Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate Scientist Mechanical Engineer John Abraham, writing for The Guardian, seems to think it is un-American to disagree with his views on climate change.
An Inconvenient Sequel – the science, history, and politics of climate change
Al Gore’s new film is worth watching
Wednesday 15 November 2017 22.00 AEDT
Al Gore’s new movie ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’ is, in some ways, similar to his groundbreakingInconvenient Truth project, but different in other ways. Those key differences are why I recommend you watch it.
This movie successfully accomplishes a number of interweaving tasks. First, it gives some of the science of climate change. Gore gets his science right. I remember his first movie, which I thought was more steeped in science and data than this one, so based on my recollection this new picture is somewhat abbreviated. That’s a good thing because the science is settled on climate change. That is, the science is settled that humans are causing current climatic changes and the science is settled that we are observing these changes throughout the natural world.
Readers of this column who venture into the comments below will likely find people claiming, “science is never settled.” But the people making those comments are not scientists. They don’t work in this field every day, they don’t see the data, and they don’t know what they’re talking about.
…
The election in the US was a climate disaster and it is turning out to be worse than we could have feared. The US President and Congress are doing everything they can to ensure more rapid and devastating climate change. They are doing everything they can to ensure more California wildfires, more Marias, more Harveys, and more Irmas. They are doing everything they can to bring us more California droughts and wildfires and Texas floods. They are doing everything they can to cut funding from climate science so we won’t know how bad it is. They are doing everything they can to make the USA a pariah nation. In fact, on the day I write this, the US has become the only country to reject the Paris Climate Accord. That is a stunning fact. What kind of country does this?
What they are doing is so un-American; so un-conservative.
But what these forces cannot do is turn back the tide of the economics. People are investing in clean energy because it makes economic sense. And this is the inflection point that makes the clean energy revolution unstoppable. That’s why I am optimistic. That’s why Al Gore is optimistic. That’s the threaded message in his movie. And it’s why you should be optimistic too.
What I don’t get is, if the clean energy revolution is unstoppable, why the vitriol? Surely if economics is driving the shift to renewables, the greens have already won? Do educated people like Abrahams really believe that renewables offer sufficient economic advantage to sweep the field without further help, or are they just peddling empty propaganda to their followers?
Back in the real world, claims that renewables are competitive are as wobbly as a climate projection. German Government Broadcaster ZDF reports old wind farms are closing in Germany, because the owners can’t afford to refurbish in the face of falling government subsidies.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Abraham is an engineer, not a scientist.
When Mr. Abraham says that Gore gets his science right, it MUST be right. I like sophisticated but simple arguments.
And with such breathtaking analyses such as
you know he’s a deep thinker.
I like how there was not a single word of truth contained in what he wrote.
Which is not easy to do…unless you are a warmista stooge.
At least we can rest easy that he is in academia, and not working in applied engineering.
Or you are a publisned writer for the Grauniad
“warmista stooge” vs “publisned writer for the Grauniad”…
Aren’t they the same thing?
I found myself muttering ‘rubbish’ at every single sentence of that quote.There are a few other words that fit also.
Hivemind: One is a subset of the other.
As Duke Ellington said: “If it sounds good it IS good”.
So Mr. Gore, DOES it sound good?
Eric,
Engineers have training in science and also learn how to develop and apply models to their work. Many engineers are skeptical of CAGW because they question both the science and the models. As a chemical engineer, I have developed and tested process models in my research. I understand the difficulties of working with non-linear systems of equations, sensitivity of parameter values and the quirks of using numerical methods for what are relatively simple systems compared to the multi-faceted process of climate.
Please don’t dismiss opinions simply because someone isn’t a scientist. There are plenty of scientists who are true believers in CAGW. My guess is that most of them have little background in numerical modelling or process analysis (through my experience with biologists). Perhaps they have narrow expertise in one area (e.g. fish biology), but not the big picture. This is a complex topic. Simply being a scientist isn’t enough to be an authority.
Each of us comes to the topic with a perspective shaped by our experience and training: archeologists, historians, geologists, power grid specialists, engineers, meteorologists, physicists, applied mathematicians, statisticians, biologists and those with the interest to learn. Some of the most interesting results come from those who use their expertise to delve into other fields–think of the stellar analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick.
