I apologize for missing your point, although I honestly don’t recall suggesting TEOTWAWKI for developing countries (at least, not from their energy policies).
But who knows what crazy things I might have said. I deny them all, though!
Can you direct me to some data about the successes developing countries have had reducing emissions?
Gigo, we get your point, honest, we just disagree, that doesn’t mean we don’t understand. Denmark is just a little over half the size of Los Angeles County. The solutions that work for an individual American city may not work for all four of the largest countries, at the same time. It’s nice that Denmark has six million solar panels installed, but will it be just as easy to install three billion solar panels?
Another problem with any programs from the European Union is that they only provide for the 2/3’s of their richest, the poor in Europe is cut out. So, yeah, if the USA cuts off the poorest 1/3 of their people and invests in the richest 2/3’s … well, sure, we could do a lot more that stop AGW. Think of the renewable energy production we could afford with the money saved from NOT driving the Mexican Army out of Alabama and Mississippi.
The Danish government has the right to outlaw global warming denialism. I don’t care how technologically advanced they are, I couldn’t live there.
I disagree, Environmentalism is the Great Cause … AGW is just lazily riding our coat tails, they aren’t really doing anything meaningful but yelling their fool heads off hiding behind mama’s skirts.
Served by Creationist Roy Spencer.
And then one should also suspect were you got the other information that you use for the disagreement. The other point I made stands, Spencer is on the record of using his title in the name of defending his political and religious views on this issue.
And there’s more to the solar “success” story than the pollyannas usually remember to admit.
There are complaints that China ends up dumping artificially underpriced panels. At least one big Chinese manufacturer (Suntech) is in financial trouble. Worldwide there’s been a glut of panels.
So if you see the glorious successes being reported, you have to consider them with a grain of reality that ultimately every solution will have to be a self-sustaining mature business with a profit margin. A boom and bust cycle is not sustainable over the long term to replace a very entrenched fossil fueled grid.
My criticism is that all the observed values in my spaghetti chart are below all the model values. The same can be said about your spaghetti chart. Hello? Both charts use bogus observed values. At least when Roy Spencer makes up data, the data illustrates his point. When HotWhopper makes up data, it doesn’t illustrate their point.
Superimpose NOAA’s data on the charts, and you’ll have a perfect thread hijack.
I absolutely don’t want government making policy decisions based on predictions that are clearly in error. More research in needed, and in the mean time, let business do what they do best … profiteer.
Superimpose NOAA’s data on the charts, and you’ll have a perfect thread hijack.
It was not served by me, and there is no source or evidence for your accusation that HotWhopper is making up data.
The thing is that I already cited that even the profiteers are realizing that letting a few profiteers continue with the tragedy of the commons is not a good idea for the wealth or health of all.
This is a hijack. This thread is specifically about what can be done and is not the place to restart the earlier arguments.
And at no time is it valid to simply post a link.
Warning issued, don’t hijack again, and don’t simply post links.
It’s a good idea to mention what these inventions are.
Better solar panels
improved wind turbines
better electrical storage
etc etc etc
Reminder: I did not let this point stand without citation, and I’m hoping you can direct me to some data that reports on which developing countries are reducing emissions successfully while still developing successfully.
To be clear, by “reducing emissions” I mean “reducing emissions.” I assume the “ending civilization” part was hyperbole.
I don’t mean “reducing emissions” in the sense that total emissions would be even more if you weren’t using any renewable or nuclear. That’s US political budget double talk, and I don’t get faked out by it. If we’re going to solve AGW, then “reducing emissions” needs to mean “reducing emissions.” Fair?
(…and lots more of these uncertainties from upstream)
Well, for some needed groundwork in response to the OP, better risk analysis is needed. It's disappointing how little this is met head-on in the context of ACC/AGW. One core element that's easy to understand: total expected cost = sum_events (probability of adverse event * cost of event). (For a simplified example: How much should I pay in yearly premium for earthquake insurance to insure a home worth 500,000 if the yearly risk for catastrophic earthquake is one in 5,000? It would be worth paying up to 100.)
