An Interesting Take On Climate Change

[Doug MacIVER]

Many industries have failed in a changed paradigm environment, some have successfully negotiated the change. The pain of those that failed is real but also is localized. And the new paradigm nearly always bring forth greater wealth and more jobs for more people than the wealth and jobs lost in the failed industries. I would think the same holds true for a major change in the energy paradigm.

The current economy is based on cheap energy, first coal and now primarily by oil and NG. That energy has fueled incredible wealth, jobs, and well being (ignore the social costs at this time). The new economy similarly will be based on cheap energy, this time solar, wind and other renewables. It too will fuel even greater wealth, jobs and well being, and quite likely will be largely free of the huge social costs of the FF economy. The world runs on energy, and the sun with renewables is the ultimate energy source.

so well put, times change. as we progress through this, people will choose sides and eventually compromise. we are at the beginning of this change in energy policy. eventually the difference in our discussion will fall to one side or the other. gw or agw? personally I believe the globe warms and it cools as determined by nature (which we are part). historically we, time wise, are on the edge of a new ice age. agw tells me we are going to fry due to man's addition, that being roughly 5%/yr of the total add to co2. hell all we may be doing is slowing the cooling. nature adds the good co2@, our 2-3ppm adds the bad co2.
respect your opinions.

 

[woodgeek]

Not sure I follow Doug....there are large natural fluxes of CO2, that are nearly in balance. But the annual increment in atmospheric CO2, 2 ppm or so, is about half of what humans emit directly. The ocean adsorbs the other half, which is a whole nother issue.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

argument is that man"s 5%total addition to co2 is the screwing factor in natural
balance.

 

[woodgeek]

Seems like a misleading way of stating it. Humans have increased total CO2 in the atmosphere by an impressive 50% since the preindustrial era, and it continues to rise by an additional 0.5% per year due to the ocean only absorbing half of our emissions.

The admittedly large natural fluxes would be relevant if it implied that small changes to one side (like the sink side) could readily gobble up all of our puny human emissions. Based upon the last century plus of data, natural sinks do eat up half our emissions (nice), but that pesky other half just keeps piling up in the atmosphere.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

Seems like a misleading way of stating it. Humans have increased total CO2 in the atmosphere by an impressive 50% since the preindustrial era, and it continues to rise by an additional 0.5% per year due to the ocean only absorbing half of our emissions.

The admittedly large natural fluxes would be relevant if it implied that small changes to one side (like the sink side) could readily gobble up all of our puny human emissions. Based upon the last century plus of data, natural sinks do eat up half our emissions (nice), but that pesky other half just keeps piling up in the atmosphere.

sorry, 3.75ppm would hit the 5% of total emissions from natural and man sources. that is the factor that kicks it over. who measures natures co2 ,who really knows how much it adds? no pretense of being an expert on this always a questioning mind though.

 

[woodgeek]

2 ppm in a single year (human emissions net natural sinks) doesn't 'put it over'. Over the course of many years, esp considering that it is still accelerating (more than 2ppm/year in the future) we project a problem.

 

[Cynnergy]

I suppose the scientific revolution during the 17th/18th centuries might be considered a paradigm shift successfully negotiated. Although it did have growing pains - e.g. Galileo and the Catholic church.

 

[TMonter]

Not sure I follow Doug....there are large natural fluxes of CO2, that are nearly in balance. But the annual increment in atmospheric CO2, 2 ppm or so, is about half of what humans emit directly. The ocean adsorbs the other half, which is a whole nother issue.

Except for the fact that there are other carbon sinks that are not well understood. Not to mention there is a limitation to how much radiation CO2 can soak up since it only interacts with certain wavelengths.

 

[begreen]

What is interesting is that strategic entities are mobilizing in realization of the effects of climate change. If southern CA runs dry there is going to be a large shift in population. AZ may become uninhabitable unless one lives underground. This will affect us all one way or the other.

 

[woodgeek]

Except for the fact that there are other carbon sinks that are not well understood. Not to mention there is a limitation to how much radiation CO2 can soak up since it only interacts with certain wavelengths.

Indeed. Much of those poorly understood sinks are in the topsoil....and it is not clear (yet) how agricultural practices can make AGW worse, or potentially help sink carbon. Given that our accounted-for direct emission are larger than the amount of new CO2 showing up in the air every year, and both are still accelerating, it seems unwise to bet on one of those unknown sinks pulling a big save as we barrel down the BAU highway.

