Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

We are so collectively good at marketing that Lord Moncton can be considered credible and hold and audience.

Monckton will be treated as credible by the Murdoch Press and other right-wing media, and he became their shooting-star because he's a character and a competent performer, but his career is deep into the slide. Even UKIP are keeping their distance, and he's having to mine Agenda 21 for his lecture tours. That's the press for you, they take you up and then they discard you for something newer. The new thing is not to mention climate change at all - the subject should be windfarms and associated evils, all couched in near-term price-terms.

To deny AGW now is to be associated with Monckton and Inhofe, which is to invite ridicule. It was only ever a skirmish line in the real battle, which is over the inevitable transition from fossil-energy to renewables. While AGW was in contention promotion of renewables could be presented as entirely climate-related. Now it's being presented entirely in price terms (and job terms, ironically), which automatically exclude externalities. AGW is an entirely different subject.

Not everybody's on the playbook, of course, the likes of Inhofe can hardly climb down from The Greatest Hoax, and if not going on about AGW what would Watts or McIntyre be for, but AGW denial is not so much a spent force as a force that never was much. From our perspective, the likes of you and me, the denier movement looms quite large but we are a self-selected bunch. I can't see that AGW denial has had any impact on events. The Cheney-Rove administration, for instance, wouldn't have acted any differently had there not been a denial movement. "More research is needed", it's a no-brainer. Recognises the importance of the subject ("needed"), kicks it into the future, and can be described as "taking action" if the research is done.

If. The "more research is needed" policy (the advantages of which were widely recognised) has actually led to more research being done, particularly in the long-neglected field of oceanography.

 

[Warmer1]

Warmer - the US is not the centre of the universe

I don't believe that you can honestly claim that the US is not one of the top two major players in this issue.

and it's not up to the science community it's up to the policy makers.

There is $7 trillion dollar fossil industry at stake in this and they will and are fighting back and buying votes in the US and elsewhere

I believe that the policy makers in the US and also in Canada are being bought off and I'll make the assumption that you also believe this to be true at some level but please correct me if I am wrong.

I read that the US Department of Energy is going to shift away from the work of Arpa-E in some manner and I will try and find the article which states that.

If you don't believe that the direction that the US takes as a response to AGW will have an influence on international policy then I disagree with you. The education system in the US is so poor that I believe that marketing this issue to the voting public would be beneficial.

Not enough is being done and many North Americans understand the threat at all. I travel a lot all over Canada and the US and speak to a lot of people about this issue and a very small percentage of people understand what is going on.

I'm sorry to read that you disagree with my idea of doing a better job of getting the information to the masses.

 

[Warmer1]

Warmer - the US is not the centre of the universe .

Goldman Sachs has estimated the U.S. could move from being the No. 3 oil producer behind Saudi Arabia and Russia to the No. 1 spot by 2017.

http://www.chron.com/business/energ...output-could-top-40-year-old-peak-2193837.php

 

[macdoc]

It is not up to the science community ...this is a policy issue.
It's also not up to the science community to be PR people. That is a job for policy makers and PR people that understand the risks.
For instance Swiss Re the insurance giant do make it a point to be active in outlining the risks and costs to businesses and society. NGOs do as well.

The failure to recognize the risk by the general populace is highly centred in the US which prompted my COTU comment.
That said even in the US it's higher on the radar now the consequences are hitting home.

Climate Change is Finally Real for the American People
By 3p Contributor | April 22nd, 2013 9 Comments

inShare
7
By Rosana Francescato, MOSAIC

2012 seems set to go down in history as the year in which climate change became real for the United States. Over a period of six months, New York City flooded, the biggest drought in half a century settled into the Midwest, and wildfires burned 9.3 million acres in one of the worst fire seasons ever recorded.

By July last year, over 40,000 daily heat records had been broken in the U.S.

The question now is whether last year’s epic run of epic events will lead to new momentum for climate solutions. Will we finally get a shift in public opinion to match the shifting weather?

So far, surprisingly, the answer seems to be yes. Recent months have seen a long list of institutions and individuals—many rather unexpected, some powerful—speaking out in favor of action on climate change.

The climate movement has some strange new bedfellows. Here’s a roundup:

more
http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/04/climate-change-air/

even the diehard dinos on the right...

Climate Change 2013: Republicans Shifting Stance On Global Warming
Patricia LeviinScience,Climate Change 4 days ago

Perhaps climate is another issue the Republican Party leadership should do some soul-searching on. The evidence is mounting: Republicans and right-leaning independents are changing their minds, and increasingly supporting action on climate change and increased clean energy production.

