by Judith Curry
It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion.
-
Search
Denizens
Recent comments
- fafner on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Javier Vinós on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Bill Fabrizio on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Mike Jonas on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- cerescokid on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Michael Tranchina on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Wagathon on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Wagathon on There is no human right to a safe or stable climate
- Wagathon on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Javier Vinós on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
-
Recent Posts
- How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- There is no human right to a safe or stable climate
- The extraordinary climate events of 2022-24
- Mann v. Steyn: Round 2
- IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph
- Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part 3
- Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part II
- JC’s ethics complaint against Michael Mann
- JC’s expert report
- Time to retire the term ‘renewable energy’ from serious discussion and energy policy directives
- Two model-observation comparisons confirm: CMIP6 models run too hot
- Mann vs Steyn and Simberg discussion thread
- 2023 –> 2024
- “Realistic” global warming projections for the 21st century
- Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing
Categories
Blogroll
- A chemist in Langley
- AndThenTheresPhysics
- Bill Hooke
- Cliff Mass
- Climate Audit
- Clive Best
- Ed Hawkins
- HeterodoxAcademy
- Kahn: Environmental & Urban Economics
- Paul Homewood
- Pragmatic Environmentalist
- Saravanan: MetaModel
- Science of Doom
- The Ethical Skeptic
- Watts Up With That?
- WoodForTrees
- Wx & Climate @ Reading
Archives
Email Subscription
Join 5,331 other subscribersMeta
These are the geniuses you warmists want to run the energy economy.
“The National Parks Service attempted to shut down Mt. Vernon, George Washington’s plantation, earlier this week. There’s only one problem: As The Blaze points out, Mt. Vernon is owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, which receives no government funding.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/360423/national-park-service-attempts-barricade-mt-vernon-sterling-beard
Emotion is the primary tactic of progressives. Scary red graphs, dead polar bears, and orange cones around private parking lots.
Morons. We are surrounded by morons. And if we let them gain control over the energy economy, we will deserve the train wreck that follows.
“Emotion is the primary tactic of progressives”
“if we let them gain control over the energy economy, we will deserve the train wreck that follows.”
sounds emotive!
If I went looking for a real train wreck, and took pictures of the dead, and blamed it on James Hansen and Al Gore, then I would be on a par with y’all.
another emotive argument?
lolwot
Fear is the strongest and most basic emotion of all.
Someone who is fearful of AGW will have a hard time thinking rationally about this subject, because that person is driven by an emotion – fear.
Are you fearful of AGW?
Or are you just pretending to be?
Max
So whaddya think of fear-mongering about fear-mongering, of the sort that we see in thread after thread, from “skeptics” here at Climate Etc.
Oh. Wait. Alarmism is only alarmism when “they” do it.
My bad.
Joshua
Don’t know much about “alarmism about alarmism”.
But this has very little to do with the topic lolwot and I were discussing: the inability of someone driven by fear, the strongest of all emotions, to think rationally, when discussing the topic leading to that fear.
I have no fear (of CAGW or any other potential doomsday scenario), so I don’t have that problem.
Do you?
Max
He’s got holes in his bag of sophist tricks and all the good ones fell out.
============
What about fear-mongering about fear-mongering about fear-mongering then?
phatboy –
You do have a point there.
Ah, just like the turtles holding up the world, it’s “fear mongering” (or “Alarmism about alarmism”) all the way down, apparently.
Here’s what’s amusing:
Gary claims he’s not an elitist, and:
(1) describes anyone who he deems as “progressive” as a “moron.”
(2) describes some 70? 80?, 90%? of the American public as “progressives” (in other words anyone who would align their political views with Obama, Bush, McCain, Clinton, etc.
(3) believes he is inherently more “moral” than the vast majority of people on the planet who don’t share his beliefs on religious doctrine.
Ya’ just gotta love the “skeptical” mind. A work of art and a thing of beauty.
“Here’s what’s amusing”
What’s amusing is how you can make such a fool out of yourself over and over again, and continue to come back for more. You seem to have no human capacity for shame. Pretty interesting on one level.
Hey PG –
How’s it going?
As always, thanks for reading. Time for your shower now.
May the Bird of Paradise fly out of your shower nozzle.
=================
Sorry but I worked in defense when we used irrational fear of the Soviets to waste billions. Fear is used because fear works. Except when it doesnt
Suddenly I am thinking Strategic Coal Initiative
The future is less fearful without guilt. That may be the only completely generalized benefit of a cooling world.
===================
Steve, BSE and vCJD
I worked in defense when fear of the Soviets seemed to be sensible. I guess one’s perspective could have been influenced by how close one was to the guns of the Soviets and their proxies.
One whiff was enough for Dear Leader.
========
Nanocoal !!!
http://www.aem.umn.edu/people/faculty/joseph/archive/docs/390.pdf
I can see it now, one of those animations of little guys in hard hats horizontally drilling coal seams with nano muncher drill heads converting coal to diesel on the fly to pseudo-fuel gas turbines.
@Steven Mosher…
In the ’70’s I hung around with a bunch of libertarians, the type who join the Libertarian Party. I was told several times that the Soviet Union was, in effect, a “Potemkin” military power. (Not in those words, but that was the essence.) I didn’t believe it. I felt then, and looking back on it feel now, that my fear of the Soviet ideology and military power was perfectly rational and justified. By hindsight wrong, but rational and justified based on what I knew. I think you need to justify that “irrational“.
As for wasting, in sum it wasn’t wasted. The spin-off from military R&D (which includes the Internet)
wasis today worth far more than what was spent on it, to the US (whose citizens’ taxes paid for it), and the world.Really Don.
Tell me everything you know about the threat. Let’s pick an example. We prepared for a threat called the ASF. What was that and how real was it. Name the guys who validated this threat.
Ah yes, the Aterato Spaghetti Fleet, plenty real enough for me. Good times. Valid times.
===============
S.M.,”Sorry but I worked in defense when we used irrational fear of the Soviets to waste billions”
Mr Mosher, actually I think you have that backwards. We wasted billions so the Soviets would have an irrational fear of us … and then crumble under the pressure.
“….The spin-off from military R&D (which includes the Internet) was is today worth far more than what was spent on it,….”
Wrong! The internet was invented by Al Gore. Duh!
Yeah, that irrational fear thing sure plagued the Czechs, Hungarians, Latvians, Estonians, East Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Afghans, Cubans, Nicaraguans, South Vietnamese, South Koreans and other lucky beneficiaries of those harmless Soviets, for decades. Oh, not to mention the millions of Russians also killed and imprisoned by those silly communists.
“We prepared for a threat called the ASF. What was that and how real was it.”
“We” prepared for all kinds of threats – in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and South America. The Soviets were involved in most of the scenarios. None of them came to pass. It’s what the military of major powers with global interests and responsibilities do.
But thank God Mosher was there for a minor part of it, to record for history the stupidity of it all.
Pompous much?
Do you know what an RPK is, Steven? Anyway, I am not familiar with all the cute acronyms used by the REMFs in their little white papers. Has ASF got anything to do with the Soviets’ strategic nuclear arsenal? Or was it about the composition and posture of their conventional forces in Europe? Did anybody ever figure out why they had so many airborne divisions?
In retrospect, we shouldn’t have been worried about the Soviets’ offensive capabilities. Some of us military and intelligence types mucking about in the trenches got the idea that they were bad actors, but we were proven to be alarmists. The Soviets were pussycats. The Cold War would have ended a lot sooner, if we had listened to those peace loving souls who preached unilateral disarmament. Would have saved us a lot of money.
Doc gets it.
Bottom line fellas. We all have used and misused fear as a motivator
Mosh
A question addressed to all our US friends.
Nowhere over the last week have I seen anyone here or at WUWT refer to the budget crisis now a the heart of the US govt nor the even more serious debt ceiling currently at 17Billion$ and due to be breached in the next two weeks.
It fundamentally affects your economy and the world economy and US credibility. Is anyone over there concerned about these two issues which after all directly impact on your ability to spend trillions in combating what some see as a climate problem?
tonyb
Maybe you just used a bad example to make a trivial point, Steve.
It’s not really a crisis, tony.
Don
America cant pay its wage bills and is sinking ever further into gargantuan debt. I know its happened before but when US officials and your president cancel trips to Europe and Asia because they haven’t got the budget (appreciate there are politics here linked to obamacare) and the debt ceiling renegotiation looms ever close why isn’t that a crisis?
The US owes a lot of money to creditors all over the world and s increasingly being viewed with nervousness. Why are you Guys so sanguine about it?
tonyb
At the flashpoint of the nexus of unparalleled obtrusiveness and generational grinding debt, the American people are united on a single vision, keeping the putting green at the Andrews Air Force Base open.
=====================
Steven Mosher
Of course, politicians have used fear in the populace of imaginary hobgoblins as a key motivational factor for ages (Mencken).
The CAGW shtick is nothing unique at all, just more of the same.
But these fear mongering campaigns all eventually sputter out, as the populace realizes that “there is nothing to fear but fear itself”.
This is now happening, as the public notices that the global temperature is cooling slightly despite unabated human GHG emissions and failed projections of rapid warming b y the IPCC models.
These doomsday predictions all fail (by definition).
Max
Ok, maybe too much money was spent and wasted in defense.
Is that reason enough to waste money on useless and inefficient “mitigation” measures?