The wavelength saturation effect is a thing, but it is not like an on-off switch so much as a gradually diminishing effect of newly added CO2 thing. If pre-industrial CO2 warmed the earth by +10°F, and humans increasing it by 50% only bumped temps by an additional 1-2°F, you can see the sub-linear response right there. Good thing its sub-linear too, or AGW would be far worse than currently or predicted (and the climate would be really unstable).

 

[Doug MacIVER]

What is interesting is that strategic entities are mobilizing in realization of the effects of climate change. If southern CA runs dry there is going to be a large shift in population. AZ may become uninhabitable unless one lives underground. This will affect us all one way or the other.

the Sonora is not a friendly place .after some natural climate changes in the pdo and amo , 30-40 years the rains will return a snowpack to the west slope of the s. nev. history.http://www.almanac.com/blog/weather-blog/why-dry-reason-california-has-drought

 

[begreen]

I suspect in 30-40 yrs neither of us will be around to see if that is right or just one of the factors. Models show a significant warming of the sw over the next 50 yrs. inclusive of pdo. Warmer will also mean the snow that does accumulate will melt faster. Models point to less moisture there in the future at current rate of emissions.

 

[TMonter]

I suspect in 30-40 yrs neither of us will be around to see if that is right or just one of the factors. Models show a significant warming of the sw over the next 50 yrs. inclusive of pdo. Warmer will also mean the snow that does accumulate will melt faster. Models point to less moisture there in the future at current rate of emissions.

And the models have been wrong over and over. If the models cannot predict what is occurring over time how can they be considered accurate? Additionally many of the proponents of AGW have also backed off on the long term effects as being catastrophic.

 

[jebatty]

Failure of a model to accurately predict an outcome to a level of absolute certainty before a decision is made to act based on the model seems to be very foolish. And it is particularly foolish when the actions which can mitigate AGW not only will be cost competitive or advantageous over FF, but also will have large social benefits in addition to the mitigation effect: cleaner air, less lung and related diseases, less acid rain, less mercury, and less other harmful effects of FF use.

 

[woodgeek]

And the models have been wrong over and over. If the models cannot predict what is occurring over time how can they be considered accurate? Additionally many of the proponents of AGW have also backed off on the long term effects as being catastrophic.

Let's try a different tack TM.

Consider the idea of the 'Carbon Bubble'. Here is one link: http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_a...ill_the_carbon_bubble_burst_your_pension.html
there are many others.

I suppose that you don't like economy-crashing, financial-crisis-inducing bubbles any more than I do. What IF the science of AGW is not settled today, and we continue to make investments in FF infrastructure for the next decade or more, assuming plant costs will be amortized over the usual 20-40 years of plant life, inefficient auto fleets will get driven for 15 years, etc. Then a decade or more from now, the AGW science comes in and it is compelling and bad (worse for us waiting a decade) and a global consensus emerges that we need to reduce carbon emissions FAST. All of those FF infrastructure investments we made....those oil pipelines are now 'bridges to nowhere'. All the grannies investing their life savings in safe high-dividend utility bonds.....wiped out. The largest companies on the planet, whose valuation is based largely on subterranean assets of astronomical theoretical future value....that value is now wiped out as the C stays in the ground. They are the next round of 'too big to fail' companies.

Why not see a major 'diversification' of energy sources and a big push for efficiency, during a time of declining gas and oil stocks (fracking sources are expected to peak in the next few years, perhaps sooner with the collapse in oil prices) as a financially prudent move for the economy? In addition to being a new economic sector that creates more jobs than it displaces, and one that is good for your health?

 

[Doug MacIVER]

Let's try a different tack TM.

Consider the idea of the 'Carbon Bubble'. Here is one link: http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_a...ill_the_carbon_bubble_burst_your_pension.html
there are many others.

I suppose that you don't like economy-crashing, financial-crisis-inducing bubbles any more than I do. What IF the science of AGW is not settled today, and we continue to make investments in FF infrastructure for the next decade or more, assuming plant costs will be amortized over the usual 20-40 years of plant life, inefficient auto fleets will get driven for 15 years, etc. Then a decade or more from now, the AGW science comes in and it is compelling and bad (worse for us waiting a decade) and a global consensus emerges that we need to reduce carbon emissions FAST. All of those FF infrastructure investments we made....those oil pipelines are now 'bridges to nowhere'. All the grannies investing their life savings in safe high-dividend utility bonds.....wiped out. The largest companies on the planet, whose valuation is based largely on subterranean assets of astronomical theoretical future value....that value is now wiped out as the C stays in the ground. They are the next round of 'too big to fail' companies.

