A guest post by Roy. W. Spencer
While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.
Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
The associated warming in Alaska was sudden, and at the same time we just happened to start satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice. Coincidences do happen, you know…that’s why we have a word for them.
We make a big deal out of the “unprecedented” 2007 opening of the Northwest Passage as summertime sea ice in the Arctic Ocean gradually receded, yet the very warm 1930s in the Arctic also led to the Passage opening in the 1940s. Of course, we had no satellites to measure the sea ice back then.
So, since we cannot explore the possibility of a natural source for some of our warming, due to a lack of data, scientists instead explore what we have measured: manmade greenhouse gas emissions. And after making some important assumptions about how clouds and water vapor (the main greenhouse components of the atmosphere) respond to the extra carbon dioxide, scientists can explain all of the recent warming.
Never mind that there is some evidence indicating that it was just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period. While climate change used to be natural, apparently now it is entirely manmade. But a few of us out there in the climate research community are rattling our cages. In the August 2007 Geophysical Research Letters, my colleagues and I published some satellite evidence for a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics that was not thought to exist. Called the “Infrared Iris” effect, it was originally hypothesized by Prof. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a “low sensitivity” for the climate system.
What, you might wonder, has been the media and science community response to our work? Absolute silence. No doubt the few scientists who are aware of it consider it interesting, but not relevant to global warming. You see, only the evidence that supports the theory of manmade global warming is relevant these days.
The behavior we observed in the real climate system is exactly opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial global warming have been programmed to behave. We are still waiting to see if any of those models are adjusted to behave like the real climate system in this regard.
And our evidence against a “sensitive” climate system does not end there. In another study (conditionally accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate) we show that previously published evidence for a sensitive climate system is partly due to a misinterpretation of our observations of climate variability. For example, when low cloud cover is observed to decrease with warming, this has been interpreted as the clouds responding to the warming in such a way that then amplifies it. This is called “positive feedback,” which translates into high climate sensitivity.
But what if the decrease in low clouds were the cause, rather than the effect, of the warming? While this might sound like too simple a mistake to make, it is surprisingly difficult to separate cause and effect in the climate system. And it turns out that any such non-feedback process that causes a temperature change will always look like positive feedback. Something as simple as daily random cloud variations can cause long-term temperature variability that looks like positive feedback, even if in reality there is negative feedback operating.
The fact is that so much money and effort have gone into the theory that mankind is 100 percent responsible for climate change that it now seems too late to turn back. Entire careers (including my own) depend upon the threat of global warming. Politicians have also jumped aboard the Global Warming Express, and this train has no brakes.
While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.
About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling…or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence. The issue will slowly die away as Congress reduces funding for climate change research.
Oh, there will still be some diehards who will continue to claim that warming will resume at any time. And many will believe them. Some folks will always view our world as a fragile, precariously balanced system rather than a dynamic, resilient one. In such a world-view, any manmade disturbance is by definition bad. Forests can change our climate, but people aren’t allowed to.
It is unfortunate that our next generation of researchers and teachers is being taught to trust emotions over empirical evidence. Polar bears are much more exciting than the careful analysis of data. Social and political ends increasingly trump all other considerations. Science that is not politically correct is becoming increasingly difficult to publish. Even science reporting has become more sensationalist in recent years.
I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that climate research has become corrupted. I fear that the sloppy practice of climate change science will damage our discipline for a long time to come.
Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, will be published this month.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I thought I’d put in a plug for Roy Spencer’s new book:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Climate-Confusion/How-Global-Warming-Leads-to-Bad-Science/e/9781594032103/?tabname=custreview
– A. McIntire
Rico, you seem to be following the questionable McCain logic – “it is good to pursue the AGW (alarmist) agenda because even if they are wrong we benefit from being less dependent of foreign oil.” I really wish that more people could understand what is at stake here. Many AGW critics focus on the monetary cost of the AGW agenda; but issues go beyond GDP. Dependency on foreign oil increases because we will import oil rather than using our coal. Environmental progress is threatened – see the how the HFC 23 scandal in Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism undermines the Montreal Protocol. Also, carbon leakage is part of Kyoto activities and will be part of post-Kyoto agreements. In addition, we have already seen industry “blackmailing” European governments on carbon credits. If it was difficult for the UN to administer the Food for Peace program, wait until you see what happens in world-wide cap and trade programs!
