Who sends out press releases on a Sunday? UCLA does when the content is expected to match Obama’s draconian climate announcement planned for Monday.
Reducing emissions will be the primary way to fight climate change, UCLA-led study finds
A new report by professors from UCLA and five other universities concludes that there’s no way around it: We have to cut down the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere. The interdisciplinary team looked at a range of possible approaches to dissipating greenhouse gases and reducing warming.
Forget about positioning giant mirrors in space to reduce the amount of sunlight being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere or seeding clouds to reduce the amount of light entering earth’s atmosphere. Those approaches to climate engineering aren’t likely to be effective or practical in slowing global warming.
“We found that climate engineering doesn’t offer a perfect option,” said Daniela Cusack, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of geography in UCLA’s College of Letters and Science. “The perfect option is reducing emissions. We have to cut down the amount of emissions we’re putting into the atmosphere if, in the future, we want to have anything like the Earth we have now.”
Still, the study concluded, some approaches to climate engineering are more promising than others, and they should be used to augment efforts to reduce the 9 gigatons of carbon dioxide being released each year by human activity. (A gigaton is 1 billion tons.)
The first scholarly attempt to rank a wide range of approaches to minimizing climate change in terms of their feasibility, cost-effectiveness, risk, public acceptance, governability and ethics, the study appears in the latest issue of the peer-reviewed scholarly journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
The authors hope the information will help the public and decision-makers invest in the approaches with the largest payoffs and the fewest disadvantages. At stake, the study emphasizes, are the futures of food production, our climate and water security.
Cusack, an authority on forest and soil ecology, teamed up with experts in oceanography, political science, sociology, economics and ethics. Working under the auspices of the National Science Foundation, the team spent two years evaluating more than 100 studies that addressed the various implications of climate engineering and their anticipated effects on greenhouse gases.
Ultimately, the group focused its investigation on the five strategies that appear to hold the most promise: reducing emissions, sequestering carbon through biological means on land and in the ocean, storing carbon dioxide in a liquefied form in underground geological formations and wells, increasing the Earth’s cloud cover and solar reflection.
Of those approaches, none came close to reducing emissions as much as conservation, increased energy efficiency and low-carbon fuels would. Technology that is already available could reduce the amount of carbon being added to the atmosphere by some 7 gigatons per year, the team found.
“We have the technology, and we know how to do it,” Cusack said. “It’s just that there doesn’t seem to be political support for reducing emissions.”
Of the five options the group evaluated, sequestering carbon through biological means — or converting atmospheric carbon into solid sources of carbon like plants — holds the most promise. One source, curbing the destruction of forests and promoting growth of new forests, could tie up as much as 1.3 gigatons of carbon in plant material annually, the team calculated. Deforestation now is responsible for adding 1 gigaton of carbon each year to the atmosphere.
Improving soil management is another biological means of carbon sequestration that holds considerable promise because soils can trap plant materials that have already converted atmospheric carbon dioxide into a solid form as well as any carbon dioxide that the solids give off as they decompose. Since the dawn of agriculture, tilling land has led to the loss of about half (55 to 78 gigatons) of the carbon ever sequestered in soil, the team reports. But such simple steps as leaving slash — the plant waste left over after crop production — on fields after harvests, so it could be incorporated into the soil, could reintroduce between 0.4 and 1.1 gigatons of carbon annually to soil, the study says. The approach would also improve soil’s ability to retain nutrients and water, making it beneficial for additional reasons.
“Improved soil management is not very controversial,” Cusack said. “It’s just a matter of supporting farmers to do it.”
The study also advocates a less familiar form of biological sequestration: the burial of biochar. The process, which uses high temperatures and high pressure to turn plants into charcoal, releases little carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Under normal conditions, decaying plant life inevitably decomposes, a process that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But charred plant material takes significantly longer — sometimes centuries — to decompose. So the approach can work to keep carbon that has become bound up in plant life from decaying and respiring as carbon dioxide. And like working slash into the soil, adding biochar to soil can improve its fertility and water retention.
“Charcoal has been used as an agricultural amendment for centuries, but scientists are only now starting to appreciate its potential for tying up greenhouse gases,” Cusack said.
But not all biological sequestration would be so beneficial. The researchers evaluated the idea of adding iron to oceans in order to stimulate the growth of algae, which sequesters carbon. The approach ranked as the study’s least viable strategy, in part because less than a quarter of the algae could be expected to eventually sink to the bottom of the ocean, which would be the only way that carbon would be sequestered for a long period of time. The study predicted that the rest would be expected to be consumed by other sea life that respire carbon dioxide, which would end up back in the atmosphere. Additionally, increasing the algae blooms would likely wreak havoc by decreasing the oxygen available for other marine life.
The study’s second most promising climate engineering strategy, after carbon sequestration, was carbon capture and storage, particularly when the technique is used near where fuels are being refined. CCS turns carbon dioxide into a liquid form of carbon, which oil and coal extraction companies then pump into underground geological formations and wells and cap; millions of tons of carbon are already being stored this way each year. And the approach has the potential to store more than 1 gigaton permanently each year — and up to 546 gigatons of carbon over time — the study says.
However, a liquid carbon leak could be fatal to humans and other animals, and the risk – while minimal – may stand in the way of public acceptance.
“With CCS we’re taking advantage of an approach that already exists, and big companies pay for the work out of their own pockets,” Cusack said. “The hurdle is public perception. No one wants to live next to a huge underground pool of carbon dioxide that might suffocate them and their children – no matter how small the risk.”
Reducing the amount of sunlight that is heating up the atmosphere through measures such as artificially increasing the earth’s cloud cover or putting reflectors in outer space ranked as the study’s second least viable approach. While cloud seeding is cheap and potentially as effective as improving forestry practices, the approach and its potential impacts are not well enough understood for widespread use, the team concluded.
“Cloud seeding sounds simple,” Cusack said. “But we really don’t understand what would happen to the climate if we started making more clouds.”
Cusack’s collaborators were Jonn Axsen, assistant professor of resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada; Lauren Hartzell-Nichols, acting assistant professor in the program on values in society and the program on environment at the University of Washington; Katherine Mackey, a postdoctoral researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass.; Rachael Shwom, assistant professor in human ecology at Rutgers University; and Sam White, assistant professor of environmental history at Ohio State University.
This is the same UCLA that has invited “Hanoi Jane” Fonda to address their School of Theater Film & Television.
http://www.deadline.com/2014/05/jane-fonda-2014-ucla-graduation/
Just from reading this post, it appears to me that they did the study with the underlying assumption that CO2 was the ’cause’ of warming/disruption/ whatever its called now, and they were evaluating options to reduce it. Given that I don’t find this study particularly groundbreaking, nor do I think it lends any support to the idea that excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming (and, OTOH, that reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere will reduce warming either).
The only way to ‘do’ climate science appears to be by fake consensus, threatening decree, or by employing unelected bureaucrats to ram home bizarre policies based on the first two.
“Cloud seeding sounds simple,” Cusack said. “But we really don’t understand what would happen to the climate if we started making more clouds.”
Does that mean they do understand what would happen to the climate if we reduce the amount of CO2 or what would happen to the climate if we reverse deforestation, etc? I don’t think we do.
… However, a liquid carbon leak could be fatal to humans and other animals, and the risk – while minimal – may stand in the way of public acceptance….
