FW: Energy reserves
biz modl
a couple of other sources of counter opinion:
Other scientists caution that climate models must be regarded with great care and skepticism. Steven Koonin, the undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Obama’s first term, wrote a pathbreaking piece in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal in which he concluded:
We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influence. . . . The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high. . . . Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties, but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
Roy Spencer, a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, described the shift in opinion on his blog:
For many years we had been hearing from the “scientific consensus” side that natural climate change is nowhere near as strong as human-caused warming . . . yet the lack of surface warming in 17 years has forced those same scientists to now invoke natural climate change to supposedly cancel out the expected human-caused warming!
C’mon guys. You can’t have it both ways! They fail to see that a climate system capable of cancelling out warming with natural cooling is also capable of causing natural warming in the first place. . . . To me, it feels like a climate skepticism tipping point has been reached.
Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, told me that all of the carbon-reduction targets advocated by the U.N. or the European Union would result in imperceptible differences in temperature, at enormous cost. “We would be far better off and richer if we did simple things like painting roofs in hot climates white and investing in new technologies that could help us adapt to any change that is coming,” he says. Even the U.N.’s own climate panel admits that so far, climate change hasn’t included any increase in the frequency or intensity of so-called extreme weather.
so the debate will continue…
have fun, biz
From: biz modl [mailto:biz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:39 PM
To: 'steady...@googlegroups.com'
Subject: RE: Energy reserves
as a co2 agnostic, I feel compelled to offer info on how the co2 story is all too human:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
if one's trust in gw is based on the 'scientific consensus', then one is trusting something that has proven faulty in the past. for example, hormone replacement treatment was supported by scientific consensus as well. since I know a little about the fragility of computer models, I would recommend caution in evaluating the results of them. I am not aware that the majority of the scientists in the 'consensus' have expertise in computer models of any kind, let alone climate change models.
have fun, biz
From: steady...@googlegroups.com [mailto:steady...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John deC.
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 2:25 PM
To: steady...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Energy reserves
This is a very interesting economic analysis of the possible future of energy resources. I don't mean to give personal offense, but it appears applicable mainly in a parallel universe, on a planet that doesn't have a carbon budget so its atmosphere's ability to act as a sink for waste carbon is unlimited. On this Earth, the situation is different. As Kevin Anderson has explained more than once, there actually is a limit to the amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere if we want our planet to go on being habitable. We are close to that limit now and since carbon put into the atmosphere stays there for a very long time, we would need to begin very drastic reductions almost immediately to avoid going over that threshold. Not long ago people were talking about the threshold that might enable us to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius on average. Most scientists now agree that we've overshot that threshold and are now talking about how we can avoid increases of 4 degrees Celsius. If you've been keeping up with this discussion, you know that 4 degrees very likely implies scenarios that have been characterized as being incompatible with maintaining civil society. Questions about reserves and resources are likely to be irrelevant in most of those scenarios, which is why this present analysis may not be entirely germane to the real predicament we're in. Here's the kind of thing we should be concerned about, from a recent headline: Three billion gallons of oil industry waste has been injected illegally into California aquifers. Predatory unregulated global capitalism, eager to suck the last dime of profit out of a dead-end cheap-oil-based economy, will apparently do absolutely anything to make money, regardless of the damage they cause or the cost to the public and to Nature.
In an SSE, I would assume that all costs of production are internalized and fully reflected in prices. Don't you agree?
On Sunday, October 12, 2014 1:37:47 AM UTC-7, Keith Hudson wrote:
When oil companies talk of "resources" to potential investors it's a very much larger figure than the actual recoverable amount -- what they call "reserves" -- which they quote to governmental regulators and taxation departments. The differences are, in fact, very considerable for conventional oil and gas fields. But they won't be so great for shale gas -- as I argued this morning to a correspondent who was getting confused about what "reserves" and "resources" mean.
Of course, the following might suggest that economic growth could continue indefinitely. But, as steady-staters will know, I think economic growth will come to an end when most countries of the world will not be able to get into the dumb-bell-shaped trade going on between consumer goods manufacturers (mainly China and Korea) and high-quality services of the advanced countries (that is, a minority of the population). Both ends of the dumb-bell require high investments in machinery and education respectively.
