick argument, which is largely where the alarmist language of unprecedented comes from, he seems to be a little less unequivocal:
Some have interpreted the “Hockey Stick” as definitive proof of the human influence on climate. However, others have suggested that the data and methodologies used to produce this type of figure are questionable (e.g. von Storch et al. 2004), because widespread, accurate temperature records are only available for the past 150 years. Much of the temperature record is recreated from a range of ‘proxy’ sources such as tree rings, historical records, ice cores, lake sediments and corals. Climate change arguments do not rest on “proving” that the warming trend is unprecedented over the past Millennium. Whether or not this debate is now settled, this is only one in a number of lines of evidence for human induced climate change.
November 5, 2006 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous
said...
macles said:"This is a little bit like earthquake energy release - the one big one is worth an order of magnitude more than the sum of the next smallest ones, even though there are many of them."
But the problem is not running out of oil, the problem is if we do so very rapidly. That is, an earthquake, not lots of little tremors. The new finds simply high light the fact that we do not know how rapidly peak oil will decline.
macles said:"We will be looking at 1-2% drop off per year minimum. It could be as high as 3%. How fast can we mine coal then?"
I would have thought with very little difficulty. Even a 3 percent decline is a gradual decline.
macles said:"No ingenuity will solve the problem of slightly mature source rocks (which is oil shale). To get what you want from them, you have to add energy. There is a law called thermodynamics which dictates how much energy that is."
I really fail to see how the laws of thermodynamics determine how much energy is stored in shale or tar sands. After all that energy was put into them some time ago. Shale has one of the longest records of economic production of any non-coal alternative: shale was used to produce oil in Scotland from 1850 to 1962. Can you tell me how the Scots managed to side-step the laws of thermodynamics? It was cheap oil that killed Tar sands in Scotland and the US. Tar sands have been producing on a small scale since the 60s.
macles said:"You cannot break that law (except in economic modelling). The oil is useful because of its near unique energetic properties."
You don't have to if it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which it is. The energy in tar sands was put there through the same process as with oil or coal or natural gas - photosynthesis. It is slightly harder to get out which means cracking usually. But then the same is true for crude oil especially the heavier ones. It is a little more energy intensive, but people have had no trouble in the past. If you have evidence that this is an endothermic reaction that uses more energy than you get out I'd be very interested to see it.
macles said:"Our ingenuity is not what is called for. We know the solutions to our energy crisis. Biofuels are not one of them - nor is any form of biomass."
We agree on that.
macles said:"However, market solutions are not bringing this about."
I beg to differ. The market is pricing gas pretty well I think - it is cheap and so solar cannot compete. But as we hit that peak people will turn to other sources. Regulation is actually hurting solar given that people are not charged the economic cost for the grid connection in many places.
macles said:"California has suffered, and will again suffer brown-outs."
Which is a problem with regulation, not energy production.
macles said:"Markets can lead to irrational behaviour, and when those markets concern energy, the consequences are very real and disastrous."
The irrational behaviour of governments and their regulations are not as benign as those of the market. Nor are the consequences as severe.
macles said:"I think to put this in perspective, people should understand that we require a total replacement of our energy infrastructure. This means hydrogen fuel stations instead of petrol."
Why do you think this? Electricity will probably remain the most important form of energy transport. No change there. Turning from supplying petrol to some hydrogen substitute does not seem a big change to me either. Why do you think it will be?
macles said:"This also means a hydrogen production capacity on a scale equivalent to global oil refining. These types of infrastructure projects take 10's of years. Those 10's of years are likely to be unpleasant."
Or we could just produce petrol from coal for a few more decades. What makes you think those decades would be unpleasant? A whole range of petrol alternatives are economic at about the magic $60 a barrel mark. Which is why Canada is having a boom in its tar sand producing provinces. There is no real reason to think that the change over will not be smooth and trouble free.
macles said:"The Nature article was from the Hadley centre climate group I think."
This be the one on 9 August 2004?
November 5, 2006 at 1:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anonymous said:"It's alarming and astonishing to read so many anti-(A)GW posts on here."
Be alarmed if you think it will help.
Anonymous said:"I move in different circles and had honestly thought the debate had moved on now. No scientist I know denies that the planet is warming, that the increase has been faster than at any previous recorded time, and that C02 emmissions are now at unorecedented levels. Most scientists now accept that this is due in part or whole to human influence."
Actually I think you will find several who deny one or all of these claims. But let's accept them. So what? The problem is not if the planet is warming but by how much. A degree here or there is irrelevant and probably a good thing. That it is faster than ever before is almost certainly not true - look at the meteorite crater in Mexico and think how fast that was - but again is irrelevant. What counts is whether it will continue - whether the system has a positive feedback loop. All the evidence suggests not. In fact whether or not the Earth can cope comes down to the simple issue of whether we will get negative or positive feedback.
Anonymous said:"I note that Macles is criticised for posting something serious."
Serious is not accurate.
Anonymous said:"The man who brought us boom bust, and probably the worst chancellor of the C20th is now the anti-climate change guru is he?"
What possible sane criteria could you be using to think Lawson was the worst Chancellor of the 20th century? Do you remember the Winter of Discontent?
The oil shales/energy question. Every barrel of oil produced today necessitates an input of some fraction of a barrel of oil in energy. With oil shales, the amount is close to 1:1 for much of what constitutes the resource on Earth. The issue is no longer one of cost. It is one of net energy gain in a process, and unfortunately, due to the mechanism of "unlocking" what is in the oil shales, there is close to no energy gain. Tar sands are better from this point of view. There's no dispute that they yield net energy. However, the rate at which it is possible to produce them is another question. Nothing is quite as easy (for all its own difficulties) as the production of free flowing oil driven by formation pressure. As that declines (3% per year is anything but negligible, and the rate of decline will increase for a while on the downside) I seriously doubt (I'm far from alone in this) that alternative oils will offer sufficient rates of production. Now, as to the environmental consequences of producing tar sands, we have not even talked about them. Continuing to chew through the remaining fossil fuel reserves on the planet, theoretically more and more each year, will lead to CO2 levels in the atmosphere that no climate report has yet been willing to consider. On top of that, the Canadian tar sands, if produced to a finish, will leave a sludge residue sufficient to fill Lake Superior.
Why else am I bothered? Because this time it is "different". Energy sources are now openly competed for between the traditional users in the western hemisphere and new users, most notably China. China has already won this battle. The victory is in the form of the 1 trillion dollars of "reserves" they've accumulated so far from trade with the rest of the world. They have the hard cash and the productive capacity. When needs must, they will be the ones who can buy what they need in a world of shortages, not the west. And they will. It wasn't like this in the 70's. Then, there was still a way to lift ourselves out of a slump, by eventually increasing oil production again. There will be no increase possible once we are on the downside of the production curve. More worryingly, when an artificial shortage occurred in the 70's/early 80's, no alternative managed to present itself. Instead we had global recessions. We can expect the same again. Will we break the cycle this time without increasing oil production? Eventually yes, I believe so, but how long will it take? Too long in any case for many poor souls. And though I remain relatively optomistic, there are far worse scenarios that could play out where humanity follows dead end tracks to the very end, in the form of endless and pointless resource wars where everybody is the loser. Is that so unimagineable given our general stupidity in the world the last 5 years?
No the Nature article is from 2005...Stainforth et al., vol. 433 no.27, pp403-406
November 5, 2006 at 5:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
Indeed. The only thing it is reasonable to assume is that general stupidity will not be in short supply...
I dont know about global warming but I'm getting fed up cutting bloody grass....
November 6, 2006 at 8:48 AM
Anonymous
said...
macles said:"Every barrel of oil produced today necessitates an input of some fraction of a barrel of oil in energy. With oil shales, the amount is close to 1:1 for much of what constitutes the resource on Earth."
And yet Shell and Chevron, who have invested heavily in Canadian tar sands, do not seem to agree with you. Nor does this explain how others have had decades of experience in extracting useful energy from shale and tar sands. A source if you do not mind. I notice, having just googled it, Estonia used to run two shale-fired power stations - a 1,400 MW plant that opened in 1965 and a 1,600 MW one that opened in 1973. It still provides over half Estonia's primary energy production. This is very clever of them don't you think?
macles said:"The issue is no longer one of cost."
Actually it is entirely one of cost.
macles said:"However, the rate at which it is possible to produce them is another question. Nothing is quite as easy (for all its own difficulties) as the production of free flowing oil driven by formation pressure."
Sure but what is the alternative? You have mentioned hydrogen - which is ironic because hydrogen production is by definition a net loss of energy. At what rate do you think hydrogen might be produced?
macles said:"On top of that, the Canadian tar sands, if produced to a finish, will leave a sludge residue sufficient to fill Lake Superior."
The technology is improving all the time and so by-products will probably decline. As for CO2 emissions, again you assume 1. there is a problem (and let's agree there is) but also 2. the technology of CO2 disposal will not improve as well.
macles said:"Energy sources are now openly competed for between the traditional users in the western hemisphere and new users, most notably China. China has already won this battle. The victory is in the form of the 1 trillion dollars of "reserves" they've accumulated so far from trade with the rest of the world. They have the hard cash and the productive capacity."
Oh please. China is locked out of the main oil producing regions. America has a lock on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. China is forced to pick up marginal producers and those hit by human rights bans like Iran and Sudan. China's "victories" are merely proof of the West's domination. They do not have the cash the West does either as it happens.
macles said:"When needs must, they will be the ones who can buy what they need in a world of shortages, not the west."
Explain to me why a Chinese-owned American dollar is better than an American-owned American dollar? Cash is all green. When the West needs, it will buy in the same market the Chinese do.
macles said:"More worryingly, when an artificial shortage occurred in the 70's/early 80's, no alternative managed to present itself."
Actually a lot of people invested in shale and tar sands and got burned.
November 6, 2006 at 10:57 AM
Anonymous
said...
anonymous at 10:57,
Agreed. The rub (for the Green Lobby) is that 90% of all oil shale reserves are in the good 'ole USA, that's around 560Bn Barrels, think they've also got around 25% of the coal reserves too.