Adverse events with climate change include stronger and more frequent storm systems, sea level rise, alterations in precipitation in a given region (creating potential costs in reolcation of agriculture, and even populations). Developing countries would likely face higher costs. Wildcards include the future technology curve (a big one, no doubt, but a sub-analysis could cover several of its common "what-ifs", like nuclear fusion, cost-effective solar, wind, etc.), and iterative effects of (relatively) rapid heating.
Actuaries make these assessments every day, though probably not on these time scales. They're some of the best suited for this type of assessment. Whatever you do, you certainly DON'T leave this in the hands of the politicians(!!!). They abuse this routinely--from alarmists (100%, huge costs) to deniers (0%, no costs).
Reliable, consensus-level risk analysis helps minimize the interests who thrive on ambiguity and doubt creation. It can serve as a common basis for more constructive discussions. Good risk analysis can help unite the world by offering cost guidelines, and help motivate and encourage international cooperation (which suffers from what's incorrectly alluded to above as "tragedy of the commons"; what's wanted is the "free riding problem"--individual agencies are very willing to ride free on the conscienctiousness of others unless persuaded or coerced (as with enforcable taxation systems)).
A business wouldn't THINK of going ahead with say pollution mitigation measures without a sound cost analysis first. And for those who'd claim we don't know enough, too chaotic, etc.: (1) (no offense but) I'm betting you aren't an actuary, risk analyst, etc.; (2) you have to do the best you can with the info available today; and (3) some of that uncertainty can be captured in the risk analysis itself, as with standard deviations on estimates.
I disagree completely. All of the things I mentioned – lead in gasoline, nuclear war, acid rain, and all the others – are direct and applicable analogies to climate change. Actually nuclear war is even more of an abstraction than climate change: the risk of something very bad happening at some unspecified time in the future in some unspecified way, with only roughly sketched-out consequences for a variety of different scenarios. The difference is that people generally believed it, and the reason they believed it is that there wasn’t a huge and powerful collection of vested interests with a collective goal of making them not****** believe it. Climate change is much more specific because we can actually see it happening right now – in the form of extreme weather, droughts, wildfires, floods, and all the other calamities that are actually happening. The problem – the one and only sole problem – is that when these events occur we wave them away as natural phenomena. How many people have read or even heard of this document, for instance? Or this science communication event?
In 1980, Congress passed the first of a series of acts to control acid rain. In 1989/90 a cap and trade system was instituted under Title IV of the Clean Air Act amendments, and in 2005, the EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule. The result:
But they’re not in error! “More research is needed” is the mantra that will always be heard from those that don’t like its findings, and no amount of research is ever going to be enough to change that attitude.
I just want to make two quick comments about the two recent thread hijacks, since what was posted is now out there and folks will be looking at it. On the first, Forbes, like the WSJ, has a history of denialist articles and this one is one of the worst for gross inaccuracies and falsehoods; it’s written by a guy from Heartland, an organization fearsomely dedicated to denial of climate science, and the two “scientists” it cites from the Russian Pulkovo Observatory are a standing joke in the climate science community. Almost everything in that article is wrong, but this is not the place to debate it. On the second, the Roy Spencer chart of how climate models were supposedly “wrong”, the deceptions therein were already mentioned in GIGO’s link. But there’s yet another point – it deals exclusively with tropical mid-troposphere temperatures, which are nothing like surface temperatures and are a very specialized domain that has been a lot more challenging for climate models to get right, and indeed challenging even to get accurate data. Using that as a benchmark for the big picture is deceptive and meaningless.
I mention those things not just to set the record straight, but because it’s precisely this kind of bullshit that touches on the first point I made – that most of the problem of public apathy is not due to the fact that effects of climate change are not proximate, because they are; it’s due to a calculated campaign to instill public skepticism and doubt.
These have low energy returns, require oil for the manufacturing and delivery process (as well as infrastructure), and face problems similar to peak oil (such as supply issues for copper, rare-earth elements, etc.).