RESERVES OF ENERGY
Shale gas and light liquid reserves are far more flexible than for superficial gas and oil. Shale strata, being the result of two or three billion years of composted marine life rather than a few hundred thousand years of land vegetation are far thicker and more extensive than the accidentally trapped bubbles of conventional oil and gas fields.
At present, about 6% of shale gas resources are recoverable and about 0.5% are accidentally vented by inadequate well design. Improved recovery, already being developed, or feasible over the long term are: (a) pad drilling (several wells drilled at different depths and in different directions); (b) enhanced completions (longer horizontal legs using larger quantities of injected sand); (c) multi-runs (back-diffusion of gas from surrounding strata after prolonged rest periods).
When conventional oil and gas production peaks (perhaps already?) and price per gallon equivalent rises permanently above about $80/barrel and when world population starts dropping steeply to due urbanisation then, plainly, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of years of reserves of shale gas and light liquid available. This will yield electricity prices that, for basic thermodynamic reasons (on the basis of energy-in versus energy-out), will always be several times times cheaper than for any alternative technology now being promulgated (e.g. nuclear power, wind, waves, solar cells, etc).
The only cheaper method (not requiring as much capital investment as shale gas) will be the biological production of hydrogen (or electricity directly) when genetic technology is sufficiently advanced. (Some would say this is imminent -- after all, there is considerable research going on -- but I would suggest 50 or 100 years). Also CO2 production will be automatically recycled at no cost. However, biological methods would require extensive land use and thus only feasible on a wide scale if world population became very low indeed (that is, equivalent to hunter-gatherer level of 2 or 3 million).
As far as shale gas is concerned, the difference between reserves and resources is, and will be nowhere near as great as that for conventional oil drilling (or mineral extraction). Most of the difference ultimately would be due to deep-sea resources which would require high investments costs and thus probably never exploited.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SteadyStaters" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steadystater...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
biz modl
read the comments stream off this page J
how is that for consensus? J
Keith Hudson
Keith
At 21:45 12/10/2014, you wrote:
a couple of other sources of counter opinion:
Other scientists caution that climate models must be regarded with great care and skepticism. Steven Koonin, the undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Obama’s first term, wrote a pathbreaking piece in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal in which he concluded:
We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus†about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influence. . . . The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high. . . . Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties, but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
Roy Spencer, a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, described the shift in opinion on his blog:
For many years we had been hearing from the “scientific consensus†side that natural climate change is nowhere near as strong as human-caused warming . . . yet the lack of surface warming in 17 years has forced those same scientists to now invoke natural climate change to supposedly cancel out the expected human-caused warming!
C’mon guys. You can’t have it both ways! They fail to see that a climate system capable of cancelling out warming with natural cooling is also capable of causing natural warming in the first place. . . . To me, it feels like a climate skepticism tipping point has been reached.
Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, told me that all of the carbon-reduction targets advocated by the U.N. or the European Union would result in imperceptible differences in temperature, at enormous cost. “We would be far better off and richer if we did simple things like painting roofs in hot climates white and investing in new technologies that could help us adapt to any change that is coming,†he says. Even the U.N.’s own climate panel admits that so far, climate change hasn’t included any increase in the frequency or intensity of so-called extreme weather.
so the debate will continue…
have fun,   biz
Darrell Prince`
We will not be able to reduce to 2- 3 million people on earth nor are we in any need to do so.
the 17 year bit is based upon starting in 1998 - an abnormally hot year - statistical gimmick. Over a 20 year span, it's clear, there is warming.
If there was NO chance that the climate is affected by CO2 emissions, the conversion to pollute less in extraction (oil, natural gas, coal) and in combustion (oil, coal, and gas) is clearly necessary (if you didn't know, burning methane,(discovered by Benjamin Franklin). the primary component of natural gas produces carbon dioxide and and water, as, I suspect do many of the other components) Energy gets discovered fairly often, 1940's Albert Einstein, spearheaded a group and many, thousands of implementers, applied, Rockefeller, with oil distribution and supply, making sure enough of it was in the 1920's
It's time for real investment in energy technology, like a Manhattan project II.
Keith Hudson
At 02:19 13/10/2014, you wrote:
Keith,
Do you have investments in or work in an industry related to natural gas?
You are really promoting it hard. a green house gas, that burns to create CO2, albeit less than coal, and a cleaner burn than coal or oil by virtue being mostly methane, a single carbon atom. Fracking wells use far too much water and the wells have leaked into water supplies in California.
