Limited role for CO2 in climate change

probe

Variations in the sun's output have a far greater impact on the earth's climate, compared with greenhouse gases, according to Astrophysicist Dr Nir Shariv. We all have an idea of how powerful the sun is, and it is intuitively obvious that this power is going to vary - it is a natural force - not a computer controlled furnace with thermostats keeping output levels consistent.

We are going through a period in which solar sunspot activity is the highest it has been for some 8,000 years - see chart:
http://www.canada.com/storyimage.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&img=979a6c03-0842-4d20-93d8-7d6926032eb6&path=%2fnationalpost%2ffinancialpost%2fcomment%2f

While we have to reduce hydrocarbon use - because they are running out and essential for the production of certain chemicals etc - and shouldn't be wasted on heat and transportation energy, and we need to reduce pollution levels for health and quality of life reasons, reducing CO2 levels will do nothing material to stop global climate change, according to this paper.

.probe

Quote:


Limited role for C02
The Deniers -- Part X
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com

This story: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0

A related story on solar activity and climate impact which lead me to the above:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

silverharp

Probe - don' be spreading that nonsense, think of all the careers and money that's at stake

Viking House

Interesting!!

boomshackala

silverharp wrote:

Probe - don' be spreading that nonsense, think of all the careers and money that's at stake

If you think its saving the planet thats driving investment in renewables, think again...its about saving money!

bonkey

I assume you guys have looked for, found and considered the rebuttals to Shaviv's work which already abound?

I mean, it would be irresponsible to just accept the view of someone because they were a scientist who said what you happened to agree with, right? You should consider both argument and counter-argument, and try as objectively as possible to evaluate the entirety of work on the subject, right?

So I was just wondering...rather than giving the "rah rah" for Shaviv, you'd care to comment on the rebuttals that you've (presumably) looked for, found, and considered.

McSandwich

Have a look here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

And for the sun's influence:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125691.100-global-warming-will-the-sun-come-to-our-rescue.html

silverharp

boomshackala wrote:

If you think its saving the planet thats driving investment in renewables, think again...its about saving money!

It was meant more as a cheap shot at the emissions trading industry and the scamming that scientists have to do to get research grants. I heard of one example of a scientist who wanted to study frog populations in a particular area, if he had left his application at that he reckoned he wouldn’t get the money so he tacked on how climate change was affecting …… and hey pesto he got his grant.



In general I believe the 2 big issues are Peak oil and climate change but if you solve for peak oil you will also solve for climate change in human terms anyway. If you try to solve for climate change then Peak Oil would cause the plans to fail, and if you don’t solve for either then PO will solve climate change in any event as the carring capacity of the earth will be much reduced.

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

but if you solve for peak oil you will also solve for climate change in human terms anyway.

So if we all went back to generating our power from coal, and powering our cars with natural gas....the climate change problem would be solved?

Thats an interesting perspective

I think what you meant is that we can try to solve peak oil in a manner that also solves some of the issues for climate change.

Cuauhtemoc

Assuming that was true should we not reduce CO2 so as to try and negate(as much as possible) the increasing temperatures?


C.

silverharp

bonkey wrote:

So if we all went back to generating our power from coal, and powering our cars with natural gas....the climate change problem would be solved?

Thats an interesting perspective

I think what you meant is that we can try to solve peak oil in a manner that also solves some of the issues for climate change.

You’ve made the classic mistake that the media make and that is assuming that solving for PO means carrying on the way we live just using different fuels. I don’t think this is an achievable objective, but agreed solving for PO does not mean finding other stuff to burn.

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

You’ve made the classic mistake that the media make and that is assuming that solving for PO means carrying on the way we live just using different fuels.

How is it a mistake?

Peak Oil is the concept that oil production will (soon) peak and then decline. It is a problem because it means our current lifestyle is unsustainable.

Solving PO means solving that problem. It could mean that we change our lifestyle. It could mean that we change our energy-sources. It could (and probably will, in my opinion) mean a combination of the two.

Its not a mistake to point out that an open comment like "solving PO" allows any of these options and thus does not necessarily imply that we will simultaneously solve any issue of anthropogenic global warming.