They’re out of their f*cking minds – concentrating CO2 in storage facilities will cause a catastrophe which will probably end the environmental movement.
Read what happens when 100,000 tons or so of CO2 – the output of a major power station for a couple of weeks – was accidentally released from a natural CO2 reservoir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#1986_disaster
Imagine something like this happening near a major city.
The rapid destruction of the rain forests is a huge problem. And yes, these are the ‘lungs of the world’ because in the cold climate forests, there is little uptake of anything during the long winters whereas rain forests grow year round and this is what is being decimated rapidly.
And unlike right wingers who talk about global cooling, we must understand humans cannot proliferate eternally. There is an upper limit to growth.
Of course, there is no warming at this point. What interests me is how my own forest which I own, is growing really great this year thanks to lots of rain and temperate cooling. It is the greenest I have seen in years. My trees love present CO2 levels.
Obama has a plan for some reason, I think he hates the USA, to destroy our economy…..simple as that.
Today i find this quote from a bloomberg article, also greasing the skids for obama’s reduced emissions plan:
“Scientists and physicians increasingly link a rise in allergies, asthma and other respiratory diseases to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by climate change.”
So now i am to understand that carbon dioxide is both a cause and effect of climate change?
The blurb acts as though these professor folks were of different viewpoints before the “collaboration” began. Yeah, right, especially the guys from Woods Oceanographic, who
you would think know at least something about the fraud of rising sea level claims – see the Wash Post, yesterdy or today, which has an article which claims (sinking Norfolk VA) is an example of climate change due to sea levels rising.
“We have the technology, and we know how to do it,” Cusack said. “It’s just that there doesn’t seem to be political support for reducing emissions.”
We’ve had the technology for thepast 60 years – it’s called nuclear power, you know, the power technology that you clowns have slandered with lies and misinformation for the past 30 years.
And you still don’t support it, even when your Godfather Hansen does. You’re not too stupid, now are you?
The interdisciplinary team looked at a range of possible approaches to dissipating greenhouse gases and reducing warming.
==============
what they did not consider is how to live with warming/cooling, and whether this would be more effective than trying to reduce CO2.
Because in the end the only way the world will reduce the CO2 going into the atmosphere is to keep billions of people in poverty. To deny people in Africa and Asia the same benefits that people in the US and EU enjoy.
In the end, CO2 and AGW is racism dressed up as “saving the world”. Keeping the poor of the world poor, so that the rich can continue to live high on the hog.
A co² leak from a lake in africa wiped out a village
Carbon monoxide is denser than air, too, and people die in low lying spots.
===========
The beauty of having Obama in the White House is that the inherent racism in CO2 reduction can be denied. The US and EU can push forward their policies to bribe the leaders of the poorest nations on earth to keep their people in poverty, using $100 billion dollars in taxpayer money. All the while claiming that since Obama is half black, these policies are not racism on a global scale.
In effect, The US and EU are proposing to give $100 billion dollars to sell billions of people into perpetual slavery, in the greatest crime against humanity ever conceived.
What do philosophers and political scientists know about climate science? Nothing.
This ‘study’ is an opinion piece with a token scientists to get a give it a sciencey look and feel.
Carbon monoxide is denser than air
=========
nope. carbon monoxide (CO) is lighter than air. it is only a danger in enclosed spaces.
carbon dioxide (CO2) is heavier than air and when it accumulates it has been responsible for mass killings over large areas.
Just look at the credentials of this bunch. I don’t think they are qualified to mop a floor, let alone save the planet from a fictitious demise. I wonder how much we paid them to read papers they don’t even have the capacity [to] understand?
Oh the pain!
I wonder if anyone has ever asked these yoyos “How are we going to stop ourselves from reducing CO2 to a dangerously low level?” Most of these plans are permanent in nature.
“Cloud seeding sounds simple,” Cusack said. “But we really don’t understand what would happen to the climate if we started making more clouds.”
That cloud thing again. Wherever they turn they find clouds that they do not understand. If they had a bit more self-awareness, they would realize that they do not understand the various effects of clouds on the environment and, therefore, do not understand the basic calculations needed to make predictions about warming. They are standing on a sandy beach wondering about clouds.
But CO-(A)GW is near zero: the atmosphere self controls.
Sometimes career experience and credentials do count. In this case the academic reporting team of three assistant professors, one acting assistant professor, and a postdoctoral researcher seems a little light for the chosen project assignment. The absence of professional engineers or economists is surprising. To me, it’s like a high school football team trying to compete in a Super Bowl. I for one am discounting the earnest analysis and advice.
“if, in the future, we want to have anything like the Earth we have now.””
Well personally I would like a better Earth in the future rather than the one we have now. And to achieve that requires innovation and encouraging new ideas. Both of which require growing economies and increased reliable energy supplies.
Relying on unreliable energy supplies and reducing per capita energy production will stagnate, if not reduce, the economy. And stagnant or negative economic growth, combined with reduced energy supplies will result in an Earth worse than the one we have now. It will trap billions of people in poverty and force millions more into poverty.
Mod assistance request,,,,, my “to” is missing. It should read, capacity “to ” understand in my post. It appears my tablet sequestered it 🙂
“Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.”
Great name for an Alarmist journal. Endless new points of view on human sins against Gaia.
Reducing man-made CO2 by 78% is absurd.
Of course, these conclusions are obviously derived from the standard CO2 climate models which greenies worship but have already been proven completely and utterly wrong.
Garbage in, garbage out.
The absence of professional engineers or economists is surprising.
============
not surprising at all. no engineer would propose reducing CO2 as a solution to rising sea levels.
An engineer would tell you the solution to rising sea levels is to stop building in low lying areas. Buildings and infrastructure only lasts 50 years at most. By the time sea levels rise high enough, the threatened building will be need to be torn down anyways. Let the sea do it for you. Problem solved.
The economist would tell you that since the engineers have a solution that doesn’t cost anything, only that the bureaucrats and politicians stop giving out building permits in low lying areas, that for all practical purposes it will never work. Politicians and bureaucrats only approve grand sweeping solutions involving billions of dollars, so that they can look important.
“………..increasing the Earth’s cloud cover and solar reflection.”
They want to reduce the amount of sunlight coming in to deal with CAGW. Then, at the same time, we are supposed to switch to using solar panels for our electricity instead of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.
With “brilliant” light bulbs like these people, the country doesn’t need any idiots.
Reducing man-made CO2 by 78% is absurd.
==========
Not only that, but it would not stop CO2 from increasing.
To stop CO2 from increasing, man-made CO2 needs to be reduced by 100%. If we want to return to per-industrial levels, man-made CO2 needs to be reduced by more than 100%. How can we do this?
Human activity produces 9 gigatons of CO2 each year. However, human’s produce 3 gigatons of CO2 each year simply by breathing. Thus, if we got rid of all humans on earth, this would reduce man-made CO2 by:
(9+3)/9 = 133%
Houston, we have a plan.
They lie and then steal our freedom, will to fight, money and personal power. Then concentrate it in the hands of a few in government and universities. That is what they mean by co2 capturing technology…after they are done with this they will go after fracking and the remaining oil. In the end it will not make any difference in the world climate except the world will be a much uglier place to live with out the US leading and being the hope for others to fight on.
notice how they effortlessly switch between saying “carbon” and “CO2” as if they were the same. this is a pure PR/marketing dept tactic. also notice how all of the reports out recently do the exact same thing, as well as with their overall feel. its almost like they have been synchronized by some higher authority….hmmm
emsnews says:
June 1, 2014 at 7:03 am
And unlike right wingers who talk about global cooling, we must understand humans cannot proliferate eternally.