A report from Yale and George Mason University Centers for Climate Change Communication, released in early April, surveyed Republican and Republican-leaning independents on their attitudes regarding climate change and clean energy. Here are four key takeaways from this study that should give pause to the Republican Party Leadership.

1. A majority think climate change is happening and support action to address it.

A slim majority (52%*) of respondents think climate change is happening (and only 26% deny it). When presented with two arguments for responding to climate change — one based in free-market values and the other in conserving clean air and water — a more convincing 62% of respondents said America should take steps to address climate change. This finding is bolstered by a recently released Gallup poll which confirms that increasing numbers of Republican voters are concerned about climate change, approaching the highs seen in 2000 as seen in the chart below.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3...republicans-shifting-stance-on-global-warming

Here is a compendium of polls on attitude to climate change in the US
http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/hot-topics/climate-polling

The time is past where education is direly needed....what IS needed is policy such as Obama has undertaken with the EPA and coal plants.

I would be very happy if the US becomes a major natural gas supplier IF it reduces the use of coal anywhere. Even oil and oil sands are far less of a threat than coal.

There is a concerted effort to profit from the move to low carbon society. The solar industry is an interesting case study. Why? well solar startups have failed spectacularly in the past couple of years..the reason being the business models are wrong and cannot cope with the low cost of panels......

This is typical of a major shift ( car companies went under or were absorbed at the turn of the last century until it stabilized as a fundamental industry ).

The same was true of the electronic and computer booms. The forces are in play....policy can move the pace forward or hinder it.

It's past the education phase....the only issue is countering the crap from deniers - just as countering anti-vaxxers or anti-evo is an ongoing effort.

 

[macdoc]

This is very good news

Political thaw raises hopes for refrigerant regulations

26 Apr 2013 | 09:13 BST | Posted by Jeff Tollefson | Category: Earth, environment & ecology, International Relations, Policy, Technology, Uncategorized
Data: UN Risoe Centre


This week China budged. Depending on one’s perspective, it wasn’t much of a concession. The country agreed, in essence, to do what it and everybody else had already agreed to do back in 2007: accelerate the phasing out of a common class of ozone-eating refrigerants that double as powerful greenhouse gases. But rather than haggling over prices each step of the way, China made it simple and cut a single deal — worth up to US$385 million — to eliminate hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) between now and 2030.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/04/political-thaw-raises-hopes-for-refrigerant-regulations.html

 

[AlBell]

75 years later and now 97% of the scientists agree with the science and yet what?, more science is needed??? or do a greater percentage of the public need to have a better understanding of what the world will be like for their children?

IMO AGW is at the policy discussion stage and has been for decades now.

 

[jimbob]

There is a concerted effort to profit from the move to low carbon society. The solar industry is an interesting case study. Why? well solar startups have failed spectacularly in the past couple of years..the reason being the business models are wrong and cannot cope with the low cost of panels......

To me,working in the semiconductor industry, the PV industry just looks typical of silicon valley: loads of startups and investment in the boom periods, leading to oversupply and a collapse in price, leading to many failures and the cheap selling off of capacity from the failed businesses. The price collapse means that new niches become affordable, which leads to an increase in the potential market, fueling the next stage in the cycle but with a larger peak. And with technology improving, driven by funding in the boom periods and the big players buying assets cheaply during the downturn.

 

[bobwtfomg]

|
16
2.3 How much capital is being
spent to develop more reserves
In order to develop current reserves more capital will
have to be deployed. This section gives an indication
of the level of capital expenditure (CAPEX) by these
companies to find and develop more reserves. The
analysis shows that the CAPEX spend (adjusted
proportionally to revenues from coal, oil and gas) over
the last 12 months by these 200 companies totalled
US$674billion. The higher capital costs of the oil
and gas sector mean that the majority - $593billion -
was related to this sector, with $81billion related
to coal operations.

http://carbontracker.live.kiln.it/Unburnable-Carbon-2-Web-Version.pdf


Why are the top 200 FF companies spending $674 Billion a year searching for and developing new FF reserves when the proven and available reserves are already more than enough to double the amount of atmospheric CO2??

 

[DC]

IMO AGW is at the policy discussion stage and has been for decades now.

yeah but the problem is a part of those taking part in those policy discusions have skipped the science stage entierly and think the problem being debated is not a problem.

 

[DC]

http://carbontracker.live.kiln.it/Unburnable-Carbon-2-Web-Version.pdf


Why are the top 200 FF companies spending $674 Billion a year searching for and developing new FF reserves when the proven and available reserves are already more than enough to double the amount of atmospheric CO2??

because some think making a profit now is more important than leaving behind a planet with a for Homo Sapiens working climate system?