I would also go further and point out that oil-usage is only one of the major problematic factors in the AGW equation. Coal usage is also one, as is deforestation, livestock, and a number of other factors as well. It is far from established that could we (even theoretically speaking) remove all oil-based emissions in the morning and replace them with nothing that we would be out of the woods.

silverharp

Quote:
How is it a mistake

Cos you implied a solution to PO was to fuel private transport using gas. Solving for PO is not as open as you would think, solving for PO does not include solutions where the cure is worse then the problem (eg cutting down rainforests to grow fuel crops for cars) or where the solution is unsustainable or energy negative , however gov and individuals will respond to PO in undersirable ways, lord knows if I’m cold enough I’ll burn old tires in my fireplace, but this not a solution, merely a response. I’ll grant you solving anthropogenic global warming is not guaranteed but it would cover the emissions side of the issue in terms that the international community are discussing the problem currently.

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

Quote:
solving for PO does not include solutions where the cure is worse then the problem

I disagree.

Solving Peak Oil is exactly that - ensuring the diminishing (and increasingly expensive) supplies of oil are offset.

Anthropogenic global warming, as an example, is an entirely seperate problem. It would need to be solved whether or not Peak Oil is just around the corner.

Air pollution is an entirely seperate problem. It too would need to be solved whether or not Peak Oil is just aroudn the corner.

To say that a solution to Peak Oil must also solve these problems is disingenuous. To hedge your bets and not even specify clearly the problems that a solutoin must solve, but rather say "nothing must get worse, and we need to remove our dependancy on oil" is just a bit too idealistic to be practical.

No matter what replaces oil or if nothing does, there will be tradeoffs. What is a good tradeoff in one person's eyes will be unacceptable in another's. Thus, the "cure worse than problem" argument holds no water as someone will see that to be the case regardless of the cure.

If you truly hold that position, then the only objective conclusion is that there is no solution....which gets us nowhere.

Gas and coal combined would be a solution to Peak Oil...but Peak Oil is not a problem in isolation. Thats the point I'm making.

It may be correct to say that any acceptable solution to Peak Oil must also address the problems which are concurrent with Peak Oil, but it is not correct to say that solving Peak Oil will solve those problems.
then taht problem would need so.

Its a fine distinction, perhaps even a pedantic one, but one that needs to be made.

where the solution is unsustainable

Of course an unsustainable solution is acceptable if there is no acceptable sustainable solution. People talk big talk about wave and solar and wind and all of these other lovely options, but the reality is that none of them are ready for a mass-implementation. At the same time, some PO advocates tell us that we have about 4 years before all hell breaks loose.

In 4 years, you can't move to an unproven technology. You can't even move to a proven technology which relies on large-scale infrastructure changes.

So you go for what you can do. Yes, it will create other problems...but every solution in the history of mankind has done that. Should we therefore conclude that man has, in fact, never once actually solved anything?

lord knows if I’m cold enough I’ll burn old tires in my fireplace, but this not a solution, merely a response.

Its a short-term solution. It gives you time to think about a mid-term solution, which gives you time to think of a long-term solution.

None of them are really solutions once you look at a long-enough timeframe. They're all just responses.

I’ll grant you solving anthropogenic global warming is not guaranteed

I thought you didn't believe in it in the first place?

piraka

..................and don't forget about ozone depetion in the stratosphere.

http://www.nwra.com/resumes/baldwin/pubs/Baldwin_Dameris_Shepherd_2007.pdf

ednwireland

boomshackala wrote:

If you think its saving the planet thats driving investment in renewables, think again...its about saving money!

wrong - its about making money well for the businesses that sell renewable technology

Del2005

All this talk of Peak Oil and climate change can be cr@p and just scientist trying to keep their jobs. If they came out tomorrow and said "Sorry we got it wrong, it's the Sun" do you think that all the hundreds of thousands of scientists and researchers working on CC would be kept in their jobs or fired on the spot?

Do people remember our last disaster? The Millennium Bug, it was supposed to return the world to the year 00 as all the computers would go belly up. What happened? Nothing. Scientist can get things wrong and right, just cause they all say same thing doesn't mean it's true.

As for PO, there is still loads of oil it's just hard to get at. But someone will figure a way to get at it if it's needed, god knows how much it'll cost thought.

bonkey

Del2005 wrote:

All this talk of Peak Oil and climate change can be cr@p and just scientist trying to keep their jobs.

If the science behind it is that bad, you'd think a serious case against it would be easy to make.

Instead, we have the occasional article, as that linked to by the OP. It is apparently accepted by critics and skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming and heralded as being the one truth, and then used to "prove" that its all a crock.

