I’ve been waiting for this video to show up, Dr. Spencer advises me it is now available.
Well worth watching, video below:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve been waiting for this video to show up, Dr. Spencer advises me it is now available.
Well worth watching, video below:
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
MindBuilder says:
My respect for Roy Spencer and Stossel dropped a lot when Spencer said that stopping CO2 emissions would shut down nearly the entire economy.
_________________
I too don’t like that statement too much but let’s be realists – solar is economically inferior, the only thing that we could theoretically use to replace coal with is nuclear. But common people were taught to fear nuclear energy, there’s no way they’d let that happen any soon. Also the scale of the change would be enormous, there’d be shortage of raw materials, technology, poeple, everything. This shortage would also proportionally increase cost of that energy which would be yet again surpassed by fossil. Nuclear reactors require skilled crew, deploying nuclear reactors to underdeveloped countries with unskilled crew would lead to risk of more Chernobyl-scale accidents, which we really don’t want to happen. Just the increase of number, even with skilled employees would inevitable lead to increased number of accidents, some of which would necessarily be serious. People would need to get used to the fact that nuclear energy may kill people too exactly as how other kinds of energy do without any publicity. And I’m not mentioning risk of certain regimes trying to exploit fissionable materials for not-so-peaceful purposes. And of course poor countries would be hardly able to afford buying nuclear reactors, they are happy they can finance cheap coal plants to get their economy started.
In the long run I am sure fossil fuels will be replaced. We’ll just run out of them eventually and we’ll have no other choice. Until then, if there was significant public opinion change, then developed countries could start slow transfer from coal to nuclear. But I don’t see anything even remotely as fast as how certain green people are imagining our transfer to renewables.
Mindbender- Oh my, There is no need to worry about fertiliser. All plants emit co2 at night thru respiration. Agriculture would out. Beasts of burden also emit co2 and methane.
Mining and smelting, petrochemicals, cement, pulp & paper and all other primary materials would also be out. I don’t know of any EV or hydrogen systems built with straw, twigs and dung.
It was good to see Dr Spencer, having read so much about him. Nice looking chap, and clever and charming as well. What a hero.
Lukewarmer huh…
Is that like a Deanwormer?
http://youtu.be/u1hnwvWhbJw?t=19s
Btw, back when I was in school… Environmental Sciences 201 was the easiest and largest class on campus.
climatereflections says:
March 26, 2012 at 12:58 pm
‘I think Dr. Spencer probably would like to clarify his statement that the red portions of the fine particular matter occur “where virtually no-one lives.” I think he may have been thinking about the US/EPA when he said it but it wasn’t clear. Obviously millions of people live in the red areas on the map outside of the US.’
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don’t agree. I’m sure he was taking a world view with his comments. The largest section of the red swathe covered the desert areas of northern Africa and continued across the most arid areas of Asia . . . the sort of places you’d need to make sure you had a packed lunch and extra water when you’re planning a picnic.
I see New Zealand had fallen off his map . . . but that’s of no particulate concern.
MindBuilder says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:39 pm
I meant to say cutting back CO2 emissions to low levels would not be too big a problem, not stopping them completely. Nobody serious is really advocating stopping CO2 emissions completely.
___________________________________
The EU wants an 80% reduction I consider that darn serious. For the USA we would be looking at 1/2 the carbon based energy as used in the year 1800. That puts us back pretty darn close to stone age because 1790 to 1800 was when about 70 to 90% of the population was on farms and almost all “industry” was home based.
The EU has committed itself to a 20% reduction by 2020 and to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. (Poland vetoed)
Here is the details:
The average for the USA is 335.9 million BTUs per person. (Total population: 246,081,000)
In 1949, U.S. energy use per person stood at 215 million Btu. Still way too high.
The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu. (Total population: 5,308,483)
If the USA reduces its energy consumption by 80% it equals 45.18 million Btu. per person.
Given the increase in technology, nuclear and hydro power lets use the 1800 consumption level of about 90 million Btu. per person.
What does that mean?
The site http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfarm4.htm helps us figure that out.
Farmers made up about 90% of labor force in 1790 and 69% of labor force in 1800. (Only 2.6% in 1990.)