Alan D. McIntire: Good suggestion. I’ve ordered his book!
(Maybe we must look at this from a social/cultural perspective too, and I suggest that writers start to prepare the novel about the climate fraud within science and politics, just as the Information Technology hype on the stock markets around year 2000 was described in novels. The phenomenon is a social one too — where emotions and interests of power/money “is working” — which should be explored and researched. If the AGW-hype is established as a topic in our culture e.g. in novels, maybe social science just can’t avoid this? If the mechanisms in this hype is unwrapped, then we maybe can avoid further fraud in the future?)
I like the placebo idea. Just build a giant Tesla/Lenzen/Iris tower, to “bleed off” the extra nonexistent heat. (Tesla junk ideas always appeal to liberal cranks – that’s why I affixed his name to it)
Then tell the global warmers we fixed it.
Unwashed libbie says, “Hey man. It’s too hot here, in Brazos County.”
“Oh our bad Brazos. We had the freostat set to neutral dispersion. We’ll tune it to the zeta band frequency, and that should do the trick”, answers Climate Control in Wyoming.
“Brrrr – hey that worked.” says libbie.
It’s not as if they cared about science anyway.
Rico, stop trying to conflate legitimate concerns about energy such as supply/demand, cost, innovation etc. with the phantom concern about AGW. It is is a typical climate hysteric tactic, is disingenuous, and won’t work here. Nice try, though.
AGW? Natural event? The science of today (probably in times past, off and on) has become an industry. Not a science (pursuit of knowledge). As any industry requires there must be a measurable quantity of “productivity”. This productivity is manipulated – administrated worldwide by politicians. All through monetary handouts – creating academic kingdoms.
Regardless to the outcome of this climate debate, allowing “kingdoms” to flourish within a sanctuary of “pursuit of knowledge” is dark and sinister to any concept of liberty.
Tempering academic kingdoms is thru free-thinking magnets of people and places as Watts Up With That. This does not fix a really large boil.
What if decreased cloud cover has been what is causing CO2? Warming at just the very upper most surface, combined with circulation moving high CO2 content water there will change the equilibrium, preventing absoption and increasing release.
Dear Rico,
I must admit that I had to read your reply to my post twice to get the point of what you were saying as measured against the context of what I had written.
My comments were merely about the “science” of AGW being put into the Round File should certain things come to pass. Nothing more and nothing less.
Given the downside of a cold climate it shows the paucity of the choices we have to get people to see reason, and to therefore save ourselves from the alarmist agenda, if we are hoping that it gets colder and stays that way for a while. And yet that’s exactly what I am hoping will happen. Be careful what you wish for eh ?
Instead of wasting resources on “solving” mythical problem we’d be better employed drilling for oil and building nuclear and coal fired power plants. We should also immediately suspend the use of food crops being turned into fuel and build up the emegency food stocks.
However we can’t do that, yet.
I wonder what will happen now that ten times as many students are studying climatoilogy? I bet there are hordes of grad students out there just itching to bring down the currently worshipped icons! I think this current “phase” is pretty much going so sink under the weight of accumulated science.
It disturbs me greatly when I see him derided on other blogs.
He can wear it like a badge of honor.
(They even had a go at me on Heidi Cullen’s blog, which I find most gratifying . If I get real lucky, maybe I can find a way to get “decertified”.)
Time to face the facts. Old Farmer’s Almanc boost of being right 85% of the time. That’s far better than any type of playstation based on CO2.
Has anyone actually run that correlation? Is it possible, given the parameters?
The other story, about how the flora and fauna are emerging from spring and blooming earlier than they did thirty years ago due to… drumroll please… man made global warming, was all over the new this morning
I don’t suppose it has occurred to anyone to report that this shows how well and easily nature can adapt to even a slight shift in temperatures? (I didn’t think so.)
This map is so damaging to the notion that today’s weather is exceptional that the climate change coalition refuses to acknowledge it’s authenticity to this day.
I don’t buy AGW, but I sure as heck don’t buy the Vinland map, either. Too many strikes against it.
–Anatase in the ink. (Princess Anatase II?)
–A Mercator projection fifty years before Mercator projected jack.