I don't get it. You have over 90% of all scientists in agreement, producing works that say yes the earth is warming and yes man is a major contributor. THe skeptics and critics shake their heads and say that they basically don't buy it because there isn't 100% unanimity, isn't 100% certainty, and it could all be a scam.

Then when someone heralds a single paper which suggests that it mightn't be man at all, or mightn't be really happening at all, what happens? Skepticism? Criticism? Rejection for lack of unanimity on the findings? Not at all. Instead, we get some sort of victory dance, and crowing about how this somehow shows they were right and its all a crock.

If they came out tomorrow and said "Sorry we got it wrong, it's the Sun" do you think that all the hundreds of thousands of scientists and researchers working on CC would be kept in their jobs or fired on the spot?

Which they are you talking about? The hundreds of thousands of scientists you refer to further on? The overwhelming majority who's opinion currently gets rejected by those who don't like it because its less than 100%?

If they came out and said "we got it wrong" and could explain why, I personally would laud them for doing what scientists are supposed to do. Rejecting disproven theories is a fundamental part of science. Its a key factor in how progress is made.

Do people remember our last disaster? The Millennium Bug, it was supposed to return the world to the year 00 as all the computers would go belly up. What happened? Nothing.

Well now, hold on. Thats not entirely true. What happened was that huge amounts of money was poured into ensuring that nothing would happen. Then when nothing happened, people decided that they had been conned out of their money.

Were you aware, for example, that the first time ESB did a readiness test, the system failed catastrophically. Had they not done anything, the nation would have been completely without power for an indeterminate quantity of time (IIRC, it took 72 hours to fix the test-system, but they had working systems to use while they were doing that).

Its also worth pointing out that the Millenium Bug was not championed by scientists. There was no falsifiable "Millenium Bug Theory".

You might as well argue that because economics experts can incorrectly predict the next market collapse this somehow shows that scientists can also get it spectacularly wrong about Global Warming.

Scientist can get things wrong and right, just cause they all say same thing doesn't mean it's true.

You're right, it doesn't mean its true.

It means that its statistically far more likely to be correct than incorrect.

It means that its almost certainly mostly correct.

It means that the probabilty of them being badly wrong is non-zero but vanishingly small.

It would be like a doctor telling you that you'd been diagnosed with an aggressive cancer and that if you didn't have surgery within the next month you'd almost certainly die within a year.

There's a chance the doctor could be totall wrong and you don't have cancer at all...despite the fact that 999 out of 1000 doctors would agree with him.

There's a chance he's wrong to the point where it will kill you in 10 years, not 1.
There's a chance he's wrong to the point where you have 13 months.

There's a chance you only have 6 weeks of a window and not a month.

There are people all over the world in situations like that who decide every year that they'll play the odds and decide that the doctor could be wrong. And yes...a small handful of those have their cancer go into remission, or disappear entirely, or whatever. Strangely enough, such cases are usually called "miraculous".

But you're right. Just like the doctor's diagnosis can be wrong, the scientists could be wrong too. They could be right, but we all still get saved by something miraculous.

But the odds say overwhelmingly that this is not the case.

Del2005

Your missing my point. I believe in global warming and I still haven't made up my mind on whats causing it. I'm just saying that sometimes a theory gets latched onto and people get blinded to any other option. Have you ever being working on something and got stuck, someone else walks in and figures out what is wrong is seconds and you've been banging your head against a wall for hours. All the scientist have got an idea that man is causing global warming and if they are looking for evidence they will find it. If someone else came in and looked without this preconception they could come up with a totally different theory from looking at the same results, and they may also agree. As I read on a article about WIFI being dangerous, science can rarely prove a theory right but can prove it wrong.

Then when someone heralds a single paper which suggests that it mightn't be man at all, or mightn't be really happening at all, what happens? Skepticism? Criticism? Rejection for lack of unanimity on the findings? Not at all. Instead, we get some sort of victory dance, and crowing about how this somehow shows they were right and its all a crock.

And is science not about being a skeptic. If people didn't question scientists we'd still be living on a flat planet with the sun revolving around us.

If they came out and said "we got it wrong" and could explain why, I personally would laud them for doing what scientists are supposed to do. Rejecting disproven theories is a fundamental part of science. Its a key factor in how progress is made.