This is an appeal to everyone who comments here to deal with what is said rather than simply dismissing others because they are in the “wrong” club.
Kira, I believe he was reacting to the “claim” of being a scientist, not the fact he was an engineer. I don’t doubt that many “claiming” to be scientists make that claim based on courses they took in the sciences while in school. To that end, I, too, can claim to be a scientist since I took science courses in college. I don’t pretend to have degrees in anything, but I have an opinion in everything ;-).
However, I do respect the thought that we need to concern ourselves with the message, not the messenger. An intuitive and reasonably informed 10 year old can make remarkably competent comments and the size of the vocabulary doesn’t matter when it comes to valid thinking.
Besides, “science” these days is more mathematical interpretation than observational, so in that respect, anyone with a mathematical background can claim to be a scientist – it’s a descriptive word with no apparent boundaries anymore.
“Science reader” – – Me – –
“Science presenter” – – A friend of mine – –
We have had lots of similar ‘science’ classes. Neither of us claims to “do science”, but he is in a position to make presentations – – and wins awards for doing so.
Tuesday evening we heard presentations from two young scientists. Both are interested in relatively recent history from (a) ice and snow, and (b) sediment cores from lakes.
These two young women are scientists.
My “science presenter’ friend will incorporate the new-found information in his presentations.
Me? I just like to know how Earth works, and if appropriate, I might make a comment here.
It should also be noted that just because a person doesn’t have a degree in a scientific field, doesn’t mean they don’t know anything about it and may know a whole lot about it. Some people are experts in their field and ignorant of most things outside of that field and will more often than not choose to believe what someone else has presented as a fact because it was “peer reviewed”. Academics types tend to be biased to other Academics types as authorities and if you don’t have a pedigree of Academics with framed Degrees lining a wall, you should be ignored.
In case no one noticed, in the field of climate science, which can mean anything apparently, there are people who are very knowledgeable but suffer from the problem of all of their knowledge being stuff that is not true.
johchi7 …… I am absolutely positive that there are numerous misnurtured partisan “wannabe” believers in/of the aforesaid “Academics” that will question the Degree status of any and all “contrary” commenting authors.
If one is utterly ignorant of the subject matter they are supporting, …… then the only thing they can do is “question” the Degree status of all “contrary” commenting author(s).
“Please don’t dismiss opinions simply because someone isn’t a scientist.”, etc.
I think the point being made here is that Mr. Abraham himself claims (inferentially) that those who are not “climate scientists” ought not be taken seriously on the subject . . while he himself is not a climate scientist . .
This is “elitism” being argued for, as I see these matters, the virtual “worship” of human authority figures. Which is to say the opposite of the American solution to the “power corrupts” problem (which just so happens to be the solution the “founding fathers” of science also chose, it seems to me).
Outstanding reply.
Yes, engineering is the application of science with the added incentive of prison time if you get it seriously wrong which, like hanging, concentrates the mind. What is most shocking is that this article is from a professor of thermodynamics and numerical simulation. For him to ignore the evidence must be difficult or perhaps simply wilful.
When we are told that scientists “believe” that we are causing global warming and “catastrophic” climate change (as opposed to the natural process of climate change) we are expected to accept that it is true. However, belief is not proof; not being a scientist, leastways a qualified one, I hope I am sufficiently intelligent to sort the wheat fro the chaff. From what I have seen and read – and told to me face-to-face by a scientist, my conclusion continues to be that there is no valid scientific proof of CAGW. It is one massive hobgoblin being used to tax and control us.
“Yes, engineering is the application of science with the added incentive of prison time if you get it seriously wrong which, like hanging, concentrates the mind.”
+++ :<)
How does this man say so much wrong with so few words; he is both oblivious and disingenuous.
Exactly Bill.
I am happy to read stuff like this, knowing that at some point him and others of his ilk will be known quite widely as no-nothings and charlatans.
They will have no where to hide and no defense , due to having plainly and emphatically stated these complete falsehoods.