Somehow you’ve linked adherents of smaller government and fiscal sanity, with a cooling planet and humans proliferating eternally??? Just wow.
Maybe you were still waiting on your morning cup of joe while writing this?
What climate change??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
the team spent two years evaluating more than 100 studies that addressed the various implications of climate engineering and their anticipated effects on greenhouse gases.
IOW, they studied studies and didn’t do any original work. That’s called data mining.
emsnews says:
June 1, 2014 at 7:03 am
“And unlike right wingers who talk about global cooling, we must understand humans cannot proliferate eternally. There is an upper limit to growth.”
______________________
The most basic tenet of left wing ideology is that too many human beings exist and that measures must be taken to reduce human populations. Nearly all left wing political maneuverings are rooted in that assumption and are designed to implement population control. What would you propose is the upper population carrying capacity of the planet?
Actually this is quite brilliant, politically.
The LIV believer their lying leaders.
They believe there is global warming.
Therefore the Liar In Chief will impose “action” to stop Global Warming.
There being none= Mission Accomplished.
Liar in Chief can now claim to have stopped global warming, saving us all.
A brilliant cover for the most odious theft from the (poor)many, to enrich the few.
A cover for the reemergence of that ugly stupidity, Eugenics.
A brilliant cover for the parasites from our bureaucracies to establish permanent “Rights to Loot”, unseen since the abolishment of feudal lords and kings.
When we finally tally up the money and the lost opportunities this CAGW lie has cost us, the question will be; Will the useful idiots share the gallows with their bandit friends?
“We found that climate engineering doesn’t offer a perfect option,” said Daniela Cusack
Thank fcuk for that !
The rest is complete hogwash of course.
“Working under the auspices of the National Science Foundation, the team spent two years evaluating more than 100 studies that addressed the various implications of climate engineering and their anticipated effects on greenhouse gases.”
Two years to produce this? And they finish their study THE DAY BEFORE Obama announces his climate plan???
“The perfect option is reducing emissions. We have to cut down the amount of emissions we’re putting into the atmosphere if, in the future, we want to have anything like the Earth we have now.”
Patently incorrect on multiple levels. No need to control co2 levels or even maintain the current emission rates. Try viewing some original data presented here by Dr. Easterbrook (all presented is peer reviewed… about one hour):
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI ]
They want to “reduce global warming”. Except that global temperturess have been declining for the last 6 or 7 years, about when the PDO went negative (yes / no ? Bob Tisdale? ). If the current solar cycle is lower than the level required to maintain temperatures or make temperatures climb then continued global cooling is already baked in to the system. Add to that an expectation that solar cycle 25 will be the lowest witnessed in modern science, then although we may see some sort of brief additional temperature rise just due to variability, the medium term (20 + years) outlook is more likely to be prolonged cooling. This will make discussion of “climate engineering” mute.
I believe the Obama Admin realizes AGW is dead, both in the public consciousness and scientifically. What we are seeing is the first shot across the bow of a replacement; that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant because of health concerns, not because of global warming.
Regulating CO2 means regulating just about everything. And rising CO2 from human sources is the only part of AGW that all sides agree on. So we keep that part, and just swap out the consequences.
It changes everything; a whole new battle to fight. Climate drops out of the equation entirely. Sure, funding for AGW science will fade, but also “climate skeptics” will no longer be relevant either.
If I wanted to be an Evil Overload, and I could see the handwriting on the wall, that’s how I’d approach it.
“With CCS we’re taking advantage of an approach that already exists, and big companies pay for the work out of their own pockets,” Cusack said.
So companies never would raise the price of a product to account for the added cost of CCS. These boys have lost the bubble.
Wrong audience. Tell the Chinese and Indians.
Is this correct? If the US completly stopped emitting human caused c02 the temperature would only drop .05 degrees in 50 years
mark my words…he’s going to double down on this
Obamacare was a flop…..and he has to be important
nc says:
June 1, 2014 at 8:54 am
Is this correct? If the US completly stopped emitting human caused c02 the temperature would only drop .05 degrees in 50 years
=====
only in Miami
It’s going to be a trifecta: the Sunday press release; O’s speech on Monday; and don’t overlook tonight’s episode of Cosmos, which promises to be wholly devoted to Climate Change (I think we all know how that will go . . . ), and which will repeat on Monday. The PR machine is going into overdrive.
Carbon capture and storage?
We can do it cheaply, in a relatively stable form, that will effectively remove the risk of CO2 leaks.
We just stop recycling paper. Instead of sending old paper stock off to the recycling plants, we send it off to old strip mines and cover it with a big pile of dirt. We can even include all of the old wood products we don’t need any more. Seed it with methane-eating bacteria, if you want to be thorough.
That would be good for a solid 50-100 million tons per year for the US alone. Sure, it’s probably only good for a fraction of that, CO2-equivalent, but it would be pretty damned stable for a few hundred years at least, and would cost a tiny fraction of what we’d spend on those silly CO2 sequestration boondoggles.
Storing CO2 underground as a liquid is not the only way to sequester CO2. Skyonic Corp from Austin, Texas, has a tested, patented process with a commercial plant currently under construction in San Antonio. see http://skyonic.com/ Skyonic was founded by chemical engineer Joe Jones, who also patented the process.
I think the reason is more likely special interests of some sort. It seems to me to be a struggle between coal and oil/gas or something like that, because the message is:
Coal bad, gas good
and is akin to “Two legs bad, four legs good.”
“The authors hope the information will help the public and decision-makers invest in the approaches with the largest payoffs and the fewest disadvantages. At stake, the study emphasizes, are the futures of food production, our climate and water security.”
The banning of fungicides, which control thousands of diseases on thousands of crops – from basil to potatoes to fruit trees – is what would destroy food production. The banning of fungicides has already moved forward in NZ and Australia and Europe for organic farming; simultaneously, efforts to force all of agriculture into organic farming has already begun through federal bureaucracies and treaties with foreign countries, especially China. (Yes, that China, which still does not admit or permit discussion of the mass starvation during the Great Leap.)
What do you call people who fulfill their own scientific predictions through black sabotage of crops, power production and transportation, always with the use “science” to transmit wild and unfounded fears?
ref: treach·ery
noun \-rē\
: harmful things that are done usually secretly to a friend, your own country, etc.
: an act of harming someone who trusts you
Ahhh, yes. A patented process. Once you have one of those you need a legislative hammer to force people to use your patented product. Of course, when the patent expires, you need another one, and it will be found that the original had flaws of some sort.
Thorbama and his Hammer — I can hardly wait!
Will there be Thunder and Levity?
Carbon capture and storage
If only we could find a biological system that efficiently absorbed CO2 and trapped it in some type of stable form. But what are the odds of something like that existing.