I would laud them also, but they still would all loose their jobs. There has been a huge industry created by global warming and there are now bigs corporations working in the field with huge bureaucracy's and as everyone knows Bureaucrats are good at keeping their jobs and loosing a job is a great reason to skew results.

Well now, hold on. Thats not entirely true. What happened was that huge amounts of money was poured into ensuring that nothing would happen. Then when nothing happened, people decided that they had been conned out of their money.
Were you aware, for example, that the first time ESB did a readiness test, the system failed catastrophically. Had they not done anything, the nation would have been completely without power for an indeterminate quantity of time (IIRC, it took 72 hours to fix the test-system, but they had working systems to use while they were doing that).

And what about all the countries and companies that did nothing? Nothing happened. The theories about the bug where as real as climate change, they where just totally wrong.

Its also worth pointing out that the Millenium Bug was not championed by scientists. There was no falsifiable "Millenium Bug Theory".

BTW who was championing the Millennium Bug, do you not think that people who make computers are scientist? I think they'd disagree with you.

bonkey

Del2005 wrote:

Your missing my point. I believe in global warming and I still haven't made up my mind on whats causing it. I'm just saying that sometimes a theory gets latched onto and people get blinded to any other option. Have you ever being working on something and got stuck, someone else walks in and figures out what is wrong is seconds and you've been banging your head against a wall for hours. All the scientist have got an idea that man is causing global warming and if they are looking for evidence they will find it.

Thats simply not true. Scientists have independantly arrived at the same conclusion again and again. They have independantly published their findings in peer-reviewed papers, where those findings have been examed by more and more of their peers. Thats what scientists do. While making a new discovery is about the greatest thing a scientist can do, knocking someone else's theory and showing it to be false runs a close second.

They haven't just all decided its true then set out to prove it.

This whole debate is reminiscent of the "smoking causes cancer" one which raged for decades. Science had established beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the causal link was there. However, politicisation and media-management made sure that the public were led to believe that there was a far greater degree of uncertainty and that - just like you're arguing now - it was just scientists trying to prove assumptions they'd already made.

If someone else came in and looked without this preconception they could come up with a totally different theory from looking at the same results, and they may also agree.

Someone else has come in. Other scientists. There's no-one else qualified to come in. Anyone who becomes qualified enough does so by becoming a scientist.

But again..you're right. They could come up with a completely different theory. They could be right. The odds are miniscule. I refer you back to my cancer analagy previously...its the sme thing.

As I read on a article about WIFI being dangerous, science can rarely prove a theory right but can prove it wrong.

Science can never prove a theory right. Thats not how science works, and its a lack of understanding of that very fact that is being abused by those who have a vested interest in resisting change.

And is science not about being a skeptic. If people didn't question scientists we'd still be living on a flat planet with the sun revolving around us.

Yes, science most certainly is about being a skeptic. A skeptic considers an argument when it is presented and accepts or rejects it based on the strength of the evidence offered.

They do not reject it because they don't know the details or because someone else tells them its all a bit dodgy or that they think its possible that it could be wrong so therefore its safer to assume that it probably is.

A skeptic refuses to accept arguments for which a reasonable doubt exists, for which a more convincing counter-argument exists, for where they can demonstrate the flaw in the reasoning.

When a skeptic is presented with strong evidence, backed overwhelmingly by the relevant experts, where any counter-argument is demonstrably weaker, more prone to bias, or requiring more base assumptions, then the skeptic should accept the argument as being the current "champion", whilst remaining open (of course) to the possibility that at some later point the landscape of evidence will change and a challenger will dethrone the champion.

I would laud them also, but they still would all loose their jobs.

Well, if thats the case, then maybe you should consider that these guys are smart enough to know that too. You're saying that they're betting the farm on being right and suggesting that they're conning us all and that sooner or later they're going to lose their jobs over it. All of them.

Thousands of scientists, worldwide, have - to a man and woman - decided to follow a path which you believe is likely to cost them all their jobs. Either they're suffering fvrom perhaps the most pervasive mass delusion in history or I would argue that they know something you don't.

And what about all the countries and companies that did nothing? Nothing happened. The theories about the bug where as real as climate change, they where just totally wrong.

Firstly...as I've already pointed out...if Ireland did nothing, we would have been without power. You can deny this if you like, by pointing at other people who didn't have the same problem, but I worked on the Y2K issue. I know first-hand the amount of work that made sure you were able to withdraw money from an ATM on the 1st of January 2000. I know second-hand the amount of work that made sure that ATM had power to keep it running so tha tyou could withdraw the money. If you want to believe that nothing would have happened, you go right ahead, but ignoring or remaining ignorant of the evidence is not skepticism.