Maybe the scare tactics about the Soviet menace were exaggerated, is that a good reason to exaggerate the climate scare ?
I travelled behind the Iron Curtain in the 1960s, and I can assure you that there was nothing whatsoever irrational about our fear of the Soviet Union.
But I don’t expect you to believe that, I’ve noticed your impermeability to facts and predilection to the “Progressive” mindset to many times to have have any illusions on that front.
The government “shutdown” and the recurring fight over the debt limit are political theater, tony. The debt crisis is being rolled into the future for some other set of politicians to deal with.
Mosh
Let’s forget about the Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Poles, Czehs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, etc., who were very grateful that the USA eventually wore down the USSR by spending billions on defense..
But the “billions wasted on defense” to eventually bring down the Soviet Union might have been even more expensive (and certainly more destructive) for the USA (and the world) had there been a WWIII between the USA and the USSR, instead.
So – in hindsight – spending these “billions” may have been the best thing to do.
Who knows?
While both are based on “fear”, I see a real difference between this spending and the proposed “climate mitigation” actions:
a) there is no well substantiated “real and present threat” from AGW
b) there are no specific actionable proposals, which can be shown to have a real net beneficial impact for humanity or our environment.
And these are big differences.
Max
No Mass, no Mass.
=======
Does Kim’s “No mass, no mass” refer to the mass converted to energy a la E=mc^2 when a nuke goes off? Certainly the USSR had enough nukes to pose an existential threat to the US and the West. Should we have pretended that threat, no matter what other capabilities the USSR did or did not have, was not real?
“Emotion is the primary tactic of progressives.”
Gary, as if the right is any better. How did the neocons inveigle us into that unfunded fiasco of a war in Iraq?
pokerguy,
I thought you were a former progressive? You sure do repeat the mantras of progressivism with surprising accuracy.
The Iraq war was not a fiasco. It was brilliantly conceived and executed. Getting bogged down in the political aftermath was a fiasco.
If left to the military, it would have been an in and out job. Go back later and kick the crap out of them again, if and when necessary. Same story for Afghanistan and any other freakingistan. Politicians who have never had their boots on the ground need to listen to expert advice.
A canter down some dark defile.
======
H/t the magic rabbit winks.
====================
Ah, pg, to create a nation of Sistanis is worth the gamble. Marsh Arabs may yet be the innovation most useful in that bitter sectarian unsecular struggle.
==============
“Gary, as if the right is any better.”
So, if the right, too, is wrong, that makes the progressive scare mongering about the climate ok?
“I thought you were a former progressive”
Gary, I no longer feel the need to label myself in that way. I’m a thinking human being, with opinions that are not predetermined on the basis of any one political philosophy. The notion that conservatives are better people is manifest nonsense. And Don’s insistence that the ludicrous Iraq war was brilliantly conceived is imo, more of the same. You guys suffer from the same kind of moral and intellectual blindness that you’re so quick to identify on the left.
You are conflating military operations and politics, pokerguy. The politicians decided that we needed to invade Iraq. The first time to free Kuwait and the second time to remove a dangerous despotic regime that went out of its way to make it appear that it possessed weapons of mass destruction that our politicians decided posed a threat to our safety and interests.
The ball was handed to the military. The military operations were brilliantly planned and executed. We kicked the crap out of them once and then did it again. The political decision to stay in Iraq and get bogged down in an attempt to plant peace and democracy amongst crazy people was not brilliant. That is all I am saying. And you are free to conflate. Carry on.
“Gary, I no longer feel the need to label myself in that way. ”
Not “I was wrong to have believed what progressives taught.” Not “I made a mistake in being misled by progressive propaganda (on climate or anything else).”
Nope. I no longer feel the need to label myself.
This puts you in the Christopher Hitchens camp of people who have suddenly realized, not that they were wrong, but that those with whom they formerly agreed were wrong. Which is a nice piece of mental gymnastics if you can pull it off.
That way you can still claim that the people you thought were stupid when you were a progressive, are still stupid. It’s just that the people you formerly agreed with are also stupid now.
Ah the wonders of being one of the few, the enlightened…the muddled middle.
Ruh roh, is my master stupid?
=======
Will NASA now reveal the purpose of AGW propaganda?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/03/did-the-ar5-take-the-dangerous-out-of-agw/#comment-393078
“I believe that UHI and land use change are a major component of the observed warming trend. Multidecadal cycles in the sun and oceans account for most all of the rest… [historical readings from ] Central Park NYC shows what a mess the UHI and versioning by NOAA of data has been… there is no way jose we could hope to estimate global changes to a precision of 0.1 F. In the words of John von Neumann, father of the computer and of algorithms, There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.” ~Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
“There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about”
I guess that might explain why Joseph D’Aleo doesn’t even bother trying to be precise!
100% ad hom attack
100% ad hom attack
All he’s got, except for denialist hand waving. Ironic, isn’t it?
lolwot goes to war with the weapons he has, infringing with his poorly regulated use of them.
================
One interesting article is on how much more carbon can we put in the atmosphere for the 2 C limit. Turns out we are half way there already, and the rapid-burning RCP8.5 scenario puts that total only 30 years away. It makes a point that I have been recently that warming needs to be expressed in terms of the total emissions rather than ppm levels, and goals should be set in terms of an accumulated total, rather than just a rate like Kyoto’s 1990 levels, because it is the cumulative total that determines the final temperature.
http://insights.wri.org/news/2013/09/world%E2%80%99s-carbon-budget-be-spent-three-decades
” One interesting article is on how much more carbon can we put in the atmosphere for the 2 C limit. Turns out we are half way there already, and the rapid-burning RCP8.5 scenario puts that total only 30 years away.”
It’s not interesting, It’s wrong. But if it is right why are we not building nuclear power plants as fast as we can, as it is the one energy source that could displace fossil fuel in a meaningful way right now?
Because 13 years ago Al Gore told us it would take us 10 years to get to an all Electric fleet, and 20 year for Nuclear. Plus which, Nuclear is evil.
I do wish they had spent that $1T stimulus on Nuclear, instead of whatever they spent it on. Of course, it didn’t help France.
Jim D
You cite an article:
”World’s carbon budget to be spent in three decades”
To arrive at your statement:
What determines the theoretical increase in temperature resulting from GH warming over a time period is the change in GHG concentration over that period, in a logarithmic correlation (you know this). The change in concentration (ppm) is dependent on the cumulative human emission over that period, so your statement is basically correct.
But let’s do a quick “sanity check” on the article by Kelly Levin in “WRI Insights”, which you cited to justify your statement
– First of all, Ms Levin’s article is based on the IPCC “worst case” high-coal, high-forcing, high end climate change scenario RCP8.5, not on a more likely case. This scenario has CO2 rising to around 750 ppmv by year 2100.
– Second, the 2ºC “upper limit” for AGW is based on the baseline temperature of 1750 – 260 years ago! We have already seen about 1.0ºC warming over those 260 years (most of it occurring long before humans emitted much GHGs at all) and we are doing just fine, thank you. In fact we are arguably doing much better than we were as we were still emerging from the harsher climate period called the Little Ice Age. (I have pointed out to you several times that it as absurd to start a warming “prediction” with the year 1750 – duh!)
– Third, we now have several recent observation-based studies that inform us that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity at equilibrium (ESC) is around 1.8ºC, or about half the 3ºC predicted by the IPCC models.
Humans now emit around 33 GtCO2 per year.
World population is 7.1 billion, so per capita CO2 emission is 4.65 tons.
In 1980, total CO2 emissions were 19.5 GtCO2.
Population was 4.4 billion, so per capita CO2 emission was 4.43 tons.
So over the past 33 years, the per capita CO2 emission has grown by:
(4.65 / 4.43) – 1 = 4.9%
UN estimates that world population will grow to around 9.2 billion by 2043.
Let’s assume that per capita CO2 emission increases by another 5% over this period
Annual CO2 emission in 2043 would then be:
33.0 Gt * 1.05 * 9.2 / 7.1 = 44.9 GtCO2
And the cumulative emission over the next 30 years would be:
(33.0 + 44.9) * 30 / 2 = 1168 GtCO2
50% of this “remains” in atmosphere = 584 GtCO2
Mass of atmosphere = 5,140,000 Gt
So added CO2 adds:
584 * 1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 114 ppm(mass) = 75 ppmv
2013 level: 395 ppmv = C0
2043 level: 470 ppmv = C1
C1/C0 = 1.189
ln(C1/C0) = 0.1734
ln(2) = 0.6931
Using IPCC’s (arguably exaggerated) model prediction of 2xCO2 ECS of 3ºC, this would result in warming above today (at equilibrium) of:
3.0 * 0.1734 / 0.6931 = 0.8ºC
And using the latest observation-based estimates of 2xCO2 ECS of 1.8ºC, the warming would be:
0.5ºC
a) This will not get us to the “magic” 2ºC above 1760 temperature
b) It is certainly nothing to get worried about, as it is less than 1ºC warming above today.
Yawn!
Jim, when you cite an article it is always best to first check how realistic it is.