It is said to be wise is to have the ability to make good decisions. Good decisions rely on the identification of all available options prior to evaluation of those options, for example, in the movie “Lone Survivor” [spoiler alert] the team is faced with a dilemma in which they believe their options are to either let the goat herders go or kill them. They failed to recognize other options such as holding the goat herders until radio contact had been reestablished. The failure to recognize other options results in disaster for the team, however, did lead to a movie worthy story. Similarly, this ITT (Ivory Tower Team) does not perceive the “do nothing” option. They are blind to an adaption strategy being orders of magnitude more cost effective than their staunch insistence on a futile attempt to stagnate the climate. The outcome was indeed predetermined by the selection of options evaluated. Being the best option among a set of bad options is hardly a glowing endorsement for the emission reduction strategy which depends upon an unprecedented level of global cooperation for any hope of having any actual effect on atmospheric GHG concentrations; atmospheric GHG concentrations being the key to stagnating the climate; and climate stagnation being good. Confucius says: “By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest. I fear this ITT would have us learn a bitter lesson indeed; condemning millions if not billions to abject poverty, suffering, and premature death in a vain effort that even if successful would ultimately be wiped out by the next glacial period a mere few thousand years from now anyway. Scientists and learned experts they may be, but wise they are not. JMHO.
I saw above, “9 gigatons of carbon dioxide being released each year by human activity”. This is incorrect. The correct figure is annual release of CO2 having 9 gigatons of carbon, which is 33 gigatons of CO2.
The Earth’s way too cold in some areas and way too hot in others. That’s the only real problem. Why can’t these wonderful “scientists” come up with an idea to solve that?
I think McArdle -almost- has this right: this is an attempt to target the older smaller coal burning plants that were slated to close anyway, in an attempt to build up the DNC treasury with green billionaire money. The net actual effect will be almost nothing.
“Scientists and physicians increasingly link a rise in allergies, asthma and other respiratory diseases to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by climate change.”
This correlation is complete and utter nonsense.
Of the methods that are unlikely to make a difference, reducing CO2 is the least likely to fail completely — or so they say.
Fertilizing the sea with iron, by contrast, has a proven record for increasing the botanical and zoological productivity of the seas. It is the most dramatic growth-enhancing discovery since the manufacture of fertilizer for soils.
The IPCC says annual human addition to the global carbon cycle is about 3 percent. This is entirely beneficial to global life. CO2 added to current levels will have zero temperature effect. The effect is the same as adding 3 percent water to the flow of a river. 3 percent of 400 ppm is 12 ppm.
The very premise that CO2 is “pollution” is insane on a global ecological scale. CO2 is the basic material for all life via photosynthesis.
The real tragic aspect of the AGW issue is the waste of human effort to demonize CO2 for political gain.
This is getting absurd. We are getting back to the reason we dumped tea in a harbor. Somehow, it doesn’t seem that long ago anymore, and seems like a good idea to repeat it.
REPLY: Except if we dumped tea this time, we’d get fined by the EPA for polluting the Boston Harbor – Anthony
Now this is how you plan and execute the Goebbels effect. The list of those who collaborated are known nuts and have very little credibility as their work is shoddy and easily refuted. They dont even cite any which proves CO2 is the cause of anything.
What baffles me is that the University’s knowing that the gig is up are allowing their names to be dragged through the mud. But then again, every one of the institutions named have major grants in the millions of dollars pending.
Obama has orchestrated what appears to be a professional release of information from these universities (which if you look in history seldom happens) and just before he is scheduled to go around congress and the resounding NO to further destroy the US and its economy.
These people are yelling and screaming with out any basis in fact. They show no research to prove their assertions yet they want mandated change. The change they seek is magically what Obama wants… Useful idiots all.
I agree with most of the criticisms presented. But let’s give some credit.
I am as skeptical as anyone of CAGW. But I think we should admit that we are changing the planet at a dizzying pace. The emissions of CO2 are changing the relative atmospheric concentration of CO2 very quickly, by geological standards. Is it causing a problem? Not that we can tell. Is it actually bringing net benefits? Yes, it looks like it is. Could it cause a problem in the future? Maybe (although there is no convincing evidence at this point that it will).
Studies like this can yield worthwhile information, and we should give them credit for these sensible conclusions:
1) Fooling around with cloud formation should be considered a dangerous thing to do. (As someone pointed out above, they are admitting that they [we] do not understand clouds. You would think a light bulb would go off when they consider that clouds are simply parameterized in the climate models, and therefore the models — even if they were otherwise rigorous, which they are not — are useless for telling us how this will play out.)
2) If Carbon dioxide levels become a problem, they can be significantly affected by growing more forests and preventing deforestation. (Interestingly, they do not consider that forcing a switch to renewable energy brings about a level of poverty that makes good forest management much more difficult or impossible).
3) Burying carbon dioxide in the ground in huge quantities is dangerous, since if it suddenly escaped it could suffocate people. (They downplay this, saying the risk would be remote, but correctly state that people will not want to take this risk — and indeed, it is a foolish risk to take. Egads, if such sequestration ever becomes necessary, just grow huge forests in Australia or somewhere, use as much as the wood as possible making structures designed to be permanent, and warehouse extra logs if necessary. Better than huge potentially deadly bubbles of CO2 under the ground.)
4) Sequestering carbon in the oceans by creating algae blooms could cause more problems than it solves, if we someday decide we need to sequester carbon. I think such an approach would be nuts, considering the unintended and not fully predictable side-effects, so IMHO they are correct to cast doubt on such a practice.
I think it is worthwhile to consider remedies that could be taken in the future if they become necessary.
Again, there is much to criticize about the article, but since others are doing that effectively, I will not pile on myself. I just wanted to give some credit for a few sensible things in the article.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 1, 2014 at 9:55 am
Of the methods that are unlikely to make a difference, reducing CO2 is the least likely to fail completely — or so they say.
Fertilizing the sea with iron, by contrast, has a proven record for increasing the botanical and zoological productivity of the seas. It is the most dramatic growth-enhancing discovery since the manufacture of fertilizer for soils.
________________________
That idea was promoted as a means to increase CO2 uptake in the oceans and after being successfully demonstrated, was completely ridiculed, vilified and banned. The idea is too simple and cheap and promises benefits to mankind, when what’s really needed is something which concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few and reduces human populations, not feeds them.
@ Richard Sharpe on June 1, 2014 at 9:13 am
“Ahhh, yes. A patented process. Once you have one of those you need a legislative hammer to force people to use your patented product. Of course, when the patent expires, you need another one, and it will be found that the original had flaws of some sort.”
Actually, Skyonic’s patent attracted and still attracts great interest, world-wide. I happen to know the VP of sales, and he’s logging many many miles by air. The system pays for itself in three years. Private investors are signing up and putting in millions of their own dollars, in exchange for equity in the company.
If you have not read and understood Joe Jones’ patent, perhaps you should refrain from making idiotic comments.
“Who’s WE, white man?”
(Say China and India.)
And why is such an advanced country like Australia doing the exact OPPOSITE(abolishing carbon taxes).US will have to vote democrats out (from an ex democrat) next election or they will enter the world of second class countries. LOL
Duh. So try it out on a small scale and see what happens.
Come on Roger. It only pays for itself in three years if you are changed by governments for CO2 emissions, surely.
I found this on their website:
Pollution is everyone’s problem. See what’s drifting towards the US.
CO2 is pollution in quantities approaching 5,000ppm, as far as I am aware, and we already have a great system of CO2 capture. It’s called plants.