Secondly, its no coincidence that those nations who did nothing were primarily those nations who do not rely heavily on modern, computerised technology. They didn't stand to suffer the same problems in the first place. Not having much (if any) stuff which could be prone to the problem, natuirally they didn't spend a fortune on it and naturally they had little that could go wrong.

Secondly, I would point out that you are grossly abusing the word "theory". Global Warming (and Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a theory in the sense that gravity is a theory. The Millenium Bug was a fact, the impacts of which were "theories" in the sense that any sort of speculative thinking can be called a theory. They are two entirely seperate uses of the same word - again a fact that the doubt-casters work to their advantage.

BTW who was championing the Millennium Bug,

Primarily it was the media. Nothing sells news like a good-old end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it piece of sensationalism. Work everyone into a frenzy, ignoring the sensible comments of people who actually know what they're talking about, and then when the end of the world doesn't come, blame those people you ignored for the sensationalism you cause.

The people who write code (like me) and who build computers were realistically aware of the potential impacts within their own field(s).

The scientists who commented said that the impacts should be minimal, but that they couldn't absolutely rule out the possibility that somethign would go badly wrong. See...thats how science works - you give a most probable result, a degree of confidence, and admit that because science doesn't prove things that the possibility exists that you're badly wrong.

The media took this and ignored the "almost certainly be no more than minimal disruption" bit of the message and ran with the "cannot rule out the possibility that everything will fall apart badly" bit.

do you not think that people who make computers are scientist? I think they'd disagree with you.

The people who make computers didn't predict the end of the world. They admitted there could be problems, checked them out, corrected as necessary and said they were confident there wouldn't be. Similarly, scientists are amongst the first to step up and say "less of the end-of-the-world rhetoric on global warming please", but they get accused of being the ones promoting the doomsday scenarios.

I would also point out that these people still have their jobs. You should consider, therefore, that either your idea of "get it that badly wrong and you lose your job" is wrong, or your idea that they got it badly wrong in the first palce is wrong.

probe

There is a risk of getting lost in academic arguments about the causes of climate change, and deviating the focus of attention from the big picture.

The receding Arctic and Antarctic glaciers are reasonably good proof of climate change – even if people might argue about whether Monday’s rain in certain parts of England is material evidence of change.

“Peak Oil” is not “cr@p”. Oil takes millions of years to form, and there is no doubt but that much of our inheritance has been extracted and consumed over the past century. The growing economies of Asia (China and India among others) will increase demand further, causing demand to exceed supply in the not too distant future. The idea is not just being promoted by vendors of green energy technologies - people who have spent their life in the oil industry are also concerned – eg www.feasta.org/documents/wells/one/campbell.html (He’s not doing it to sell his book – the entire book is on the net to read free).

Once a substantial portion of the world has upgraded their energy infrastructure to green technologies, the CO2 issue will take care of itself (to the extent that CO2 is impacting climate change at all). My own impression is increasingly that the impact of CO2 on climate change is over stated – and that other factors, including cyclical variations in the energy output of the sun have a lot to do with the issue.

On pure economic terms one is looking at the cost of various energy options in terms of c/kW. Many green energy sources are getting very cheap (3 to 5c/ kW), and hydrocarbons are getting increasingly expensive. It is surely more than a bit dumb to invest large sums in new plant based on antiquated hydrocarbon conversion technology? It is far more intelligent to invest in renewable technologies and continent-wide interconnectivity.

Conventional nuclear is not a medium or long term option for the world. If the entire world went for nuclear, the current supply of relatively ‘easy to mine/refine’ uranium would last about three years. The dirty uranium left in the ground would consume more energy to make it usable than it would deliver as electricity (see *).

.probe

*Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World (Paperback)
by Chris Abbott (Author), Paul Rogers (Author), John Sloboda (Author)

silverharp

probe wrote:

Conventional nuclear is not a medium or long term option for the world. If the entire world went for nuclear, the current supply of relatively ‘easy to mine/refine’ uranium would last about three years. The dirty uranium left in the ground would consume more energy to make it usable than it would deliver as electricity

nobody is arguing that nuclear is a 100% solution. No alternative is, but you seem to be setting a higher standard for nuclear then other alternatives. There is plenty of uranium out there. Australia for instance has a 3 mine policy at the moment, that's a policy decision not a resource constraint. Also the enriching process for uranium depends on the cost of Uranium so there are gains there as well if need be.