No-one will touch oil shale until there is little prospect of the oil price declining, as you point out too many people got burned in the 70s.
November 6, 2006 at 12:35 PM
Anonymous
said...
Doesn't all this climate-change stuff sound a little Malthusian?
That turned out to be lot of bollocks too, didn't it?
It is suggested that in 20 years time, we can expect a maximum of 3mbpd production from oil shales. Total non-conventional oil may be higher, but 'new' oil coming to market - and we can see into the future for this, since we know which projects are commissioned, and what equipment has been ordered, is not looking like being near enough to replace what will disappear due to depletion from the conventional oil sector. At the same time, all economic forecasts of growth lead to predicted oil demand rising by 20-30 percent in the coming 3 decades.
The anonymous who boasts of oil shale in the US, should first check how much of it is really extractable with a net energy gain. If you believe it is 560bn barrels, I think you may be unpleasantly surprised. But find me anywhere a projection that 20mbpd (that is just today'S US oil consumption) could be derived from oil shale production and coal liquefication together even. It is not going to happen.
Again, I state, last time the world was subjected to a temporary reduction in oil production (better said availability) global recessions were the result. There was little evidence of alternatives appearing and overall energetic inputs to the economy simply dropped. The process only reversed when oil was made freely available once more. The next such reduction will be permanent however. There is good cause to be worried about the consequences.
November 6, 2006 at 1:15 PM
Anonymous
said...
macles,
the wiki entry for oil shale is hereYou are free to edit it, if you think it's incorrect. The article classifies the shale as reserves which by definition means economically viable.
Currently, about 30% of South Africa's transport-fuel (mostly diesel) is produced from coal - not the nicest process in the world, but happening - again wiki is here
Yes, I know oil shale is viable in some places. But it is not just a question of viability. More important is how fast net energy can potentially be produced from a source. Never mind reserve sizes for the moment. We are concerned with maximum conceivable production rates over a mix of sources in the coming decade or two. We can see how this will develop already, since we know what new oil (conventional and non-conventional) is coming on stream. It is surely not enough if Cantarell and Burgan production declines continue, and indeed, Ghawar has possibly peaked. We are way behind with infrastructure for new energy projects. We are doubly hurt because currently, our energy supply is not interchangeable - we actually need a set number of each type of energy (electrical vs. all types of thermal/all different types of solid and liquid fuels) so we may be forced into energetically inefficient conversions of an energy source from one form to another (like South African coal to oil).
Feel free to wiki Hubbert Peak to see what is projected for future production rates from non-conventional oil. As to counter arguments on that page from the oil industry insiders (Maugeri for instance) - ask yourself if what he says is true, why can't his company (ENI) or indeed any other major publically traded international, integrated oil company, increase their own year on year production - or even halt production declines. Very simply, ask where's the beef?
November 6, 2006 at 2:15 PM
Anonymous
said...
Oil shale is not oil. Oil shale is rock (Marl) that has a relatively high concentration of organic carbon compounds in it. If you heat this shale to 700 degrees F you will turn this organic carbon (kerogen) into the nastiest, stinkiest, gooiest, pile of oil-like crap that you can imagine. Then if you send it through the gnarliest oil refinery on the planet you can make it into transportation fuel. In the mean time you have created all kinds of nasty by-products, and have polluted the air and groundwater of where ever you have extracted it.
The biggest deposits of oil shale in the world are indeed in northwestern Colorado. There are approximately 1.3 trillion barrels of POTENTIAL oil in this deposit of oil shale. However, even those in their wildest hallucinations have never proposed that more than about 300 billion of these barrels were POSSIBLY extractable.
Moreover, it takes about 3-5 barrels of water for about every barrel of oil you get. Last time anyone seriously looked at where all this water would come from was Exxon back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Their solution was to re-route the Missouri River into the Colorado to bring water to this very arid area. Yeah, right.
Oh, and one of the completely bonkers ideas was to detonate a nuclear device in the shale to see if they could extract anything. Unsurprisingly, nothing much but radioactive gas resulted.
The Colorado River of course also supplies water to a vast area of the SW US, including most of Arizona, Nevada, southern California etc, so polluting it wouldn't be good.
Oil is very useful for many things, such as making plastics, and as the basis for manufacturing many useful chemicals. It will still be worth extracting in the future even at a marginal energy balance. But burning it will become utterly pointless. Global warming or not.
130 comments:
I like it round here, everything looks really dark and sandy.
The "greens" are very close to getting power...within inches now. Look at when Peter Hitchens (the Daily Mail version, not the much loved one here) questioned Global Warming on Question Time last night and how the brainwashed mass in the audience jeered. Or pehaps the audience comprised a lot of people with PhDs in Climatology or Meterology?
The "green" agenda is basically fascist. It hates our capitalist way of life and wants to fundamentally change the way we live through coercion. Climate change is not a reason for them, but an excuse and lever to power. I fear the voice of sanity has already lost.
"Dishonourable"
This coming from a man who has been shagging his cousin behind his wifes(another cousin) back.
"Get a proper job instead of trying to peddle your shite publication and gambling all day you silver spooned wanker!"
(thats goldsmith guido , not you)
Nigel shouldn't worry - its all hot air and the government wouldn't dare take any serious measures. Those of us still around in 30 years or so will get to see the experimental outcome.
And what's wrong with being anti-human? Taking a random sample from the population - eg the House of Commons - how many are actually useful?
We can have our cake and eat it. Quite soon we will be able to drive and fly to our heart's content with very little in the way of emissions. We don't need doom merchants or naysayers!
I like it round here, nobody else has moved on.
I love you right-wing nutjobs.
Just when Dishy Dave manages to sweep the European issue under the carpet - and so starving all the Little-Englander Tories of an issue to carp on about on in the media - you pop up with another, more ridiculous argument than the "European Conspiracy": that Global Warming isn't real.
If you want to see what people think of the proposition that Climate Change is a "Gaia Conspiracy" track down a copy of Lawson's appearance on Newsnight on Monday. The rest of the panel (and most of the viewers I'd wager) were laughing up their sleeves at him.
I like it round here, when I chew the carpet everyone joins in.
good picture
I don't know much about climate change, because I'm not a climatologist. But I know what to call a movement where you have slavishly to follow the orthodoxy otherwise a)you are a bad person and b)something as yet unexplained but definitely bad will happen to you.
I'd be a sight more convinced by the green champions if they could decide exactly what is going to happen. And I'd love to know why asking for some evidence or proof before imposing swingeing taxation and hamstringing the economy is somehow more head-in-the-clouds than running around with fingers jammed firmly in ears shouting "the end is nigh!"
This may mean my head is in the sand, but i'd rather it was there than up my fundament
being Friday, I guess today is a fun day! :)
I'll accept the hypothesis of global warming but can someone answer these questions for me?
- If global warming threatens Florida, Bangladesh etc, why can't they build flood defences? 27% of the Netherlands is below the sea level after all.
- If Britain was evacuated tomorrow, global carbon emissions would fall by 2%. So if everyone in Britain buys energy saving bulbs or cycles to work, they might save money or get healthier but they won't make much difference to global warming.
- Will green taxes see taxes rise or will be get a matching fall in income tax, VAT and corporation tax?
- Politicians love expanding their franchise, just as Bush loves to whip up fear of "terror" in the US, are Europe's politicians trying to cower their populations with scare stories of warm-weather?
- Why not spend some, just some, of the money to be allocated towards cutting carbon emissions on helping to provide drinking water, vaccinations and basic medicines to the third world instead?
Aaah, home at last.
"Scratch the surface of even the most harmless cuddly Green and you find an agenda which is a totalitarian..."
Zac Goldsmith is quite cuddly, though...!
Adaam smith U' Akhbar!
I urged people to read the entire Lawson piece. It is very good, and the punchline about Iraq is excellent.
Nice to see the old fella still mixing it in areas of public controversy and reminding us that he was once one of the more credible politicians, and not just Nigella's dad.
"based on "Gaia" mysticism" but they don't even understand Gaia!
She's a touchy feely form of Le Chatelier's principle - if the planet warms by, say, 1 °C it doesn't warm evenly. The poles have a neglible difference whereas the tropics heat up by more than 1 °C. Consequently, there is a greater amount of evaporation of water, consequently there is a greater amount of precipitation (rain/snow/sleet/hail etc) most of which ends up over the poles. Consequently the poles get thicker; consequently when the annual freeze thaw process occurs, the thaw happens to a lesser extent, 'cos the ice is thicker; hence, the ice sheets expand. This ends up cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight, etc etc etc ...
(The electron capture detector on my GC is still cool, though !).
Rather than just increase tax on Her Majesty’s subjects to reduce their carbon use, why not let energy saving measures adopted in the home (or to a car) be a) free of VAT, b) deductible from income tax. This would give a real boost to the energy conservation business as well as providing real incentives to ordinary people to become more energy efficient. It’d also piss off Gordon. However this govt. seems more interested in raising taxes and restricting behaviour than doing anything for the people.
Try this eco baiting technique to test if they really have got the planet as their major concern.
Tell them that the problem of climate change has been solved without us having to alter our consumption through the use of a new mathematical model which shows a carbon neutral result is possible though just altering the energy base a fraction. This has already been done and so the model shows no more climate change happening.
See how many feel disappointed rather than happy at the wisdom of man - see the hidden agenda pop out!
It really is a battle of emotion verses content.
Its a shame burning Environmentalists is such a carbon rich policy because it would certainly flow with their population reduction policies.
Scratch the surface of even the most harmless cuddly right-winger and you find an agenda which is selfish and based on "Market" mysticism cloaking an essentially anti-human tendency which values "The Market" as more important than humanity.
gizza link to the lawson piece then
Zac has his father's openness towards contrary opinion..........and his graciousness in dealings with others.......
My, I am satirical today
F0ul - do you know where such a such a new mathematicla model can be found? I'd like to have my facts lined up before the baiting begins.
I know Global Warming is going to happen because Hollywood said so in the Day After Tomorrow. No wait, the scientist got it wrong, it was an ice age.