At the very least, they might be able to meet basic needs, but cannot replace oil and meet demand from a growing global middle class.
Cap and Trade will not work with carbon. It can work in situations where the cost of removing a pollutant is variable between industries and facilities - but still affordable. The idea is to maximize economic efficiency: if one factory can reduce its SO2 by 50% for $100,000 and by 100% for $200,000, and other costs $500,000 for a similar reduction, then rather than make them all reduce their SO2 by the same amount, you just set an overall limit, then let the companies trade credits. Company B can then offer company A $150,000 to reduce its SO2 from 50% to 100%, and you get the same reduction for a total outlay of $200,000 instead of $600,000. That allows the government to demand even higher SO2 reductions without fear of putting the ‘outliers’ out of business.
This does not work with carbon, because carbon is the primary output of fossil fuel burning. Given a specific technology (coal, natural gas, whatever), there is no way to reduce it short of reducing the amount of energy you produce. Carbon capture and sequestration is no where near ready for prime time, and may never be. So ‘cap and trade’ essentially becomes a mechanism for reducing energy output. And since the demand for energy is growing, the only result can be skyrocketing energy costs. The only efficiencies to be gained would be wholesale conversion from one energy source to another, but in many regions this just isn’t feasible - not in the short term, anyway.
But let’s talk about what a solution might look like. Today, solar electric is simply too expensive. The only way to move to it is to heavily subsidize it, and that’s a bad idea for many reasons. But that may not be the case in the future.
The cost of solar power comes down to several factors: The cost of the cells themselves, the cost of installing them, the cost of the hardware needed to grab, store, and convert the power into something usable, the cost of the energy lost during storage, conversion, adn transmission, and the capital costs of all that hardware.
To gain cost savings, you can make the cells more efficient. We’ve been doing that, but that seems to be slowing down. Another way to do it is to make the cells easier to install. A third way is to reduce the cost of all the support hardware. We’re making progress on all fronts.
The most exciting to me are the various thin-film and flexible solar cell designs. MIT has a demonstration technology that uses a vapor deposition process to ‘print’ solar cell material directly onto surfaces like an ink jet printer. They can actually make a type of paper that generates as much as 50V. The efficiency is currently very low (1%), but that can be improved, something like this would be a real breakthrough. Imagine buying blinds for your window that plug into the wall and actually provide electricity when the sun is shining. feeding that power right into the grid eliminates the need to buy batteries, inverters, and all the rest.
Such a material could make it’s way into roof shingles, car bodies (or car covers), clothing (charging your phone constantly while you’re outside), you name it. Make this cheap enough, and every building and every horizontal surface becomes a potential source of electric power.
In the meantime, electric cars are still getting better, but will remain a niche product until we get better battery technology. Fortunately, there are several avenues of research into better batteries, such as zinc-air. Create a battery with 3 times the charge per weight capacity as lithium-ion, and suddenly electric cars will look pretty damned attractive to just about everyone.
And so it goes. I don’t think there’s going to be one big breakthrough technology that saves us. There’s going to be a host of little ones that slowly penetrate the market and make us more energy efficient, while new power sources slowly make inroads against fossil fuels.
One day the end-to-end price per BTU of non-carbon energy will drop below that of fossil fuel.
And when that happens, the world will begin a massive transition. I honestly don’t think this is that far away - two or three decades, maybe.
I’m not seeing that calculated campaign. I see a large amount of heels-dug-in skepticism about anything “the left” wants to do, but in a small-enough percent of people that I don’t think that’s what driving inaction.
For the most part, the average guy I meet has no idea how climate models are built and couldn’t parse out millions of lines of codes, foundational principles, parameterization or underlying assumptions even if they wanted to. They pretty much take it on face value that, if the scientific consensus is that CO2 is a long-term problem, who are they to prove it’s not.