IMO, this is another instance of U.S. bashing and similar to the bashing campaign launched against Alberta,Canada. And also comes from within the U.S. as well as from outside of the U.S.
Eric, you say that like its slur or some epithet?
IMHO an engineer’s thinking is one step more evolved than a scientist’s precisely because engineers not only understanding the science, they are also figuring out why/how it works and how to apply it.
The value of knowledge is not in its accumulation, but in its application.
Libraries do nothing by themselves, but collect dust.
However, in this instance Mr. Abrahams has abdicated rationality and is a foolish tool.
Rocketscientist: I suspect the correct description, as used in the “Harry Potter” series is; “completely mental”.
Mr/Prof Abrahams has several inherent conflicts of interest, whatever his pedigree. In fact, if he didn’t toe the popular line, his pedigree would almost certainly be less “distinguished”…
Professor Abraham says
“Readers of this column who venture into the comments below will likely find people claiming, “science is never settled.” But the people making those comments are not scientists. They don’t work in this field every day, they don’t see the data, and they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
According to WIKI he is an American Engineering Professor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abraham_(professor)
Frankly, because he claims that “Gore gets his science right” I would seriously doubt anything he claims about climate change. Does he know that Gore’s predictions have failed to materialize? Does he agree that the earth is on fire and that the temperature below the earth’s surface is ““several million degrees” at “2 kilometers or so down”.
Doesn’t sound like he understands science very well.
By the way I know a lot of Engineers and no one I know believes that Gore gets his science right, most engineers are not that stupid.
That he’s an engineer is not the issue. It’s pretty clear based on his praise of Gore and dismay at the election results that the reason he can’t think clearly is because he’s a Democrat.
In general, engineers make better scientists because not only must they understand the science, they must understand it well enough so that what they are engineering will actually work in the real world.
Unfortunately, progressive politics is a brain disease that can infect even the smartest and most well intentioned people.
co2…
Good point, if he were actually thinking like an engineer or a real scientist, he would not need to resort to comments like un American, etc. he would use real data not the Al Gore outrageous BS. Obviously he is appealing to the un informed and un educated not those who are willing to look at actual data and make an informed decision.
I think this is what you get from a university Professor who happens to have a vested interest in 15th technology, windmills, and is frustrated because the actual data shows that current unreliable alternative energies will never meet our energy needs so he resorts to his anti science tactic like un-American or the science is settled.
Competent Professional Engineers are competent scientists. This guy is neither. Anyone who claims The science is settled” in climate science such that global warming alarmism is justified is incompetent.
Much is not “settled”, and what is settled strongly supports the skeptics position that there is no rational basis for alarm.
If Abraham is an engineer, he is an embarrassment to the profession of engineering.
Engineering is about designing and building things that work in the real world at a reasonable cost. Claiming that “people are investing in clean energy because it makes economic sense” is counter-factual if “clean energy” means energy with no CO2 emissions.
He is an academic guy with a degree in engineering. Most engineers are well trained in the sciences that can give them an opinion on the “climate sciences”, but only some have studied climatology in some depth, and of those that have, a poll would find most are luke-warmers.
This is particularly true of those with EE degrees which for all intents and purposes is applied physics. Any EE who is shown or has studied how Bode’s feedback analysis was applied to the climate system comes back with a comment like, “WTF were these guys thinking”.
“Abraham is an engineer,”
but not a very good one…he obviously doesn’t understand the laws of thermodynamics & heat transfer or the scientific method.
And he’s not even wrong.
Sorry, I was an engineer, and I was never that stupid. Nor were most of my colleagues (over the age of 50, but that age is getting higher every year).
An utter embarrassment to us engineers.
Yes of course it’s unAmerican. Snake oil salesmanship is a great American tradition.
Gypsy wagons were very popular. Now that they’ve moved to the internet, the commerce is way up. Just proves that people don’t get smarter, even if tech does. People are still gullible fools. “I want to believe”.
Yes of course it’s unAmerican. Snake oil salesmanship is a great American tradition.
+ 100 points
True, some Americans have adopted the characteristic, yet the existence of charlatans extends far further back in history than America.
Hey, another guy who claims , after more than a decade of few, weak hurricanes, that global warming is causing destructive hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc. What data is he looking at?