Still, I'll definitely know it's been avoided when Bollywood does a remake.
good article. but surely many of the people wanting to save the planet are not secular but religious in inclination ? they may believe that we humans have an obligation to look after 'creation'?
there is an element of shooting the messenger [Stern] here. agree that as with doctors, it is possible to always find scientists who will give you the answer you want to hear. but given the weight of evidence, isn't a precautionary approach justified & sensible ?
After all, it took decades to prove conclusively that smoking would kill you. you might have felt smug in waiting until it was proved beyond reasonable doubt, but by then you might have lung cancer. and with the lungs of the planet at stake, can we afford to be as cavalier as you suggest ?
Your point about the choice between humans and the environment is as specious as the old argument that we have to choose between the economy and the environment. If we ruin the latter humans will find it very difficult to make money !
You slate 'gaia' - well she would smell as sweet if you called her mother nature, and her revenge will be just as fierce even if you choose to ignore her by burying your blindfolded head in the sand.
On a lighter note, if you haven't yet got the current Private Eye go and get a copy now. It highlights how we have found a new source of energy in these isles. Can't say too much but if I tell you that the source has been found in 'waterstones' and involves burning a certain minister's memoirs....
Hang on, moonbats; Michael Meacher reckons ‘we are the virus’ infecting the Earth’s body and Tony Banks proposes a motion to the House saying: ‘This House…believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the Earth and wipes them out, thus giving Nature the opportunity to start again’...
...nd we're the 'anti-human' ones? 10.58, you are a pefidious waste perfectly good oxygen.
Is that you Hislop?
Nope, I suspect Hislop has more on his plate than I do. Although I could pretend to be him, and we could discuss / whinge / try to solve the problem of lazy journos nicking one's best work and trying to pass it off as one's own to the plebs without the wit and wisdom to read guido/the eye...
p.s. the craig brown piece about the nonsense people having been talking about those bloody veils is well worth a look as well..
Hang on, is that the same Nigel "BOOM-BUST" Lawson who was responsible for the recession of 1991/92? I wouldn't trust him to read my meter and would happily shove my redundancy notice from 1991 up his rectum.
It occurs to me that multiculturalism was beyond (even reasoned) criticism until quite recently, but that particular bandwagon is now shedding wheels fairly steadily.
One wonders if the climate change industry might be under similarly sceptical scrutiny five years hence?
frank caspar - some good points here, but the one about the flood defences misses the point. Stern is trying to say that the old way of treating only the symptoms of climate change will not work, and may ruin the economy.
Flood defences in Britain might work on one beach, but just push the problem to another part of the coast. Once the sea has invaded there the flood defence is pointless because the water leaks in behind it from the land side.
Good point about the clean water. However worth thinking that for areas near the coast rising salty sea water levels can cause many problems here, as they did for the countries affected by the tsunami.
The reason the Green lot look and sound like a religious organisation is that almost all human organisations end up looking like one - its built in to our character. Gordon and Tony sound like they are leading a religion half the time, albeit one teetering on schism.
Religious organisations are always based on retaining or gaining power, even if the original tenets of the religion itself are reasonable.
The bizarre thing is, is that if the Greens really believed in James Lovelock's "Gaia", they'd wouldn't worry too much about the planet, as it could be expected to get rid of the cause of the problem - ie us. Some of them sound anti-human, but fundamentally they are trying to maintain control of the planet to suit humans.
Anyway, I'm glad to see Nigel Lawson is still about, I thought he hadn't been that well recently. Didn't he bring in the fuel escalator, though?
The Stern Report is the usual leftie scare mongering to get their opinions foisted onto a disbelieving world and put into practice at any cost.
The Flash Gordon principle of only having hours to save the world.
Nice to see a counter opinion given with style, supported by Lomborg's earlier comments, arousing the ire of the eco/green fascists who would have us believe that they and only they have the solution.
Is that you Hislop?
Yeah, right, Guido.
The Gaia hypothesis implies that the earth will act to protect itself and anything we do is irrelevant. If global warming results in mass starvation, mass drowning and diminished economic activity it will, in the medium term, restore balance to the climate by reducing carbon emmissions. Bangladesh's carbon footprint will be washed away by the incoming tide. So will much of China's and India's. It will be an interesting period to live through, and those old enough to remember David Cameron's attempts to forestall disaster by cycling through the London traffic will at least have an amusing anecdote to dine out on.
What! The statistics in Stern are spurious? Has anyone told him? You'd better give him the correct numbers quick ...
I reckon it was this bit you didn't like ... "Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest and
widest-ranging market failure ever seen." (from the Executive Summary).
I count myself a Green, you'd have to ask my wife about my cuddliness, to say I care more about the environment than people is an insulting and false choice, I care about the environment not for any mystical, psuedo-religious reason. I care about the environment because it's where we live .
The most probable outlook is that there will indeed be "the most profound adverse effect on people’s lives,", however the people affected, at least at first, will mainly be poor and a long way away, so no need to worry about losing the Hummer just yet.
Exactly what would form "a basis for policy decisions?"
There has been a trend for a number of years of what can be called the Liberal Industries. These include the aid industry in Africa and the Environmental industry the rise in the Charitable Non-Government Sector, Health and Safety as well as Human Rights and Legal Aid.
There are more aid workers in Africa today than there were administrators during colonialism. I don't think anybody is to blame or that there is a conspiracy but people simply convince themselves that being Liberal is correct. In the same way that during the Thatcher era too many people became self-employed and believed that was correct.
Guido - glad to see you are on the 'right' side of this argument now, apparently. A couple of weeks ago, you appeared to be taking the other side, ie a bit doomy, greeny etc and mocking the sceptics. What's happened?
Were the hippies right, I wonder? Despite the dreadful haricuts, they did have very similar ideals to you Guido. Actually - the hairstyles are similar......
However - I agree - the 'Green' agenda seems to be largely about taking us back to a stone-age with health and safety.
An opportunity missed
Surely you could have squeezed a picture of Nigella in somewhere?
It's awfully expensive to be green; and if Brown gets the Precious all the greenery is going to be taxed as well, particularly pleasant green environments, and cost even more. Couldn't there just be condemnation of the poor and dirty like there used to be, and no tax rises on the newly comfortably off?
The very fact that both the Conservative and Labour enviroment spokesmen like to stick their knobs up other mens bottoms tells me all I need to know about their judgement.
'Peter Hitchens' at 12:31
"The very fact that both the Conservative and Labour enviroment spokesmen like to stick their knobs up other mens bottoms tells me all I need to know about their judgement."
Where would he prefer to see them stuck? Or is this a plea for sexual equality? How does he feel about goats, chickens, donkeys etc? Clarifications please...
The Hitch was great on Question Time last night.
A few things.
I wouldn't say that europe is in the grip of an enviro-religious revival and that the continent is full of fundamentalist, intolerant, gaia believers. I live in one of the more (supposedly) environmentally aware countries (Germany) and can assure you that the love of the fast car and "unbegrenzte Geschwindichkeit" on the autobahn will be defended to the last breath by many citizens.
Global warming is real. i.e. the planet is getting warmer - no arguments about that from anyone. The probability that a significant proportion of the warming is caused by industrial emissions is very high. The vast majority of scientists conclude so. A few dissent and offer alternative explanations. In general, science can offer no proof a priori of MMGW. All looks into the future are based on climate models, which, though very complicated, are still gross simplifications of the Earth's oceans and atmosphere. Nonetheless, if these models capture the dominant driving forces of climate and their interactions, they won't be that far wrong. This is true for all forms of modelling prediction in Earth Sciences where 2nd and 3rd order effects are simply ignored, with little discernible effect on verifiable outcomes. The vast majority of climate models are forecasting 2.5-7C warming by 2100 depending partly on how successfully we contain carbon emissions.
For all Nigel Lawson's pontificating, he remains a high priest of another, much more destructive and anti-social religion - economics. As such, I fear he is blind himslef to another forthcoming problem, cheerfully ignored by economics. We are soon to start running out of oil. Yippee. Global warming solved? Well, maybe, maybe not. But the difficulties it could pose for the economist's perpetual motion machine don't bare thinking about.
I remain of the opinion that our only way out of both messes, climate and oil depletion, is technological advance. Quite how to achieve it in the optimal and most timely manner, I cannot say. However, the laissez-faire market driven solution will fail, either completely or for a significant (decadal) period, and lead to mass catastrophe.
There, I've been serious on Guido's blog...
macles said:"Global warming is real. i.e. the planet is getting warmer - no arguments about that from anyone."
Actually there are arguments about that, but let's agree the evidence is looking stronger. The question is by how much and what is causing it. The Green doomsayers are coming up with lower and lower estimates all the time. A degree or two over the next century is meaningless - which is pretty much where the Green consensus lies. The other question is what is causing it and as that is largely unknown it is too soon to leap to huge social changes just in case.
macles said:"All looks into the future are based on climate models, which, though very complicated, are still gross simplifications of the Earth's oceans and atmosphere. Nonetheless, if these models capture the dominant driving forces of climate and their interactions, they won't be that far wrong."
Except that the atmosphere is too complicated to be modeled. It is chaotic (or more accurately non-linear) and so any model is an approximation of more or less zero-worth. The question is whether they can accurately model the past - and not one single model if given the weather up to 1950 can get close to accuracy for 1955 much less 2000. Of course given the science is so poor, they are also based on guesses about what causes global warming - so if you program the damn things to start from the position that CO2 causes Global Warming, the models, big surprise, often find Global Warming is caused by CO2 rises.
macles said:"For all Nigel Lawson's pontificating, he remains a high priest of another, much more destructive and anti-social religion - economics."
How is economics destructive? This goes to the heart of hatred of humanity the Greens hold dear. What is wrong with the process that has lifted billions of people out of poverty and hunger and made the world a better place? Do you really hate your fellow men that much? Who is more anti-social - Greens who want most people to die or economists who want them to be rich and happy?
macles said:"We are soon to start running out of oil. Yippee."
Yes, as Asterix's chief always said, "I fear nothing but the sky falling tomorrow". Let us know when oil does actually run out, or even start running out, or even showing signs that it is about to start running out.
macles said:"I remain of the opinion that our only way out of both messes, climate and oil depletion, is technological advance."