But human nature puts our personal needs and fears above the rest of the world, and certainly above future generations. As you get deeper into the entire AGW construct, you realize no solution is actually viable unless significant and immediate real sacrifice is made, right now, in comfort level. That is the only way we can stabilize CO2 while we get the grid swapped out.
And that is not going to happen. The proximity of catastrophe for that degree of change in the mass will is simply not there, nor is the prediction accuracy of the effects of AGW.
When Alarmists figure out the problem is not the Deniers, they’ll be in a better position to get something done. But of course the problem is that the real message of AGW is, “We don’t know what the net effect is going to be. Therefore we should be cautious and avoid upsetting Mother Nature.”
This is not a message that sells well if you want substantive change.
People love to buy into Great Causes, and and given one of the great religions is a pretty good example. But actually changing behavior? Not so much. Great Causes are about the joy of proselytizing. They aren’t so much about personally sacrificing. Only a handful within any Great Cause actually do that.
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant:
“Seems like last time you were touting Germany until you realized they are still burning firewood for energy supplements years into their solar transition.”
Do you feel Germany is a pretty robust example of how well a very wealthy, very advanced, very committed country can do in attacking ACC?
I see articles like this one and I am not as convinced.
Then I notice that, after all those efforts, Germany’s CO2 emissions rose in 2012 from 2011–a typical result of the law of unintended–or at least, unforeseen–consequences when they started burning firewood (still makes me laugh). And their CO2 emissions rose along with extraordinarily high electricity prices, and some suspicion that investing in renewables is fraught with hazard, I might add.
Then I notice that coal and fossils are rising faster than all combined renewables as a source for the burgeoning energy requirements of the world.
Then I read that if we don’t get total emissions stabilized in ten years, we might as well quit trying. (Lost the link, but I can find it if you need it.)
And I wonder where all your enthusiasm comes from that we can not only do something, but do something that works, in toto, for the world.
Then my naturally negative nattering nabobism returns.
The first part of that statement is correct, the second is not. Climate change is caused by the Sun. Until we learn how to hang a thermostat on it, humans don’t have a damn thing to say about it.
As far as nuclear war, it was the publicly stated policy of the USA to commit “mutually assured destruction” if NORAD ever detected missile launches from within the Soviet Union
Take a look at those two spaghetti charts. 90 of the 91 lines on them are pretty much exactly the same. We know for an absolute fact that the 91st line will bring down a moderator warning on our heads. So I’m only considering the 90 traces that where both FX and Gigo are in complete agreement. Do you agree with these two clowns and is this the only chart?
So I’m sitting here trying to imagine every last actuary walking along the new dikes in southern Louisiana ignoring the effects of AGW … okay, that is possible … now I’m trying to imagine all the underwriters allowing this … we’ve crossed into the realm of the impossible here. Insurance companies have the primary responsibly to their shareholders, it might be illegal for them to not charge higher premiums to cover both losses due to AGW and profit margins. Maybe Richard Branson will leave trillions of dollars in profits on the table, but the insurance industry won’t. Indeed, the insurance industry is actively creating risk, to insure, for margins. AGW is a perfect situation for them, they can remain silent and let the Gore-niks hawk their cause [ka’ching].
Insurance instructions to the actuaries are explicit: “Fuck the people, you protect us, not them, us … got it … good …[ka’ching ka’ching] … hyper-canes every fifteen minutes … [ka’ching ka’ching ka’ching]”
Once again, it is not so simple, the human forcing is the main one driving the current warming. The sun is still there but you are acting like if the human addition to the system is not changing things.
Lets see what a real astronomer and doper The Bad Astronomer tell us:
Results are watered down because governments do not want to alarm the public:
“Climate Risks Have Been Underestimated for the Last 20 Years”
http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years
The reason for this is not hard to understand: governments earn more from increased economic activity and growth, and that means less regulation and more fossil fuel use. For the same reason, businesses earn more profits and a growing global middle class gets what it wants. The same public relies on businesses for work, income, and returns on investment, and will vote for government officials who promote the same.
The problem is that what most want doesn’t negate global warming, especially when seen in light of peak oil.