Roger Sowell;
The system pays for itself in three years. Private investors are signing up and putting in millions of their own dollars, in exchange for equity in the company.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh poppycock. The only way it can pay for itself is if there are customers to buy it, and the only way there are customer’s to buy it is if there is a value to THEM to do so. The only way there is a value to THEM is if it is artificially created by law or regulation. Since no natural economic driver exists, any three year ROI (which is more than likely market spin just like the rest of your crap) exists only as long as the laws and regulations that created it exist. No more carbon credits and feed in tariffs and boon toggles like this get exposed for the rank hypocrisy that they are. A fictitious market created for the sole purpose of sweeping tax payer dollars from the many into the pockets of the privileged few. It is just another Solyndra, a different “product” but an identical business model.
Iron seeding could disrupt the oscillation that has developed in algae bloom events. Other species in the food chain have adapted to this oscillation, which has taken hundreds of years to develop. These oscillations also slowly change on their own in response to our slowly changing planet. To disrupt this process by artificially injected an instantaneous speeding up, if you will, of this oscillation, would have severe consequences in my opinion. The small change in CO2 does not justify the risk we take on related to these unknown consequences.
Adaptation and consequence mitigation are the proper courses to follow, not CO2 reduction. Why? Because those steps help us better prepare for all weather and climate events from mild to extreme and from short term to long term, regardless of why or how weather and climate change, and without initiating unpredictable deleterious consequences.
Now we know 6 universities to which we SHOULD NOT SEND kids to learn science or physics. If they cannot understand the basic laws of thermodynamics, we cannot trust them with any tools, as they will hurt themselves and us.
25% is better than 0%. And more of “other sea life” = less stress on fisheries.
That’s not what happened in the Gulf of Alaska, which is already a “desert”, marine-life-wise. Instead, the salmon population exploded.
More from the Skyonic website:
The Summary Report for the IPCC 5th Assessment is out: Committee finds with 95% certainty that climate change is manmade.
They seem heavily invested in the AGW meme. I smell a rat.
firmly, those universities want to fill every seat in our ever growing university campuses. With greed in their eyes and salivation at the thought of all those incoming freshman, they understand that it does not matter if they all graduate or that they will provide an intelligent and thoughtful approach to their subsequent years. The first year’s tuition is another building as far as they are concerned. Who cares about the outcome. Unfortunately that has meant that we have many overeducated people who should not have gone to university in the first place! It is my opinion that several climate scientists are aptly described as such. They clearly lack an intelligent and thoughtful approach to their endeavors and instead simply wring the sh** out of the grant gravy train. Whatever it is.
“The Gods are angry. The High Priests tell the people what they must sacrifice in order to placate The Gods.”
“Skyonics also support a price on CO2 (carbon emissions trading/cap and trade)”.
They also say on their website, “when it is free for polluters to emit CO2, most carbon capture companies are struggling for business.”
Richard Sharpe says:
June 1, 2014 at 10:24 am
CO2 is pollution in quantities approaching 5,000ppm, as far as I am aware, and we already have a great system of CO2 capture. It’s called plants.
_____________________
One way to understand mankind’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is to equate a dollar value to a quantity of air. For instance, $10,000 of air would contain 1 penny of man’s CO2 emissions.
———————————-
Pamela Gray says:
June 1, 2014 at 10:30 am
__________________
Pamela, by your logic, you have just made an argument which could be extended against all of agriculture.
“The best is the enemy of the good”–ever heard that one, Ms. Cusack?
I couldn’t find those on their web site.
Yes, it could. Then again, it might not. So why not try it out on a small scale and see? If it does cause problems, it’s not irreversible — we’d only have to stop and the recovery would be rapid.
We agree. So far so good — consensus intact.
Darn, they went and spoiled it. In engineering there is never a perfect solution — there are only choices among imperfect trade-offs. If you want more of desirable quality X, you have to be willing to part with some of desirable quality Y, or accept more of undesirable quality Z.
You can’t demand a reduction in human CO2 emissions without acknowledging and quantifying the possible trade-offs to achieve that goal. The usually unstated assumption is it will be sufficient to spend enough of other people’s money on research and
subsidiesmarket incentives.Alan? We already have a carbon cycle in place. More CO2 encourages more plants in our undeveloped land. So I don’t get your point. Agriculture is also a natural response to the supply and demand for food. No need to plant for the purpose of CO2 reduction. Natural processes do that for us.
==================================================================
Here in the USA fireworks are the traditional way to celebrate our liberty on the 4th of July.
I guess both of those are out now.
If there is a concern about stifling algal blooms, then just disperse the iron dust less densely–perhaps by “dusting” it over a wide area from an airplane.
roger, you do understand the ratio: tiny airplane versus expansive ocean. Yes? The cost of seeding that would result in significant CO2 intake would be astronomically huge. And the CO2 belched out by the airplane under a financially viable program would make it a wash.
Iron seeding is beyond silly.
They are making “climate change” an election issue. Here in NC the senate seat is held by a backer of the president’s failed energy policy that wants to shut down all coal burning power plants.
Her challenger is arguing that climate has always been changing and trying to control CO2 by shutting down power plants will harm our states economy and put more people out of work. Who do you think an informed public will believe and vote for? Are they riding a dead horse?
Richard Sharpe says:
June 1, 2014 at 11:08 am
Skyonics also support a price on CO2 (carbon emissions trading/cap and trade)”.
They also say on their website, “when it is free for polluters to emit CO2, most carbon capture companies are struggling for business.
From the web address: http://skyonic.com/. On the main page, under the heading, “who we are”, there is a short video(3:53) entitled, “How to profit from CO2 emissions”. In the video the company talks about its business. The quotes above are from that video.
Obama’s Push may have the unintended side-effect of (finally) causing a pushback by alarmed scientists who have kept their heads down until now. The ranks are already breaking—Botkin, Tol, Benggston, and Stavins (on 4/26).
Richard Sharpe says:
June 1, 2014 at 10:24 am
According to this reference, human physiological tolernace to CO2 concentrations of 1.0% (10,000 PPM) is “indefinite”.
You exhale air with about 4% CO2, or 40,000 PPM. That air is breathable and will sustain human metabolism, which is why mouth-to-mouth resuscitation works. Humans begin to experience problems (“Headache, dyspnea upon mild exertion”) after 2 or more hours breathing CO2 at 2% (20,000 PPM) and will generally lose consciousness at 7-10%.
Ahhh, OK. I wonder if there is a transcript.
OK, so try it out first in a location where there aren’t any blooms or much of a food chain, AFAIK, like the Gulf of Alaska. Then monitor the site intensely for untoward consequences.
It’s been done already. The effect disappeared rapidly, which when considered, would greatly increase the cost of such a project to make it viable. I’ll see if I can find the article.
What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
Thank you for improving my knowledge and you used their own data, as well.
Better save that document. I am sure they will remove it soon.
There are many papers out there. I like this one because it reviews the status of the theory. Even though it was submitted in the later 90’s much of what it said still holds true.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aslo.org%2Flo%2Ftoc%2Fvol_40%2Fissue_7%2F1336.pdf&ei=o3mLU9qONI62yASUrYK4Cw&usg=AFQjCNHy65NjWx7zIvmNVRxYU6HSSYWAvQ&bvm=bv.67720277,d.aWw
A faux solution in search of a nonexistent problem.