Max
manacker, you need to calculate again what 470 ppm gives you over 280 ppm at 3 C sensitivity. It is over 2 C. What you forgot is what is in the pipeline, which is why to avoid doing calculations starting with today’s ppm. Their scenario amounts to emissions being 50% larger than yours by 2043, almost doubling between 2010 and 2043. Emissions doubled in the last 33 years, so this is a plausible upper limit which RCP8.5 is designed to be. A trillion tonnes of carbon, being 3666 GtCO2 as a cap is ambitious given that we are already nearing 2000 GtCO2, leaving 1700 GtCO2 in the budget. At today’s rate, it would be used within 50 years. With a somewhat ambitious ramping linearly down to zero starting today, we have 100 years. This requires a reduction of 3.5 GtCO2 per decade, about a tenth of todays emission rate. From this point of view, I could be more optimistic because it is not far from current targets.
I assume that was Mad Max’s self-critique of his own ramblings.
2C sounds fantastic. And I mean it both ways.
The other day where I live the maximum temp was 8C colder than normal.
We could have used the extra 2C,
More on this. I found the IPCC section relevant to a proposed carbon budget.
“The principal driver of long term warming is total emissions of CO2 and the two quantities are approximately linearly related. The global mean warming per 1000 PgC (transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions, TCRE) is likely between 0.8°C–2.5°C per 1000 PgC, for cumulative emissions less than about 2000 PgC until the time at which temperatures peak. To limit the warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions alone to be likely less than 2°C relative to preindustrial, total CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources would need to be limited to a cumulative budget of about 1000 PgC over the entire industrial era. About half [460–630 PgC] of this budget was already emitted by 2011. Accounting for projected warming effect of non CO2 forcing, a possible release of greenhouse gases from permafrost or methane hydrates, or requiring a higher likelihood of temperatures remaining below 2°C, all imply a lower budget. [12.5.4, Figure 12.45, 12.46, Box 12.2]”.
An item in Huff Post on it here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/carbon-budget-ipcc_n_4045946.html
That’s what I’m talking about. I fully agree with trying for this as it is more sensible than targets relative to 1990 levels for example, and it does lead to leaving certain fossil fuels in the ground, and using the cleanest ones. Whether there will be any global commitment, who knows?
Praises for Senior:
http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/have-i-been-rogered.html
Yes, but the green line.
Bravo. See the sks dialogue with Sr. A while back.
“In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit,” according to Joseph D’Aleo and he asks the big question: is ALASKA HEADED FOR AN ICE AGE?
Wagathon
If I lived in Alaska the very last thing I would worry about is “global warming”.
Max
Yeah, I’d be worried about the Russians. You can see them from there, you know.
“You can see them from there, you know.”
Where Putin rears his head.
I see Leftists…
Having talked to several Alaskans, they are actually more afraid of Washington (DC) that they are of the Russians.
Max
They have been taken in by the alarmism … about carbon taxes, that is.
Germany estimates their green revolution will cost them 1 Trillion Euros by 2030 and drive most of their industry out of the country.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/german-green-revolution-may-cost-1-trillion-euros/
GOING NEGATIVE WITH HEMP AND BECCS
I don’t think anyone at this point who has even the slightest knowledge about the earth’s climate will deny that CO2 has been increasing in the atmosphere. Whether or not you believe it is a causal factor (of some sort) for the increased warming you cannot deny that obviously it did not kill off the human species when it was in a smaller concentration. Reducing and Removing CO2 while providing energy can only be a WIN/WIN proposition for any rational thinking person.
HEMP GROWS JUST ABOUT ANYWHERE!
Going negative: Stanford scientists explore new ways to remove atmospheric CO2
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions may not be enough to curb global warming, say Stanford University scientists. The solution could require carbon-negative technologies that actually remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-reducing-carbon-dioxide-021513.html
http://gcep.stanford.edu/index.html
BECCS
“Net negative emissions can be achieved when more greenhouse gases are sequestered than are released into the atmosphere,” explained Milne, an energy assessment analyst at GCEP. “One of the most promising net-negative technologies is BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.”
A typical BECCS system converts woody biomass, grass and other vegetation into electricity, chemical products or fuels, such as ethanol. CO2 emissions released during the process are captured and stored. The technology can be used in power plants, paper mills, ethanol processors and other manufacturing facilities.
As a carbon-negative technology, BECCS takes advantage of the innate ability of trees, grasses and other plants to absorb atmospheric CO2 for photosynthesis. In nature, the CO2 is eventually released back into the atmosphere as the plant decays.
But when vegetation is processed at a BECCS facility, the CO2 emissions are captured and prevented from re-entering the environment. The result is a net-negative reduction in atmospheric CO2.
HEMP IS AN EXCELLENT BIOFUEL
I would suggest we stop wasting time and money cap and trade schemes like California having capped their cement manufacturing requiring importing it from China that only increases CO2 by less efficient industry and transport.
Start producing Biofuel with the BECCS method using Hemp:
http://www.lbjjournal.com/op-ed/energy-and-environmental-policy/hemp-solution-climate-change
How hemp can save the planet
Reducing CO2 through taxation or a “cap and trade” system is very expensive. The cap and trade system proposed by Waxman-Markey, the most recent cap and trade bill proposed in Congress, was estimated to cost the average American family $1,731 a year, a hefty cost considering the EPA has said that such a carbon tax would have virtually no effect on the climate. The cost proposed in Waxman-Markey were around $20 to $30 per ton of CO2. Other cost estimates are much higher. Private firms estimate that it will cost between $160 and $260 per ton to reduce CO2emissions to 1990 levels. What is that going to cost the American taxpayer?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to free up the market by eliminating arcane restrictions rather than try to tax away the problem of carbon pollution?
Hemp removes 10 times the amount of CO2 from the atmosphere per acre as an acre of trees, makes four times the amount of paper per acre as an acre of trees and grows in almost any climate without the need for pesticides or fertilizers. Considering that 25% of all of the world’s pesticides are used on American cotton, hemp is an environmentally friendly and sustainable competitor in the fiber market.
Growing hemp for fiber, paper and plastic would remove CO2 from and keep it out of the atmosphere by converting it into durable goods. For example, Popular Science in 1941 showcased a car designed by Henry Ford that he “grew from the soil” made of hemp plastic.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hemp+solution+to+global+warming&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.floodgap:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
HEMP + BECCS = ENERGY AND CLIMATE SOLUTION
MAYBE IT’S TIME TO STOP ARGUING AND WASTING MONEY ON CLIMATE REPORTS AND CAP AND TRADE AND PUT SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY TO GOOD USE!!!
P.S. I know, I know it sounds like the seventies and deja vu all over again. Just turn down your thermostat and put on a sweater – Jimma.
You’re right! Hemp could completely reverse the CO2 trend!
All we have to do is plant lots of it, and make it _completely_ illegal for anyone to burn or consume hemp in any fashion, to keep the CO2 from returning to the atmosphere!
Your not mixing up hemp with marijuana are you?
I luv Open Thread, yer can git ter behave like
Bad Andrew. )
Nay-chur Rules:
It was only meant to be a flying visit.
Tower of London, the British Museum and Hyde Park.
House locked down, blinds drawn, turn the power off,
cancel the mail … then a sudden change of plans.
She wants to see Versailles, the Marie Antoinette
show, the Orangerie. He wants to visit Austria,
Otzi, neanderthal man, snap frozen in an alpine
snow storm, preserved for visitors along with
Otzi’s grass cloak and artifacts in
a museum in the southern Tyrol.
And so, back home, the grass begins to grow,
Spring showers bring flowers, a few friesias,
clumps of shell grass, soon, like the song,
you’re looking over some four leafed clover,
chick weed coming up through cracks in crazy
paving. Black birds move into the manicured
espalier, build a messy nest, raise two chicks.
They say nature’s first green is gold, the
clipped hedge is having a field day in
new shoots, a few off spring take root..
In the prim summer house a golden orb spider
builds its nocturnal web. Sun showers
bring more flowers, dandelions that mimic
the sun, a veritable plantation of
plantain weed. tall spear grass putting on
heads like corn that bend in the breeze.
Say, what’s happened to the lawn?
Its become a meadow …they’ve
been gone too long.
BC
cool the temp
plant hemp
Far out, Wavey Gravey.
Let’s discuss, Kill “Climate etc”; permanent preposterous profligacy.
Good idea. And then resurrect it as a Twitter feed.
Maybe global warming isn’t “hiding”. Maybe the heat just didn’t enter the system. …
This is a very interesting video by an astronomer and a solar researcher :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNP5MndOYwk
At 4:02 in the video the astronomer says that the Sun has been in an oddly quiet period. The solar cycle [that has just ended] took 14 years instead of the usual 11 years. He says, “That is probably the reason why global warming has plateaud [sp?] a little bit, despite the carbon dioxide levels increasing …”.
“Many solar researchers think the reason is the Sun. Because when the Sun is quieter, that corresponds to cooler weather on Earth.”
It makes me wonder if solar researchers have any input into the IPCC reports. It would be logical to at least consult them, since knowing how much energy is entering a system would seem to be a necessary first step.
Peter Yates,
The heat went into “The Deep”.
Webby
Maybe.
But we can’t measure it, so I’ll just have to take your word for it, Webby.
Max
“The heat went into “The Deep”.”
Naturally you can prove that?
You know, with empirical instrumental information not Xbox games – er sorry, I mean computer models?
No? Wow, what a surprise!
You’re a funny little chap, aren’t you?
You guys are just a bit clueless. The commenter I responded to was named Peter Yates, who I recalled was the director of the blockbuster 70’s action movie “The Deep”.
Yes, you are right! .. He was the director of “The Deep”, and also “Bullitt” with the car chase by Steve McQueen, and “Breaking Away”, etc. … Sadly I am not the same person! … cheers.