We will not be able to reduce to 2- 3 million people on earth nor are we in any need to do so.
the 17 year bit is based upon starting in 1998 - an abnormally hot year - statistical gimmick. Over a 20 year span, it's clear, there is warming.
We've certainly reached actionable certainty for Climate Change. People who actually understand risk management, understand that you avoid small chances of catastrophic incidents, which is why people lock their doors everyday. The actual chances of someone testing their door on any given day is nil, but people do it anyway. Further if the vast majority of your scientific bodies agree that there is a danger not worth taking, why take it? If you are not listening
If there was NO chance that the climate is affected by CO2 emissions, the conversion to pollute less in extraction (oil, natural gas, coal) and in combustion (oil, coal, and gas) is clearly necessary (if you didn't know, burning methane,(discovered by Benjamin Franklin). the primary component of natural gas produces carbon dioxide and and water, as, I suspect do many of the other components) Energy gets discovered fairly often, 1940's Albert Einstein, spearheaded a group and many, thousands of implementers, applied, Rockefeller, with oil distribution and supply, making sure enough of it was in the 1920's
It's time for real investment in energy technology, like a Manhattan project II.
Atmospheric CO2 is able to be measured with great precision all over the world and because it remains as a gas when in the atmophere it doesn't change its state. On the other hand H2O, a far more warming gas, changes its state to cloud. It then acts as a cooler of the world's syrface temperature. Until we can measure the total effect of clouds all over the world then the net effect of H2O cannot yet be calculated.
Until we know more, the serious effects of H2O (hurricanes, monsoon rains, etc) obviously far outweigh the known effects of CO2, only its supposed effects.
Keith
John deC.
On Sunday, October 12, 2014 1:45:49 PM UTC-7, Biz Modl wrote:
a couple of other sources of counter opinion:
Other scientists caution that climate models must be regarded with great care and skepticism. Steven Koonin, the undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Obama’s first term, wrote a pathbreaking piece in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal in which he concluded:
We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influence. . . . The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high. . . . Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties, but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
Roy Spencer, a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, described the shift in opinion on his blog:
For many years we had been hearing from the “scientific consensus” side that natural climate change is nowhere near as strong as human-caused warming . . . yet the lack of surface warming in 17 years has forced those same scientists to now invoke natural climate change to supposedly cancel out the expected human-caused warming!
C’mon guys. You can’t have it both ways! They fail to see that a climate system capable of cancelling out warming with natural cooling is also capable of causing natural warming in the first place. . . . To me, it feels like a climate skepticism tipping point has been reached.
Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, told me that all of the carbon-reduction targets advocated by the U.N. or the European Union would result in imperceptible differences in temperature, at enormous cost. “We would be far better off and richer if we did simple things like painting roofs in hot climates white and investing in new technologies that could help us adapt to any change that is coming,” he says. Even the U.N.’s own climate panel admits that so far, climate change hasn’t included any increase in the frequency or intensity of so-called extreme weather.
so the debate will continue…
have fun, biz
From: biz modl [mailto:biz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:39 PM
To: 'steady...@googlegroups.com'
Subject: RE: Energy reserves
as a co2 agnostic, I feel compelled to offer info on how the co2 story is all too human:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
if one's trust in gw is based on the 'scientific consensus', then one is trusting something that has proven faulty in the past. for example, hormone replacement treatment was supported by scientific consensus as well. since I know a little about the fragility of computer models, I would recommend caution in evaluating the results of them. I am not aware that the majority of the scientists in the 'consensus' have expertise in computer models of any kind, let alone climate change models.
have fun, biz
Keith Hudson
It's your constant use of "overwhelming" (as in temperature rises) that suggests you're not really as confident as you assert. No scientist that I'm aware of has ever quote 4 degrees rise as inevitable, as you keep on saying. And now you've taken to calling us 'science deniers'!
Most of those whom the warmists keep on calling "sceptics" are not strenuously against notion of man-made global warming. It's just that they are agnostic on the issue -- like me. Global warmists have cried wolf so often that most of the advanced world's ;population are now totally bored with it.
You may be right about your case generally (but not 4C degree rises!) but well within 50 years we'll be releasing much less CO2 into the atmosphere and, anyway, it's highly likely that the world population will be dropping due to accelerating urbanisation. You refuse to work some likely real numbers into your doom laden scenarios. There's enough ecological destruction going on without your scenarios.