You mean those economists may be on to something with their perpetual motion machines - as long as human enginuity does not fail?
macles said:"However, the laissez-faire market driven solution will fail, either completely or for a significant (decadal) period, and lead to mass catastrophe."
Spot the article of religious faith. Why do you believe that?
In 100 years we will look back at the 20th century as the age of petrol.
Politics unfortunately will go on forever.
P.S. Just bought a copy of the Spectator - it has improved greatly in it's utility in the past few months as they have down graded their paper quality.
URGENT MESSAGE:
Could Guido remind all these bores of the posting rules?
Go and argue on the WWF, FoE websites!
Maccles 12:52
F******* Hell a boring German!
Vee haf vays of making zee glass eye fall alseep.
"zer I haf bin serious on Gvidos blog"
Listen Herman , we didnt kick your arse in two world wars to have you coming on to our blogs boring us to death with your tedious green guilt ridden bollocks.
I visted germany once and it was crap , full of beer halls ugly women and sex shops. Apparently most of you spend your free time pissing on each other in rubber lined rooms, I suppose we should all be grateful if it takes your minds off those other popular German pastimes, genocide and invading other peoples contries.
Glad you enjoyed me on Question time Guido
Let's just see what the melting arctic ice does to the North Atlantic drift.Do you have triple-glazed windows Guildo?
well anonymous.
You would have to clarify what is in doubt about the warming trend in climate of the past 150 years. If you mean the "hockey stick" debate, that is a separate issue. It does not change trends in temperature records of the last century.
To clarify. I accept economics is the best (though highly imperfect) underpinning of a collaborative effort for society. However, how well it can effect a transition to an as yet unspecified, sustainable energy system for the globe is highly questionable. Of all the markets riddled with subsisdies in every direction, and utter lack of transparency, energy is the worst.
Also, to clarify, I want the "perpetual motion" to carry on. However, I've peeked behind the curtain and know that there isn't really a wizard. There isn't really magic in the air. Economic activity is completely bound to energy provision. Economic growth requires steady growth in energy consumption. If you look at the figures, you will see we are already close to consuming the energetic equivalent of all photosynthetic production. But remember, we have to eat and maintain some biodiversity, so, close is already dangerous. But, I don't want to reduce the standard of living of anybody. And hence, since I know finite means finite means finite, I consider alternative sources of energy. They exist. Solar cells capture much more energy per square metre than plants, so that's one way of giving ourselves wiggle room. Wind can be used with little (though some) consequence. Nuclear may be a necessary evil. But if you want that option, I'd invite you first to seriously consider how to safely dispose of high level radioactive waste.
Your point about chaos is illuminating. In fact, we are not modelling weather when simulating climate. We are modelling large, coupled systems, and balancing, at system's scales, heat and heat transport, in coupled fluid media of vastly differing viscosity. It's a tricky problem in itself, but actually involves solutions of coupled partial differential equations which though non-linear, still have reasonably stable bounds to their solution spaces. A hurricane hear or a tornado there makes absolutely no difference.
Your point about climate models being unable to predict a century's past climate is actually wrong. Indeed, it is the very test applied to climate models that they first simulate the record from 1900 onwards before propagating the solution into the future.
As to the remark about calling the sky falling in, on such a site as this, you might want to ask Guido what he thinks. I suspect he is well-versed on the issue of resource problems and wouldn't be surprised at all if he hasn't made some derivative bets on oil depletion already. I cannot say when oil will reach peak production. Like climate prediction, it is not an exact science. Indeed, there are no "pde's" even to solve. It relies on curve fitting based on past discoveries, past and current production - the only hard data points available, and the fitted curve is "devoid" of physics. However, there are troubling facts about current production (for instance oil majors, or even certain giant oil fields - Canterell in Mexico, and it appears, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia), and well known data about the drying up of past discoveries over the last 40 years. What you haven't found, you will not be able to produce. Seems reasonable, no?
RE green baiting the most useful line i have found is a scientifically robust one.
CH4 (methane)hs about 20x the heat retetion properties of CO2 and is emitted by runinants (cows, sheep etc.).
The grwoth in livestock is directly proportional to population growth and rising living standards.
In fact agriculture (ie food) is as big a source of rising man made warming gasses as transport, industry, and property combined.
Genetic engineering and crop GM modification can dramatically reduce a herd's methane emissions.
Rund that past a green and find where their heart really lies. they are happy to promote the science pointing to climate change, but recoil from other scientists which could mitigate the potential impact.
Flat earth, pesimistic, mankind hating wnakers the lot of them. Probably fiddle their taxes too.
Sorry f I broke the posting rules a couple of times. Peter Hitchens - very funny - I know not to take you seriously, and Im sure I have "ways of making you talk". The rubber suits/pissing sounds vaguely like something the house of commons members might enjoy hey? Oh, and I vote for an MP in Britain, because that's my nationality.
"A degree or two over the next century is meaningless - which is pretty much where the Green consensus lies "
Yeah 2% is nothing, a mere flesh wound, I've had worse ...
"Ecosystems will be particularly vulnerable to climate change, with around 15 -
40% of species potentially facing extinction after only 2°C of warming. And
ocean acidification, a direct result of rising carbon dioxide levels, will have
major effects on marine ecosystems, with possible adverse consequences on
fish stocks."
Sorry, cod's off. I can offer you Quorn fillet and chips ..."
"water availability and crop yields in southern Europe are expected to decline by 20% with a
2°C increase in global temperatures."
and the chips are £5 a portion ...
"the Amazon rainforest could be significantly, and possibly irrevocably, damaged by a warming of 2 - 3°C."
Is it me or is it stuffy in here, could you open a window, can't seem to catch my breath .. Oh the window is open.
though that last one is based on a guess or 'model' so probably not reliable ...
All quotes from the Executive Summary of the Stern report, which also states ...
"On current trends, average global temperatures will rise by 2 - 3°C within the next
fifty years or so. 5 The Earth will be committed to several degrees more warming if emissions continue to grow"
No basis for policy change there, then.
Sleep tight.
There is an recent interesting book by a bloke called Diamond about how societies collapse. It got some good reviews, so you may have heard about it: the thing that got the most mentions was about the people of Easter Island cutting down their last tree so they could no longer build boats to fish or to escape. The last bit of the book is about how societies go into denial and refuse to face up to the mounting evidence of growing challenges or of the fatal consequences of doing nothing. I think Diamond would like this blog: there are lots of examples of "denial". This blog shows the resourcefulness of the human mind in thinking up excuses for doing nothing. The one about "Greens have made this up so that they can boss us about" is a fascinating example of this kind of inventiveness.
Good god, what ever happened to gossip and dirty jokes? Am I on the wrong blog?
Anyway, Boris Johnson said exactly the same thing and Nigel months ago, and better. Not that he was right then, or ever, but he does write such beautiful fiction.
as* Nigel
sorry, typing fingers not up to speed yet.
anyone who swallows the line that a 2c rise in temperature will led to 15-40% of species becomin extinct should be sent to special school.
The world has witnessed greater change since the middle ages with no such effects.
This debate reminds me of MNight Shalen's fils "The Village" - a bunch of well meaning elite liberals attempt to scare eyerone else into a middle ages lifestyle by the threat of phantom bogeymen.
Ecofundamentalism is the new communism, if if left unchallenges with be just as damaging to mankind's development.
guano: I think the Easter Island story about the last tree is apocryphal...but, cannibalism did occur after a rip-roaring expansion of population allowed by generally unsustainable agricultural practices. There's a rather brutal film-dramatisation of the supposed end of the Easter Islanders - can't remember the title.
raincoaster: it's not really a dirty joke's topic unless you want to go on about the - wtf is he doing with his sister-in-law,/cousin? - bedroom practices of Zac Goldsmith. The hook is real in this topic, and it sets some people off (me for instance) - but no, it's not religion or fundamentalism. It is science, it's uncertain, but there is very strong evidence what we think will happen, will happen, and that's scary. As soon as I mention oil depletion, people get really touchy, because that is a fait accompli, unlike "voluntarily" or rather "being volunteered to" give up oil before it has actually run out in the name of climate change mitigation.
I'd like a joke on a dull Friday afternoon, but it works best on the subject of NuLab lackies and police investigations usually.
macles do you bore for England or Germany?
You're a fucking champion.
peter - how do you manage to stay in character so well? Ever thought of doing a Borat type movie? You cuddly, rightwing parody thingy, you.
Easy macles,
Im in a good mood, it was Halloween this week, a day when I get to open the door to trainee parasites and their obese parents and tell them to fuck off when they try and bilk me out of some sweets.
I love the look of horror on their faces, even better when their dad dares to give me a mouthful back, I get to escort him and his brats down my drive with a boot up his arse and its all nice and legal, I would get a dog but it would deprive me of the pleasure.
Christmas is even better, and woebetide any fucker who wishes me happy new year.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer;
Asbestos is 100% safe (ditto Lead and DDT);
Ulcers are caused by good living;
The earth is flat.
...all views science has held at one time or another...
peter - you must make that film-documentary. There's money in it, I swear.
Tim Worstall makes an interesting point here:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/
"One final small joy though is the way that Pigou and Pigouvian taxes are lauded, along with a calculation of the costs of a tonne of CO2 emissions: $85. If we are indeed to tax the externalities of CO2 then it is easy enough to calculate that the correct Pigovian tax on a litre of petrol is about ten pence. As it is currently taxed at some fifty pence look out for an interesting speech by Gordon Brown soon: fuel duty should, if he accepts the report, be coming down."
Greenies are complete wankers.
When you question a completely alarmist report on global warming they call you a denier.
Lomborg showed their propaganda for what it was years ago. He accepts that global warming is a fact but showed that all the reports were based on really bad statistics. For his troubles he has been painted as a person who denys the facts of global warming.
I accept that it is happening, but believe that the lefty cure is much worse than the disease.
Gunslinger - do you suggest that all of science is wrong then?
You would be the one in the stone age if it wan't for people who didn't believe that.
People thought the earth was flat, then that the earth was a sphere. Both were wrong, but if you think that they are equally wrong then you've got problems....
Guano
You are full of it.