Apparently not the water temps where Maria was formed, which were cooler than normal ,
or the Harvey hurricane which quickly became a tropical storm before stalling over an area and dumping tonsof water extracted from the gGulf while it was stalled there. This guy is a perfect example of vague , implausible and incorrect claims with not even an attempt to make a valid argument.
Hi, Arthur. I am amazed that we are not blaming the witches. During the Little Ice Age there were a lot of problems with cold, hail, drought and failed harvests. Farmers blamed witches and their influence with the devil. At that times it stated an epidemic of burning witches in Germany, it coincided with the wars of religion.
https://twitter.com/HollyConrad/status/889392857890476032
Just some witches conjuring a hail storm from 1490 nbd
With all those witches burning you’d think the planet would have warmed at least a little. I guess witches don’t have much CO2 in them.
Nope…Witches aren’t carbon based lifeforms, their Sulphur based life forms so burning them releases SO2 instead of CO2
leopoldo Perdomo
Of course they’re blaming witches, they just call them Deniers.
It’s just that witches only weigh as much as a duck, which isn’t very much.
…and the newt spells just don’t last very long.
The witches are doing the hunting now. (Stolen but still good I think!)
“Hi, Arthur. I am amazed that we are not blaming the witches … ”
I don’t believe you, Leopoldo. I think you just wanted to get some kicks dissing religious people (which seems to be ever “on topic” on this site . . though I might actually get banned for even saying so).
But since “religious” people can still vote in America, and they constitute the majority of the populace, I suggest CAGW “skeptics” refrain from indulging in this . . “sport”. No doubt your opposition wishes you to continue, but I suggest it would be wiser to be reminding people where science (in the modern sense of the word) came from . . which is to say religious (Christian, predominantly) people, at about the same time in our civilization’s history as you allude to there …
In fact, since Christians dominated modern science until quite recently, I consider it a major coup by our opponents to have “pulled the wool over” so many otherwise intelligent minds, to the point where many seem to think they are heroes in a fight to free Western Civilization from the stultifying influences of Christianity. Kinda like antifa, with high IQ’s ; )
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is reaping the harvest of his Laudato Si, in addition to his catastrophic namesake. That’s hardly the fault of the audience, whatever their nationality or worldview may be.
Al really missed the boat by not turning this film over to a “trans” instead of doing it himself.
Dr John Abraham is a professor of thermal sciences.
That from his short bio at the Gruaniad. How could he not see everything as hot?
I wouldn’t send a child in his class.
The article contains this sentence: “Even though, as shown in the movie, fossil fuel companies and some conservative politicians are trying to sabotage clean energy markets, they cannot deny the economics. It just makes sense to use clean and renewable energy.”
This section under the word “economics: links to an article titled, “The War on Coal is over, Coal Lost.” If you read the referenced “supporting” article it is apparent that coal is overwhelmingly being replaced by natural gas (not “renewables”). This is a very sloppy at best blurring of differences between coal, gas, fossil fuel, clean and renewable resources. I would expect better from a professor of mechanical engineering.
some warmists need to experience the onset of the next glacial age, to see the value of coal to heat their house.
“The article contains this sentence: “Even though, as shown in the movie, fossil fuel companies and some conservative politicians are trying to sabotage clean energy markets, they cannot deny the economics. It just makes sense to use clean and renewable energy.”
If it makes economic sense to use clean and renewable energy, then why is the renewable energy industry on a big advertising campaign?
Every time I turn around recently there is a commercial from NextEra (windmills) or Exxon (also windmills) promoting their wares. If renewables were such a good economic deal, they wouldn’t need to advertise. People would come knocking on their door.
I assume these companies are doing this because they fear losing their government subsidies, which will probably put them out of business. In that sense conservatives are sabotaging the renewables, but they are doing it because subsides are a huge waste of money.
Renewables should live or die on their own economics, without goverment subsides. And it appears that most of them would go out of business without government subsidies.
The oil companies are sabotaging the “renewables” by putting out a superior product. I support Exxon once or twice a week.
“It just makes sense to use clean and renewable energy.””
So, that rules out wind and solar. !