In 1830 it took about 250-300 labor-hours to produce 100 bushels of wheat from 5 acres, with a walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail . (1987 – 2-3/4 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels but that takes lots of carbon based fuel.)
1810 ->30 saw the transfer of “manufacturing” from the farm and home to the shop and factory. It wasn’t until the 1840′s that we saw factory-made farm machinery, labor saving devices and chemical fertilizers becoming common. It was in the 1860′s that kerosene lamps became popular. (instead of whale oil) Also up until the 1850′s dung and wood were the major source of energy. Link
In other words for the USA to use HALF the energy per person that was used in 1800 we must abandon ALL factories and 70% to 90% of the population must return to subsistence farming using animal/human labor. Also remember in 1800 there was only 2% of the current population in the USA. Solar and Wind just are not going to produce enough power to keep us in anything but running water, a few lights and if we are lucky a refrigerator and heat in the winter. FACTORIES use a huge amount of power and that is why cotton mills and other primitive factories were built on rivers.
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is talking baffle gab. At present less than 9% of the US labor force is in manufacturing. The USA got rid of most of its really energy intense industry like smelting the ores to make machines and the USA shipped most of the rest of its factories to China, Mexico, Brazil and India.
Nuclear (Thorium) is the only decent exit from dependence on CO2 based energy but that is still decades away. The Taxpayer Funds and human energy diverted towards solar and wind instead of thorium is a real crime.
The 1954 Aircraft Reactor Experiment: http://energyfromthorium.com/history.html
Possible Thorium fueled car: http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/the-thorium-laser-the-completely-plausible-idea-for-nuclear-cars
Kasuha says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:20 pm
….. Nuclear reactors require skilled crew, deploying nuclear reactors to underdeveloped countries with unskilled crew would lead to risk of more Chernobyl-scale accidents, which we really don’t want to happen. Just the increase of number, even with skilled employees would inevitable lead to increased number of accidents, some of which would necessarily be serious….
____________________________
That is correct only for conventional Nuclear which is why I want to see the research $$$ go into thorium.
They ever get these things passed DOE and I am going to be banging on the doors of our local Energy co-op to get them to buy one. Heck they can bury it on my farm, we already have the heavy duty electrical lines on an easement on the place…
Frequently Asked Questions about Thorium: http://energyfromthorium.com/faq/
“I see New Zealand had fallen off his map . . . but that’s of no particulate concern.”
Thats because theres not many of us here… except the sheep and cows …
and a few green ‘sheeple’ …
Love those guys – exposing the truth and watching the warmist/alarmists freak out.
Billy says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:22 pm
All plants emit co2 at night thru respiration.
—————
Billy, plants emit o2, not co2, at night. this mistake is so elementary I wonder if you were distracted, having a brain fade, or a ‘senior’s moment ? plants grow by taking the c of co2 and emitting the remaining o2.
Mindbuilder do you live in the US or the Netherlands? One country is small, has a large public transport infrastucture and has densly populated cities that are very close to each other, the other country does not. One country has the highest density of wind energy generation in the world but must import energy from nuclear and hydro rich neighbours as the wind doesn’t blow “just right” often enough. The other country still generates more than half its electricity from coal fired power plants, has a huge fleet of diesel powered tractor- trailers and locos to distribute its food, raw materials, parmaceuticals, chemicals and other manufactured goods over vast distances and the other does not. One country is energy rich in fossil fuels with 150 years of natural gas, 250 years and counting of coal and who knows how much shale crude (at current extraction rates) the other does not. One country does not need to and realistically cannot stop using fossil fuels until an energy dense, storable, substitute is developed – (hydrogen is neither and probably will continue to be neither for a long time). The other country will pay a fortune to its neighbours ,for electricity, to de-carbon(dioxide)ise and still make no difference to growing world wide anthropogenic CO2 emissions. My guess is that the other will not.
Mindbender: no trucks, no tractors, no ships = no food for most people.
Good luck on living without fossil fuel.
Sorry Mindbender that should have been Denmark not the Netherlands – ouch- geography fail, it pays to proof read eh?
William Martin says:
March 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Billy says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:22 pm
All plants emit co2 at night thru respiration.