Keith
At 16:25 13/10/2014, you wrote:
It's interesting to find so many science deniers in this SSE group. If only from an economic point of view - assuming you totally don't accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is on a path to 4 degrees of warming and that human activity plays a significant role in it - you'd think at least people would bring reason to the role of petroleum resources in whatever form of SSE the world is heading toward. For example, could there be a stupider way to use irreplaceable natural resources than for governments to heavily subsidize their extraction so they can be wastefully burned up as fuel and turned into disposable plastic crap? It's difficult to imagine! In an enlightened SSE might these resources be used, for example, to synthesize incredibly long-lasting compounds for a wide variety of uses, with any waste of non-renewables prohibited by law?
On Sunday, October 12, 2014 1:45:49 PM UTC-7, Biz Modl wrote:
- a couple of other sources of counter opinion:
- Other scientists caution that climate models must be regarded with great care and skepticism. Steven Koonin, the undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Obama’s first term, wrote a pathbreaking piece in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal in which he concluded:
- We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus†about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influence. . . . The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high. . . . Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties, but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
- Roy Spencer, a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, described the shift in opinion on his blog:
- For many years we had been hearing from the “scientific consensus†side that natural climate change is nowhere near as strong as human-caused warming . . . yet the lack of surface warming in 17 years has forced those same scientists to now invoke natural climate change to supposedly cancel out the expected human-caused warming!
- C’mon guys. You can’t have it both ways! They fail to see that a climate system capable of cancelling out warming with natural cooling is also capable of causing natural warming in the first place. . . . To me, it feels like a climate skepticism tipping point has been reached.
- Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, told me that all of the carbon-reduction targets advocated by the U.N. or the European Union would result in imperceptible differences in temperature, at enormous cost. “We would be far better off and richer if we did simple things like painting roofs in hot climates white and investing in new technologies that could help us adapt to any change that is coming,†he says. Even the U.N.’s own climate panel admits that so far, climate change hasn’t included any increase in the frequency or intensity of so-called extreme weather.
Darrell Prince`
John deC.
Keith Hudson
Research published a few days ago suggests that calculations of CO2 absorption by flora have been 16% too low. This apparently accounts for CO2 in the atmosphere being less than it should be according to man-made emissions. The real absorption rate may yet turn out to be higher.
And we have no accurate idea yet of the absorption rate of the surface ecosystem of the oceans because the adaptive uniceellular mufgation rate is junknown as yet. So far, the rate of absortpion of CO2 has been restricted by ocean currents and these are not yet known in sufficient detail.
In tnhe past 12,000 years there have been 15 to 20 periods when temperature went higher than now, but yet the earth's lilfe adapted and the temperature was reduced to "normal" levels.
We just don't know anywhere sufficient yet to make any sensible forecast about long term temperatire rises. (Just to remind you, we don't know anywhere near enough in detail about the reflectivity of rain clouds. This is one of the biggest cllimate factors) The earth's temperature is still nowhere near what occurred in the Bronze Age.
Keith
At 16:19 14/10/2014, you wrote:
Keith, the case is pretty clearly stated by Kevin Anderson and three simple little graphs. (Look for "the brutal logic of climate change" on-line.) These graphs, accurate enough for planning purposes, illustrate how quickly carbon emissions would have to fall to a level consistent with avoiding temperature increases of more than 2 degrees under a variety of scenarios. Obviously the rate of decrease needed to keep within the carbon budget of the atmosphere depends on how soon you start reducing emissions. If we wait longer we'll have to reduce faster. We are still on a path of increasing emissions and are even increasing the rate of increase year over year. Given the dismal history of the COP talks, it seems a safe bet that we're not going to start annual reductions of 5 or 10 percent starting in 2015 or even 2020. The scenarios based on emissions peaking later than that require annual reductions that are unprecedented and hard even to imagine. It seems, again, a safe bet that we will not find a way to implement 10 percent annual reductions starting in 2025, reaching zero emissions as soon as possible. Given those assumptions, global increases of four degrees or more are virtually certain.
If you disagree with this logic, I'd be interested to know which part of it you don't accept. Being agnostic sounds like a way of saying, "I just don't want to think about this", since there actually is a scientific consensus on the matter and there is now very little discussion of two degrees as an achievable goal.