WHT I missed that one too. At least Peter Yates got it!
Is there a global warming problem?
JC message to IPCC: Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models… [and] do the hard work of understanding regional vulnerability to climate variability and change… let us know if you come up with any solutions to this problem that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.
Cancun Climate Change Cocktail: add a shot of schnapps, an ounce of seawater and four ounces of snow to a cocktail shaker, shake vigorously and repeat until world ends.
Don’t forget a little carbonation.
Jim D, “2 C limit”
What genius came up with the that limit Jim.
What would your limit be, 4 C, 6 C? Are these better worlds than 2 C? What about your ideal sea-level, if you could choose?
The article I posted above shows, in my view, how difficult it would be to stop short of 2 C because we just can’t decelerate the burning rate fast enough. Their trillion-tonne carbon limit is an easy concept to understand however, and really is the bottom line that matters.
JIMD
So what year was the temperature of the goldilocks porridge ‘just right’?
tonyb
So far it has stayed below 1 C, and I would like to keep it that way. Hansen suggests 350 ppm to maintain the planet the way all current life developed on it, and that corresponds to 1 C, but requires net sequestration now so I don’t give it much hope. But, given a choice, 1 C, the 20th century value, steady-state climate, no surprises, is better than we are heading for.
JIMd
The 20th century contains an awful wide range of values. Please be more specific as to the year of the perfect climate
tonyb
The 20th century is in the range 0-1 C, which I would argue is better than for example 3-5 C. But if you want a year, 350 ppm was the value in 1988, coincidentally the year of Hansen’s plea to Congress.
Jim D
You tell tony b that your ideal “just right Goldilocks global temperature” is that of 1988.
HadCRUT4 showed an anomaly of 0.201C in 1988
It showed an anomaly of 0.448C in 2012
So the global warming since 1988 is 0.247C (of course, this is averaged annually and globally all over the world).
Has this added quarter of a degree C caused you any discomfort or distress? If so, how?
(It hasn’t caused me any.)
In fact, since I live in central Europe, I’d welcome another degree or two of warming above today’s temperature.
Tony b lives in England (and is apparently struggling with making tomatoes grow there), so I suppose he would not mind another degree or two, as well.
And, hey, the good news (from IPCC) is that most of the warming would occur at higher latitudes that are still below the average ambient temperature favored by homo sapiens sapiens, so it sounds like good news all around.
Higher SL? Add another meter to the dikes, if and when it appears that this would be needed.
Problem solved.
Max
manacker, yes, plus or minus 0.5 degrees, no problem. We are already committed to more than that. Four degrees with no mitigation, big problems.
I have had problems with tomatoes as well, not so much this year. Last year it didn’t get cold enough to set fruit until October.
Back in 1988, I thought it was too hot, then came 1995, not to mention 2012, I’ll take 1988 now but the temps of the 70s would be better.
Increasing the size of sea walls and dykes etc. will not work everywhere, especially Miami.
Jim D
Huh?
Evidence?
And how much less with mitigation?
List specific actionable mitigation proposals and the resulting reduction in warming from each.
And, while you’re at it, add a price tag, so we can see how much a hundredth of a degree averted warming costs us before we pay up.
Awaiting your reply.
Max
manacker, 4 C can very easily come from 5 W/m2 forcing changes, and these forcing changes can very easily come from the carbon we have left to burn, however long that takes. It is not a stretch to say this for a no-mitigation scenario.
JUmD
1988? You have just demonstrated why we should stop talking about ‘GLOBAL’ warming and treat the earth as the complex system it is where there is warming AND cooling.
. Here is CET from 1772.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
We are currently lower than 1988 and back to the temperatures of the 1920-1940 period and also the period around 1730 which showed the biggest hockey stick in the entire 350 year CET record.
tonyb
tonyb, you personally may be below 1988, but 99% of the rest of the world are decidedly not. Land temperatures have risen at least 0.5 C in that time, so your downward dip is temporary and local.
Jimd
99% of the rest of the world is NOT above their recent past values. We did a study on this 3 years ago.
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
According to DR Muller-who I asked-around one third of the world is cooling. According to Mosh you have to be aware of a variety of factors and the degree of cooling and the % varies according to the parameters used..
tonyb
tonyb, well I see a blue spot for CET in that 1970-2009 trend. Is that what you were referring to? It doesn’t look like a third to me.
jimd
the sampling you see in the article are a fraction of those available. Due to big oil cutting my lavish funding my large team of highly paid researchers were unable to examine the others before I made them redundant.
We estimated one third of stations were cooling from the sampling we did. I emailed DR Muller and asked him and he came up with an almost identical figure. Mosh has confirmed this but there are caveats.
Are you surprised that such a large proportion of the world is not warming?. Another substantial but as yet undetermined percentage is affected by UHI to some degree or other.
That is not to say that the world has not warmed over the last 350 years,. CET shows a long slow thaw set in around 1690.Glaciers started melting around 1750.
tonyb
tonyb, clearly I am not looking at that last red-dominated figure the way you are. CET may be an exception because it also became very wet since 2000. Someone said the five wettest years on record have been since 2000 in Britain, but I would like to see that confirmed because it was only on TV.
“Most importantly, Rosetta estimates that on its entire position in Reeves County, it has over 100 million barrels of oil equivalent in place per section (one square mile). The estimate is truly staggering. To put it in perspective, if only 10% of total oil and gas originally in place could be recovered, gross revenue from each square mile could exceed $600 million over the life of the property (using $90 per barrel oil price realization and $5/MMBtu “wet” gas price realization and assuming reserve mix of 67% oil and 33% gas). By comparison, in its current estimates, Rosetta assumes average recovery factor of approximately 3.8%.”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1721202-rosetta-resources-100-million-barrels-per-square-mile-in-the-permian
This model gives a maximum production rate of Bakken wells of 1.4 million barrels/day, but only if the number of new wells is added at the rate of 150 per month, or about 5 new wells per day.
http://entroplet.com/context_bakken/navigate
This is likely not sustainable.
apart of CO2, H2O is blamed for warming also; have a look at this: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/water-vapor-h2o/
Otto and others already braving the extremes of a region where sunlight disappears for 60 days a year are experiencing a new phenomenon: daily life navigating the risks and opportunities of climate change.
The Arctic has heated up twice as fast as the rest of the planet in the past three decades. By August 2013, sea ice had lost 76 percent of its volume compared to 1979, according to the University of Washington’s Polar Ice Center. Citing core samples taken from ice sheets, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group, reported on Sept. 27 that the three main gases blamed for global warming –carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — are at their highest level in at least 800,000 years.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-02/alaska-hunts-oil-as-arctic-damage-shows-most-change-from-climate.html
As a rational and reasonably intelligent person who has been around a while, I find it hard to believe that such a ridiculous claim could be made with any confidence. There is no way to reliably measure these gas concentrations. Period. I find it also hard to believe that the billions (with a “B”) of bison who converted the stored CO2 in prairie gases to methane for thousands of years along with the billions of other grazing animals which once roamed the planet, did not elevate methane above the current level.
I only posted it because it is related to global warming. The views expressed in the article are not necessarily those of the poster.
Has anyone heard of a warmist blog called “HotWhopper”. It’s run by Miriam O’Brien ” a sixty something women” going by the name of sou. She seems to hava an obsession with writing nasty posts about Whats Up With That. See here
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/jeffery-s-patterson-throws-away-signal.html
Had a quick browse through some of the posts, doesn’t seem to be anything new except more data manipulation.
That’s OK, since WUWT seems to have an obsession with writing nasty posts about Skeptical Science.
Agreed. But everyone writes nasty posts about Skeptical Science
Bruce
This is a blog that Fan frequently links to for some reason. I think she believes it is profound.
tonyb
Sans sou ci.
=========
Judith- Would you please comment on Scafetta’s paper regarding harmonics and temperature? Thanks
7 Key Points that will drive the Natural Gas Market
1. There are new proven techniques to extract more natural gas.
2. There are large new found fields, old fields that can increase production and unrealized natural gas fields that companies are just beginning to drill and come on line in the near future.
3. There are many companies, small and large that are buying/leasing new lands and engaged in producing more natural gas.
4. Currently, and for the needs of the future, there is not enough infrastructure to take the natural gas to market.
5. There are not enough markets that can buy the amount of gas that will be produced.
6. There are 3 licensed export terminals to sell the gas overseas, but limited the terminals are not up and running at this point in time. The infrastructure to get gas to the terminals is still being planned and built. The infrastructure will be built over time, but expect 3-5 years for the maturity to develop and start relieving the supply pressure.
7. With the gas glut, the price has been driven down and will remain there for the next several years. Companies will consolidate, some go out of business and others take losses until the supply levels to the demand level. The demand will grow and increase, but expectations in the market are 3-5 years.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1726922-natural-gas-drilling-explosion-in-utica-shale-fields-sustain-gas-surplus
Leo Dicaprio says we need to do something. Q.E.D.
Heh, not to be confused with the other other JC
Hehe. Actually, John, you’ve probably been here longer, making me the other other JC.
Well, i’m inclined to think perhaps Jim Cripwell hold the title as the original other JC.