I think you will find that good old water vapour is 95% to blame for the greenhouse effect and that co2 is negligible. Try not to let off to much hot steam, sometimes closing the mouth on a subject helps, ask Monica Lewinsky.
I think you will find that good old water vapour is 95% to blame for the greenhouse effect and that co2 is negligible. Try not to let off to much hot steam, sometimes closing the mouth on a subject helps, ask Monica Lewinsky.
this is worth checking out, it is a movie from an Irish bloke about the moralistic and slightly condescending aspect of western environmentalism http://www.mineyourownbusiness.org/index.htm. There is even a Spinal Tap tilt to the idea of measuring wealth by how often a poor family smiles.
...not that all science is wrong, but merely science is not always right, one does not imply the other - it represents our best understanding at a point in time, nothing more, nothing less.
Macles I would suggest that your desire that the world is running out of oil is littl emore than an environmenatlists wet dream, versions of this scenario have been repeated since the 1920's - perhaps they may be correct sooner or later.
I am more inclined to side with Sheikh Yamani and the oft repeated view “The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” Essentially markets and technology will solve the problem if interfering Green bastards hands are kept off the levers of power to fuck it all up.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer ...
.. The earth is flat.
...all views science has held at one time or another...
and which were demonstrated to be false, using er, science.
Funny you should mention DDT - there still are advocates for DDT over on JunkScience.com. where they also are sceptical about global warming, and curiously, the same scumbags who were paid to deny the smoking/cancer link by Philip Morris et al are now turning their PR skills to climate change denial at the behest of Exxon...
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html
Sorry, this is getting far too earnest for a Friday afternoon.
hovis, I hope very much sheikh Yamani is right. But he is working on a false time scale, since oil actually physically running out would take an eternity, whilst global depletion causing consistent year on year falls in production (potentially catastrophic) is likely (no one can say for sure beforehand) beginning now. The world is managing a measly 1% increase year on year, and production data are highly unreliable. But we know to a fair degree of accuracy how much we have been discovering over history, and the rate dropped below production replacement a good 20 years ago. There is nothing coming on stream in the future capable of absorbing the likely declines of several super giant fields around the planet. We are in a mess, and much as I hope ingenuity will get us out of this quicker than the problem can develop, I doubt it. Our economic system and financial markets don't have a capacity to accurately predict the future in this case. The failure to do so could be calamitous. I am not saying that because I am an environmentalist either. I am saying it because I fear the end of the standard of living to which me and billions of other humans are nowadays accustomed, with all its consequences. Argue with the laws of thermodynamics if you wish but it is about as futile as a struggle against gravity.
There is a load of Bollox on this site today!
You can see why Science is not the subject being taught in schools anymore - it would reduce the number of eco mentalists who would join all these NGO's!
No one has explained the environmental advantage of the Stern report being 700 pages of paper - there might be more energy in burning that than in burning a hippy!
Smoking doesn't cause cancer;
Asbestos is 100% safe (ditto Lead and DDT);
Ulcers are caused by good living;
The earth is flat.
...all views science has held at one time or another...
Yes, gunslinger.
To which you could add:
We're all about to be plunged into an new ice age...
(That was the settled view of today's global warming crowd about 20 years ago.)
When people start saying, "the science is settled"," as the greenies do now about GW, you can be sure of a couple of things:
(1) They are scientifically illiterate.
(2) They are wrong.
Science is NEVER settled; that is its point, every scientific conclusion is always provisional. Only religion (or religion masquerading as science) is ever "settled".
I see Blair has just admitted he was no good at science at school. It shows when he goes on about global warming being the worst thing ever.
I think the point we are all missing here is just how massive Nigella lawsons tits are.
I would love to spend an hour with her in a hot bath with a bar of soap ,many of the worlds problems could be solved if we all did the same.
Macles apart, what a distressingly unenlightening thread.
A couple more points:
(1) If we really are running out of oil, the global warming danger will go away anyway, without new taxes or whatever. (Sorry, Gordon)
(2) There's a simple, easy and actually (believe it or not!) LESS damaging 'cure' to global warming that Stern:
If GW turns out to be real after all, what we need is a small nuclear war. After all, the same people who promised us global warming (or was that an ice age?) also tell us that a nuclear war will cause what they called a nuclear winter. So all we need is a small nuclear war to correct for all that warming... or don't they believe themselves anymore?
peter
That water vapour got into the atmosphere by evaporation - which is driven by temperature. More co2 => more temperature => more water vapour => still more temperature.
It would be possible for this effect to run away and evaporate the entire ocean, depending on the feedback factor. Fortunately, at the moment the factor on earth is < 1 and therefore a runaway greenhouse effect doesn't happen. Current theory suggests that you get and additional 0.67C rise due to H20 for every 1C due to other factors, although this might change if we force the climate and screw up the carbon cycle.
Its extremely unlikely that we'll get a runaway greenhouse here, but on our evil twin planet, Venus, it did happen. It seems all the water there evaporated in a runaway greenhouse, and was broken down in the upper atmosphere, leaving the place with no carbon cycle (no dissolving in the ocean), and temperatures of 500C. Oops.
To which you could add:
We're all about to be plunged into an new ice age...
(That was the settled view of today's global warming crowd about 20 years ago.)
To which you could add ...
The worldwide total of glaciers that are declining is seven (eight at most).
which was the settled view of 2br02b just two days ago.
2b0r02b
What do you suggest policy decisions should be made on?
Keeping our fingers crossed and hoping for the best?
Whatever gets NuLab elected?
Whatever gets NuCon elected?
Whatever allows you to keep flying to Venice for the weekend (whilst it exists)?
Small green pieces of paper? (See Tulips for why this doesn't always regulate well)
Or maybe on the best available evidence at the time?
I can't be bothered with this wanking green business. Zac Goldsmith is a self indulgent precious twat. I prefer his crooked dad Sir Jams Goldsmith of Cavendish fame. He lied and cheated his way to a fortune but how sad for him to spawn this egotistical wanker who wants to save the planet. Get a proper job defrauding shareholders you stupid twat.
macles said:"You would have to clarify what is in doubt about the warming trend in climate of the past 150 years."
I do not have to clarify a thing. You have to prove that human activity is responsible and given most of that warming took part in the first half of the last century that would be kind of tough. The climate has always varied. So what?
macles said:"To clarify. I accept economics is the best (though highly imperfect) underpinning of a collaborative effort for society."
Really? You don't mean economists are not, as you seemed to be claiming, the most anti-social religious believers out there?
macles said:"However, how well it can effect a transition to an as yet unspecified, sustainable energy system for the globe is highly questionable."
As opposed to the wisdom of the central planners of the past century or so? Tell me what great triumphs Stalinism, or Nehru's Permit Raj or any other form of state planning you care to name has brought us? The market gave us Hong Kong. Planning gave us Canberra. Tell me why anyone in their right mind would trust anyone else but the market to do anything?
macles said:"However, I've peeked behind the curtain and know that there isn't really a wizard. There isn't really magic in the air."
What evidence is there that humans can not think their way out of any large scale problem? What evidence is there that there is no wizard in the enormous capacities of a wealthy and prosperous mankind?
macles said:"Economic activity is completely bound to energy provision. Economic growth requires steady growth in energy consumption."
I tend to think so but in fact Japan and some other places suggest not. You can have lower energy consumption and growth but I feel that fundamentally you should not so I won't argue it.
macles said:"If you look at the figures, you will see we are already close to consuming the energetic equivalent of all photosynthetic production."
World energy consumption is 380 quad BTUs. Sun light is about 2.0x10^23. Photosynthesis is about 4 percent efficient. I still get a whole order of magnitude difference. Perhaps I misplaced a decimal - can you tell me where? Even if this was so, so what? Photosynthesis is crassly inefficient.
macles said:"But remember, we have to eat and maintain some biodiversity, so, close is already dangerous."
Only if you take energy from the plants in the system and given that there is some 96 percent of the Sun's energy to play with I don't see why anyone would.
macles said:"I consider alternative sources of energy. They exist."
Sure they do. Which proves that the Green panic is bollocks.
macles said:"But if you want that option, I'd invite you first to seriously consider how to safely dispose of high level radioactive waste."
Transmutation and/or deep burial.
macles said:"It's a tricky problem in itself, but actually involves solutions of coupled partial differential equations which though non-linear, still have reasonably stable bounds to their solution spaces."
Uh huh. I used to work in this area as a post-grad. The short answer is, wanna bet?
macles said:"Your point about climate models being unable to predict a century's past climate is actually wrong. Indeed, it is the very test applied to climate models that they first simulate the record from 1900 onwards before propagating the solution into the future."
Again, wanna bet?
macles said:"I cannot say when oil will reach peak production. Like climate prediction, it is not an exact science."
Well actually this ought to be. The simple fact is that too much is secret (Saudi reserves for instance) and too much in unknown. But one of the reasons it is so unknown is that the world is not yet showing signs of running out of oil yet.
macles said:"However, there are troubling facts about current production ... and well known data about the drying up of past discoveries over the last 40 years. What you haven't found, you will not be able to produce. Seems reasonable, no?"
It does. But notice the finds in the Gulf of Mexico recently. Notice that the record for this alleged "peak" is all of two years old. Notice the vast reserves of shale oil we know we have. Look at the vast reserves of coal - which are suspiciously located in industrial countries suggesting large reserves in Africa and Latin America. Above all, notice places like Iraq have been closed to exploration for a long time. Who knows what is there?
Anonymous:"That water vapour got into the atmosphere by evaporation - which is driven by temperature. More co2 => more temperature => more water vapour => still more temperature."
Umm, no or rather we don't know. More water vapour in the atmosphere also means more clouds and more rain. Which means more sunlight reflected into space and more CO2 absorbed by plants.
The chances that the Earth's climate has a positive feed back loop is next to nil. The Earth has been around a while. It has been hit by asteroids more than once which presumably put more water vapour and CO2 into the atmosphere than we could dream of. Yet here we are. All without Zac Goldsmith and his Green Ecofascist regulators. Who would have thought it?
Good God Guido do something about the comments on this thread. If I wanted a GCSE in geography I'd go and buy one.