Pamela Gray: Iron seeding could disrupt the oscillation that has developed in algae bloom events. Other species in the food chain have adapted to this oscillation, which has taken hundreds of years to develop. These oscillations also slowly change on their own in response to our slowly changing planet. To disrupt this process by artificially injected an instantaneous speeding up, if you will, of this oscillation, would have severe consequences in my opinion. The small change in CO2 does not justify the risk we take on related to these unknown consequences.
I don’t know if that response was aimed at me, but it missed my two main points, so I’ll repeat them:(1) iron seeding has a proven track record, having increased primary productivity of algae everywhere it has been tried; (2) one of its proven effects is increasing yields from fisheries in the N.E. Pacific. CO2 reduction is neither tried and true, nor has it got any other benefit to help balance its cost; and it could potentially reduce primary productivity.
Pamela Gray: It’s been done already. The effect disappeared rapidly,
That is another way that it is like the use of manufactured fertilizer: you have to apply it regularly.
[snip Roger – I’m going to give you the opportunity to resubmit this comment – Anthony]
Our grandchildren are going to view all this as being hysterically funny.
Hmmm, so the claims by geologists that there were periods in the past with 7,000+ PPM CO2 levels are not insane, then.
[snip]
Pamela Gray says:
June 1, 2014 at 11:31 am
Alan? We already have a carbon cycle in place. More CO2 encourages more plants in our undeveloped land. So I don’t get your point. Agriculture is also a natural response to the supply and demand for food. No need to plant for the purpose of CO2 reduction. Natural processes do that for us.
____________________
The point is, that any human undertaking could fall under the same rubric, that we must not interfere with Mother Nature, so to speak. Is there not already an identifiable effort to thwart agricultural production methods because they interfere with natural processes? the Law of Unintended Consequences operates whenever we turn our hand to any endeavor, to be sure and while there might be some downside to ocean fertilization, there is a definite and discernible downside to calls (approaching mandates) for pure organic “sustainable” agriculture.
John Martin’s experimental results (re: your link) were universally assailed from within the climate fearosphere as having no effect on CO2 sequestration, but the fact remains that the local biosphere experienced measurable productive increase along the entire food chain.
Again, the whole idea of increasing man’s food sources is anathema to the promulgators of the notion of man made climate change, since the fundamental idea behind efforts to stem CO2 emissions is to reduce mankind, not to increase our numbers.
I think your analysis is flawed.
There are multiple groups. A tiny proportion seem to be as crazy as Prince BigEars.
I suspect the rest see an opportunity to make lots of money from the notion that CO2 is a pollution.
Richard Sharpe says:
June 1, 2014 at 12:39 pm
No. Not if you accept the proxy methods by which they have determined this, and I do not recall anyone disputing them. I have also seen claims that atmospheric oxygen may have been as high as 35% in past eras (21% at present).
The reference I provided only considered short term exposure to elevated CO2, it did not examine physiological adaptation to continuous higher levels. For example if you fly to La Paz, Bolivia (10,000 – 13,000 feet) you will experience at least mild symptoms of hypoxia. Most of us long conditioned to living at or near sea level will go beyond “mild” symptoms to possibly debilitating ones. Yet people who live there have adapted to it.
I suspect extended living in an elevated CO2 environment will increase the body’s physiological tolerance for it just as extended training at high altitude increases the body’s ability to deliver oxygen.
Navy crewmen aboard nuclear submarines breathe atmosphere around 7,000 PPM for the entire cruise. It would be interesting to repeat the studies referenced in the document I linked to with a control group drawn from submariners.
Richard Sharpe (June 1, 2014 at 9:11 am) “I think the reason is more likely special interests of some sort. It seems to me to be a struggle between coal and oil/gas or something like that, because the message is: Coal bad, gas good”
Google Steyer Kinder Morgan
All I can say is, vote Republican this November. Make sure you and anyone you know makes it to the polling booth, no mistakes, no excuses.
@ferdberple –
Yes, AGW is racist because it condemns billions of people of color to eternal poverty.
The coelenterates who authored this “study” are playing the same sad tune, in a not very original variation.
Richard Sharpe says:
June 1, 2014 at 1:03 pm
” since the fundamental idea behind efforts to stem CO2 emissions is to reduce mankind”
———————-
“I think your analysis is flawed.
There are multiple groups. A tiny proportion seem to be as crazy as Prince BigEars.
I suspect the rest see an opportunity to make lots of money from the notion that CO2 is a pollution.”
__________________
You are welcome to your opinion, but my analysis is not flawed.
Certainly many well- meaning people have jumped on the bandwagon for their own diverse reasons and would be horrified to learn the true nature of the elements which they unknowingly support. However, my statement stands as a spotlight on the underlying ethos of those elitist minds behind all efforts we have witnessed so far. The primary idea of the main “Green” promulgators is that too many human beings exist and human numbers must be reduced. Those people make no secret of their ideas, nor of their efforts to put their desires into effect. There is ample evidence that measures taken to reduce CO2 emissions have already caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, or worse. Where is the hue and cry against such sordid arithmetic?
Rather than believe anything I say, find out for yourself.
Here is a partial listing of quotes from those people:
(h/t to Wayne for the following quotations)
My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
“…the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” ~ David Rockefeller, June, 1991, Bilderberg Conference, Baden, Germany link
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
-Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
-Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
Roger Sowell
just how cozy are you with this self proclaimed parasite that you have somehow overlooked the fact that he’s a voracious parasite? like Really Cozy? Like vichy cozy?
lots of airline miles… pays for itself… pull the other one- the first 2 are already stretched to the limit.
On the other hand, we do understand effects of clouds on climate perfectly, provided they are not anthropogenic, don’t we?
” Alan Robertson says:
June 1, 2014 at 1:53 pm ”
Excellent list of easily verifiable quotes, which can best be summed up by the phrase,”it begins with hating humans.” And as the hiphoppers say, “Haters gonna hate.”
“”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation”
He needn’t worry. It may work though, I always say “wake me when it does.” But it probably won’t be cheap.
‘invest in the approaches with the largest payoffs and the fewest disadvantages.’
The questions that remain are, payoffs for who and how BIG are the disadvantages ?
One bullet in the head is a big enough disadvantage to not worry about any-more.
Still China and Indian , Russian will be peeing themselves laughing if the west wants to commit CO2 reduction suicide, so at least someone gets some fun out of it.
Thank you Eric! In case you didn’t follow his link here is what happed in Lake Nyos which is a crater lake in the Northwest Region of Cameroon.
PS does anyone know what the US Co2 emissions for 2013 is? I found the one below on the BBC story out yesterday, and it’s possible that the US emissions is now at the 1990 level.
“US Co2 emissions 1990-2012”
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/75216000/gif/_75216443_us_co2_emissions_464gr.gif
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27642463
Who is we? The USA? India? China? This is going to be a pointless exercise me thinks. Empty one bottle, fill another.
Alan Robertson:
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel BotkinK
This quote rather sharply contradicts Botkins testimony in last week’s congressional hearing, so I have googled around all over the place to try to find a context. The quote appears everywhere, but I have yet to find the specifics. Can you give us a link?
This link categorizes it as a quote taken out of context, and if true is actually quite scurrilous. Unfortunately, the original that it quotes is no longer available as the link no longer works: Opinion Journal. October 21, 2007.
Given your comment and the above Alan should withdraw the claim immediately and do further research.