When we speak of renewable energy shouldn’t we be concerned with how much conventional energy was used to produce it? (What is the net?). One example, if a crop like corn or sugar is converted into ethanol, how much gasoline, fertilizer, tractor life, etc., was used up in obtaining the final product? Or wind power; how much conventional energy was used in manufacturing the blades and generator, the support structure, transport to the site, periodic maintenance over the life of the turbine? Not talking about amortizing the finances over the life span, but apportioning the ratio of conventional energy to the total product output. Can we ever smelt iron, for example, with totally renewable energy?
“When we speak of renewable energy shouldn’t we be concerned with how much conventional energy was used to produce it? (What is the net?). One example, if a crop like corn or sugar is converted into ethanol, how much gasoline, fertilizer, tractor life, etc., was used up in obtaining the final product? Or wind power; how much conventional energy was used in manufacturing the blades and generator, the support structure, transport to the site, periodic maintenance over the life of the turbine? Not talking about amortizing the finances over the life span, but apportioning the ratio of conventional energy to the total product output. Can we ever smelt iron, for example, with totally renewable energy?”
It’s interesting question. A practical applicable is when you consider human settlement on Mars- no fossil fuel or oxygen atmosphere to burn it in, if there was fossil fuel.
Many people consider nuclear energy as the only solution in regard to Mars. But even with nuclear energy it’s usually assume the nuclear fuel will come from Earth.
Mars gets about 60% less solar energy at Mars distance as compared to
Earth distance. Or 1360 watts times .4 is 544 watts. And Mars varies but get around 600 watts per square meter square.
But because Mars lacks an atmosphere and Earth’s atmosphere [without considering Earth’s clouds] blocks a significant amount of solar energy, the difference between Mars is less than one could imagine. And if include Earth clouds [and don’t include Mars global dust storms] Mars on average gets more solar energy at it’s surface than compared to Earth.
If just look at Germany, it’s get average total of solar energy of about 2 kW per average day [due to clouds and due low angle of sun at Germany latitude. Whereas latitude [other dust storms] doesn’t matter on Mars in terms of average daily amount solar energy. So clear skies on Mars and you getting about 600 watts per square meter if pointed at the Sun and you get about 12 hours of it on averaged per day.
And like the Earth, Mars polar regions get 1/2 a year of daylight and 1/2 year of night, but there big difference due to Mars thin atmosphere. In arctic on Earth it’s worse then Germany, though one can get a long period of constant sunlight, whereas on Mars you have longer year [so even longer period of constant sunlight] and one gets about much sunlight per hour sunlight at polar region as in equator.
So Mars is in terms of solar energy is better on average than Earth- Earth can be better if generally cloudless [like in Sahara Desert] but most places on Earth is not better.
So for energy concerns with Mars and harvesting solar energy, if you terraform Mars to reduce or eliminate global dust storms, then Mars would be clearly better than Earth.
The Moon in regards to solar harvesting energy is much better than Mars or anywhere on Earth. It no atmosphere. It has “ethereal peaks of light” allowing greater than 80% of the time having sunlight- sunlight at 1360 watts per square meter.
The Moon lacks fossil fuel and lack oxygen atmosphere, but it could have minable water- which can be split into hydrogen and oxygen.
Bootstrapping the moon based on economy based on solar energy would be possible.
And the moon [as does Mars] has minable fissionable ore. And the moon would be excellent place for nuclear energy. Or the Moon would also be an excellent place to store nuclear waste.
Let’s look at areas on the Moon which are in polar region. The moon day if 28 hours long- about 14 day of sunlight and 14 days of night.
So during the 14 days you get 1360 watts per hour of constant sunlight.
Of course you also get the 14 days of night. If you have the requirement of having a constant amount of electrical power over full day [28 days] you have the problem of storing energy. But this could be unnecessary
requirement.
And at region in the Moon’s poles with “ethereal peaks of light” in one location one could get 90% of the time being in sunlight, and within relatively small region at different locations, one can 100% of the time with solar energy available. So in polar region you have situation where no electrical power need to be stored in order to have a constant electrical energy supply. So you get 80 to 90% of time of constant sunlight and if have few different location which could within 100 km of each other, get constant supply of electrical energy without needing to store the electrical power.
Far as single location, one could get more than 80% so on average daily amount this is 24 hours times 1360 times .8 which is 26 kW per average 24 hour day, and compared to Earth best you can get is about 8 kW hours per day. A much higher energy density.
In addition one could not use solar panels to make electrical power- you alternative ways which are currently used on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
Though the Moon could be excellent place to make photovoltaics- which require high heat and vacuum conditions.
This is one of the reasons I find cellelose ethanol to be the most attractive form of renewable energy. Poet are contemplating using 1 ton per acre of farm product, which would otherwise be wasted, and for which the necessary energy had already been expended.
How bad do things have to get before demagogue party is seen for what it is: the party of self-defeating nihilists riding the decline like Slim Pickens riding the bomb in Dr. Strangelove.
Where are the computer models that model natural climate cycles starting with milennial timesales? (paleo/Milkanovitch data from IPCC AR5 WG1 fig 5.3)
Predictions of planetary temperatures could be completely wrong from the beginning.
What is the core temperature of a disc shaped blackbody of infinite thermal mass (size doesn’t matter)? The side in the sun tries to be in radiative thermal equilibrium with the sun computed at about 391K or 118C (Stefann-Boltzmann equation). This is not far off the temperature of the sunlit moon. The side in space tries to be in radiative thermal equilibrium with space at zeroK. The core temperature of such a body should be the mean of the two surface temperatures, 195.5K or -77.5C.
However, the core temperature of earth is about 6000K. The core temperature of the moon is about 1400K. So the mean surface temperature ends up being somewhere lower than core but higher than predicted radiative thermal equilibrium temperature. More complex calculations could quantify this…..
So what happens to the temperature if we expand the very thin object into a thin lens shape? or a sphere? Should shape make any difference?
Size, material, reflectivity, etc should have no impact on the “core temperature” of the object in the sun because anything that enhances/reduces absorption of the sunlight also reciprocally enhances/reduces emission to space.
This phenomenon could easily be demonstrated in space by very simple experiment. The hypothesis is that material composition makes no difference to the “core temperature” of an object with half in the sun and half in space.
I have a new post coming up in the next few days, which should interest (annoy) just about everyone with an interest in the climate problem.
Stay tuned!
X
Pessimistic Predictions
Global temperature changes
IPCC predictions in 1990, 1995, 2001 & 2007
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bild-923937-548145.html
Let me repeat my question from an earlier thread. See if I get any answers. Has anyone seen whether or how the first half of the 20th century is treated in AR5? My search, admittedly not exhaustive, has been fruitless so far? Judith?
Was this point acknowledged in AR5 ??
The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is known to diminish as concentrations increase. This diminution effect is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.
Both skeptics and Global Warming advocates agree on this.
An earlier IPCC report, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has been in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) .
Up to ~200 ppmv, the equivalent to about 82% of the temperature increasing effectiveness of CO2, is absolutely essential to maintain plant life and thus all life on earth. The current level of ~400 ppmv is already committed and immutable. At that level it amounts to 93% of the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere .
Thus only ~7% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a warming greenhouse gas now remains.
So there can only ever be a minor temperature reduction impact of any de-carbonization policy, controlling CO2 emissions. Whatever political efforts are made to de-carbonize free world economies or to reduce man-made CO2 emissions, (and to be effective at temperature control those efforts would have to be universal and worldwide), those efforts can only now affect at most ~7% of the residual future warming effect of CO2.
The rapid diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates, apparently nonetheless, it is well understood within the climate science community but it is certainly not much discussed.
So more CO2 in the atmosphere cannot inevitably lead directly to much more warming. And increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere cannot give rise to any dangerous temperature increase.
Thus de-carbonization policies could never have useful impact to realistically control any rising world temperatures and the future world climate. As the future temperature effect of increasing CO2 emissions is now so minor, therefore there is no possibility of ever reaching the political target of less than +2.0°C.
If the effect is again acknowledged by the IPCC it certainly would destroy any implication of impending catastrophe for global warming.
I would be grateful to have some one with more climate science capability than I to affirm that the IPCC have again made this important admission that is so damaging to the catastrophic element of their case.
Suppose that warming comes primarily from heat emissions and not CO2? And we continue to burn fossil fuels and use nuclear power. What then can we project for future warming?
While it is an immutable fact that heat causes warming, climate scientists don’t believe it does much because their models don’t model heat energy, they model radiative balance.
The physics behind “conservation of radiative balance” is tenuous.
The physics behind heat energy, mass, specific heat and temperature is robust.
Bo Nordell and BRuno Gervet have published a paper on global warming as caused by thermal pollution. See first paper linked
http://www.ltu.se/research/subjects/Vattenteknik-Fornyelsebar-energi-Hydrologi/Forskningsprojekt/Global-Warming-1.5035?l=en
http://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.5035!/nordell-gervet%20ijgw.pdf
It is still likely that the earth has negative feedback systems which control temperature. But climate scientists don’t know what they are and so they do not feature in models.
It is likely that clouds play the major role in solar heat rejection under conditions of warming. This is seen in the tropics where it is warmer and it rains more.
Ice in the arctic should reach the new Siberian Islands in 3 days heralding a massive quick refreeze of the arctic this year.
In the 2013 ARCUS July survey of minimum ice extent predictions, the two least accurate estimates were by Neven and the UKMet office.
The weather produced severe brain storms in a few localities.