—————
Billy, plants emit o2, not co2, at night. this mistake is so elementary I wonder if you were distracted, having a brain fade, or a ‘senior’s moment ? plants grow by taking the c of co2 and emitting the remaining o2.
——————————————
Not at night, they don’t. Billy’s got it right.
“That is correct only for conventional Nuclear which is why I want to see the research $$$ go into thorium”:
Focus fusion and the Polywell project look promising as well but absolutly no money going into them. Noble Savage anyone?
Jim
Roy produces valuable satellite temperature measurements. Unfortunately he does not understand his own data. He is the third climate scientist who has recently produced important observations who do not understand what is contained in their own data. If he had read my book “What Warming?” (which I have told him about) he would know that satellite data rule out greenhouse warming completely. He would also know that the cooling he labels Pinatubo cooling on his web site is not Pinatubo cooling but a common garden variety La Nina cooling. The other two guys who do not understand their own data are Darrell Kaufman and Robert Spielhagen. Kaufman discovered that Arctic warming had a sudden beginning at the turn of the 20th century but still calls it greenhouse warming. That is impossible according to the laws of physics because there was no concurrent increase of carbon dioxide. Spielhagen discovered that warm water carried into the Arctic by currents from the Atlantic Ocean was warmer than anything reaching the Arctic within the last two thousand years. Again he thinks it is greenhouse effect juiced up by Arctic amplification as described by Screen and Simmonds. And those two guys think Arctic warming is caused by loss of sea ice cover. The simple truth is, warm water, not anything related to the greenhouse effect, is warming the Arctic (E&E 22(8):1069-1083, 2011).
William Martin says:
March 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Billy says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:22 pm
All plants emit co2 at night thru respiration.
—————
Billy, plants emit o2, not co2, at night. this mistake is so elementary I wonder if you were distracted, having a brain fade, or a ‘senior’s moment ? plants grow by taking the c of co2 and emitting the remaining o2.
_______________________________________
Sorry plants take in CO2 during the day to produce sugars starches and other carbohydrates. To continue living they burn some of those sugars and starches at night emiting CO2. http://www.scienceline.ucsb.edu/search/DB/show_question.php?key=1331242946&task=category&method=&form_keywords=&form_category=biology-plant&start=
I wonder if someone at FOX was having a little fun with the captions at the bottom of the screen during the interview? At 5:50, they put up the line :
“Spencer: A Little Pollution Saves Lives”
I really don’t think that is what Dr. Spencer is trying to point out. I wonder if they are using the EPA classification of CO2 as a pollutant, even though it’s plant food.
Born in Oak Ridge to a grant chasing fusion researcher (Elmo Bumpy Torus), I can say I have never heard of Thorium in all the days of parents arguing DOE crap. If it was a competitor to the Tokamak reactors, I’d think they’d have talked about it. Unfortunately, dad retired with little hope for fusion.
Excellent stuff!
JimJ says:
March 26, 2012 at 4:55 pm
“That is correct only for conventional Nuclear which is why I want to see the research $$$ go into thorium”:
Focus fusion and the Polywell project look promising as well but absolutly no money going into them. Noble Savage anyone?
________________________________________
More like the modern Neo-Feudal age, where the “Great Unwashed” live in grinding pre-industrial serfdom and the techno-elites (read regulating class) live in the 21st century.
Mind Bender said ” My respect for Roy Spencer and Stossel dropped a lot when Spencer said that stopping CO2 emissions would shut down nearly the entire economy. The economy could function just fine on nuclear or even solar, and electric and hydrogen vehicles. We would probably only be something like 10% poorer. Not nice, but not terrible.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
You have to be kidding, where are the cars, planes, trains, and ships that run on nuclear, solar and hydrogen? OK so there are some nuclear powered ships, but that’s about it.
18th century Torys had a similar agenda. Benevolent ruling class and a well taken care of surfdom. Could this be the underlying “cause” of some activists?
Jim
arnoarrak says:
March 26, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Excellent article in E&E. Together with other sources it makes me very suspicious, not about GHE itself (don’t care) but what influence it really has. And this is what we shoud care about.