Neither is clean, and certainly they are NEVER reliable.
I need my morning coffee.
For some reason I read “clean and reliable”
and I knew he was not talking about about wind and solar.
Could be that ‘sustainable’ word they keep using, sort of oozing into your subconscious mind . . which is what wind and solar are certainly not ; )
AndyG55
They are clean if you whitewash them during an investigation.
I wonder how much of the loss that coal has suffered is due to the regulation of CO2 as a pollutant. Remove the EPA’s endangerment finding, and the related regulatory hurdles, and then let’s see how it does relative to NG. It would certainly be interesting to see.
rip
Regulation of CO2 certainly helped natural gas replace coal. New natural gas has beaten new coal for a number of years. But the incremental cost of maintaining coal facilities allowed them to be competitive long after that. However regulation pushed up the closing of many coal plants that might have survived otherwise. Once they are gone thoguh, they are gone – loosening the regulations does not change that.
What a blowhard John Abraham is. In addition to the blatant, disgusting cheerleading for Gore, he offers up the usual smorgasboard of Alarmist tactics, but branding those who disagree as “un-American” is a bizarre, irrational twist. I guess you could call it an Appeal to Patriotism. Ironically, it is the Alarmists themselves who are the traitors.
“[False] Patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
Samuel Johnson
http://www.samueljohnson.com/refuge.html
Around here a movie ticket costs up to $17 bucks–who’s going to pay that to be preached at about nonsense?
Maybe the movie tickets would be cheaper if the entire movie theatre, projectors, popcorn makers, soda coolers, A/C, etc. were powered by rooftop windmills & solar panels.
/snark
As I found out when looking at the Green Climate Fund payments, we can call Griff and the Guardian eco-criminals until they pay the £800m they owe. Assuming the USA has no intention of paying the remain $2B pledge UK is the largest payment owing by size followed by France then Germany (even after it payment last week).
I am not sure they have the right to lecture anyone until they pay up 🙂
Well, now. I have a few questions here, regarding Mr. Abrahamson’s demands on me as an American.
1 – How much is Algore the Bore paying him to pump that movie?
2 – Does he realize that if you turn off the sound and just play appropriate music, the photography is nice even if it’s used for the wrong purpose?
3 – Dr John Abraham is a professor of thermal sciences = doesn’t that mean he’s in HVAC stuff?
4 – Does he ever leave the cozy comfort of his office, with the tea service and chocolate chip cookies right there at his fingertips?
Strike another blow for silliness, JA. I hope you enjoy shoveling snow.
I would guess it’s reverse psychology. What other reaction can be expected from a British newspaper calling someone un-American?
And Sara, probably Thermal Science means furnaces or engines. In my experience, HVAC personnel normally just use the acronym.
Appropriate music?
Sara . . It just hit me; They want me to PAY them money to see it!
Has anyone seen this movie? Not sure I could stomach it. Perhaps someone could list the errors in the film?
Roy Spencer has an ebook on the movie “An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore distorts climate science and energy policy” written as an answer to latest Al Gore fiasco.
I will note that you do not OWN a Kindle book—Amazon can cancel your access at any time and if you cancel your Amazon account, you lose ALL your books. I will no longer buy Kindle books because of this.
Back to good old paper then…at least you can keep what you have paid for!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/23/new-book-from-dr-roy-spencer-on-al-gores-fallacies-an-inconvenient-deception/
I am sure there are errors but I found the maim theme was how propaganda is spread via his minions:
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/training
There’s one error that all the other errors arise from. This error is the premise of the movie.
As i recall the only one of Al Gore’s homes mentioned was the family ranch which of course was very eco-friendly, but I am sure he has others.
Imagine, academic elites preaching to believe the models and not observation. Such is the world of liberal socialists.
If the ‘science is settled’ why is it that the climate models are so wrong?
Griif will tell you they aren’t. Holy scripture cannot be wrong, especially when it was a computer that generated it .
The only thing that’s ‘settled’ is that the IPCC/UNFCCC/World Bank wants to use anthropogenic climate change as an excuse for implementing global socialism bolstered by redistributive economics, at least until there’s no more wealth to redistribute and then we regress into a global serfdom.