I found it very quickly using google.
Here is the original: Global Warming Delusions.
While I have concerns with the site that I linked to, the above article is in the WSJ and gives the full context of the statement.
Alan, I think you need to withdraw your claim with respect to Botkin.
[That links states the full quote is even more damning – to those “scientists” who are using exaggerated claims to feed the fear.
Full quote is said to be:
Source: Botkin, Daniel.” .mod]
T-Bird says:
June 1, 2014 at 2:30 pm
“”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation”
He needn’t worry. It may work though, I always say “wake me when it does.” But it probably won’t be cheap.
———————-
You are correct if you are talking ITER-style magnetic containment fusion. However there are a number of cheaper and simpler technologies, most using some form of inertial electrostatic confinement. None are ready for prime time, but any of them would be simpler and much lower cost than ITER-style fusion.
Mod interjected with:
To clarify my position:
That is the full quote from the WSJ article.
My only dog in this fight is that Alan used it to support his claim that:
Initially I did not even see it until slayton brought it up, and it was then easy to show that the quote attributed to Botkin had been taken out of context by who knows who.
There is no need to attribute such a repugnant view to someone who does not hold that view.
Reading your comment, I am fully agreeing with the need for correcting the original (short) quote but I strongly disagree with your conclusion: Rather, I would think the inclusion of the full quote is very complimentary to Dr Botkin!
The original – if left as-was – implies that Dr Botkin is agreeing with, or promoting the idea that “frightening ideas are needed (and are justified) to raise energy prices, energy taxes, and restrict energy supplies artificially. Instead, the full quote shows that he is strongly OPPOSING such exaggerations and frighting tactics.
If so, should the original – in the first comment that printed it – be changed? Or deleted entirely?
John Slayton says:
June 1, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Alan Robertson:
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel BotkinK
——————
“This quote rather sharply contradicts Botkins testimony in last week’s congressional hearing, so I have googled around all over the place to try to find a context. The quote appears everywhere, but I have yet to find the specifics. Can you give us a link?”
________________________
I agree. Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. Dr. Botkin’s recent testimony makes clear where he stands. I haven’t even read that list in some months, just copy/pasted it and didn’t realize he was on the list, but that is feeble excuse for posting something incorrect. I should have searched the list myself, a long time ago, rather than taking someone else’s word for it. If I copied and posted something untrue about Dr. Botkin (which appears likely,) then I was wrong. I’ll search the list for other errors before ever posting it, again.
I am not sure, but believe that alleged “quote” was taken from a list at this link:
http://www.green-agenda.com/
A little perusal finds the “quote” at other sites, as well, although it appears to not be present at the following site, which has a rather extensive list of similar quotes:
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
I have not found the original speech/attribution, yet.
—————————————————————————————
Richard Sharpe says:
June 1, 2014 at 6:20 pm
“There is no need to attribute such a repugnant view to someone who does not hold that view.”
_______________________
I agree. Thanks for bringing the Botkin quote to my attention. I had not even noticed his name attached to the quote I’ll research for myself and if that or any other quotes don’t hold up, I’ll remove them from the list. Although, having a certain amount of trust in the mods here, I’ll expect to find that Dr. Botkin was unfairly treated with that quote taken out of context and by my re- posting it in the list. There may be other quotes similarly afflicted.That list was partially copied here from others posting quotes and partially from other sources on the internet. I agree that it is wrong to take a man’s words out of context and attribute a point of view to him which is wrong.
To Dr. Botkin, I apologize.
In most circumstances, I would say “in advance”, but I’ve no reason to believe I’ll find any other truth than that which has been brought to my attention here at WUWT.
@ Richard Sharpe
I see that you consider that list of quotes to hold “repugnant views”. You are correct.
RACookPE1978 says:
June 1, 2014 at 6:37 pm
If so, should the original – in the first comment that printed it – be changed? Or deleted entirely?
_______________________
Oh, let it stand as example. There’s much to learn from the entire commentary which flowed from that misquote, Wouldn’t you agree?
For Pamela:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/haida-gwaii-ocean-iron-dump-investigation-to-proceed-1.2523649
“I have not found the original speech/attribution, yet.”
Richard Sharpe already gave a link to the original WSJ article where Dr. Botkin’s words were first seen, before being misquoted, out of context.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB119258265537661384
***
Original post:
“With CCS we’re taking advantage of an approach that already exists, and big companies pay for the work out of their own pockets,” Cusack said.
***
Sure, “big companies pay” — she just forget the “and then pass it on to consumers” part. Her culture thinks since “big companies pay”, it’s free.
Why in the world would you sequester CO2 in anything but an oil or liquids reservoir, using it to bring them to surface ….. oh, right …… oil and NGLs are bad, bad, bad ….
The idea is that we have a growth economy with a shrinking energy economy. Sounds like a perfect plan …. you can’t improve energy functioning by technology, so you just keep people at home.
Let’s pretend ‘what if’! Decades ago, Saturday Night Live had a skit that featured a fictitious panel of ‘experts’ contemplating the question: ‘What if Napoleon had a B-52 at Waterloo?’ The skit was ridiculous and funny as these experts explored the ramifications of a 20th Century flying war machine at that famous, early 19th Century battle.
Climate science is nothing more than a Saturday Night Live skit, in which a bunch of self described ‘experts’ contemplate the question ‘What if relative humidity is always constant in the Earth’s atmosphere and the average global temperature went up 1 degree from a doubling of atmospheric CO2? What would happen then?’ Of course, there is no evidence for, or any reason to believe that relative humidity is a constant in the atmosphere, regionally or globally. We don’t see it in the data and it is not indicated in the paleo climate record. It is as ridiculous as a B-52 at the battle of Waterloo, even though the average lay person may not realize it.
On Saturday night live, the concept of playing ‘what if’ was amusing. It is not so funny when the global bureaucracy wants to make our lives more difficult and expensive solely based on a ridiculous ‘what if’ game. Scientists love to play this game because they get paid to do it. The bureaucrats who pay them then point to the scientists and proclaim “It must be true because the scientists are all playing the game!”
It is just insane!
I am stunned to find that they never checked if indeed the world is still warming….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
I don’t understand the alarm at CO2 at 6,000ppm or so. Been higher than that in the Holocene and much higher before the current Ice Age and life did just fine, including our primate ancestors.
When I and 7 others were in a people-carrier in the US, with Climate Control on to keep us cool, the car was sealed. CO2 must have greatly built up but all that happened eventually was we began to get sleepy – due not to the CO2 because it is, in fact, a symptom of O2 depletion. As far as I can see, CO2 only kills when oxygen is excluded but is not itself a killer. But then any other innocuous gas would do the same. CO is, of course, a killer – what a difference a single oxygen atom makes!
Statement in an email today from John Podesta: “Power plants currently churn out about 40 percent of the carbon pollution in the air we breathe, and contribute to hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and thousands of heart attacks.”
eric1skeptic says:
June 2, 2014 at 10:45 am “Statement in an email today from John Podesta: “Power plants currently churn out about 40 percent of the carbon pollution in the air we breathe, and contribute to hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and thousands of heart attacks.””