–The Vikings never explored above the 70th parallel.
–90% of maps discovered in that period have later been proven to be forgeries. It was standard practice to cop blank pages from old books and use them for forgeries (it was a mini-industry at the time).
From what I can tell, the Kensington Stone is a considerably better bet (and has several strikes going for it rather than against it).
Its funny how many comments in here contain something similar to “one day the AGW’s are going to wake up and find themselves buried or find that thy were wrong and oohhhh they will be sorry”
I hate to rain on some of your parades but if supporters of global warming, me included, wake up to find that they were wrong some day it will most likely have been long after serious changers were made on the industry side that helped turn us from pollution mongers into, well something far more responsible.
You see the fight for AGW doesn’t just concern the climate. That may well be the main focus but there is a long line of positive effects that will come out of this push for a more responsible and less polluting world. So if you honestly think that people such as myself are going to be sorry if global warming ended up being incorrect then all I can say is some of you may be knowledgeable on science and weather related topics but you know nothing about people. The fight for global warming has already produced very positive effects environmentally all over the world and that will only continue as time goes on.
By the way the fact that many of you are running around acting like recent events have proven global warming to be some kind of farce is nothing short of comical. Ill just end this with one of my favorite quotes.
“Global warming doesn’t mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming.”
We are only 0.5°C from bringing this house of cards down. Already there are scientists who say we are entering a cooling phase.
The late Theodor Landscheidt predicted a LIA by 2030, meaning cooling should be starting by now. Dr Landscheidt had been correct with many of his predictions.
Much of nature goes in cycles.
pablo, Bruce, An Inquirer, et al, cut my friend Rico (and yes, he is a friend) a little slack. Having discussed this issue with him via email for nearly 2 years, I know from whence he comes, although I do not share his concern about “what if we skeptics are wrong?” I wouldn’t put him in the Alarmist camp; agnostic would be a better description. The point I believe he was trying to make, and not very well, unfortunately, is that this whole controversy represents a huge financial opportunity, not just for individuals, but for mankind. As I alluded to earlier in this thread, we are on the brink of an explosive alternative energy revolution, which, thanks to an agenda-driven media, is not very well reported.
I read an article recently at MarketWatch that the next bubble in our seemingly bubble-driven economy will be the alternative energy bubble. And I’m not talking about grain-based ethanol and windmills; I’m talking about new, clean, efficient methods of hydrogen generation, thin-film solar panels, enhanced geothermal systems, next generation biofuels and much, much more. Currently fossil fuels represent a necessary bridge to a very bright future, and I’m not suggesting that next week or next month, or next year we’re going to cease to be an oil and coal driven global economy, but the future of clean, abundant, economical energy is coming at us at breakneck speed. There is a huge amount of money to be made, particularly as it spreads to developing countries. Were it not for this stupid argument we’re engaged in, it would be happening even sooner, and, personally, I’d like to see the United States lead the way.
As I read recently in an article about peak oil (a long way off, BTW), like the Stone Age did not end due to the lack of stones, the Petroleum era will not end due to the lack of oil. But anyone who wants to stay on that train until the bitter end does so at their own peril and will, IMHO, end up being the poorer for it.
Dear Stan
I have no issue with new “clean” technologies. If their time is here then it’s here. All I ask is that they stand on their own two feet and not require subsidy to do so. The grain Ethanol fiasco is an excellent example of what happens when well menaing people put government money to work in an insufficiently thought through way, I view the rush to wind power in a similar light. The road to hell is paved with good intentions is it not ?
Dear OCrush, I have yet to see a single example of the proper use of the AGW brand of greeness that has benefited the planet and it’s inhabitants. I could state many examples where it has had the opposite effect. Here are two, Grain ethanol and the pollution of waterways, biodiesel and the destruction of the rain forests, both led to a reduction in wildlife habitats.
Keeping people poor is not a way for the world to make progress, you need to give people the opportunity for a better life. Capping CO2 doesn’t do that.
I totally agree. What needs to happen is for empirical data of this kind to find its way into the mainstream media.
Actually, I think we are beginning to see a “flattening out”. The NY Times seems to have been having second thoughts and has Tierney on the case, letting the believers down gently (and drawing considerable abuse for it).
IYou’re right. But not silence from us!