I'm listening to a mad git on Radio 4 saying that Bonfire Night is deeply polluting - fireworks and bonfires create CO2 and therefore we should start scaling back immediately. Is this an unholy alliance between Health & Safey and the ecomentalists?
Everyone should know that the BBC stuffs the audience for "Question Time" to represnet it's own far-left views.
anonymous 5:23pm
I didn't say it will run away...it clearly won't, unless something really really bad happens. Though its interesting to note that it did happen elsewhere.
I'm just pointing out that those saying water vapour drowns out everything that we can do because it is 90% (or whatever) of the effect and CO2 is only 2%(or whatever) are wrong.
Also, more water vapour doesn't necessarily mean more clouds - the higher temperature means that it takes more water to form them. In fact, most climate models seem to predict the humidity will remain constant, which would mean the water cycle is just a bit longer and the amount of clouds and rain is more or less the same...
anonymous, 5:30pm
Yes, it was a complete nutter. If you are burning biomass from your garden then your bonfire is carbon neutral. God knows where they dug him up.
Of course, if you burnt it in your house to keep yourself warm, that would be better, but the clean air act has ended any chance of that...
This is the problem - a real issue gets clouded by a bunch of nutters - but it is still a real issue.
"The probability that a significant proportion of the warming is caused by industrial emissions is very high"
Based on mathemeatically meaningless calculations. Such as "Averaging the differences between models" when the errors aren't known.
Climate modelling is the BIGGEST LIE ever. It's Recursive nature creates an error exponential behaviour that is tweaked to give the answer that provides the highest funding and PR. One thing they can never do is model what the future of the planets climate will do.
CO2 is 0.03 PER CENT of the atmosphere.
Allways ask people who tell you "the sky is falling" if they know how little CO2 is in the atmosphere.
CO2 is airborne plantfood.
Why do greens call food for plants a pollutant?
An overlarge state such as we have in the UK is an (inneficient) transfer agency. How will raising taxation do anything for the environment? It will just transfer money to politicians who will transfer it to favoured groups to spend (in probably more polluting ways as they have less market influence). Unless melon taxes are RINGFENCED to genuinly green things such as rewarding "CO2 sinks" (forests etc) and the tax will only make politicans more powerful and the general public less wealthy.
anonymous: 5:20pm.
Notice what I said - the warming trend - I didn't refer to whether or not it was caused by man. I thought wyou were actually denying climatic warming entirely.
We are not succedding in transitioning to renewable energies fast enough. Central planning in terms of CO2 release is a disaster - China is proof of that. They still plan for all of their riverboat gambling, gung ho capitalism, and at the moment they are planning coal fired power stations.
Global power demand 1.3x10^13 Watts. Global photosynthetic productivity - 5x10^13 Watts. Forecast global power demand for 2050 4x10^13 Watts. I said close. Not exceeding. The problem is the future rise in demand, which has virtually nothing to do with us in the developed world (at least this side of the Atlantic) and everything to do with the developing world where people want, quite legitimately, what we already have. 1-2 billion new consumers. The rise in energy demand globally will occur and be of that magnitude. |
Yes photosynthesis is crassly inefficient (in fact it is much worse than you state - it is bleow 1% on average). Hence, solar energy collection by a range of human contraptions offer a future.
Transmutation doens't exist. Deep burial is a big, big problem and I do work in the field on the long term problems that most people so cheerfully ignore. In short, high level radioactive waste remains an enormous potential problem.
The modelling study in Nature recently which caused such an outcry (more because of the way results were communcated) continas details of how model runs are acccepted or not according to past climate prediction capability.
All that we know about past oil discoveries tells us all we need to know about our future. The Gulf field which was wildly exaggerated anyway, represents 1/2 a years oil consumption. It isn't even worht thinking about. If we don't find Ghawar 2 today, we are going to hit peak oil. Oil shales are marginal energy producers. Tar sands too, and their maximum production rate will not offset the fall off of conventional oil production.
For fucks sake lighten up and dish some dirt on Goldsmith. Transfer the debate on CO2 etc to the Gaia website.
As Appleyard says, this is a very unenlightening thread (apart from Macles). Perhaps some of you feel good after your 5 minute hate of the Greens, but it doesn't make the challenges go away.
anticitizone:
The CO2 produced from fossil fuels has a different isotope ratio (higher proportion of C12) than the atmosphere. Therefore it is very easy to show we put it there without recourse to any climate models.
I'm just pointing out that those saying water vapour drowns out everything that we can do because it is 90% (or whatever) of the effect and CO2 is only 2%(or whatever) are wrong.
... or, "Don't confuse me with the facts."
What twaddle.
What you are actually saying is that because accepting that 90+% GW is due to H2O and only 2% to CO2 would destroy your nice neat "CO2-causes-GW" theory we must ignore the H2O elephant in the CO2 theory room.
As classic an example of fundamentalist religious dogmatism in defiance of logic and evidence as ever there was, I'd say.
Also, more water vapour doesn't necessarily mean more clouds - the higher temperature means that it takes more water to form them.
Rubbish. It does not take more water when temperatures are higher, it just means more clouds. Think about it (if you can remember how to do that for yourself) -- there's a lot more cloud over the Tropics than over the Poles. Why ever should that be? (Based on your fantastical 'theory' it should be the other way around.)
(Gosh, it's a lot warmer over the Tropics than over the Poles! Could that have something to do with it?)
In fact, most climate models seem to predict the humidity will remain constant, which would mean the water cycle is just a bit longer and the amount of clouds and rain is more or less the same...
In fact (I think ALL) climate models completely ignore cloud coverage (because if they don't ignore it, the predicted warming does not happen) which is why they predict contant humidity and is yet another reason why they are worthless.
2b0r02b:
If you really really insist....
This is a graph of saturated (ie when clouds start to form) vapour pressure (ie how much water there is in the air) against temperature:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/watvap.html#c2
Look how the vapour pressure goes up with temperature. Good eh?
Want to know where the clouds are? Ask a satellite:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS2/B8sqmap-zma.jpg
Doesn't seem to be more at the equator...
Any more?
Lawson does not look well-fed - he should ask Nigella to cook for him
"Perhaps some of you feel good after your 5 minute hate of the Greens, but it doesn't make the challenges go away."
There's the rub. How to make the Greens go away. The challenges will go with them.
I just don't know why people worry so. I reckon I've a maximum of 20 years left to live and I'm enjoying the warmer, longer Summers. They were never this nice when I was a kid.
Please enlighten us then, O Bryan.
(Preferably in a better prose style than the one you deployed in Understanding the Present)
Good god, people, are you paid by the word or something?
BO-RING. And if an ex-Greenpeace worker and science major like me is telling you you're being boring about climate change, you are being fucking boring.
anonymous 6:28
If you really really insist....
Look how the vapour pressure goes up with temperature. Good eh?
Pretty, but irrelevant to this discussion.
Saturated vapour pressure (SVP) determines when clouds form and is in turn determined by temperature, yes. Howecver high altitude atmospheric temperature is cool--very cool--even at the equator.
Meanwhile evaporation from the ocaen surface is not determined by SVP but surface termperature. The warmer the ocean, the more evaporation.
Thus what SVP actually determines is not the quantity of clouding at all, but its altitude, as the cloud-bearing part of the atmosphere tends to cool with height above sea level. Thus tropical clouds form at a much higher altitude than Arctic ones, but because the ocean is warmer, there's more--a lot more--of them.
Want to know where the clouds are? Ask a satellite:
Doesn't seem to be more at the equator...
I didn't mention the Equator, I talked about the Tropics. There is a discontinuity at the Equator (lack of prevailing winds, etc.) so it differs from the Tropics above and below it.
The postage-stamp-sized cloud map you have come up with proves little, but the singular lack of cloud coverage in the Arctic (except where caused by the Gulf Stream and its Pacific equivalent) and Antarctic are very noticable. The picture is complicated, of course, by the distribution of land and ocean. For example, the south Atlantic off Brazil is probably relatively cloud free because the've all deposited their rain in the Amazon Basin.
The lack of cloud over the Sahara and Australia, on the other hand, is due to a lack of prevailing westerly winds there.
So just ask yourself, where do you find all the rain forests? The Arctic? No, the Tropics.
What is the essential ingredient for a rain forest?
I better tell you as I don't want to over-tax your few grey cells: rain, which arrives in... (wait for it!) clouds.
So on balance, I think your little map tends to support my point.
The Stern Report is just another dodgy dossier, from the same people who brought you:
the 45 minute claim,
the Hutton Enquiry,
the Butler Report.
Stern, Scarlett, Hutton and Butler, purveyors of fine quality whitewash to a government near you.
As my grand said only the other day "its about time we got some decent weather in this country"
2b0r02b:
This is already way too much for Guido (although one suspects that he brought up another AGW thread since the last one brought so many page hits), but....
Yes, cloud bases may just go higher, but it doesn't look likely they will actually increase in coverage. Bad thing for your argument, though, is that the low clouds are the ones that act to lower the temperature, by reflecting radiation out, and the high ones keep the heat in by reflecting ground radiation down....
macles said:"We are not succedding in transitioning to renewable energies fast enough."
How do you know? The disaster scenario relies on us being unable or too slow to adjust. Why do you think that? If oil is about to run out why would it run out suddenly?
macles said:"Central planning in terms of CO2 release is a disaster - China is proof of that."
And so why is the solution in your opinion less of that soul-destroying evil that is capitalism and more Green central planning?
macles said:"The problem is the future rise in demand, which has virtually nothing to do with us in the developed world ... and everything to do with the developing world where people want, quite legitimately, what we already have."
Then your mention of photosynthesis is irrelevant because the only energy source that affects is biomass of one sort or another. So let's agree that all those Indians and Chinese will enjoy Western levels of wealth soon. So what?
macles said:"Transmutation doens't exist. Deep burial is a big, big problem and I do work in the field on the long term problems that most people so cheerfully ignore."
Transmutation does exist although no one is spending much on it just yet. After all in most power reactors most plutonium *is* burned up. It happens just not intentionally. There is no reason to think that newer generations of reactors could not be so neutron rich they could burn up most of the transuranics.
macles said:"The modelling study in Nature recently which caused such an outcry (more because of the way results were communcated) continas details of how model runs are acccepted or not according to past climate prediction capability."