I think the only science that is settled is Einstein’s idea about the Universe and Human Stupidity.
Certainly griff et al are proof positive of the infinite nature of human idiocy.
“… the science is settled on climate change. That is, the science is settled that humans are causing current climatic changes and the science is settled that we are observing these changes throughout the natural world.”
Anyone who ever uses the phrase “the science is settled” is by definition not a scientist. Being a scientist is not a matter of have been awarded a PhD in an appropriate discipline or having the handle Professor in front of one’s name, but is indicative of a certain humility in one’s thinking. Declaring that the science is settled in any particular area is to indicate that one knows everything that it is possible to know about that area, which is the polar opposite of humility.
Those who declare that “the science is settled” are merely blowhards with a political agenda. They are most certainly not scientists.
They use “the science” in the same way a minister would use “the Word of God”.
To be fair, it is quite obvious that humans drains swamps, do lots of hydraulic works, burn forest here and plant forest there, creates artificial build cities and road, etc. and all this DOES have effects on local weather and climate that we DO observe (UHI for instance).
Those very real effect have just on problem: it is obvious to people that all these works are very good to them, so you cannot charge them as you can CO2.
So count me as one of the 97%, knowing very well the human have an effect on weather/climate; and skeptic nonetheless, perfectly sure that any effect of CO2 as a GHG is so minute nobody will ever notice…
Good Lord, nobody takes the Guardian seriously.
That’s not true! Griff does.
Griff does it’s his most reliable reference site.
Their tax advisors do.
“Readers of this column who venture into the comments below will likely find people claiming, “science is never settled.” But the people making those comments are not scientists. They don’t work in this field every day, they don’t see the data, and they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
Another mind-reading journalist. Really, why do these mind-readers not set up a 900 number and tell you your future. After all, they know the occupation and education level of every single one of the millions of commenters on the net, whether or not the commenter is lying when he/she relates their occupation and education level. Surely only a fool would waste a serious talent like that. Who knows? Maybe they can get a gig with a daytime talk show and push their income into the millions. Talent left by the wayside, it seems……
writing for a news rag.
Bonus un-points for the churlish well-poisoning, too.
What a nonsensical strawman argument he makes! Don’t listen to those who aren’t scientists, they don’t know what they are talking about. Meanwhile, his entire article was about pleading us to listen to a non-scientist, Al Gore. These liberals are either shameless, stupid, or blinded by their ends justify the means ideology.
Anyone who considers that a climate sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty is settled science is clueless about what ‘settled’ means. And this massive uncertainty doesn’t even include the additional uncertainty added by the RCP scenarios and the additional uncertainty regarding the equivalent forcing of increasing CO2 concentrations.
Renewable energy from biomass cannot succeed for a number of reasons. A few are:
–Cost of biomass is at the minimum $60-80/ton
–Conversion of biomass to fuel is in the 1.0 to 1.4 bbl oil equivalent per ton
–RM cost alone exceeds the current value of the product fuel as a drop-in fuel (100% hydrocarbon)
–oxygenated fuels have numerous issues in vehicles that cannot be overcome including lower energy density, but also corrosion and biological growth issues
–Biomass crops must be harvested, transported, dried, and stored for extended periods of time in order to feed a conversion plant that has to operate 24/7/365 or fail economically
–biomass storage always is associated with loss of energy to waste and decay with 20% being a typical factor. Thus biomass feedstock cost is always higher in reality than quoted by government researchers and companies wishing to build plants.
–Cellulosic ethanol conversion technologies are not well established so long term plant op costs and down time are not adequately known or defined. This increases op costs.
–Energy crops REQUIRE that an entire region of at least 25 miles around the plant be dedicated to one crop or the transportation cost of the biomass exceeds its value.
–There can be no crop rotation or even change in crop for the lifetime of the plant (25 years typically)
–No farmer will commit to growing a single crop for such a length of time.
–All crops are subject to climatic events such as drought, flood, fire, wind damage, etc. Therefore there will be times when the plant must be closed to account for lack of feed or pay high transportation costs to acquire feed from other locations creating spot price spikes if biomass feedstocks are the norm in the region.