On Monday, October 13, 2014 12:12:33 PM UTC-7, Keith Hudson wrote:
- John,
- It's your constant use of "overwhelming" (as in temperature rises) that suggests you're not really as confident as you assert. No scientist that I'm aware of has ever quote 4 degrees rise as inevitable, as you keep on saying. And now you've taken to calling us 'science deniers'!
- Most of those whom the warmists keep on calling "sceptics" are not strenuously against notion of man-made global warming. It's just that they are agnostic on the issue -- like me. Global warmists have cried wolf so often that most of the advanced world's ;population are now totally bored with it.
- You may be right about your case generally (but not 4C degree rises!) but well within 50 years we'll be releasing much less CO2 into the atmosphere and, anyway, it's highly likely that the world population will be dropping due to accelerating urbanisation. You refuse to work some likely real numbers into your doom laden scenarios. There's enough ecological destruction going on without your scenarios.
- Keith
- At 16:25 13/10/2014, you wrote:
- It's interesting to find so many science deniers in this SSE group. If only from an economic point of view - assuming you totally don't accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is on a path to 4 degrees of warming and that human activity plays a significant role in it - you'd think at least people would bring reason to the role of petroleum resources in whatever form of SSE the world is heading toward. For example, could there be a stupider way to use irreplaceable natural resources than for governments to heavily subsidize their extraction so they can be wastefully burned up as fuel and turned into disposable plastic crap? It's difficult to imagine! In an enlightened SSE might these resources be used, for example, to synthesize incredibly long-lasting compounds for a wide variety of uses, with any waste of non-renewables prohibited by law?
- On Sunday, October 12, 2014 1:45:49 PM UTC-7, Biz Modl wrote:
- a couple of other sources of counter opinion:
- Other scientists caution that climate models must be regarded with great care and skepticism. Steven Koonin, the undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Obama̢۪s fi first term, wrote a pathbreaking piece in Saturday̢۪s Wall Street Journalnal in which he concluded:
- We often hear that there is a “scientific consensusus†about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influence. . . . The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high. . . . Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties, but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
- Roy Spencer, a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA̢۪s Marshall Space Flight Center, described the se shift in opinion on his blog:
- For many years we had been hearing from the “scientntific consensus†side that natural climate change is nowhere near as strong as human-caused warming . . . yet the lack of surface warming in 17 years has forced those same scientists to now invoke natural climate change to supposedly cancel out the expected human-caused warming!
- C’mon guys. You can’t hav„¢t have it both ways! They fail to see that a climate system capable of cancelling out warming with natural cooling is also capable of causing natural warming in the first place. . . . To me, it feels like a climate skepticism tipping point has been reached.
- Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, told me that all of the carbon-reduction targets advocated by the U.N. or the European Union would result in imperceptible differences in temperature, at enormous cost. “We would be far better off and richeher if we did simple things like painting roofs in hot climates white and investing in new technologies that could help us adapt to any change that is coming,†he says. Even the U.N.’s owns own climate panel admits that so far, climate change hasn’t included any increase in in the frequency or intensity of so-called extreme weather.
biz modl
keith,
don’t waste your time replying to john. he has snuggled into his scientific consensus and it 'feels' right; its perfect for a political crusade as well as pep rallies like we saw recently in nyc. we can only hope that he would have been a little more discriminating about the eugenics 'consensus' in the 30s or the hrt 'consensus' of the 80s J
Keith Hudson
You'e probably right. What John doesn;t take on board is that I, and many other agnostics, are as much concerned about the earth's ecosystem as he is. In fact, I was an active environmental campaigner when in my late 20s, when I and my colleagues were considered to be not just eccentric but ultra-neurotic. Also, I started what was, I believe, the world's third environmental magazine, "Towards sjurvival". Only the Sierra Club's publication (I've forgotten the title) and "The Ecologist" in England, started by a friend Teddy Goldsmith were n existence before "TS". It lasted 18 months before it was clobbered by the first oil crisis in 1972 when OPEC raised the price of oil 4 times. That meant that my paper costs went up 4 times (paper being energy-intensive to make) and mailing costs 2 or 3 times in the next few months. Because I was still subsidising it (and paying two staff) out of my full-time job (in a multinational) I had to let it go. Actually, "The Ecologist" continued, even though it was heavily loss-making at the time, because it was subsidised by Teddy's brother, Jimmy Goldsmith, who was a billionaire and, after a lifetime of being harangued by Teddy actually became a convinced environmentalist himself. Already very rich in the '80s he'd sold all his shares and other assets just a few months before the great '87 stock market crash (when a ,lot of people lost a lot of money in the 50% slide in share prices) and then re-bought afterwards. Later, he sold out again and finally retired, buying hundreds of sqjuare miles of Mexico and lived tghere in his remaining years. As far as I know, it's still a conservation reservation. This is just another reminder that when the environmental movement seriously started taking off 40 years ago it had an effect on many young minds who by now are reaching important positions in business and politics. The numbers of these will only grow substantially in the coming 20 or 30 years. There are many people, so far, not taking part in the climate change debate because, like me, they are not yet convinced. They are silently watching. But I'm quite sure that if the evidence for serious man-made rises in temperature becomes convincing that this potential lobby will make itself known quite powerfully.