You got THAT right! My prediction is for MUCH NOISE.
Besides, these science dudes don’t seem to study much history. It is held that a 50 to 100 ppm change in CO2 couldn’t happen, then recede in just a few years. And this is the main refutation of Beck.
But what if those “few years” included WWII where the world went to allout full war production and 100 cities were blasted to smithereens, and throw in a half dozen godawful firestorms consuming entire cities (not including the A-bombs)?
Instead, we are supposed to believe that a DIP in CO2 occurred during WWII, based on Antarctic ice cores? I think it is possible that the CO2 estimators may be the dips, here.
we are very likely facing an increased demand for fossil fuels that almost everyone of any import suggests will outstrip supply.
Same old same old. We are running out of oil even as we discover 2 bls for every one used. In 1975 we had 3.5 tbls “potential” reserves. Now it’s 6.4 tbls and growing. Yes, oil is “limited”. No, we are probably not even vaguely approaching those limits. (Almost everyone of any import has been totally wrong about oil supplies–ever since around 1859.)
“We will run away from oil long before we run out f it.” (As Doc Davison would not say.)
You see the fight for AGW doesn’t just concern the climate.
I know. That why i struggle against the AGW side so hard. If India, China, and Africa are panicked into poverty for the next generation, that will 100% certain cost incredibly more lives than the worst AGW nightmare scenarios say MAY happen.
We’re talking tens, even hundreds of millions of premature deaths. Billions condemned to lifetimes of poverty. I have to be shown that shutting down the engine of humanity is going to save more lives than it will cost. Show me that AGW, even if true, will do that much harm.
OTOH, if man develops full speed ahead, we will develop the tech and a,ass the wealth to deal with a very severe climate crisis–if it turns out to me necessary. (The hi-tech tinfoil sheet reflector in space aopproach seems very promising, and can be undone or adjusted to beeot (unlike if we put smutz in the atmosphere, as some suggest). But we don’t have the wealth and tech to do it–yet. Don’t let’s kill that wealth!
Until then, as Doc Davison would not say:
“If there IS a climate crisis, mankind cannot dodge it. Our only hope is to outrun it.”
As I read recently in an article about peak oil (a long way off, BTW), like the Stone Age did not end due to the lack of stones
Good one, Stan!
pablo,
I could not agree with you more. There is, dare I say, a consensus forming that grain Ethanol is, indeed a fiasco. Already I’m reading about Ethanol plants struggling to stay in business and new plants stalled, to which I say, GOOD! IMHO, politicians who continue to support government subsidies to making fuel out of food crops should all be lined up against a wall and shot. Wind power, while not quite as egregiously bad, is a close second. Not only is it not a practical/reliable source of power in many locations, it’s horribly maintenance intensive. Have you ever driven by a large wind farm and noticed how many turbines are not moving because their gearboxes are shot? And being an avid bird watcher, windmills’ bird-shredding capacity is more than just a minor negative side effect.
OCrush, on another blog I asked the question:
If you were King of the World and had complete control over everything and everyone, what past climate would you attempt to duplicate, what policies would you implement to achieve that climate, and what empirical evidence can you present to show that those policies would achieve the desired results?
Would you like to take a shot at answering it?
Sorry Evan but that is the cost when the people of this planet reproduce in irresponsible numbers. Forgive me if my real concern is in the long term for both our species and all of the other species we share this planet with. Just because we are utterly irresponsible in regards to population growth does not suddenly give us the right to rape the planet just so those people may lead better lives. I dont want to see any humans suffering any more than anyone else does but I also understand that raping the planet is only going to ensure much more suffering in future generations.
What I care most about is for mankind to become far more responsible in regards to how we treat this planet and the other life forms we share it with and if the best way to get there if from a energy revolution stemming from the Global Warming debate then I think that is a great thing no matter how right or how wrong it may be. You see your simply confusing the end game alot of supporters have. AGW may be wrong but the worst thing that comes to pass out of being wrong is improved technology and a just far more responsible way of running industry. If AGW is correct and we did nothing about it, well that would have been a far far far uglier outcome.