I have just spent ten minutes searching the Nature site and I can see no details of much. Link?
macles said:"The Gulf field which was wildly exaggerated anyway, represents 1/2 a years oil consumption. It isn't even worht thinking about."
And yet a few more discoveries and you start to have something to talk about. As it is unlikely anyone is going to find a new Ghawar, what we may see is dozens of smaller finds which add up to something.
macles said:"If we don't find Ghawar 2 today, we are going to hit peak oil."
Sure. And the sky will fall on our heads one day. Just not today.
macles said:"Oil shales are marginal energy producers. Tar sands too, and their maximum production rate will not offset the fall off of conventional oil production."
There's two interesting claims. Why do you think that? Which do you think is more likely - a radical restructing of society a la the Khmer Rouge or enough money and brains put into making the alternatives like shale and tar sands work?
ok, for all the eco-converts out there, please can you list out for the non-believers, the Radiative Forcings in the AOGCMS (Climate Models), their magnitudes (and errors), signs (warming or cooling) and the current level of scientific uderstanding of each, cos mostly when I look at any of this stuff I see caveat, caveat, caveat.
Then perhaps you can explain the similarity between a model that predicts past behaviour of the stock market and an AOGCM (clue: I wouldn't bet my house on either).
'Third World Poverty is picturesque and simple as well as low in carbon emissions', well, no, none of that's true. Is it necessary to go on for pages and pages now, like all the others on this thread?
We should have known that lawson would have the Greens for braekfast. That's why he's such a skinny so and so.
This is already way too much for Guido (although one suspects that he brought up another AGW thread since the last one brought so many page hits)
yes; Guido, no-one's fooled...except the tree-botherers who are still posting here...
only good think about the Global Warming debate is it's brought the Nuclear Power lobby back into play.
anonymous:
Running out of oil globally will be the same as a continent using up its oil reserves. Not in every last detail, but more or less. This already happened in the continental US. The decline in production was steep, and not reversed. Adding offshore and Alaskan discoveries still did not raise production back above its peak (ca 9mbpd if I remember correctly - today it is - for all US including offshore, around 5mbpd). The US is doing exactly what you suggest might replace Ghawar - namely finding lots of small fields. They do not amount to enough. This is a little bit like earthquake energy release - the one big one is worth an order of magnitude more than the sum of the next smallest ones, even though there are many of them.
Moreover, since the early 70's when US peak was reached, enhanced recovery techniques have become the norm. These allow high production rates to be sustained longer, but also lead to a sharper fall off in production. We will be looking at 1-2% drop off per year minimum. It could be as high as 3%. How fast can we mine coal then?
No ingenuity will solve the problem of slightly mature source rocks (which is oil shale). To get what you want from them, you have to add energy. There is a law called thermodynamics which dictates how much energy that is. You cannot break that law (except in economic modelling). The oil is useful because of its near unique energetic properties. It is possible to justify extracting it even when it requires more energy input than the oil contains even. But it will not replace in any way the net energy input into the global economy of the light crudes which are the most susceptible to depletion today.
Our ingenuity is not what is called for. We know the solutions to our energy crisis. Biofuels are not one of them - nor is any form of biomass. We consume too much energy already for that to work. We are bound to using enhanced renewables, mostly solar, since that is by far the largest energy source available to us. It is possible to extract enough energy from these sources to meet demand at century's end even. However, market solutions are not bringing this about. California has suffered, and will again suffer brown-outs. The past ones took place in the "most efficient energy market in the world" - after all, it was controlled by brilliant derivative trades. The financial engineering that was supposed to make everything perfect neglected one important fact. Hot air generated by financial transactions on paper do not lead to any useable source of energy. It is therefore difficult to see quite what is being sold. Whatever it was, there was periodically not enough of it to keep the lights or the air conditioning on in the supposedly most advanced economy on the planet - a favourite boast always being that California's economy was the "4th biggest in the world" (so is it's budget deficit, but never mind).
Markets can lead to irrational behaviour, and when those markets concern energy, the consequences are very real and disastrous. Gas lines are coming for the US. It isn't far away. How fast can alternative fuels be made available then? Just in time, is unfortunately always to late in this case.
I think to put this in perspective, people should understand that we require a total replacement of our energy infrastructure. This means hydrogen fuel stations instead of petrol. This also means a hydrogen production capacity on a scale equivalent to global oil refining. These types of infrastructure projects take 10's of years. Those 10's of years are likely to be unpleasant.
The Nature article was from the Hadley centre climate group I think. The controversy was generated by the maximum warming prediction which went as high as 11C - this was badly presented since its likelihood is essentially nil, but was pounced on by the media. Unless you have an online subscription to Nature however, you will be unable to access the pdf file.
However, to all climate experts who seem to be rewriting Richard Lindzen's IRIS effect papers (good idea but eventually disproved when sufficient data became available) - if you really have a case, write it up in an article and submit it to a scientific journal. Dead easy, and if you're right, you'll probably win a major prize in science. See if you can do better than Richard Lindzen (a brilliant atmospheric physicist with over 200 publications).
Macles has made some excellent points.
It's alarming and astonishing to read so many anti-(A)GW posts on here. I move in different circles and had honestly thought the debate had moved on now. No scientist I know denies that the planet is warming, that the increase has been faster than at any previous recorded time, and that C02 emmissions are now at unorecedented levels. Most scientists now accept that this is due in part or whole to human influence.
I note that Macles is criticised for posting something serious. So the once-excellent Fawkes blog is heading down the pan and fast becoming a schoolboy's joke-swap forum is it? If Guido posts on serious topics, albeit in typically trite fashion, expect a reasonably serious response. Heavens, if the dead-tree Private Eye can manage to combine humour with seriousness I'm sure Fawkes can.
As for adulating that buffoon Lawson ... I nearly choked. The man who brought us boom bust, and probably the worst chancellor of the C20th is now the anti-climate change guru is he? Be sure to check who's fleecing his pocket ...
The scientists who publicly dissent with the GW consensus are listed in wiki here.
I'm guessing that because emotions run high on the issue, there may be a few more who choose to keep their heads down.
As for Stern's take on the Hockey Stick argument, which is largely where the alarmist language of unprecedented comes from, he seems to be a little less unequivocal:
Some have interpreted the “Hockey Stick” as definitive proof of the human influence on climate. However, others have suggested that the data and methodologies used to produce this type of figure are questionable (e.g. von Storch et al. 2004), because widespread, accurate temperature records are only available for the past 150 years. Much of the temperature record is recreated from a range of ‘proxy’ sources such as tree rings, historical records, ice cores, lake sediments and corals. Climate change arguments do not rest on “proving” that the warming trend is unprecedented over the past Millennium. Whether or not this debate is now settled, this is only one in a number of lines of evidence for human induced climate change.
macles said:"This is a little bit like earthquake energy release - the one big one is worth an order of magnitude more than the sum of the next smallest ones, even though there are many of them."
But the problem is not running out of oil, the problem is if we do so very rapidly. That is, an earthquake, not lots of little tremors. The new finds simply high light the fact that we do not know how rapidly peak oil will decline.
macles said:"We will be looking at 1-2% drop off per year minimum. It could be as high as 3%. How fast can we mine coal then?"
I would have thought with very little difficulty. Even a 3 percent decline is a gradual decline.
macles said:"No ingenuity will solve the problem of slightly mature source rocks (which is oil shale). To get what you want from them, you have to add energy. There is a law called thermodynamics which dictates how much energy that is."
I really fail to see how the laws of thermodynamics determine how much energy is stored in shale or tar sands. After all that energy was put into them some time ago. Shale has one of the longest records of economic production of any non-coal alternative: shale was used to produce oil in Scotland from 1850 to 1962. Can you tell me how the Scots managed to side-step the laws of thermodynamics? It was cheap oil that killed Tar sands in Scotland and the US. Tar sands have been producing on a small scale since the 60s.
macles said:"You cannot break that law (except in economic modelling). The oil is useful because of its near unique energetic properties."
You don't have to if it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which it is. The energy in tar sands was put there through the same process as with oil or coal or natural gas - photosynthesis. It is slightly harder to get out which means cracking usually. But then the same is true for crude oil especially the heavier ones. It is a little more energy intensive, but people have had no trouble in the past. If you have evidence that this is an endothermic reaction that uses more energy than you get out I'd be very interested to see it.
macles said:"Our ingenuity is not what is called for. We know the solutions to our energy crisis. Biofuels are not one of them - nor is any form of biomass."
We agree on that.
macles said:"However, market solutions are not bringing this about."
I beg to differ. The market is pricing gas pretty well I think - it is cheap and so solar cannot compete. But as we hit that peak people will turn to other sources. Regulation is actually hurting solar given that people are not charged the economic cost for the grid connection in many places.
macles said:"California has suffered, and will again suffer brown-outs."
Which is a problem with regulation, not energy production.
macles said:"Markets can lead to irrational behaviour, and when those markets concern energy, the consequences are very real and disastrous."
The irrational behaviour of governments and their regulations are not as benign as those of the market. Nor are the consequences as severe.
macles said:"I think to put this in perspective, people should understand that we require a total replacement of our energy infrastructure. This means hydrogen fuel stations instead of petrol."
Why do you think this? Electricity will probably remain the most important form of energy transport. No change there. Turning from supplying petrol to some hydrogen substitute does not seem a big change to me either. Why do you think it will be?
macles said:"This also means a hydrogen production capacity on a scale equivalent to global oil refining. These types of infrastructure projects take 10's of years. Those 10's of years are likely to be unpleasant."
Or we could just produce petrol from coal for a few more decades. What makes you think those decades would be unpleasant? A whole range of petrol alternatives are economic at about the magic $60 a barrel mark. Which is why Canada is having a boom in its tar sand producing provinces. There is no real reason to think that the change over will not be smooth and trouble free.
macles said:"The Nature article was from the Hadley centre climate group I think."
This be the one on 9 August 2004?
