Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
It is not often that I get called a ‘denialist’ and a ‘troll’ for the dark forces of Al Gore on the same day, but it does happen.
It’s because I am a ‘lukewarmer,’ one who believes that the physics of climate change are not by theselves controversial, but who believes that the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 is not yet known, but is likely to be lower than activists have claimed.
I suppose it should bother me that I am getting slammed at activist websites such as Only In It For the Gold, Deltoid and ThingsBreak because they think I don’t go far enough, and slammed again here and at The Air Vent because I go too far. Although I want to be liked as much as the next fellow, it doesn’t, because the reasons given for slamming me never seem to match up to the reality of what I write.
Critics here have focused on a lack of substance, so I’ll try and address that in this post. I’m a bit amused at one commenter who yesterday said I understood nothing of energy. (Shh! Don’t tell my clients–I just delivered a 400-page report on alternative energy, and they’ll be ticked off…)
And I’m equally amused that I have to acknowledge that Michael Tobis (at last) got one thing right in a comment yesterday, when he wrote that the real problem we face is coal–and Chinese coal at that. (More on that in a minute.)
The LukeWarmer’s Way
The operation of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is one of the least controversial ideas in physics. The calculations that show a temperature rise of between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius if concentrations double is also widely accepted, including by all skeptic scientists without (AFAIK) exception.
We don’t know the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2, so the effects of feedbacks are not know. Activists think it is 3 degrees or higher. Contrarians think it is very low–1, maybe 2, tops, some thinking it is even lower.
If activists are right we have a very big problem on our hands. If contrarians are right we don’t. If both are wrong, there is a lukewarmer’s way.
If you believe that about 2 degrees of warming is headed our way this century, it will be a problem–probably not for those reading this, because of our fortunate geography, but for those in the developing world, who will have to add droughts, floods and heatwaves to their current long list of miseries. And it’s not really the size of the temperature rise that worries me, although having a 2 degree average means it will be greater in some places, and again, probably in the least fortunate locales. But it’s really the speed of change that will make it tough to adapt to.
So as a lukewarmer I believe that if there are ‘no regrets’ options, by which I mean things that make sense for us to do no matter what happens to the climate, that we should move quickly to do them in hopes that it will a) help prepare for whatever temperature rise comes our way and b) may serve in some small way to lessen the total temperature rise and its impacts.
The devil is in the details, obviously, and a bigger devil lies in who should decide and how much authority we give them. And we probably don’t get to pick and choose at the right level of detail.
For example, I have no problem with the EPA actively encouraging power plants to shift from old coal configurations to combined cycle natural gas. It’s not a permanent solution but it’s a quick win. But I do have a problem with them classing a school with 3 buses as a major emitter of CO2 and getting them involved in the bureaucratic nightmare of emission control.
I do not want Maurice Strong to control our approach to the world’s environmental issues. I’m reading his book right now (‘Where On Earth Are We Going?, with a foreward by Kofi Annan), and it is horribly bad, and horribly wrong. I’ll give it a full review later, but suffice it to say that I wouldn’t trust him with any responsibility at all.
But there are some in both government and science who I do trust. And I’m willing to work towards helping them get to where we need to go. If a panel composed of both Pielkes, Judith Curry, Mike Kelly, John Christy, Richard Lindzen and a few others were to work on proposed solution, I’d be pretty happy. I might be alone in my joy, I realize.
Another no regrets option I’d like to see is a review of building planning, permitting and insurance in areas that are already vulnerable to tropical storms and floods. We are in the silly situation right now where middle class workers in the Midwest are subsidizing rich people who rebuild ruined but rich second homes in Florida or Malibu Canyon.
We could also allow planes to use modern technology to choose the most fuel efficient routes, descend directly rather than in stages and unblock no-fly spaces left over from the Cold War.
I’d like to see greater use of X prizes to stimulate innovation, as it did with private spacecraft. I’d love to see prizes for utility level storage or better use of composites for distribution, or improvements to HVDC transmission. Prizes almost always work.
I’d like to see more base research done on superconductors, for example, and other technologies that are threatened with being trapped in the Valley of Investment Death.
And I don’t think that list of no regrets options is too controversial, either here or with the activists. (I’m sure I’ll hear about it if it is.)
But the real problem is counting to 3,000. Because a straight line extension of energy consumption gets us to 3,000 quads (quadrillion BTUs) by 2075, with 9.1 billion people developing at present trends and GDP growing at 3% per year.