Keith
At 23:10 14/10/2014, you wrote:
keith,
don’t waste your time replying to john. he has snuggled into his scientific consensus and it 'feels' right; its perfect for a political crusade as well as pep rallies like we saw recently in nyc.  we can only hope that he would have been a little more discriminating about the eugenics 'consensus' in the 30s or the hrt 'consensus' of the 80s J Â
have fun,   biz
From: steady...@googlegroups.com [ mailto:steady...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:07 PM
To: steady...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: FW: Energy reserves
John,
Research published a few days ago suggests that calculations of CO2 absorption by flora have been 16% too low. This apparently accounts for CO2 in the atmosphere being less than it should be according to man-made emissions. The real absorption rate may yet turn out to be higher.
And we have no accurate idea yet of the absorption rate of the surface ecosystem of the oceans because the adaptive uniceellular mufgation rate is junknown as yet. So far, the rate of absortpion of CO2 has been restricted by ocean currents and these are not yet known in sufficient detail.
In tnhe past 12,000 years there have been 15 to 20 periods when temperature went higher than now, but yet the earth's lilfe adapted and the temperature was reduced to "normal" levels.
We just don't know anywhere sufficient yet to make any sensible forecast about long term temperatire rises. (Just to remind you, we don't know anywhere near enough in detail about the reflectivity of rain clouds. This is one of the biggest cllimate factors) The earth's temperature is still nowhere near what occurred in the Bronze Age.
Keith
At 16:19 14/10/2014, you wrote:
Keith, the case is pretty clearly stated by Kevin Anderson and three simple little graphs. (Look for "the brutal logic of climate change" on-line.) These graphs, accurate enough for planning purposes, illustrate how quickly carbon emissions would have to fall to a level consistent with avoiding temperature increases of more than 2 degrees under a variety of scenarios. Obviously the rate of decrease needed to keep within the carbon budget of the atmosphere depends on how soon you start reducing emissions. If we wait longer we'll have to reduce faster. We are still on a path of increasing emissions and are even increasing the rate of increase year over year. Given the dismal history of the COP talks, it seems a safe bet that we're not going to start annual reductions of 5 or 10 percent starting in 2015 or even 2020. The scenarios based on emissions peaking later than that require annual reductions that are unprecedented and hard even to imagine. It seems, again, a safe bet that we will not find a way to implement 10 percent annual reductions starting in 2025, reaching zero emissions as soon as possible. Given those assumptions, global increases of four degrees or more are virtually certain.
If you disagree with this logic, I'd be interested to know which part of it you don't accept. Being agnostic sounds like a way of saying, "I just don't want to think about this", since there actually is a scientific consensus on the matter and there is now very little discussion of two degrees as an achievable goal.
On Monday, October 13, 2014 12:12:33 PM UTC-7, Keith Hudson wrote:
John,
It's your constant use of "overwhelming" (as in temperature rises) that suggests you're not really as confident as you assert. No scientist that I'm aware of has ever quote 4 degrees rise as inevitable, as you keep on saying. And now you've taken to calling us 'science deniers'!
Most of those whom the warmists keep on calling "sceptics" are not strenuously against notion of man-made global warming. It's just that they are agnostic on the issue -- like me. Global warmists have cried wolf so often that most of the advanced world's ;population are now totally bored with it.