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

There is plenty of uranium out there.

With respect, if you replace the word "uranium" with "oil" you'll see that you have managed to make your argument in exactly the terms that the pro-oil lobby make theirs.

There's no shortage of cost-effective material if there isn't a large-scale worldwide adoption of nuclear. In such a case, sure, it would make sense for individual nations to go nuclear, but if everyone does it, we have a problem.

If there is a large-scale takeup, then there are a number of mid-term solutions to the problem, as well as longer-term solutions which involve moving away from uranium entirely. The mid-term solutions involve using different reactor design, implementing wide-spread and large-scale reprocessing capabilities, and so forth.

Whether the pro-nuclear lobby like it or not, there is a very real problem with this - the whole political game being played around the dual-use possibility of much of the technology required for a mid-term wide-spread sustainable implementation of nuclear power. Just witness what's going on in Iran. The Iranians have uranium. They want nuclear power stations. The US is insisting that - like their current situation with oil - they make themselves dependant on continued good relations with foreign nations (the US or nations that the US trusts) to process their uranium for their stations. Why? Because processing uranium for generation-use gives them the ability to process uranium beyond generation-use, right up to weapons-grade. Same problems with reprocessing.

Of course, we don't necessarily need to have these technologies widespread...but we still have to figure out a way to convince nations like Iran who could be entirely independant in terms of meeting their power needs that it is in their best interests to give up this power-independance and become dependant on others.

Even if we do that, then we need to address the issue of transport. Witness the expense and caution that is taken whenever large amounts of waste material are (for example) moved across national boundaries at present. Now imagine that the entire world was big into nuclear, but that due to political pressure there were only a handful of processing / reprocessing plants. More problems.

Nuclear isn't just "not without problems". Its "with serious problems limiting widespread adoption".

bonkey

probe wrote:

There is a risk of getting lost in academic arguments about the causes of climate change, and deviating the focus of attention from the big picture.

But the thread is (was) explicitly about one of the academic arguments.

Once a substantial portion of the world has upgraded their energy infrastructure to green technologies, the CO2 issue will take care of itself (to the extent that CO2 is impacting climate change at all).

But upgrading to green tech is only being driven by the need to solve the CO2 issue. As I've pointed out elsewhere, there are mid-term solutions to peak oil which do not move us off hydrocarbons. Sure, they're messy, and ugly, and - in the case of coal - kill loads people....but they're the easiest solutions to implement.

China is moving largescale to coal. In the US, there's been significant moves to revive and grow the coal industry. The "air pollution" argument has never worked previously and isn't going to work now.

The only thing driving public opinion away from such solutions (where they are being driven away) is the CO2 issue.

It is also the case that the CO2 issue involves far more than just the hydrocarbon economy. It also involves, for example, the massive amounts of livestock-based emissions as well as any number of other things.

It would be more accurate to say that if we can crack the CO2 issue, then we will have cracked Peak Oil as part of it

My own impression is increasingly that the impact of CO2 on climate change is over stated – and that other factors, including cyclical variations in the energy output of the sun have a lot to do with the issue.

Convenient. You don't want to get lost in an academic argument, but you want to state your opinion on the causes.

You can't have both.

If you want to be able to offer such an opinion, you should be willing to defend what its based on and why you hold that research to be of greater merit than the research that says otherwise. If you're not willing to make that argument, than you should simply concede that you're not going to discuss the case at all.

There is no research which agrees with your stance which does not have significant criticism levelled against it.

On pure economic terms one is looking at the cost of various energy options in terms of c/kW.

Yes and no.

On pure economic terms, one needs to look at the cost pf widespread adoption of any technology. Stuff which is becoming affordable today may not be affordable tomorrow if demand were to gtow significantly, beyond the point that given raw materials could be produced.

Similarly, on pure economic terms, widespread adoption also needs to take into account any resultant changes to our energy infrastructure and the costs associated with that.

Many green energy sources are getting very cheap (3 to 5c/ kW), and hydrocarbons are getting increasingly expensive. It is surely more than a bit dumb to invest large sums in new plant based on antiquated hydrocarbon conversion technology? It is far more intelligent to invest in renewable technologies and continent-wide interconnectivity.