If those 3,000 quads are supplied by burning coal, we’ll choke on the fumes, no matter what it does to temperatures. China has doubled its energy use since 2000, it may do so again by 2020, and 70% of their energy is provided by coal. The massive traffic jam into Beijing a couple of weeks ago, 90 miles long and lasting three or four days, was composed primarily of small trucks bringing coal into China’s capital. And the pollution and soot that is caused by China’s coal travels–to the Arctic, hastening ice melt and over the rest of the world, as small particulates and just general haze.
So I also advocate pushing for renewable and nuclear energy. I think we’ll need them both. Nuclear is ready to roll right now, but it’s expensive and time consuming to put up as many plants as we’re going to need. Solar is on the verge, and I’d like to give it an extra push. Natural gas is a temporary solution in terms of emissions, but at current prices we can’t ignore its advantages.
We also need to push piecemeal solutions that will not solve our problems by themselves, but are important contributors at a local level, such as geothermal power, or small hydroelectric and run-of-river installations.
No matter what you or I believe about climate change, we face an energy issue that we need to address today. Our coal plants are dramatically cleaner than they used to be. China’s are not. If we don’t want the air we breathe to taste of China’s coal, we need to work on better solutions.
And the worst of all possible worlds is where we don’t do the right thing on energy because we are at war with each other about climate change.
I’m a firm believer in markets, and I like free markets better than the other sort. I also think they work better with light regulation. I think it’s legitimate to nudge the energy market in the direction we want it to go, without giving the reins and the saddle to government bureaucracy. And I do think it can and probably will work.
So I’m not a ‘denialist.’ I’m not a ‘skeptic.’ I’m a lukewarmer–and I’m right.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Thomas Fuller
There would be no global warming without new technology. And that’s not because new technology uses so much energy.
It’s because new technology has allowed us to measure new phenomena, and old phenomena with radically more powerful tools.
Mike Smith gives us an example in his book ‘Warnings’, a great story about how technology addressed the warning system for U.S. tornadoes (and which is advertised here on the right hand column). He notes that many tornadoes that are called in to reporting centers today would never have been noticed before, thanks to a growing American population and the ubiquity of mobile telephones.
The same is more or less true of hurricanes. Before satellite coverage began in 1969, we really didn’t know exactly how many hurricanes actually happened in a given year, nor how strong they were. If they didn’t make landfall, they would only be catalogued if planes noticed and reported them, and they would only be measured if specially equipped planes basically flew through them and charted their strength.
It’s certainly also true of measurements of ice extent, volume and area, which would not be possible without satellite imagery.
New technology has had a radical effect on the time series of measurements made for extended periods before the technology was adopted. Sailors used to measure sea surface temperatures using a thermometer in a bucket lowered into the sea. When Argos buoys began providing a network of more accurate measurements, there was a break in the timeline. When surface stations converted to electronic thermocouples on a short leash, the adjustments required caused another break in the data series. (I guess readers here might know something about that already.) Scientists have worked hard to make adjustments to correct for the new sources of data, but the breaks are still pretty noticeable.
The sensible thing would be to give the new technologies time to develop an audited series of measurements long enough to determine trends, rather than grafting new data on top of older, less reliable series. But there are two objections to this: First, who’s to say another new measurement technology won’t come along and replace our brand new toys and resetting the clock to zero? Second, and of more concern, there is a whole scientific establishment out there saying we don’t have time to wait for a pristine data set. Some say we’ve already waited too long, others say that if we start today (and they really mean today), we just might avoid climate disaster.
And if you start to muse on the remarkable coincidence that warming apparently started at the same time as we got all this new-fangled technology, why that makes you a flat-earth denialist. Or something.
As it happens, while serving in the U.S. Navy I took sea surface temperatures with a thermometer in a bucket. There were not many detailed instructions involved. Should I have done it on the sunny side or the shady side? Nearer the pointy end of the ship (that’s technical talk) or the flat back end? How long was I supposed to leave the thermometer in the water?
I wouldn’t want to make momentous decisions based on the quality of data I retrieved from that thermometer, which wasn’t calibrated–I think the U.S.N. stock number was like 22, or some other low number indicating great antiquity. I much prefer what comes out of Argos.
But there are times I wish all those fancy instruments on the satellites were pointing at another planet.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Hi Poptech,
1. I think Hawaii, Southern Italy and a couple of other places right now.
2. EIA is projecting consumption based on what they think will get produced. My consumption trend includes unmet need, or what we used to call ‘latent demand.’