Anonymous said:"It's alarming and astonishing to read so many anti-(A)GW posts on here."
Be alarmed if you think it will help.
Anonymous said:"I move in different circles and had honestly thought the debate had moved on now. No scientist I know denies that the planet is warming, that the increase has been faster than at any previous recorded time, and that C02 emmissions are now at unorecedented levels. Most scientists now accept that this is due in part or whole to human influence."
Actually I think you will find several who deny one or all of these claims. But let's accept them. So what? The problem is not if the planet is warming but by how much. A degree here or there is irrelevant and probably a good thing. That it is faster than ever before is almost certainly not true - look at the meteorite crater in Mexico and think how fast that was - but again is irrelevant. What counts is whether it will continue - whether the system has a positive feedback loop. All the evidence suggests not. In fact whether or not the Earth can cope comes down to the simple issue of whether we will get negative or positive feedback.
Anonymous said:"I note that Macles is criticised for posting something serious."
Serious is not accurate.
Anonymous said:"The man who brought us boom bust, and probably the worst chancellor of the C20th is now the anti-climate change guru is he?"
What possible sane criteria could you be using to think Lawson was the worst Chancellor of the 20th century? Do you remember the Winter of Discontent?
anonymous 1:52
The oil shales/energy question. Every barrel of oil produced today necessitates an input of some fraction of a barrel of oil in energy. With oil shales, the amount is close to 1:1 for much of what constitutes the resource on Earth. The issue is no longer one of cost. It is one of net energy gain in a process, and unfortunately, due to the mechanism of "unlocking" what is in the oil shales, there is close to no energy gain. Tar sands are better from this point of view. There's no dispute that they yield net energy. However, the rate at which it is possible to produce them is another question. Nothing is quite as easy (for all its own difficulties) as the production of free flowing oil driven by formation pressure. As that declines (3% per year is anything but negligible, and the rate of decline will increase for a while on the downside) I seriously doubt (I'm far from alone in this) that alternative oils will offer sufficient rates of production. Now, as to the environmental consequences of producing tar sands, we have not even talked about them. Continuing to chew through the remaining fossil fuel reserves on the planet, theoretically more and more each year, will lead to CO2 levels in the atmosphere that no climate report has yet been willing to consider. On top of that, the Canadian tar sands, if produced to a finish, will leave a sludge residue sufficient to fill Lake Superior.
Why else am I bothered? Because this time it is "different". Energy sources are now openly competed for between the traditional users in the western hemisphere and new users, most notably China. China has already won this battle. The victory is in the form of the 1 trillion dollars of "reserves" they've accumulated so far from trade with the rest of the world. They have the hard cash and the productive capacity. When needs must, they will be the ones who can buy what they need in a world of shortages, not the west. And they will. It wasn't like this in the 70's. Then, there was still a way to lift ourselves out of a slump, by eventually increasing oil production again. There will be no increase possible once we are on the downside of the production curve. More worryingly, when an artificial shortage occurred in the 70's/early 80's, no alternative managed to present itself. Instead we had global recessions. We can expect the same again. Will we break the cycle this time without increasing oil production? Eventually yes, I believe so, but how long will it take? Too long in any case for many poor souls. And though I remain relatively optomistic, there are far worse scenarios that could play out where humanity follows dead end tracks to the very end, in the form of endless and pointless resource wars where everybody is the loser. Is that so unimagineable given our general stupidity in the world the last 5 years?
No the Nature article is from 2005...Stainforth et al., vol. 433 no.27, pp403-406
Indeed. The only thing it is reasonable to assume is that general stupidity will not be in short supply...
I dont know about global warming but I'm getting fed up cutting bloody grass....
macles said:"Every barrel of oil produced today necessitates an input of some fraction of a barrel of oil in energy. With oil shales, the amount is close to 1:1 for much of what constitutes the resource on Earth."
And yet Shell and Chevron, who have invested heavily in Canadian tar sands, do not seem to agree with you. Nor does this explain how others have had decades of experience in extracting useful energy from shale and tar sands. A source if you do not mind. I notice, having just googled it, Estonia used to run two shale-fired power stations - a 1,400 MW plant that opened in 1965 and a 1,600 MW one that opened in 1973. It still provides over half Estonia's primary energy production. This is very clever of them don't you think?
macles said:"The issue is no longer one of cost."
Actually it is entirely one of cost.
macles said:"However, the rate at which it is possible to produce them is another question. Nothing is quite as easy (for all its own difficulties) as the production of free flowing oil driven by formation pressure."
Sure but what is the alternative? You have mentioned hydrogen - which is ironic because hydrogen production is by definition a net loss of energy. At what rate do you think hydrogen might be produced?
macles said:"On top of that, the Canadian tar sands, if produced to a finish, will leave a sludge residue sufficient to fill Lake Superior."
The technology is improving all the time and so by-products will probably decline. As for CO2 emissions, again you assume 1. there is a problem (and let's agree there is) but also 2. the technology of CO2 disposal will not improve as well.
macles said:"Energy sources are now openly competed for between the traditional users in the western hemisphere and new users, most notably China. China has already won this battle. The victory is in the form of the 1 trillion dollars of "reserves" they've accumulated so far from trade with the rest of the world. They have the hard cash and the productive capacity."
Oh please. China is locked out of the main oil producing regions. America has a lock on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. China is forced to pick up marginal producers and those hit by human rights bans like Iran and Sudan. China's "victories" are merely proof of the West's domination. They do not have the cash the West does either as it happens.
macles said:"When needs must, they will be the ones who can buy what they need in a world of shortages, not the west."
Explain to me why a Chinese-owned American dollar is better than an American-owned American dollar? Cash is all green. When the West needs, it will buy in the same market the Chinese do.
macles said:"More worryingly, when an artificial shortage occurred in the 70's/early 80's, no alternative managed to present itself."
Actually a lot of people invested in shale and tar sands and got burned.
anonymous at 10:57,
Agreed. The rub (for the Green Lobby) is that 90% of all oil shale reserves are in the good 'ole USA, that's around 560Bn Barrels, think they've also got around 25% of the coal reserves too.
No-one will touch oil shale until there is little prospect of the oil price declining, as you point out too many people got burned in the 70s.
Doesn't all this climate-change stuff sound a little Malthusian?
That turned out to be lot of bollocks too, didn't it?
It is suggested that in 20 years time, we can expect a maximum of 3mbpd production from oil shales. Total non-conventional oil may be higher, but 'new' oil coming to market - and we can see into the future for this, since we know which projects are commissioned, and what equipment has been ordered, is not looking like being near enough to replace what will disappear due to depletion from the conventional oil sector. At the same time, all economic forecasts of growth lead to predicted oil demand rising by 20-30 percent in the coming 3 decades.
The anonymous who boasts of oil shale in the US, should first check how much of it is really extractable with a net energy gain. If you believe it is 560bn barrels, I think you may be unpleasantly surprised. But find me anywhere a projection that 20mbpd (that is just today'S US oil consumption) could be derived from oil shale production and coal liquefication together even. It is not going to happen.
Again, I state, last time the world was subjected to a temporary reduction in oil production (better said availability) global recessions were the result. There was little evidence of alternatives appearing and overall energetic inputs to the economy simply dropped. The process only reversed when oil was made freely available once more. The next such reduction will be permanent however. There is good cause to be worried about the consequences.
macles,
the wiki entry for oil shale is hereYou are free to edit it, if you think it's incorrect. The article classifies the shale as reserves which by definition means economically viable.
Currently, about 30% of South Africa's transport-fuel (mostly diesel) is produced from coal - not the nicest process in the world, but happening - again wiki is here
won't get burned.
Yes, I know oil shale is viable in some places. But it is not just a question of viability. More important is how fast net energy can potentially be produced from a source. Never mind reserve sizes for the moment. We are concerned with maximum conceivable production rates over a mix of sources in the coming decade or two. We can see how this will develop already, since we know what new oil (conventional and non-conventional) is coming on stream. It is surely not enough if Cantarell and Burgan production declines continue, and indeed, Ghawar has possibly peaked. We are way behind with infrastructure for new energy projects. We are doubly hurt because currently, our energy supply is not interchangeable - we actually need a set number of each type of energy (electrical vs. all types of thermal/all different types of solid and liquid fuels) so we may be forced into energetically inefficient conversions of an energy source from one form to another (like South African coal to oil).
Feel free to wiki Hubbert Peak to see what is projected for future production rates from non-conventional oil. As to counter arguments on that page from the oil industry insiders (Maugeri for instance) - ask yourself if what he says is true, why can't his company (ENI) or indeed any other major publically traded international, integrated oil company, increase their own year on year production - or even halt production declines. Very simply, ask where's the beef?
Oil shale is not oil. Oil shale is rock (Marl) that has a relatively high concentration of organic carbon compounds in it. If you heat this shale to 700 degrees F you will turn this organic carbon (kerogen) into the nastiest, stinkiest, gooiest, pile of oil-like crap that you can imagine. Then if you send it through the gnarliest oil refinery on the planet you can make it into transportation fuel. In the mean time you have created all kinds of nasty by-products, and have polluted the air and groundwater of where ever you have extracted it.
The biggest deposits of oil shale in the world are indeed in northwestern Colorado. There are approximately 1.3 trillion barrels of POTENTIAL oil in this deposit of oil shale. However, even those in their wildest hallucinations have never proposed that more than about 300 billion of these barrels were POSSIBLY extractable.
Moreover, it takes about 3-5 barrels of water for about every barrel of oil you get. Last time anyone seriously looked at where all this water would come from was Exxon back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Their solution was to re-route the Missouri River into the Colorado to bring water to this very arid area. Yeah, right.
Oh, and one of the completely bonkers ideas was to detonate a nuclear device in the shale to see if they could extract anything. Unsurprisingly, nothing much but radioactive gas resulted.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA397416
The Colorado River of course also supplies water to a vast area of the SW US, including most of Arizona, Nevada, southern California etc, so polluting it wouldn't be good.
Oil is very useful for many things, such as making plastics, and as the basis for manufacturing many useful chemicals. It will still be worth extracting in the future even at a marginal energy balance. But burning it will become utterly pointless. Global warming or not.