And the cost and practicality of continent-wide interconnectivity?

Lets also not forget that there are limits to the practicality of interconnectivity. It allows you shunt stuff around, but only at a cost. If you haev a shortfall in Ireland and a surplus in Eastern Europe, then you can "side-shift" stuff incrementally (England to Ireland, Western Germany to England, Eastern Germany to Western Germany, and so on), but you're still paying a cost every step of the way. Its far from a panacea.

If the entire world went for nuclear, the current supply of relatively ‘easy to mine/refine’ uranium would last about three years.

If the entire world went nuclear, using 30-year old reactor models with no reprocessing, yes uranium would last about 3 years. Given that no-one's suggesting that model as the nuclear path, its a bit of a straw-man argument.

McSandwich

bonkey wrote:

If the entire world went nuclear, using 30-year old reactor models with no reprocessing, yes uranium would last about 3 years. Given that no-one's suggesting that model as the nuclear path, its a bit of a straw-man argument.

I read recently that at current usage there is only enough uranium to last 59 years. It's true that reproccessing will increase this.

Newer, more efficient reactors will also help reduce the drain on supplies, however the old models will need to be decommisioned and new sites found. The rapidly rising price of uranium (http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/nuclear+energy-investing-uranium/402) could have a negaitive impact on future investment.

silverharp

McSandwich wrote:

The rapidly rising price of uranium (http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/nuclear+energy-investing-uranium/402) could have a negaitive impact on future investment.

2 points there, the cost of Uranium is a relatively small % cost for the Utility company. The current spot price of Uranium about 120$ lb (up from 10/20 $ back in 2000) and I believe it would have to go above 250$ lb before the generating company would have to cut back (this assumes fossil fules aren't going up as well) The flip side is that the higher prices encourage exploration for new reserves. Nobody was looking for Uranium since the 1970's so I'm not sure if x amount of years of Uranium left would not increase over time as exploration develops.
Given that most utiliity comanies do long term deals with suppliers as opposed to oil and gas, the reasonable step forward for new generators is to lock in a 20 or 30 deal with a mining company before deciding to build.

bonkey

Have you discarded the requirement for a solution to be sustainable?

Or do you see "probably find some unknown quantity more, if we look" and "x years" as being sufficient to qualify as sustainability?

silverharp

bonkey wrote:

Have you discarded the requirement for a solution to be sustainable?

the minimum I would argue for nuclear is as a transitional technology to help wean off fossil fuels, so 50 years from today is sustainable enough

bonkey

You complained that gas was not part of any solution due to its non-sustainability. This would imply that there are less then 50 years of gas-reserves, then?

silverharp

bonkey wrote:

You complained that gas was not part of any solution due to its non-sustainability. This would imply that there are less then 50 years of gas-reserves, then?

From what I have read Gas is maybe 5 years behind oil on the depletion curve. IMO it's too useful to be used in power generation and remaining reserves should be confined to domestic heating and cooking to which it is more effecient. Gas depletes very quickly as it is so easy to extract compared to oil

Have a look at the chart below using the modelling done by Colin Campbell

http://www.aspo-ireland.org/contentFiles/newsletterPDFs/newsletter78_200706.pdf

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

From what I have read Gas is maybe 5 years behind oil on the depletion curve.

Fair enough. Strange you should link to an article that says otherwise.

IMO it's too useful to be used in power generation

I never suggested it should. I suggested it might be used (for example) to power cars, and you argued that this was flawed on the grounds that it is not sustainable.

If gas-use was limited to solving one particular aspect of the issue, as I suggest - and as you go on to suggest in this post - then its sustainability extends beyond current predictions, right?

Have a look at the chart below using the modelling done by Colin Campbell

http://www.aspo-ireland.org/contentFiles/newsletterPDFs/newsletter78_200706.pdf

As I mention above, this chart contradicts your 5-year lag. It suggests that NGL will peak in 2035....shorter than I would have expected or liked, but based on the assumption that usage will follow certain trends.

If, as I suggested previously, gas were used for specific purposes, rather than as a general replacement for oil-derived energy, then it could easily meet that 50-year timeframe you set.

silverharp

Bonkey - If, as I suggested previously, gas were used for specific purposes, rather than as a general replacement for oil-derived energy, then it could easily meet that 50-year timeframe you set.