“”” Tom Fuller says:
September 17, 2010 at 4:37 pm
George E. Smith, I’m assuming you wrote in haste. The 1.5 to 4.5 C estimate by the IPCC is of course of atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations, not the warming expected solely from a doubling of CO2 itself. “””
Well Tom you know what they say about “assume” and assuming.
So I’m not going to “assume anything about this statement that you put here:- “”” The 1.5 to 4.5 C estimate by the IPCC is of course of atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations, not the warming expected solely from a doubling of CO2 itself. “””
So for those of us perhaps less astute than yourself; please explain the difference between “doubling of CO2 concentrations”; and “doubling of CO2 itself ” ?
Lets put it in numbers:
If the atmospheric CO2 “Concentration doubles” from 280 ppmv or ppm mole fraction up to 560 ppmv or ppm mole fraction; what will be the change in the atmospheric “CO2 itself” ? For comparison, you could perhaps express the change in “CO2 itself” in some well understood units such as ppmv or ppm mole fraction.
And for the legal disclaimer;- Be it known, that I did NOT wite this post in haste. It took me quite a long time to read and re-read your well considered comment and try to understand what it means; and when finally I reached a conclusion that to me it is just gobbledegook; then I decided to ask you to elucidate; hence the reason for this post. So please explain the differnece between “Douhling of CO2 concentrations” and “Doubling of CO2 itself.”
Hi George,
As I am neither a physicist nor a climate scientist, I hope you will accept my non-scientific explanation of this.
We emit a lot of CO2. Much of it is absorbed very quickly in major sinks–the ocean and by vegetation. What is left is mixed into the atmosphere and increases the concentration of CO2. This fairly easily measured, principally at a station in Mauna Loa, Hawaii (I think there are a couple of other back-up stations at other locations).
Our emissions have been increasing, which is fairly easy to understand. The sinks are still ‘accepting’ CO2 at more or less the same percentage as in the past, which surprises some. However, the concentrations have been rising steadily, although not by as much as James Hansen predicted way back in 1988.
Anthony has linked to Science of Doom on his blogroll that walks through a lot of the conventional basics regarding this, if you want to refresh your memory or learn some stuff that climate scientists consider important for a good understanding of the issues.
D Bonson@September 18, 2010 at 12:03 am
You wrote:
There is one part of this article that I must comment on though. You wrote “The calculations that show a temperature rise of between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius if concentrations double is also widely accepted, including by all skeptic scientists without (AFAIK) exception”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
“It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F).”
—————————————————————————————
Tom claims that all skeptic scientists accept a 1-2 C rise for 2xC02. If you take him to mean “without feedbacks”, then I think he is about right (I think people often quote 1.0-1.2 for this figure). However, note that this is for the rise in atmospheric temperature as seen from space. I presume the figure quoted by Roy Spencer is for the change in *surface* temperature. The GHE accounts for the difference.
On a slightly different topic, Tom also commented that his guess was a rise of about 2 C this century including feedbacks. Personally, I think it will be less than this. However, since I agree that 2 C is a definite possibility I also have to agree with the kind of measures that Tom suggests.
Tom,
1. Solar is so barely used in Hawaii that the EIA does not even represent it with a number,
Hawaii Solar Usage: * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05
Clearly it is not viable there. If you believe it to be more economically viable without government mandates or subsidies in Southern Italy than hydrocarbon or nuclear generated electricity than you need to provide actual data to support this claim, as in actual cost per kWh.
2. What data sources are you using to come up with this?
PopTech
It looks as though I’m a bit ahead of the game on Hawaii: “The European Photovoltaic Industry Association and a number of analysts say solar panels can already produce electricity at a cost competitive with conventional sources in parts of southern Italy, where the sun shines often and electricity tariffs are among the highest in the world.
Japan and Hawaii will follow, reaching “grid parity” within several years, the group predicts.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a renewable-energy database, sees the best solar panels producing electricity at a cost of US15¢ per kilowatt-hour by 2015, says Jenny Chase, lead solar analyst. That is less than the retail electricity price in most European countries and parts of the US.”
And Poptech, Solar power is an asterisk everywhere. So was petroleum a century ago. Petroleum did not become the leading provider of energy until 1965, when it finally surpassed coal.
Give the start-ups a break, okay?