Why not see a major 'diversification' of energy sources and a big push for efficiency, during a time of declining gas and oil stocks (fracking sources are expected to peak in the next few years, perhaps sooner with the collapse in oil prices) as a financially prudent move for the economy? In addition to being a new economic sector that creates more jobs than it displaces, and one that is good for your health?

If the if happens and it is still if, the best thing that could be done starting today is a major shift in gov't thinking. today gov't throws money in a wide range, hoping something ,somewhere sticks. a much narrower approach in heavy investment is needed in the areas that get the biggest bang for the buck. the Manhattan Project took the nuclear concept and went from weapons to electricity in about 15 years (1939-1954). the recent Lockheed announcement on fusion is interesting and hydrogen has always seemed to be the pot of gold rainbow thing. unfortunately, nobody has found it yet. my guess is that most people would accept and welcome a concentrated approach. now maybe the gov't knows those two examples are just fanciful dreams, well move on and find the biggest bang.

 

[semipro]

my guess is that most people would accept and welcome a concentrated approach.

The trick there is knowing what to concentrate on. Without "throwing money in a wide range" on research how would you ever get enough information about an approach to know to invest more in it.
Related: an interesting TED talk on Trial, Error, and the God Complex. http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford
The speaker suggests that the best approach may be to try many things and see what works best and then move on with that, much like nature.
I'd suggest that humans take a more moderate approach and try a number of promising technologies instead of throwing all investment into one area; pretty much what we are already doing and what you seem to be saying needs to change.

 

[woodgeek]

We agree on the IF part of the Carbon Bubble scenario. The Manhattan Project was a very impressive govt project, but the power those reactors produce never got quite as cheap as was hoped, and now looks to be pretty expensive compared to 2014 renewable energy.

I love the 'We Can Do it' attitude, but it seems to run headlong into 'The Govt can't do anything right' and 'The Govt shouldn't try to pick winners' and if we fund all the ideas....then every one that doesn't work will be evidence the whole enterprise was a boondoggle. You and I are happy to pay for some out-there research like Lockheed's...its not clear our neighbors are.

The good news is that in 2014 we DO know where the energy is going to come from. PV and Wind. That's it, we know. We also know how to make and site both PV panels and giant wind turbines to produce all the power we need cost effectively (i.e. cheaper than nukes). Awesome. We just need to work out a few kinks regarding personal transportation (EVs), diurnal variations (prob grid storage with batteries) and seasonal variations (prob some locations will need long-distance HVDC from sunnier locations (or offshore wind, if cheaper), combined with superinsulation to reduce winter heating loads).

Fortunately all of those are being very aggressively researched and developed using both private and govt monies. We just have to keep at it.

 

[movemaine]

If the if happens and it is still if, the best thing that could be done starting today is a major shift in gov't thinking. today gov't throws money in a wide range, hoping something ,somewhere sticks. a much narrower approach in heavy investment is needed in the areas that get the biggest bang for the buck. the Manhattan Project took the nuclear concept and went from weapons to electricity in about 15 years (1939-1954). the recent Lockheed announcement on fusion is interesting and hydrogen has always seemed to be the pot of gold rainbow thing. unfortunately, nobody has found it yet. my guess is that most people would accept and welcome a concentrated approach. now maybe the gov't knows those two examples are just fanciful dreams, well move on and find the biggest bang.

It will take a govt perspective change and a shift from being a political indicator (are we really still arguing that man can have an impact on the environment?). There's money to be made with renewable and alternative fuels (something Dems & Reps can get behind), but as long as climate change is seen as a progressive only issue, progress will be slow.

Example:
http://www.pressherald.com/2014/07/...s-2-5-billion-in-scotland-offshore-wind-farm/

"A Norwegian company that planned to build a major wind farm off Maine’s coast, but then pulled the plug last fall after political maneuvering by Gov. Paul LePage, has invested $2.5 billion in a wind project off the shores of the United Kingdom."

Gov. LePage was more interested in the tar sands pipeline that wind investment.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

We agree on the IF part of the Carbon Bubble scenario. The Manhattan Project was a very impressive govt project, but the power those reactors produce never got quite as cheap as was hoped, and now looks to be pretty expensive compared to 2014 renewable energy.

I love the 'We Can Do it' attitude, but it seems to run headlong into 'The Govt can't do anything right' and 'The Govt shouldn't try to pick winners' and if we fund all the ideas....then every one that doesn't work will be evidence the whole enterprise was a boondoggle. You and I are happy to pay for some out-there research like Lockheed's...its not clear our neighbors are.