 

[macdoc]

A few billion in a $7 trillion dollar per annum FF business is peanuts and these corps have a duty to shareholders to provide a return on capital.

What is odious is the outright buying of the political process that controls their actions as far as the environment goes.
And the campaign to sow doubt on AGW.
Both of those are are outside the pale of ethical behaviour especially since their own hired help informed them in 1995 of the impact on the global temps.

Once the risk was known - sowing doubt verges on criminal predation.
Coal is now bearing the brunt of the higher cost that risk of court action carries and so becomes a very iffy investment.

There is no viable large scale replacement for fossil fuel as a transportation fuel so they are with us for a while yet. This is a big challenge for Sweden to get to carbon neutral by 2050.
Still I'd be satisfied if coal and oil were erased from the power generation and home heating arena.

Oil will still be needed for transport.
Natural gas can replace most coal powered stations and has done around the world.

Even Germany will show a net reduction in coal power even while completing some plants to replace older units being retired. They are retiring more than are being built.

Germany calls for coal exit: pv-magazine
www.pv-magazine.com/news/.../germany-calls-for-coal-exit_100010882...
Apr 12, 2013 – According to a new survey, 80% of German citizens have said they want to put a stop to coal power generation. In their opinion, the phase out ...

and
http://wyofile.com/2012/12/18592/

Ontario has eliminated coal from 25% to zero in a decade.

Ontario Phasing Out Coal | Climate Denial Crock of the Week
climatecrocks.com/2013/01/21/ontario-phasing-out-coal/
Jan 21, 2013 – January 21, 2013 ... Still, phasing out coal, which accounted for 25 percent of generation, is a real ... Modeled after Germany, this is, to my knowledge, this is the most aggressive and successful program in North America.

It can be done in a first world industrial society and cost effectively with natural gas bonanza these days.

But transport presents a problem.....
as do nimbys over wind, nuclear and even gas plants which are near ideal base load with their rapid response

 

[CapelDodger]

To me,working in the semiconductor industry, the PV industry just looks typical of silicon valley: loads of startups and investment in the boom periods, leading to oversupply and a collapse in price, leading to many failures and the cheap selling off of capacity from the failed businesses. The price collapse means that new niches become affordable, which leads to an increase in the potential market, fueling the next stage in the cycle but with a larger peak. And with technology improving, driven by funding in the boom periods and the big players buying assets cheaply during the downturn.

This has been a common phaenomenon in the industrial age (railways are a good example), and while it seems wildly inefficient it probably does get things moving along more quickly than a more rational and considered response.

You also find the same kind of response from commentators during this period : conservatives gleefully report the whole enterprise as the farce (and fraud) they'd predicted while others defend the principle as sound and point to the opportunities available. This is when the big new fortunes can be made by savvy individuals.

 

[CapelDodger]

IMO AGW is at the policy discussion stage and has been for decades now.

Ideally it would be at the policy implementation phase by now, but that was never going to happen. Kyoto was a mere flash-in-the-pan.

The fact is that AGW is not a priority for any major player yet, and isn't looking likely to become one for a good while.

 

[CapelDodger]

Why are the top 200 FF companies spending $674 Billion a year searching for and developing new FF reserves when the proven and available reserves are already more than enough to double the amount of atmospheric CO2??

To maintain the illusion that business will remain as usual forever. To stop exploration would be to acknowledge that their current reserves are not as valuable an asset as they're made out to be.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Can someone please explain to me why almost every post here is about FF when FF is but a small part of the problem?

Clearly the issue isn't only about FF emissions, but also agriculture's effect in suppressing the biosphere from sequestering those emissions.

It's a carbon cycle, not just a carbon emission. Why is nearly everyone dancing around the other side of the carbon cycle equation?

Carbon is a good thing. We should be happy to has excess carbon in the air for sequestration into our fields. I know I would be overjoyed to add another 5-10% carbon to my fields. It dramatically improves productivity.

 

[jimbob]

To me,working in the semiconductor industry, the PV industry just looks typical of silicon valley: loads of startups and investment in the boom periods, leading to oversupply and a collapse in price, leading to many failures and the cheap selling off of capacity from the failed businesses. The price collapse means that new niches become affordable, which leads to an increase in the potential market, fueling the next stage in the cycle but with a larger peak. And with technology improving, driven by funding in the boom periods and the big players buying assets cheaply during the downturn.