You said before that the role for gas should expand “to power cars” it would seem unsustainable to create more uses for gas especially in the transportation arena. I’m not suggesting that the gas be left in the ground, it will be used and the market being the market there will be a substitution from oil to gas, but it won’t be cheap as high oil prices will lead to high gas prices. In terms of peak oil, a solution is something that helps plug the shortfall of oil (either on the demand side or supply side) and I wouldn’t put gas into that camp. Ultimately it’s up to society what they use Oil and gas for and to that extent oil and gas will move up and down the sustainability scale. People will still use oil and gas in 50 years, but I suspect that the range of sustainable uses will have dropped
Looking specifically at gas, do you use it to make Hydrogen? Gas powered cars? To make tar sands oil? Domestic uses? or for electricity? Pick your mix and you can decide how sustainable it will be.


Re the peaking of Gas, his assumptions for peak gas that I read elsewhere is that it peaks around 2015 but plateaus until2035/2040. gas production is normally capped below max output, the downside of this is that there will be fewer market signals



As an aside an interesting aricle on natural Gas
http://europe.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/27/61031/618

jawlie

I love reading this thread and see it's really just a re run of other threads on climate change.

Essentially, there are two types of arguments, those who like to challenge the orthodoxy and discuss the views of the many scientists who are not convinced that the sole or main cause of climate change is caused by the increase in Global CO2 emissions on the one hand, and on the other those who refuse to consider any arguments which might be contrary to the view that it all the fault of CO2.

I particularly enjoyed Bonkey's claim that "90% of all scientists agree that CO2 is the problem", and marvel at his knowledge of what 100% of scientists around the world are thinking. Even if 99% of all scientists were to believe it, it still doesn't make it necessarily true or that their belief is evidence based. Once 100% of all scientists believed the world was flat, and that belief was disproved.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

I love reading this thread and see it's really just a re run of other threads on climate change.

Just as I love the inaccurate way people like yourself recast the argument to make your case.

Essentially, there are two types of arguments, those who like to challenge the orthodoxy and discuss the views of the many scientists who are not convinced that the sole or main cause of climate change is caused by the increase in Global CO2 emissions on the one hand, and on the other those who refuse to consider any arguments which might be contrary to the view that it all the fault of CO2.

Thats untrue.

I, for example, am perfectly willing to consider arguments which are contrary to the view that greenhouse gases (not solely CO2) are the major contributor to global warming, and that anthropogenic effects are the major contributor to those gas-based effects.

What I am not willing to do, just as the scientists who support anthropogenic global warming are not willing to do, is accept claims without accompanying evidence, accept claims with faulty or selectively-chosen evidence, and so forth on little more than the grounds that there's a chance it might be right.

I particularly enjoyed Bonkey's claim that "90% of all scientists agree that CO2 is the problem", and marvel at his knowledge of what 100% of scientists around the world are thinking.

Actually, there have been studies done to determine what the level of consensus is. I'll see if I can find you the link. What, incidentally, are you basing your position on?

Even if 99% of all scientists were to believe it, it still doesn't make it necessarily true or that their belief is evidence based.

That's correct. The evidence that they have based their position on is what says their position is evidence-based. This evidence, as well as the science that they apply to it is - amazingly - what rarely seems to get directly referenced by nay-sayers.

Once 100% of all scientists believed the world was flat, and that belief was disproved.

I think you'll find that if you look at the timelines, that was well before the advent of modern science and in particular the rigorous application of the scientific method. I think you'll also find that when presented with a compelling argument to prove their position wrong, even back then they were able to change their position.

Regardless, its amusing to see that you're still just arguing from a position that "its not a 0-probability event". I've never suggested that its impossible for them to be wrong. I've suggested merely that discounting the general consensus on the argument that its not impossible for them to be wrong is a foolish strategy.

If there is a scientific, evidence-based argument suggesting either that the theory of global warming is significantly flawed or that there is an alternate theory which is a good (or better) fit to the data, then such an argument deserves study. When such arguments are presented, the scientific community do indeed study them. To date, those arguments have been found lacking.

The problem, per se, is outside the scientific community, where there is a far greater tendency to take a position and then only choose the information that supports it. Someone releases a paper that greenhouse-gases aren't the cause...celebrate. Declare the downfall of the global warming conspiracy.

If the paper is critiqued and the flaws in it pointed out, such criticism gets ignored or dismissed on the ironic grounds that it is coming from people who only want to see their chosen side of things.