The good news is that in 2014 we DO know where the energy is going to come from. PV and Wind. That's it, we know. We also know how to make and site both PV panels and giant wind turbines to produce all the power we need cost effectively (i.e. cheaper than nukes). Awesome. We just need to work out a few kinks regarding personal transportation (EVs), diurnal variations (prob grid storage with batteries) and seasonal variations (prob some locations will need long-distance HVDC from sunnier locations, combined with superinsulation to reduce winter heating loads).

Fortunately all of those are being very aggressively being researched and developed using both private and govt monies. We just have to keep at it.

be interesting to see if the solar and wind continue to get the heavy subsidies beyond 2015., my guess is they will. GE alone will probably insure it. my point is the IF. IF it is a crisis then drastic measures are needed now. that's what leads me to think the gov't should do it. hell if the Ivanpahs are the best solution for the southwest throw the money at it and solve it. in the plains wind is solid as is the tech, do we continue to we subsidize there. this is about the entire grid as it is individual companies. a lot of stuff like that would help the IF people on co2 and those such as myself seeing my electric bill in a stable condition again.

 

[woodgeek]

Right now, PV in the US, global wind power, and global/US EV sales are all growing exponentially, doubling every 18-24 mos. While all are subsidized, all look like they have an 'organic' quality to their growth that could continue (perhaps with a hiccup) is subsidies were phased out.

18 month exponential growth is about the fastest adoption that any tech gets anywhere, ever. While folks are debating the need and the merits and the science of AGW, the RE train is coming down the tracks. Those Lockheed Mr Fusions are going to have some clean competition when they come on line in 10-15 years.

I agree with you about GE, now that RE has deep pockets, it will be unstoppable for good or ill (perhaps CapeWind and Ivanpah are examples of the latter). Those 100,000 EVs on US roads....times $7500 per that is $7.5B of (redistributed) fed money invested to retool 0.1% of the US car fleet!

Edit: Ooops. Had a cup of coffee....that is 'only' $750M

 

[Doug MacIVER]

Right now, PV in the US, global wind power, and global/US EV sales are all growing exponentially, doubling every 18-24 mos. While all are subsidized, all look like they have an 'organic' quality to their growth that could continue (perhaps with a hiccup) is subsidies were phased out.

18 month exponential growth is about the fastest adoption that any tech gets anywhere, ever. While folks are debating the need and the merits and the science of AGW, the RE train is coming down the tracks. Those Lockheed Mr Fusions are going to have some clean competition when they come on line in 10-15 years.

I agree with you about GE, now that RE has deep pockets, it will be unstoppable for good or ill (perhaps CapeWind and Ivanpah are examples of the latter). Those 100,000 EVs on US roads....times $7500 per that is $7.5B of (redistributed) fed money invested to retool 0.1% of the US car fleet!

concentrate on the greater good then. you feel good about your car(you should), take that money and make a whole lot more people happier with their electric bill.

 

[DougA]

Right now, PV in the US, global wind power, and global/US EV sales are all growing exponentially, doubling every 18-24 mos. While all are subsidized, all look like they have an 'organic' quality to their growth that could continue (perhaps with a hiccup) is subsidies were phased out.

In Ontario there are thousands of wind turbines, all very heavily subsidized by the gov't and all very hotly contested during planning stage, all forced through by the gov't and all hated by the locals (except the land owners getting their rent). I know people living in the affected areas and while nuclear power stations are welcomed, wind turbines are not. Property values near the turbine fields have plummeted even though property values elsewhere in Ont are at record highs.

So the growth is being forced by gov't, not by the people. A false growth is very dangerous.

I personally think the idea is good but I don't have them in my backyard.

 

[dougstove]

Optomistically, a more distributed system of power generation and consumption might become more resilient, and might help people see the connection between their energy use and supply.
I am fed up with the magical thinking that the low cost electricity fairy comes from a plug in the wall, but no one wants a gas plant, a wind turbine, a coal plant, a nuclear plant, a pipeline, a transmission line etc. anywhere near their house.
I see 200 cars in the parking lot at an anti-fracking community meeting. So it is OK to convert Nigeria and Alberta to Mordor, but we must not do the same here.
We cannot convert the whole continent to a low-density ex-urbia and block all energy development.

 

[TMonter]

Failure of a model to accurately predict an outcome to a level of absolute certainty before a decision is made to act based on the model seems to be very foolish. And it is particularly foolish when the actions which can mitigate AGW not only will be cost competitive or advantageous over FF, but also will have large social benefits in addition to the mitigation effect: cleaner air, less lung and related diseases, less acid rain, less mercury, and less other harmful effects of FF use.

It has nothing to do with certainty, it's not even in the same ball park. Look at the IPCC predictions over the past 3 iterations of their reports, they weren't even close.