The number of technical challenges to establishing a reliable raw material source of biomass and set up a cost competitive conversion technology are far more numerous than listed above but the list does serve to highlight some critical issues. Dow tried to set up a corn stover based cellulosic ethanol plant and lightening caused a fire consuming their store of stover. So this is a real problem an on-going economic concern must be prepared to face.
One solution to this problem is to use land fill waste as a feed. It is always available either fresh or stored in a landfill. The issues here would be the limited amount of landfills make the total amount of fuel available small in relation to the need which is approaching 17 million bbls/day in the US.
The DOE Billion Ton Study claims that 10^9 tons of biomass are available each year, but it fails to point out that essentially all land not use for food would be committed to growing some form of biomass which would put significant strain on the land that otherwise would remain in its natural state.
Comments and discussion about this topic would be welcome.
I’m not aware of landfill waste being used as feedstock for biofuel, but I would think that the problems with it would be even greater than regular plant-based biomass, including a much higher conversion factor. Even burning it in waste-to-energy plants, in addition to creating pollutants isn’t very cost-effective, mainly due to trucking costs.
Another flaw in the “biomass to electricity” shtick, is that crop residues returned to ground are a key builder of the fertility of topsoil. Mother Nature has been doing that on her own since the beginning of life on earth, and most foresters, farmers et alia recognize that. Many advocates of burning “biomass,” also strenuously advocate “organic” agriculture, which relies heavily on recycling biomass to the soil. These are time-tested practices which are compatible with modern practices, despite the propaganda implying that recycling crop residues is something new.
Sending crop residues up into the atmosphere as CO2 & H2O, and touting that as an improvement, is more climatological humbug.
“Renewable energy from biomass cannot succeed for a number of reasons.”
So how many successful biomass projects do I have to list to prove Dr Bob wrong?
People like Dr Bob will always be failures because they start with a list of why they will fail.
To accomplish something, you start with a list of what they have to do to succeed. On my list is overcoming negativity. Being retired, I seek input on home improvement projects.
Nobody seems to like my ideas but I start anyway. We have a too big palm tree in the middle of the front yard with dead grass. The consensus was to cut it down. Fine I said, what do you want to do instead. No ideas. I noticed something about lawns in the desert. They look like hell and are expensive to water.
Now we have a front yard oasis completed with a rock waterfall, foot bridge, and a small fish pond. I started with used slate tile from a remodeled bathroom and some sandstone picked up along the road on a camping trip. So at one point I have some rocks sitting on broken pot, sitting on a concrete block on black plastic. I have an old noisy RV water pump circulating water. Ma and Pa Kettle drive by and give two thumbs up.
Here is the interesting thing about this project. Once I got things to a certain point, positive ideas for improvements started flowing. It just came together and it is a family accomplishment.
So you start with a problem and turn it into a success.
Biomass is a problem. Excess biomass is a significant sources of pollution. Dr Bob was not around when open burning from the timber industry created air pollution. The solution is to grind the wood up and feed to a fluidized bed boiler and make electricity.
You can not dump your waste in your front yard. You have to pay to have it hauled away and pay a tipping fee at the landfill. Waste to energy works.
When biomass rots is smells bad. Landfills and wastewater treatment plants flare the biogas to solve the odor problem. In some cases, it is economical to make electricity with the biogas.
The list of successfully using biomass extends into the millions.
So now we have a British newspaper thinking it has the moral authority to lecture Americans, who made their choices at the ballot box about whom they wanted serving in Washington. Our economy will prosper in spite of those in Washington who will side with the writer of that article. Britain will not if it doesn’t get its Brexit strategy done. The Guardian would best be occupied with that rather than our rejection of the climate scam and socialism.
It is the American on line version of the rag. So Americans can assume the moral authority to lecture other Americans.
That is a slippery slope. Climate change is way down the list of moral issue. Lets first talk about you wanting me to pay through tax dollars killing unborn babies.
My older sister once told be I could not express an opinion on abortion because I was a man. I replied she could not express her feelings about war because she was not subject to the draft. Or is it equally consistent for a man demand a women get an abortion because he does not want to pay child support?