You may be right about your case generally (but not 4C degree rises!) but well within 50 years we'll be releasing much less CO2 into the atmosphere and, anyway, it's highly likely that the world population will be dropping due to accelerating urbanisation. You refuse to work some likely real numbers into your doom laden scenarios. There's enough ecological destruction going on without your scenarios.
Keith
At 16:25 13/10/2014, you wrote:
It's interesting to find so many science deniers in this SSE group. If only from an economic point of view - assuming you totally don't accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is on a path to 4 degrees of warming and that human activity plays a significant role in it - you'd think at least people would bring reason to the role of petroleum resources in whatever form of SSE the world is heading toward. For example, could there be a stupider way to use irreplaceable natural resources than for governments to heavily subsidize their extraction so they can be wastefully burned up as fuel and turned into disposable plastic crap? It's difficult to imagine! In an enlightened SSE might these resources be used, for example, to synthesize incredibly long-lasting compounds for a wide variety of uses, with any waste of non-renewables prohibited by law?
On Sunday, October 12, 2014 1:45:49 PM UTC-7, Biz Modl wrote:
a couple of other sources of counter opinion:
Other scientists caution that climate models must be regarded with great care and skepticism. Steven Koonin, the undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Obama’s fs fi first term, wrote a pathbreaking piece in Saturday‬™s Wall Street Journalnal in which he concluded:
We often hear that there is a “scientific consensusus†abouabout climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detaitail relevant to assessing human influence. . . . The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high. . . . Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties, but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
Roy Spencer, a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshrshall Space Flight Center, described the se shift in opinion on his blog:
For many years we had been hearing from the “scientntific consensnsus†side that natural climate change is nowhere near ass strong as human-caused warming . . . yet the lack of surface warming in 17 years has forced those same scientists to now invoke natural climate change to supposedly cancel out the expected human-caused warming!
Câ€ââ„¢mon guys. You can’t hav„¢t žÂ¢t have it both ways! They fail to see that a climate system capable of cancelling out warming with natural cooling is also capable of causing natural warming in the first place. . . . To me, it feels like a climate skepticism tipping point has been reached.
Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, told me that all of the carbon-reduction targets advocated by the U.N. or the European Union would result in imperceptible differences in temperature, at enormous cost. “We e would be far better off and richeher if we did simple things like painting roofs in hot climates white and investing in new technologies that could help us adapt to any change that is coming,†he says. Eveen the U.N.’s owns own climate panel admits thathat so far, climate change hasn’t included any iy increase in in the frequency or intensity of so-called extreme weather.
so the debate will continue…
Darrell Prince`
biz modl
folks,
I remain a co2 agnostic, but I am not a fan of 'burning' as a primary way to get energy from the environment. the system dynamics crowd at mit have done a little work on how to deal with the co2 'budget':
http://www.climateinteractive.org/
I recommend the en-roads page:
http://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/
here is an analysis of the variable set needed to reach the carbon budget goal:
http://www.climateinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/A-Trillion-Tons.pdf
here is the simulator structure:
I invite you to run the simulation a few times yourself (using more reasonable variable sets than the trillion ton solution J). while not seen here in this graph, population growth is also a variable. my observation from experience with the simulator is that, even after massive carbon prices, subsidies and technical breakthroughs, you need a substantial reduction in gdp as well as a global one child policy to get to the 'goal'. the simulation shows that population growth and consumption easily compensate for co2 reductions in energy production, i.e. efficiencies that reduce source and demand intensity cannot compensate for population increases when there is no overall decrease in consumption. the base global population is simply too large.
this is consistent with the harris model: the infrastructure (production and population systems) drives the interface with the environment. you must bring the production system into balance with the population system to achieve cultural outcomes like co2 production levels or an economic steady state. co2 targets require massive changes to the production system, which are easily overwhelmed by population increases coupled with bau gdp rates.
scientific consensus is either infallible or it is not. the history of science speaks for itself on the reliability of consensus (which is routinely overturned). consensus becomes even less credible when it is politicized. so I think it is very reasonable to be agnostic about climate change, given what would be required to 'solve' the 'problem'. it’s a lot easier to babble about the consensus and attend climate change pep rallies than it is to cut your standard of living by 25% and have far fewer grandchildren J
have fun, biz
Cole Thompson
When one considers too that big initiatives tend to generate spin-off innovations, I'd expect the ROI for energy transformations to be quite high.