===============
This sting operation may help explain part of the climate science problem.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/10/03/hoax_reveals_wild_west_of_openaccess_science_journals.html
The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science
M. L. Khandekar, T. S. Murty, P. Chittibabu
A review of the present status of the global warming science is presented in this paper. The term global warming is now popularly used to refer to the recent reported increase in the mean surface temperature of the earth; this increase being attributed to increasing human activity and in particular to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere. Since the mid to late 1980s there has been an intense and often emotional debate on this topic. The various climate change reports (1996, 2001) prepared by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), have provided the scientific framework that ultimately led to the Kyoto protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (particularly carbon dioxide) due to the burning of fossil fuels. Numerous peer-reviewed studies reported in recent literature have attempted to verify several of the projections on climate change that have been detailed by the IPCC reports.
The global warming debate as presented by the media usually focuses on the increasing mean temperature of the earth, associated extreme weather events and future climate projections of increasing frequency of extreme weather events worldwide. In reality, the climate change issue is considerably more complex than an increase in the earth’s mean temperature and in extreme weather events. Several recent studies have questioned many of the projections of climate change made by the IPCC reports and at present there is an emerging dissenting view of the global warming science which is at odds with the IPCC view of the cause and consequence of global warming. Our review suggests that the dissenting view offered by the skeptics or opponents of global warming appears substantially more credible than the supporting view put forth by the proponents of global warming. Further, the projections of future climate change over the next fifty to one hundred years is based on insufficiently verified climate models and are therefore not considered reliable at this point in time.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00024-005-2683-x
Dwelling in the plethora of warmth,
Why damn and fear it?
==================
Hey Kim,
Talk to the Australians about your “plethora of warmth” as they are facing their warmest year on record and a potentially catastrophic fire season ahead.
This article was published in 2005. No one listened then but things are getting better.
The events taking place can more readily be explained by considering the possible/probable effect of a known amount of heat on a known mass and specific heat of the atmosphere than models based on a previous bias that CO2 is the cause.
More scares to come:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-climate-change-risk-assessment/2013/10/03/d4f70e3c-2bb5-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html
versus
http://blog.heartland.org/2013/10/rush-limbaugh-cites-heartland-nipcc-in-climate-change-talk/
We are very lucky to be living in a time when there is such a large spike in population growth and enough energy to keep people communicating and investigating the world. Such a sharing of knowledge among so many people even if the wheel is reinvented x times over may never happen again. The good times should run out as all exponential spikes come to an end but the knowledge gained may be retained and help us cope in a warming ,cooling or neutral world.
The problem we face is ourselves not the climate.
During discussions about the LIA, the subject of volcanic activity often comes up. There was a very large volcanic eruption around 1257 AD, that caused some cooling around that period. Seems they’ve found the source volcano after many years of looking:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/26/1307520110
And more info here:
http://phys.org/news/2012-01-enigmatic-ice-age.html
Also nice to see this solid research done on the role of volcanic related aerosols in the current tropospheric “pause” in temperature rise:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-not-pollutants-tamped-down-recent-earth-warming-says-cu
Of course the sleepy sun and cool phase of the PDO also play a role in masking the forcing from the human carbon volcano as measured simply by tropospheric temperature only. But of course, don’t tell the Aussies about the “pause” as they are headed toward their warmest year on record and face a potentially devastating fire season ahead.
RGates
We have had this discussion before and since then I have found records that confirm the cooling had begin around 6 years BEFORE the 1257 eruption. Thongs were back to ‘normal’ i.e higher temperatures, within two years of the eruption. Its most noticeable effect were strange patterns in the sky and a continuation of the preceding 5 years weather trends.
Have I quoted the passages to you before?
tonyb
Tony,
I think you might have quoted those before, but send them along.
Are you not persuaded by the evidence that a series of large volcanic eruptions, with the 1257 event (which was very large) being just one, along with solar and THC changes brought about the LIA? That is to say, the LIA was a complex multi-causal event with different distinct periods as the various causes had their effects dominate or interact?
Question: The AGG hypothesis claims that the recovery from the LIA ended, replaced by an anthropogenic warming with very nearly the same slope. this would raise a lot of eyebrows in any other field. in my opinion its reasonable to expect that hypothesis to explain the end of the LIA before we accept it. What does literature say on the topic?
Recent paleoclimate results by Marcott show that the LIA was part of a general downward trajectory in the Holocene, especially over the last 6000 years, so what we have now has reversed that general trend, and canceled all of the last 6000 years of cooling within a century.
Jim D
It is obvious that the “recovery” from the depths of the LIA began long before human GHG emissions had any impact on our climate.
The first 100-150 years of this recovery occurred before there were any global temperature measurements, so we have to rely on proxies such as CET.
The late 19thC warming cycle as well as the early 20thC warming cycle both also occurred before there was much human GHG.
The statistically indistinguishable late 20thC warming cycle is being attributed by IPCC (at least “mostly”) to increases in human GHGs.
However, it is quite clear that the “recovery” from the LIA was NOT primarily a result of human GHG emissions, but of something else, which is not yet fully understood.
And a bit of advice: forget about Marcott; it is just as phony as Mann.
Max
manacker, yes, when you look at all the sub-millennial wiggles, the sun and volcanoes can play a big role, but in the big picture it is the Holocene decline due to Milankovitch and the CO2 rise that dominate the picture when your axis is millennia long. It is very clear already that CO2 will leave a mark on this time scale even interrupting the Milankovitch cycle.
For Jim D et al and Manacker
The world does indeed face a dire and truly urgent threat from Climate Change.
It is just not what the Global Warming advocates want to think it is.
In the context that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD has been the coolest of our current benign Holocene interglacial and was a full 1.5 °C lower that the earlier Holocene optimum according to ice core records. So a little global warming could be very welcome.
But since the year 2000 a further significant change has been occurring: the UKMO official Central England Temperature CET record has shown an annual decline of ~ -1.0°C and a winter (DJF) decline of ~ -1.5°C. These declines are as much or even more than the total CET gains in the period 1850 – 2000.
However, this year 2013, has seen a more extreme temperature decline in the UKMO official Central England Temperature CET record. In the first half of 2013, UK Met Office CET temperatures were a full 1.89°C lower than the monthly averages of the previous 12 years.
Although it could be construed as “cherry picking”, that is hair raisingly significant: it really matters. That marked decline has lead to significant crop failures and serious loss of agricultural productivity. The effect has been seen throughout the Northern hemisphere and cooling effects are also clear in the Southern hemisphere.
Assessing the sunspot records we seem to be rapidly heading for a Dalton minimum event (at best) in the next few decades. This will destroy agricultural productivity throughout the world.
But Global Warming advocates only ever propose solutions for the control of Global Warming, (overheating), by reducing Man-made CO2 emissions. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates fail to explain how reduction of man-made atmospheric CO2 can ever can help to control Climate Change towards a cooling world.
Having made so many dire predictions of impending climate catastrophes from overheating, the advocates of Global Warming / Climate Change fail to accept that a climate change towards a cooler climate is more likely to lead to more intense adverse weather. There is good reason to expect this, simply because the energy differential between the poles and the tropics is bound to be greater and that in itself leads to less stable atmospheric conditions.
A cooling world as the Northern Hemisphere seen in the years since 2000 leads to much more dire consequences for the biosphere and for mankind than any realistic amount of warming that could ever arise from future man-made CO2 emissions.
National policy makers and the United Nations are neither recognizing nor are they preparing for this potentially disastrous eventuality. They are just looking in the opposite direction.
John Cronan,
Here’s a nice 10,000 year perspective on the Holocene general cooling trend punctuated by the sharp spike in the transition to the Anthropocene;
http://klimaatverandering.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hockeystick-marcott_mann2008.png
You mean the sharp spike where the instrumental record was spliced on to a data set of an entirely different nature? Does “Hide the Decline” ring any bells with you? Are you deaf?
I should be deaf from near constant din of unscientific nonsense droning on from the mouths of so-called skeptics.
See, it has the MWP, and you still complain. No pleasing some people.
There is no pleasing those who wish to hold to their viewpoint no matter what the basic facts are.
R. Gates
Speak for yourself, Gates.
Max
As a true and honest skeptic my “truths” are all provisional and I actually seek out data intentionally that might refute or alter my perspective. This is the heart of honest skepticism.
R. Gates
Gee.
That’s precisely my perspective!
Welcome to the “true skeptic” side of the debate, Gates!
Max
http://climateaudit.org/?s=marcott
Nothing substantive from McIntyre there, Edim. He hasn’t said he would throw the whole thing out yet, as far as I can see, just quibbling with the end point uptick and error bars. I am sure he is still looking into it, but it has been silent for a while. Don’t hold out hope.
Nothing substantive?
“the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
And more importantly, the temporal resolution is so low (hundreds of years) that it CANNOT be compared to any multi-decadal variability. It’s a cheap trick and it’s unbelievable that anybody would fall for it.
That was the uptick, and the paper itself was not about that, only something they added for the press. The uptick is well supported by thermometers anyway, so we don’t need paleo for that.
Yes, the uptick is irrelevant, but the temporal resolution is essential.
Any doubts you can’t predict the future?
Compare Monty Python’s “Dead Parrot” with the IPCC’s “correction” of the climate models.
This is from the 1970s!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DnpjOSLCR2hE
Have fun!
http://climateaudit.org/?s=marcott
I’ll enter this at the top level as well, apologies for the repetition.