I think discussing morality is fine, I can never understand why the subject get changed to baseball.
What, no mention of Gore’s involvement in cheating on a science experiment intended for education of our youth? Bias by way of background omission is also prevalent.
You know this guy’s too bright when the title of every article he writes is prefaced with “Climate Consensus – the 97%”
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/john-abraham
An interesting excerpt from one of his articles –
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/oct/18/clifi-a-new-way-to-talk-about-climate-change
Another attempt to force people to do something they don’t want to do, in order to fund someone they don’t want to fund.
It is more about “force” than about money or funding. Al Gore already have more money than he wants, and he knows the CAGM scam isn’t the best way for him to gain more money, if he wanted more money.
Abraham makes this comment in paragraph 8
Mr. Gore reminds us of projections for the future. For instance, South Florida may see 7 feet of sea level rise by 2100. City planners are considering ways to raise parts of the city to deal with this. Oh by the way, yes the best evidence shows we really may get 7 feet by 2100.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/inconvenient-sequel-review.html
I pointed out the absurdity of the claim, yet numerous commentators rush to defend the absurd. – Are all warmist devoid of the ability to live in the reality based world?
Always makes me wonder then why the United Nations spent billions recently renovating their headquarters in Manhattan when it is only 100 feet from the East River and only a few feet above sea level. You would think it they believed their own hubris, they would have moved to higher ground.
7 ft in 83 years is about 26 mm/yr or 2134mm.
@ur momisugly an exponential rate you would reach 26mm rise in 2060 and 48mm rise in 2100 for a total rise of 2134mm
The is a rate of increase of 5.5% per year
wheres the current rate of increase in the rate is .04%
Actually to achieve 7ft or 2134 mm by 2100 is an annual increase of .54 mm in SLR.
The current rate of annual increase in the SLR is approx .04% which is a doubling of the rate in approx 100-120 years (3mm per year to 6mm per year). The .54 is approx 15-18% annual increase which is a doubling of the rate every 5-6 years
Only a delusional warmist will believe that is possible
Would this same type of w4nker claim it it was un-American to not own a dozen handguns?
So, amortization of these defunct windmills should be added to the cost of the actually delivered energy. The ‘consummation’ of the windmills is a cost.
You can be sure that the marxbrothers accounting is prestidigitation, with grants and subsidues from taxpayers for purchase, installation, land, repairs, burnout, decommissioning, payouts for not producing or unused power, fossil fuel or nuclear back-up, etc. not properly accounted for in the fairy dust ‘economic’ competitiveness of renewables spouted hysterically by the greens. I think “Exxon Knew” type suits in a future review of this wanton destruction of national wealth under confident promises from this sector is actionable, unlike the failed chicanery of green/state attorneys against Exxon. These companies and associations should be stripped to the bone financially in reparations. I was disappointed that the US Attorney General is not going for a Special Council to investigate the pay for play of the Clintons as operated from the he office of the Secretary of State, the Bengazi affair, the nuclear deal with Russia…. If the big people don’t have to pay for such crimes, they will be repeated with gusto.
“I was disappointed that the US Attorney General is not going for a Special Council to investigate the pay for play of the Clintons as operated from the he office of the Secretary of State, the Bengazi affair, the nuclear deal with Russia…. If the big people don’t have to pay for such crimes, they will be repeated with gusto.”
Attorney General Sessions did not rule out appointing a Special Counsel entirely.
A former undercover FBI spy, who spied on this Russian deal for years, supposedly has some bombshell information about the Clinton’s. Like a video of Russians handing money over to the Clinton’s (or more likely, their flunkies). He also has audio recordings of Russians discussing the transfer of money to the Clintons. This, according to the lawyer that is representing him. I think it is about to hit the fan for the Clintons.
I guess it’s no surprise that the Obama administration prevented this FBI spy from testifying before Congress by making him sign a non-disclosure form and threatening him with prosecution if he spoke out. Unfortunately for the Clintons, Obama is no longer in charge and can no longer enforce this gag order.
The undercover FBI person is supposed to testify before Congress next week. We’ll see what the landscape looks like after that.
Lock her up! Lock her up!
Maybe that will shut her up.