Removing these academics, Hollywood actors and actresses, intellectuals, progressive scientists, and politicians from their large homes to prevent the inhalation of indoor dust particles (PM2.5) should be the first measures society takes to protect these vulnerable populations from potential health problems. Next, the EPA and DOE, which produce nothing and yet cost billions of dollars per year and cause all other sectors to become full time paper trail makers to satisfy their need for endless regulation, should be removed as unsustainable. That is, the spending in billions per hectare is over recommended rates – and the output of “toxic” and “dirty” foreign NGO environmental activism and UN taxation is unwanted.
You’d think that University professors who think themselves intelligent enough to tell us what to do would understand the not so subtle difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. I can understand that and forgive idiot politicians for making that mistake, but university professors? Nope.
Chuck L says:
“This is the same UCLA that has invited “Hanoi Jane” Fonda to address their School of Theater Film & Television”
Funny, true story about Jane Fonda. She was a guest speaker at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in the 1970’s. A friend who was in a local fraternity, told me about a couple of his fraternity pals that volunteered to be her chauffeur, picking her up at Detroit Metro Airport, then driving her to Ann Arbor for her speaking engagement, then back again to fly out.
I don’t know or remember the details except that they rented a limo and thought it would going to be really cool, driving this big celebrity around in a limo.
When they met her at the airport and she found out they had a limo, she went nuts because she said that it would project the wrong image of her. I don’t know all the details except that they had to go back to the rental place, return the limo and get a Volkswagen.
Apparently, getting off on the wrong foot, causing her to wait for the politically correct vehicle to finally be acquired, resulted in them getting shit on the rest of the time.
Did they calculate the emissions reduction of going nuclear, or of fracking and natural gas, or of returning to leaded petrol?
I understand the last would cause a 3% reduction in the world’s CO2 emissions. If the crisis is as bleak as they claim, it should certainly be on the table. I have heard it claimed, without myself being certain of the facts, that “leaded petrol can cause lead poisoning, but unleaded petrol can cause cancer. We can cure only cure the first one.”
I’m still wondering how CO2 is such a big contributor to the “warming” when the thermal conductivity of it is essentially the same as air, water vapor and argon.
To Joe,
C02 is a contributor ONLY because leftists can charge you for it. I am still waiting for Iceland to cough up for all its C02 it emits via volcanic activity, the slash and burn farming in Central America and Al Gored climokleptomanic for his jets.
Enviro Scare blackmail at the cost of the middle class propagated by rich Leftists.
– Fracking movies were found to be falsified but generated a lot of income for fascist liars.
– Steyer: making billions from coal overseas while closing ours down and paying off democrats. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/the-epic-hypocrisy-of-tom-steyer.php
– Al Gore sold a failing tv station to middle east oil magnets for millions, the very same ones that want our oil shut down so they can keep their OPEC prices high. His big investors also have a high position in the Chicago Carbon Tax gimmick and continue to push carbon credit taxes.
Who will trade the carbon tax credits? The rich leftists who can afford to paid for by you
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/08/al-gores-oil-fueled-al-jazeera-deal-follows-a-string-of-green-energy-fiascos/
– Hollywood’s anti fracking movie with matt Damon bought and paid for by Dubai.
– Hollywood anti-fracking producers busted by Veritas. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/05/20/James-O-Keefe-Dupes-Hollywood-With-Fake-Anti-Fracking-Film
This is all a scheme to make themselves rich while peddling to lemmings in word only.
Don’t leave out Real Climate and Environmental Media Services who heavily promote the Obamer goals. Schardt who runs http://www.sciencecommunicationnetwork.org. and was Communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign.
Environmental Media Services is run by Fenton Communications as a project from the Tides Center. EMS is available for hire to the highest bidder. You want coal shut down? Hire EMS to create the “data” and Fenton to send out the message. You want your soy milk to compete against milk? Fenton will produce proof cow milk is bad.
This admin lies at every turn. You, your family and your life do not matter.
In every EPA assessments of deaths from power plants included deaths from cancer not related to lungs (uterine cancers that had metastasized to the lungs). Equally, CDC used the same numbers of deaths as resulting from smoking and second hand smoke (and included deaths from house fires). Which one is it?
Obamabots argue there are 5,000 prematue deaths in southern California every year from soot. (1) Stopping those deaths will reduce Healthcare costs, they say. Another EPA study claims 9,500 deaths from soot. (2) Where else have we heard the proposal to lower heatlhcare costs?
In all studies, a large portion of all estimates are deaths from ischemic heart disease: lack of oxygen to the heart. Obesity, cholesterol, diabitis, genetics, anyone?
Meanwhile, the same numbers of S. Cali premature deaths are argued in other studies as being from lack of healthcare. (3) Or second hand smoke. Or lack of excercise. Or GMA’s. Or red meat. Whatever the client wants, the same numbers are used over and over.
Tran, who wrote the original studies for premature deaths due to particulates…got his Phd through mail order after lying he went to UCLA. Then, looking at the study, the data is absurd. But this is what EPA and California call science/
Yet, not one study shows where closing a power plant in an area has reduced asthma, premature deaths, lower heatlhcare costs. Can EPA offer up the people they gased in their studies who suffered 0 consequences…other htan the fat obese lady with heart disease who “got dizzy”.
Premature death in Cali continues…oh gee I wonder why? Because they are chasing one thing only and it doesn’t exist.
Sorry for my rant. I am ticked off.
Carbon Soot Pollution (not sure which thread to post this on since the EPA is acting “fast and furious”)
Since the President keeps referring to carbon pollution (Confusing it with CO2), where can I find a graph showing the reduction/increase of carbon SOOT pollution since about the 1950 or before?
Can’t find it on the EPA.
Specifically, how has carbon soot pollution decreased/increased at coal fired power plants if possible?
When I Google “carbon soot pollution EPA” I get references to Carbon Dioxide “pollution” – nothing specifically about USA Carbon Soot Pollution.
(I think the President is confused, to be polite)
US Co2 emissions at lowest level since 1994, thanks to Natural Gas and Fracking. Which is also opposed by Obama.
emsnews says:
June 1, 2014 at 7:03 am
The rapid destruction of the rain forests is a huge problem. And yes, these are the ‘lungs of the world’ because in the cold climate forests, there is little uptake of anything during the long winters whereas rain forests grow year round and this is what is being decimated rapidly.
I beg to differ. The huge temperate forests in the NH do grow year round just look at the Western rain forests along the Pacific coast and in Scandinavia FI, they do uptake carbon and release O2. I have seen many evergreens deprived of water during winters and get nearly killed (that is in situations where they are out of their normal environment btw). I am glad to hear your trees are doing well, you are a lucky guy,I wish I had my own as well !
The idea of the forests being the lungs of the world is ignorant folly. The law of conservation of matter absolutely contradicts it.
Every atom of carbon that goes into the forests is matched by an atom of carbon released from them. Each tree growing is matched by a tree decaying. If the forest kept the carbon without releasing it back into the atmosphere, it would keep accumulating till it was much larger than Everest.
For the hard of thinking, don’t quibble that the balance is not matched at the same time every moment, or that the forest didn’t used to have as much carbon in it as it does now.
In the big picture, the above description is exactly true.
The things that absorb Carbon on a long scale are bacteria in soil getting buried in soil, carbon rich seaweed, fish corpses and fish poop falling to the bottom of the oceans and getting covered in sediment,
CAGW -alarmism, including Obama’s, has persisted solely through the censorship of truth. We need a website dedicated to the posting of comments delated by other media.