“”” Tom Fuller says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:51 am
Hi George,
As I am neither a physicist nor a climate scientist, I hope you will accept my non-scientific explanation of this.
We emit a lot of CO2. Much of it is absorbed very quickly in major sinks–the ocean and by vegetation. What is left is mixed into the atmosphere and increases the concentration of CO2. This fairly easily measured, principally at a station in Mauna Loa, Hawaii (I think there are a couple of other back-up stations at other locations). “””
Tom you don’t need a PhD in Physics or Climate Science to Understand this. Dr Laura has a PhD; I’ll bet whe can understand this.
When it comes to the phenomenon; commonly referred to in “climate Science” as the green house effect; the purported origin of global warming; as measured by “Climate scientists” in the form of “Climate sensitivity” the only thing that matters is HOW MUCH CO2 THERE IS IN THE ATMOSPHERE AT ANY TIME;
It doesn’t matter how much was actually produced by burners of fossil fuels and then stored in their closet or basement or somewhere else; the only thing of any consequence to the green house effect is the atmospehric abundance of ALL so-called green house gases at any time. That is what interracts with surface radiated LWIR emissions, and results in warming of the upper atmospehre; and then subsequent re- radiation; in the form of LWIR emissions to space, or back to earth.
Of course other thermal processes ; particularly convection and evaporation also convey thermal eenrgy to the upper atmosphere from where it can escape; but the GH effect applies exclusively to Electro-magnetic radiation effects; adn the only green house gases that matetr; are those that are in the arth’s atmosphere; where the rest of the chemical effluents of natural processes go is irrelevent to the green house effect.
I found nothing to suggest that Solar is economically viable in Hawaii.
Italy subsidizes Solar Panels via a feed-in-tariff of 45 to 63 cents per kWh and ,a href=”http://www.autorita.energia.it/allegati/inglese/annual_report/ra_2009-en.pdf”>Solar Thermal Power Plants by 28 t o36 cents per kWh. Solar Power is not economically viable in Italy.
The trend in energy usage has been to sources that are more dense, so why would we go in the opposite direction and adopt a less dense source such as solar?
Petroleum surpassed coal because it is a more dense source of energy and more suitable as a transportation fuel. Better sources of energy are adopted on their own. The only reasons we are not using more natural gas and nuclear right now is because of government intervention in energy markets.
I have no problem with start-ups, I have a problem with government intervention in energy markets. If solar was so great you would not need the government to push it, the market would adopt it on it’s own.
Let me ask you a question, do you want the poor to pay more for electricity?
I found nothing to suggest that Solar is economically viable in Hawaii.
Italy subsidizes Solar Panels via a feed-in-tariff of 45 to 63 cents per kWh and Solar Thermal Power Plants by 28 t o36 cents per kWh. Solar Power is not economically viable in Italy.
The trend in energy usage has been to sources that are more dense, so why would we go in the opposite direction and adopt a less dense source such as solar?
Petroleum surpassed coal because it is a more dense source of energy and more suitable as a transportation fuel. Better sources of energy are adopted on their own. The only reasons we are not using more natural gas and nuclear right now is because of government intervention in energy markets.
I have no problem with start-ups, I have a problem with government intervention in energy markets. If solar was so great you would not need the government to push it, the market would adopt it on it’s own.
Let me ask you a question, do you want the poor to may more for electricity?
No, I don’t. I don’t know what you’ve read that I’ve written here or elsewhere that would give you that idea.
Tom’s actually pretty sensitive to the whammy that carbon encumbrance would put on the world’s poor by raising energy prices. There are plenty of unresolved dissonances for the lukewarming liberal with caution in his heart and rainbows, er, I mean solar in his dreams.
==============
I was not implying that you made the claim, I was simply asking the question because if you don’t then you would want the market to decide what sources of energy we use.
Larry
Why does the govenment have a responsibility for energy supply? A government is a peculiar beast. Its defining characteristics are entirely different from those of any other organisation. Its main characteristic is that it has a preponderance of military power within its jurisdiction. It has to, otehrwise it could not guarantee to enforce teh laws it makes.
Governments of course share characteristics with other organisations, but that is not to the point. The point is to ask what is it about supplying energy that requires a preponderance of military power, or any of government’s other defining characteristics?
The short answer is, “Nothing.”
I think governments have become so intrusive that people have come to accept certain activities as properly belonging to the government, rather than to the people.
IMHO it is but a short path from that acceptance to despotism.