If you ask me if Global Warming is real then I would say that I think its real but there is definitely a good possibility it isn’t. If you ask me whether or not I think the world will become a better place because of the changes this debate has created then I would say without a single doubt Yes and significantly so. IMO until you have irrefutable proof that AGW is not happening then you continue to proceed as if it is happening. Its the only responsible thing to do and that is speaking in regards to future generations, other organisms we share the planet with and the state of the planet in general. I have seen no such proof, not even close.
Or, itching to take advantage of grants for any research that propagates the GW myth.
Dear Ocrush
The population problem that the planet faces is 180 degrees about from the direction you see. Due to demographics the population will peak in around 2050 and then begin a slow decline. With good management there is enough food and resource for everyone.
And suppose that the above is incorrect and we were to follow your model of limiting population ? Who would police it ? Under what authority ? With what means ?
It’s a can of worms that the Communist Chinese opened already without getting the result they wanted and with a destabilizing effect on their society. And if a totalitarian state couldn’t get it done what kind of a world would it have to be done in to make it an effective policy ?
Like I said a lot earlier, I view the grab for power of the AGW brigade to be the scariest thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.
Sorry, but it’s up to those who say we’ve circumvented “natural” processes to prove it. So far we have no proof that any catastrophe is or can occur because of a slight rise in temperature.
Why is it when a winter is warm it’s called “mild”, but when it’s very cold it’s called “rough”? Mild would seem to be better, no?
Raven (14:29:50): How do you define “adapt”? It’s not a trivial question. And it is fundamentally an economic one. You indicate, “A wealthier society in the future will be better able to adapt to changes than a poorer one.” That suggests we should do what we can to ensure that America remains a wealthy society. It sounds like a good idea to me anyway, regardless of climate eventualities. So… what’s your plan?
See, it seems to me that we are staring a gigantic economic opportunity in the face. Bruce Cobb (15:40:21) says, “The AGW hypothesis is so riddled with holes now that it’s a joke, scientifically. As far as your “status quo” and “rapid change” goes, that’s just politicospeak, and means about as much from you as it does from any politician.” As far as the “riddled with holes” part, that’s Bruce Cobb’s opinion. What I’m saying is that from an economic perspective, it doesn’t matter. Regardless of whether you accept the mainstream scientific view, as things stand now, most politicians throughout much of the world are buying into it. And regardless of what you think about politicians, they are the ones that set policy. There’s no way around it. Thus, by tying the policy to the science you are effectively ceding the upper hand to the “AGW-ers”. And that strikes me as not only counter-productive, but plain stupid.
An Inquirer (21:27:15) opines, “Rico, you seem to be following the questionable McCain logic – “it is good to pursue the AGW (alarmist) agenda because even if they are wrong we benefit from being less dependent of foreign oil.” Maybe so. But face facts: if McCain’s logic is questionable, who’s logic is less questionable? I ask you Inquirer… if not McCain, then who? Obama? Clinton? One of those three will be the next president. On that score you have to face reality. Here’s more reality for you: the GOP has to (so far) defend 30 open seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. What does that tell you? Likewise, look around the rest of the world… where are the policy prerogatives? Do you want to follow Russia? If so, why? Even in China and India there are now big (multi-billion dollar) pushes to develop alternative energy sources. You can’t ignore all that.
I mean come on, wake up and smell the coffee. The time is now — either seize the opportunity or be left behind. Were you following the recent WSJ-hosted Eco:nomics conference? It wasn’t a gathering of flower-smelling, tree-hugging, dirty stinkin’ hippies. It was attended by most of the heavy-weights in the US energy industry, along with several policy big-wigs. And it became clear from it (if it wasn’t before) that a considerable portion of the US energy industry is pleading politicians for better policies to allow them to more efficiently pursue “clean” energy technology. Why? Because they smell money. Buckets of it. I smell it too. I am not a tree-hugger. I am a realist — a fiscal conservative. I am also an investor — small time, to be sure — and I don’t have any big dogs in the fight. But I do sense where the wind is blowing. And it’s picking up speed. It’s gotten to the point that even the fiscal conservatives are turning on the ideological conservatives. From my perspective, from the moment it was issued the Manhattan Declaration (I assume you know what I”m talking about) was dead in the water.