For Jim D et al and Manacker
The world does indeed face a dire and truly urgent threat from Climate Change.
It is just not what the Global Warming advocates want to think it is.
In the context that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD has been the coolest of our current benign Holocene interglacial and was a full 1.5 °C lower that the earlier Holocene optimum according to ice core records. So a little global warming could be very welcome.
But since the year 2000 a further significant change has been occurring: the UKMO official Central England Temperature CET record has shown an annual decline of ~ -1.0°C and a winter (DJF) decline of ~ -1.5°C. These declines are as much or even more than the total CET gains in the period 1850 – 2000.
However, this year 2013, has seen a more extreme temperature decline in the UKMO official Central England Temperature CET record. In the first half of 2013, UK Met Office CET temperatures were a full 1.89°C lower than the monthly averages of the previous 12 years.
That is pretty significant and it really matters. That marked decline has lead to significant crop failures and serious loss of agricultural productivity. The effect has been seen throughout the Northern hemisphere and cooling effects are also clear in the Southern hemisphere.
Assessing the sunspot records we seem to be rapidly heading for a Dalton minimum event (at best) in the next few decades. This will destroy agricultural productivity throughout the world.
But Global Warming advocates only ever propose solutions for the control of Global Warming, (overheating), by reducing Man-made CO2 emissions. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates fail to explain how reduction of man-made atmospheric CO2 can ever can help to control Climate Change towards a cooling world.
Having made so many dire predictions of impending climate catastrophes from overheating, the advocates of Global Warming / Climate Change fail to accept that a climate change towards a cooler climate is more likely to lead to more intense adverse weather. There is good reason to expect this, simply because the energy differential between the poles and the tropics is bound to be greater and that in itself leads to less stable atmospheric conditions.
A cooling world as the Northern Hemisphere seen in the years since 2000 leads to much more dire consequences for the biosphere and for mankind than any realistic amount of warming that could ever arise from future man-made CO2 emissions.
National policy makers and the United Nations are neither recognizing nor are they preparing for this potentially disastrous eventuality.
edmh, at this point it is more about applying the brakes to warming, which are currently getting no traction, so we are sliding into an unknown climate. It would be great if we had the luxury of choosing to be cooler too, but that is not on the list. It is warmer or hotter.
But sadly warming does not seem to be happening. Nor is it likely to happen as we enter Dalton minimum solar conditions at best for the next 30+ years.
Get ready for real crop failures and cold deaths.
The Catastrophic Warming advocates will all have been seen to be looking in the wrong direction.
Jim D. said:
“so we are sliding into an unknown climate….”
—–
Based on the pace of change over the Holocene, this “slide” into the Anthropocene has been more like a charge, led by the eruption of the human carbon volcano. Also, based on paleoclimate data, the intermediate climate stop is not so “unknown” as we need only look at the Pliocene from about 3.2 mya.
edmh, for land it is up nearly 0.3 degrees per decade for the last three decades, but I don’t think this will change your mind. It is probably not in the talking points you see on your websites.
edmh
I point out the sharp decline in CET as well but apparently it is believed-incorrectly-that it is only happening in England. I agree we ought to have a plan A and a plan B in order to cater for warming or cooling. So far Plan B for cooling is just a pile of blank paper locked in a cupboard.
tonyb
Tony,
It’s not happening only in England, but you cannot find any sharp decline in averages. Thus there’s no basis for speculation. The sharp decline is not typical, CET is not in this case a good proxy for what’s going on more generally. Your observation is not a sign on what’s going on elsewhere, it’s a sign on the value of CET as proxy for that. You should use data for what they represent, not for something else.
This logic should be totally clear, but you appear to try to repeatedly contradict that.
It’s illogical that we should now care about CET if we are not in or close to England, because we have better measures for our needs.
pekka
no one is claiming the sharp decline is typical but CET is a good proxy for a much wider area. Not ALL the world is warming at the same time. See my reply to Jimd upthread.
tonyb
Tony,
My point is that this case provides direct evidence for the conclusion that CET is not a good proxy for wider area.
You may say based on other evidence that over much longer periods it’s a reasonable proxy, but you should see how illogical you are here, when you discuss the recent sharp decline.
Pekka
Forgive me, it was impolite not to post a link to the discussion with JImd which basically starts here and carries on below it
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/04/open-thread-weekend-35/#comment-393590
tonyb
Pekka and Tonyb,
May I just say that you are two of the exemplary commentators in blog world, and I always look for the civil, reasoned commentary each of you offers here. All of us should aspire to conduct the kinds of valuable discussions we see from you. Many thanks!!
Explore Earth’s surface with community software
http://csdms.colorado.edu/wiki/Climate_models
http://csdms.colorado.edu/wiki/Main_Page
“Java Climate Model – Introduction
Climate change is influenced by complex interlinked processes. This interactive model lets you explore the system and how we can change it, simply by adjusting with your mouse parameters and observing the effect instantly on diverse plots ranging from socioeconomic drivers to climate impacts. The core science calculation methods are calibrated to be consistent with results from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, implemented efficiently in the java language, to enable anybody to access this tool via the internet and explore diverse scenarios and the sensitivity of projections to risk/value judgements and scientific uncertainties. ”
http://jcm.climatemodel.info/index.html
It is nice play with a model. But any model which can’t model paleoclimate cycles is wrong to start with.
For short term climate, modeling paleo isn’t necessary. It’s essentially fixed for relatively shorter periods.
It looks like paleoclimate model makers still have overplaced faith in their models to be able to run “experiments”. http://pmip3.lsce.ipsl.fr/
More truthfully, such models are attempts to see if the models can reproduce historical data. As such they should be called verification/validation tests and not experiments. (But they probably need experiments to get funded…..)
On the present halting of global warming Syun-Ichi Akasofu Climate 2013, 1, 4-11; doi:10.3390/cli1010004
That paper won’t probably get much traction in the climate science community. The author will be branded a denier along with Kramm.
But in reality, don’t we also need milkanovitch cycles as well. They are in AR5 WG1.
So after GCMs are informed by regular natural cycles, what will be left for CO2?
David
The Syun-Ichi Akasofu paper you cite is interesting, although the “CAGW believers” will certainly discount it, since it flies in the face of the “CAGW” premise (as outlined in detail by IPCC in AR4 and being repeated in AR5).
But, if we take Akasofu’s figures we have for the late 20thC warming period (~1970 to ~2000):
a) natural pre-AGW long-term linear trend (LIA recovery) = 0.05C/decade * 3 decades = 0.15C
b) 0.2C amplitude of 30-year PDO oscillation = 0.2C
c) total attributable to natural causes = 0.35C
d) observed total global linear trend 1970-2000 (HadCRUT4) = 0.5C
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2000/trend
e) Balance = anthropogenic = 0.15C (0.05C per decade)
d) CO2 levels (Mauna Loa):
1970: 324 ppmv
2000: 369 ppmv
f) 2xCO2 transient climate response (TCR):
0.15C * ln(2) / ln(369/324) = 0.8C
g) 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) = 1.5C
Checks with several recent observation-based studies, all suggesting that IPCC model-predicted estimate of 2xCO2 ECS of 3C is exaggerated by a factor of around two.
Makes sense.
[In AR5 it appears that IPCC is acknowledging this lower estimate, but only by expending the lower end of its ECS range down to 1.5C without relinquishing the upper end of 4.5C (in order to keep the fear factor alive).]
Max
It’s starting to sink into the mainstream;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10356276/Climate-change-scientists-are-just-another-pressure-group.html
Worth copying from another thread:
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | October 6, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
Agnostic said:
“I want to hear “if this happens we will no (sic) we were wrong”. I dont think that is unreasonable.”
——
This is not an unreasonable thing at all, and it is easy to give:
1) Ocean heat content (as the primary part of the system that has absorbed the majority of the energy) would need to decrease on a decadal basis. Even one decade would be very disastrous for the overall AGW hypothesis. Given that the next generation of ARGO floats will be greater in number and going over twice as deep, the accuracy of this metric is improving yearly. Ocean heat content has not decreased on a decadal basis since 1960-70, and then only barely.
2) We see the cryosphere reverse direction from a general global decline to increasing overall net mass in glaciers and specifically Greenland and Anarctica. Additionally we’d need to see permafrost reverse the general decline we’ve seen and of course Arctic sea ice return to pre-1970 levels.
3) We see tropospheric temperatures decline from the current plateau of the warmest decade on instrument record to a decade or two of 1970′s or cooler temps.
If we see all three of these occurring (without some extreme negative external forcing such a several Pinatubo sized volcanoes a decade going off) then AGW theory would be essentially dead. Probability of these three happening without the above mentioned external forcing: <5%
Bit late for this thread, but my new blog post points out an error in an article in the Guardian on ocean pH.
http://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/the-oceans-are-not-more-acidic-now-than-in-the-past-300-million-years/
Liked Muller on the pause.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/has-global-warming-stopped.pdf
Willis Eschenbach has an excellent post here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/06/evidence-that-clouds-actively-regulate-the-temperature/
Looking at them by hemisphere, I think we see that sensitivity varies if you go along with, the slope of apparent trendlines is the sensitivity. As the slope passes through the horizontal we may be going from a positive feedback to a negative one. We realize though, some are predisposed to see hockey sticks. I can’t figure that one out? In this case the blades seem to be hard walls of negative feedback.
Gotta wonder how much shale tight oil and nat gas is down there???