This has been a common phaenomenon in the industrial age (railways are a good example), and while it seems wildly inefficient it probably does get things moving along more quickly than a more rational and considered response.

You also find the same kind of response from commentators during this period : conservatives gleefully report the whole enterprise as the farce (and fraud) they'd predicted while others defend the principle as sound and point to the opportunities available. This is when the big new fortunes can be made by savvy individuals.

True, and there is an additional force for growth due to the increased technological capability as well as just investment.

<OT>
I was talking to my father about the cyclical nature of the industry and he said it is well known in agriculture as "the pig cycle". A friend in rural banking said the same thing, that it was always considered risky to lend to pig farmers due to the supply and demand cycles. The short cycles in this industry do not lead to growth, as the market doesn't permanently expand with increased opportunities.
</OT>

On a related matter:

PV Energy Production Poised to Repay Carbon Costs

The rapid growth of the solar power industry over the past decade may have exacerbated the global warming situation it was meant to soothe, simply because most of the energy used to manufacture the millions of solar panels came from burning fossil fuels. According to Stanford University researchers, that situation is coming to an end. For the first time since the boom started, the electricity generated by all of the world’s installed solar photovoltaic (PV) panels last year probably surpassed the amount of energy going into fabricating more modules, according to Michael Dale, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford’s Global Climate & Energy Project (GCEP). With continued technological advances, the global PV industry is poised to pay off its debt of energy as early as 2015, and no later than 2020.

If current rapid growth rates persist, by 2020 about 10 percent of the world’s electricity could be produced by PV systems. At today’s energy payback rate, producing and installing the new PV modules would consume around 9 percent of global electricity. However, if the energy intensity of PV systems continues to drop at its current learning rate, then by 2020 less than 2 percent of global electricity will be needed to sustain growth of the industry.

The rest of the article is worth a read.

 

[Reality Check]

Carbon is a good thing. We should be happy to has excess carbon in the air for sequestration into our fields. I know I would be overjoyed to add another 5-10% carbon to my fields. It dramatically improves productivity.

Not quite right. Carbon (as in CO2) is a good and a bad thing. The bad things outweigh the good.
We should be happy to has excess carbon in the air for sequestration into our fields.
We should be appalled because this excess carbon in the air could make our fields unable to grow their current crops.
You may get increased productivity from your fields provided that:

• The more frequent floods do not destroy your crops.
• The more frequent droughts do not destroy your crops.
• New pests/diseases/fungi do not move in.

Positives and negatives of global warming

Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

 

[CapelDodger]

Can someone please explain to me why almost every post here is about FF when FF is but a small part of the problem?

Clearly the issue isn't only about FF emissions, but also agriculture's effect in suppressing the biosphere from sequestering those emissions.

It's a carbon cycle, not just a carbon emission. Why is nearly everyone dancing around the other side of the carbon cycle equation?

Because it starts with the emissions, and they have increased atmospheric CO₂-load by 40% over the industrial era. The biosphere is clearly overwhelmed, quite apart from land-use changes and industrial agriculture.

Carbon is a good thing. We should be happy to has excess carbon in the air for sequestration into our fields. I know I would be overjoyed to add another 5-10% carbon to my fields. It dramatically improves productivity.

Simply putting CO₂ into the air doesn't get carbon into the ground. What you want for that is manure (preferably horse-sourced).

 

[CapelDodger]

On a related matter:

PV Energy Production Poised to Repay Carbon Costs

An interesting milestone. If there's such a thing as a critical momentum, distributed PV has definitely got it. I think it suits the zeitgeist, apart from anything else.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You may get increased productivity from your fields provided that:

• The more frequent floods do not destroy your crops.
• The more frequent droughts do not destroy your crops.
• New pests/diseases/fungi do not move in.

Positives and negatives of global warming

• More carbon in and on the soil improves water infiltration, reducing flood chances and severity.
• More carbon in and on the soil reduces the severity of drought.
• ??? You are afraid of bacteria and fungi when 99% of all bacteria and fungi are beneficial??? Seems to me that is a good thing. Bring on those bacteria and fungi. The more the merrier. This way there is not any niches for destructive diseases to get a foothold. Nature hates a vacuum. You get rid of all your beneficial micro-biology and something will fill that void. Chances are that might be a problem and become a pest. Not the other way around.
  
• In summary, bring on the carbon, as long as that carbon finishes its cycle by being sequestered in our fields.

As I said in my first post. It's not emissions that are a problem. It is more a problem of forgetting it is a carbon cycle and those emissions need to go in our fields to complete that cycle!