So on to bigger issues — you know, the ones that count: economic issues. Raven (17:20:30) suggests, “You are mixing up issues again. The US environment CO2 regulations are likely to increase dependence on foreign oil because the supplies in tar sands and oil supplies north america are too ‘dirty’. If energy security is the issue then coal and nuclear is the way to go.” Are you absolutely sure about that, Raven? That is to say, have you really looked into those things? While I absolutely agree that decisions on any technology should be dependent on an analysis of the entire life cycle of that technology, I also believe it’s important to consider how any technology fits in with an even broader economic trajectory in the short term, medium term and long term perspectives, and the relative opportunities they provide in those contexts. After all, we’re talking really huge issues here, and many trillions of dollars hang in the balance. Having said that, and also by way of prefacing what I’m also about to say… I don’t pretend to know all the answers. I am not formally schooled in climate science (science yes, climate science no). Neither am I an economist by training. I am at best an interested observer — but a very interested and I think reasonably knowledgeable one. You might describe me as a high-level geek, lol! Anyway, here goes…
Tar sand extraction requires considerable investments in natural gas (which makes the economics of alternative use of that resource an issue) and water resources (which makes groundwater contamination an issue in some places). It also requires a considerable amount of surface mining in some locations (which has potential impacts on the tourist economy and brings up issues as to the best use of transportation fuels). The product is at best a low-level crude (which brings up refinery issues). In the case of nuclear power, the immediate concern is capital costs. Nuclear proponents like to point to the legal and other indirect costs associated with licensing, insuring, de-commissioning, and such. But usually the deal-killer is the cost of construction. Florida is furthest along the way to finalizing the construction of the first two nuclear plants in the US in a couple of decades. They have the capacity to produce 2.2 MW of electricity, and are projected to cost $17 billion. That’s assuming there are no construction delays (which, by the way, is expected to take 9 years to complete). But everywhere else in the world construction delays are more the rule than the exception. One reason is that there is only one plant in the world capable of producing containment vessels in one piece (it’s not the only reason, but it’s an important one). That plant is in Japan. They recently doubled their capacity — from two vessels per year to four. I leave you to do the math. For the moment I also leave you to do the math on all the various alternatives. But I think that if you really look into the economics of building, say, wind farms, or concentrated solar (solar thermal), or geothermal, maybe even solar PV or wave generation, I suspect you may find yourself wondering whether drilling in ANWR, or deep off shore, or building nuclear instead really does make economic sense. And if you were to go a little further and fold into just those numbers the economic impacts of optimizing energy productivity, the impact on the trade imbalance, the impact on supply shocks, the impact on what it would cost to militarily protect domestic sources of energy rather than foreign ones. Without question there are lots of variables involved. I will be the first to acknowledge that I may be still learning, but my initial impression is that none of my critics here have done more due diligence on the subject. But if so, I look forward to the debate. Because if I’m allowed to express myself freely here, this is just the tip of the iceberg (remember those?). And most of it doesn’t have anything to do with the science. It does, however, have a lot to do with green… backs.
OCrush (08:32:21) : “if supporters of global warming, me included, wake up to find that they were wrong some day it will most likely have been long after serious changers were made on the industry side that helped turn us from pollution…”
CO2 is no pollution. It’s a clean gas. It was 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today 55 million years ago. Normal indoor concentration is 1000 ppm and you can work in 10 000 (or even 25 000) ppm CO2. You see, real pollution has been reduced dramatically the last decades. Thus the air is much more clean, in the cities as well as on the countryside today compared to what it was in the 70th or 80th.
If you suggest that we can change the CO2 emissions so much that it makes some difference in the over years accumulated total emissions, then you are simply wrong. Don’t try to sheat anyone with that crap! Even a radical and successful Kyoto II will only
By the way more pollution (not the CO2, but particles) will cool the world according to “climate science” a’la IPCC, according to what pollution did in the climate models between 1945 and 1975. So you just don’t seem to know what you’re talking about… (But honestly I can’t say I’m surpriced.)
“You see the fight for AGW doesn’t just concern the climate.”
Yup. I’ve recognize that some now skeptical AGW fans in a sudden say that warming from CO2 isn’t the thing; it’s the consumption (and some AGW:ers even say the free markets) which has to be stopped. I don’t say that all AGW defenders now say this, but some really do! (Some of them support something they call “ecosocialism; here in Sweden…)
Free markets and development is the key to a better environment. That is obvious both from any analysis and from empirical data (i.e. history).