“The map shows that the Eagle Ford’s productivity is not limited solely to South Texas and has also been established by a significant number of successful wells in the area that represents a continuation of the Eagle Ford formation across the San Marcos Arch into East Texas. Strictly speaking, the East Texas Eagle Ford is a different play defined by a different depositional environment. However this early on in the North American Shale Oil Revolution, it is impossible to rule out the possibility that yet another significant productive shale is waiting next door for its time to be delineated and developed. The major question is, will its geology yield a sweet spot similar to the one that has made the South Texas Eagle Ford world famous.”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1731062-eagle-ford-shale-whos-got-the-best-wells
I would like to thank the enviro-idiots who put alcohol in the gasoline I use in my weed eater. The alcohol ruined it. Again, thank you for saving me from the evil fossil fuel companies. No, I mean it. Sure I do.
” The army has been sent into toilet paper factories, fights for basic foodstuffs have resulted in several deaths and new, multi-million dollar oil tankers are sitting idle in dock. And, despite sitting on the world’s largest oil reserves, Venezuela’s socialist government can’t quite manage to keep the lights on.
Now many in Venezuela are wondering how much longer President Nicolas Maduro, the anointed successor of the country’s firebrand Leftist leader Hugo Chavez, can keep hold of the reins of its crumbling socialist revolution.
Last week Mr Maduro was forced to turn to a well-worn answer for his country’s woes, blaming a US plot to “sabotage the electrical system and the Venezuelan economy” and kicking out Washington’s envoy to the South American country. “Out of Venezuela!” he railed on state television, adding in English: “Yankees go home!”
It was a move copied straight from the playbook of Chavez, the vocal anti-imperialist who passed away in February, and one which killed off any hopes of rapprochement with the US following years of thorny relations.
If that wasn’t enough, Mr Maduro then accused the US Drug Enforcement Agency of orchestrating the presence of 1.3 tons of cocaine seized last month from an Air France plane flying out of Caracas. With the government long accused by Washington of complicity in the drug trade – counter-narcotics officials say some 50 per cent of cocaine in Britain is now trafficked through Venezuela – the bust was likely a US plot using mafias to brand the country a “narco-state”, he said. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/10359267/As-socialist-dream-crumbles-Venezuelans-find-Nicolas-Maduro-a-bad-copy-of-Chavez.html
” RIO DE JANEIRO–Brazil’s government will announce a massive oil discovery off the country’s northeast coast later this month, according to acting Sergipe state Gov. Jackson Barreto.
Mines and Energy Minister Edison Lobao will travel to Sergipe’s capital, Aracaju, on Oct. 23 to officially announce “the world’s largest oil discovery of 2013,” Mr. Barreto told Sergipe state’s official news agency Friday. The event is also expected to include Magda Chambriard, director of the country’s National Petroleum Agency, or ANP, Mr. Barreto said.
The two government agencies, however, downplayed prospects for an announcement. The Mines and Energy Ministry could not confirm Mr. Lobao’s visit. In a statement, the ministry added that it “has no knowledge of any new oil discovery in the country other than those already announced by Petrobras.” ”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brazil-to-announce-massive-oil-find-on-oct-23-2013-10-06
” HONG KONG — China just received a reminder it has a serious pollution problem. There was nothing golden about last week’s national holidays. Flights were cancelled and highways closed across northern cities, as hazardous grey smog returned.
Unfortunately for China’s leaders, pollution is one problem that’s hard to fudge away, or kick down the road.
For one, it is no longer a dirty secret. After three decades of rapid industrialization, China’s pollution is now the most visible sign of its unbalanced and dysfunctional growth. At its root is an outsized addiction to burning dirty coal, which makes up 70% of its fuel mix. In fact, while China produces around 14% of global GDP, it consumes 47% of world coal consumption.
Another problem is it hits everyone. One widely reported academic study released this summer brought the sobering news that if you live in the north of China, life expectancy had been cut by 5½ years through pollution. ”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/beijings-inconvenient-pollution-problem-2013-10-06?link=MW_home_latest_news
+ Here is a subject you should discuss:
Is Meteorology about to go through the same kind of upheaval that Climatology is going through. Recently it was revealed on a website (see link below) that one of the major tenets of Meteorology, convection of moist air through dry air, was never measured/tested. It was just assumed. Just like CO2 Forcing. The implications of how Meteorologist conceptualize the origins of storms is huge.
http://www.solvingtornadoes.org
“Arctic Oil Discovery Heralds More Finds in Norway’s Barents Sea
By Mikael Holter – Oct 7, 2013 6:01 PM CT
Norway may see a series of Arctic oil finds after a well produced crude from a previously unproductive layer of rock, explorer Lundin Petroleum AB (LUPE) said.
The Gohta discovery in the Barents Sea announced by Lundin last month was Norway’s first in Permian rocks, formed more than 250 million years ago, the company’s Norway head Torstein Sanness said in an interview. Holding as much as 145 million barrels of of oil, Gohta opens as many as 10 possible drilling targets in the surrounding area, he said.
“We’re hoping for a string of pearls,” said Sanness, whose company made Norway’s biggest oil find in decades in 2010. “We plan to build resources aggressively over the next years, so there’s little doubt we’ll reach the commercial threshold” for developing Gohta.
After a decade of falling oil production, drilling in the Barents Sea is helping to revive interest in Norwegian exploration. Austria’s OMV AG (OMV) also announced a discovery last month in the area, north of Norway’s traditional oil-producing region in the North Sea. Statoil made the commercial oil discoveries in 2011 and 2012 and further successes will make developing oil infrastructure in the remote Arctic region viable. ”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-07/arctic-oil-discovery-heralds-more-finds-in-norway-s-barents-sea.html
Please discuss …
http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2013/10/06/the-canadian-war-on-science-updates-to-the-chronology-of-the-conservative-governments-anti-science-actions/
“Move over, Russia: U.S. is now the world’s biggest oil and gas producer
October 4, 2013, 1:12 PM
By Claudia Assis
The U.S. will end 2013 as the world’s largest producer of petroleum and natural gas, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia, the Energy Information Administration said Friday.
The EIA estimated combined U.S. petroleum and gas production this year will hit 50 quadrillion British thermal units, or 25 million barrels of oil equivalent a day, outproducing Russia by 5 quadrillion Btu.
Petroleum production includes crude oil, natural gas liquids, condensates, and biofuels.
U.S. and Russian energy production over the past two years have been roughly equivalent. Since 2008, U.S. petroleum production has increased 7 quadrillion Btu, with “dramatic” growth in Texas and North Dakota, the EIA said.
U.S. natural gas production has risen 3 quadrillion Btu over the same period, the agency said, while Russia and Saudi Arabia each increased their combined petroleum and natural gas production by about 1 quadrillion Btu since 2008, the EIA said.”
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-ticker/2013/10/04/move-over-russia-u-s-is-now-the-worlds-biggest-oil-gas-producer/
E=Which is oil ter the good, jim 2.
Energy has long been both the bane and the favored instrument in the foreign policy of governments. Yet, for the US, fortunes are changing and the goal of former President Nixon’s Project Independence looks soon to be realized. On the back of the shale gas boom and technological improvements in energy production, the US is predicted to take a giant leap toward this independence as it becomes the world’s biggest gas producer by 2015. Naturally, countries like China, which is estimated to hold more shale gas than the US and Canada combined, are hungry to learn the secret to their success. This may be just the carrot of diplomacy the US seeks to hold greater interaction with Beijing. Indeed, the juggernaught in Washington’s “pivot” to Asia may not be the US Navy, but instead Chevron, Halliburton and ExxonMobil.
…
Such a move helps speed up China’s acquisition of expertise. Devon Energy hasn’t been the only company China has picked up a stake in. Chinese National Oil Companies (NOCs) have invested in foreign companies and their knowledge, particularly in the US and Canada. A 2011 IAE report highlights partnerships that took place in 2010 between Chinese NOCs and Canadian companies with specific shale gas expertise. China National Petroleum Company/PetroChina purchased a 60 percent stake of an oil sand project in Alberta, and also formed a joint venture with Canadian Encana to develop shale gas plays in British Columbia. Meanwhile, more recent buy-ins by China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) have included a Chesapeake subsidiary and the take-over of Canadian firm Nexen, which is currently exploiting shale gas in British Columbia and expanding operations to Poland.
The hunt for such expertise through joint ventures and partnerships is on the rise across Asia. According to an Ernst and Young report, “Asian NOCs spent $37 billion acquiring assets outside their home markets” in the first nine months of 2012. And the game isn’t over yet. NOCs continue to explore further partnerships in North America and anywhere they can glean the expertise they need. In the brave new world of unconventional energy extraction, knowledge is power – the US has it and China wants it.
As well as this foreign absorption of expertise, Beijing is also pouring money into domestic research and development under the “National Key Technologies Research and Development Program” (1983) and other recent initiatives. But it can’t move quickly enough. R&D, just like technological know-how, takes time.
http://www.chinausfocus.com/energy-environment/shale-gas-the-key-in-the-us-asia-pivot/
Please discuss the muzzling of Canadian scientists and the collusion between energy companies and the Canadian government to hide the environmental damage that the tarsands are doing to Alberta and the world …
http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2013/10/06/the-canadian-war-on-science-updates-to-the-chronology-of-the-conservative-governments-anti-science-actions/
and …
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/09/canadian-spies-met-energy-firms-documents
:)