The Green Energy Reporter has posed an interview of Andy Revkin discussing his reflections on Copenhagen along with his ideas about possible successful paths toward lowering emissions.
One interesting (to me) QA is:
GER: Did you get a new sense of hope from Copenhagen?
AR: I don’t think, in the end, that’s where you’re going to find it. The thing that will change our energy norm won’t come out of a diplomatic process so much as out of innovations in technology and social innovations. There’s those who still think the business world will still be that place. But from the stories that The Times and I have done on these things – there aren’t really the Bell Labs out there.
I too think we need such innovations. We also need to be willing to implement the innovations that are promising– but maybe that is a sort of social innovation?
The article also brings up names like Joe Romm and Rush Limbaugh. Pretty interesting reading.
Weird. He’s still got his blinders on. No matter how much incompetence and corruption is exposed, I suspect he’ll be a faithful believer to the end.
Stan–
I also think that warming is real and caused by humans, and more specifically a lot is cause by ghgs. I simultaneously think there have been some problems caused by tribalism in climate science. But I don’t think the problem are sufficient to mean that the major conclusions were just concocted.
Why should Andy Revkin come to any such conclusion?
“I also think that warming is real and caused by humans”
Religious belief? 😉
Andrew
Stan:
I think you are being a tad unfair. Revkin has his pre-conceived notions like the rest of us. But even when I disagreed with what he wrote I always got the impression that he was trying to get it right, though his reliance on some sources proved to be ill-advised. Of course, he wrote for the New York Times so my expectations of independent-mindedness were low.
It is noteworthy that Revkin’s rather modest departures from CAGW orthodoxies received so much vitriolic crap from Joe Romm. The “denialist” side is increasing in part because the alarmist high priests are so quick to condemn and excommunicate those who exhibit the slightest hint of doubt.
I also agree with Revkin and lucia about the likely source of solutions. I am pro-algae, pro-nuke and well-disposed to solar and wind supplements. I loathe trivial feel-good green gestures. I am unmoved by scare stories about polar bears but I get a bi-partisan leg tingle when somebody says “let’s find a way to screw OPEC.”
The gist of both Copenhagen and Kyoto was that “we delegates don’t really have any answers but you better transfer lots of money and power to people like us so we can pretend to cut off your energy supply before it is too late.” The sooner that approach goes away the better.
This post touches on my latest which is basically a rant against the false belief that the government will provide the solutions. Andy’s comment that the bell lab isn’t out there is not correct in that the innovations of energy storage, solar and nuclear are moving forward rapidly enough. I just wish people would stop trying to solve the problem with taxes and redistribution.
Sorry but I can’t help thinking that destiny is manifest. All available fossil fuels will be consumed. Accommodations to any climate changes wrought by that will be primarily adaptive (barring a huge climate sensitivity and/or tipping points). There will be technology breakthroughs but fuel may never be as cheap as it is for us right now. There is a trend and tendency for humans to interact more and more via the internet so they don’t have to commute so much and can stay home and knit 😉 The present is good but the future will be better.
There is a fairly new, rural hospital in Eastern Oregon heated by burning wood pellets, which heats water, which drives individual heat pumps, which are controlled by thermostats in multiple locations. The design was done about 6-7 years ago, which predates $140 oil and federal subsidies. It was an economic decision. It was a good decision.
The forest service is building a new office building in Bend, Oregon, and it will be heated similarly, inspired by the hospital’s success. No Bell Labs was required.
This is the argument that I always have with my friends who wholly believe in man-made global warming. As an engineer, I look for solutions to the problems and things like carbon taxes and cap and trade do not look like solutions to me. I believe that globe is warming and even it is caused by CO2 release into the atmosphere, I don’t see us getting off of fossil fuels anytime soon. A couple of years ago, I read an article in IEEE Spectrum magazine that said we use roughly 1 cubic mile of oil a year around the world. Then it provided the amount of energy that 1 cubic mile oil provides in equivalent terms of other sources of energy. For example, one number was that the amount of energy in 1 cubic mile of oil is equal to the amount energy produced by three “3 gorges dam” running for 30 years! Given our level dependency on oil, no amount of carbon tax or cap and trade is going to force us to substantially reduce our use of oil because, frankly, there are no substitutes for it.
Given this, the logical thing is to prepare to deal with the consequences of global warming which are: limiting development in the coastal regions; preparing water conservation projects; and promote energy efficiency, not so much to prevent global warming but rather to be able to support a larger population with less energy as the oil runs out. With the exception of the last one, a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system is not going to help us with any of the above.
Lip service maybe paid to the fact that the revenues obtained from carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems would be directed towards mitigating the effects of global warming but if past is any indication, this is not going to happen. In the US, Social Security and Medicare taxes were supposed to be kept separate from the general funds; however, in the US, these funds were treated as low interest loans where the US government used the funds in them as general funds and then wrote an IOU for it. I can see the same thing happening with carbon taxes, especially, if the actual global warming danger (as opposed to its perceived danger) is not immediate.
here is a question for the luke warmers here
how strong is your “luke” and can you quantify it?
ie: what percentage of warming do you attribute to GHGs?
another question:
at what percentage (of the warming) does your lukewarmhood call for action controlling GHGs?
windansea–
Like skeptic, denialist, alarmist, or any other term, “lukewarmer” is a bit ambiguous. The main thing is that “lukewarmers” believe there is warming it is caused by humans, that recent rises are due to man, but that’s it’s fairly likely that the consensus projections are biased somewhat high. Of course, they are also people who call themselves lukewarmer.
So, if someone is saying everything about AGW is a tissue of lies– they are not a lukewarmer. If someone sounds like Joe Romm, they are not a lukewarmer, If someone thinks the climate sensitivity is on the high side over the IPCC range, they are not a lukewarmer.
In contrast, if someone thinks the sensitivity is in the vicinity of the IPCC range, but on the low side, that qualifies as a “lukewarm” belief. (Whether or not they want to call themselves a lukewarmer, I cannot say.)
Lucia,
A proper response to your question would take a book. Very brief version (unfortunately without the time to make it as clean and concise as it might be).
1. The policy response Revkin desires will necessitate the greatest infringement on the lives, liberty and property of the world’s citizens in history. Basic morality requires that the science used to justify such massive infringement meet an appropriate burden of proof. We can argue about what that burden should be (ultimately, every voter decides for himself), but I don’t see why a proposal to punish billions of the world’s innocent poor shouldn’t meet the same proof standard we require to punish one guilty criminal.
2. That standard has not been met by the science. In fact, the existing state of the science can’t meet any kind of standard. The holes in the theory are enormous. You may “believe” in catastrophic AGW, but you can’t support the belief with any science which has been conducted with sufficient rigor in accordance with the precepts of the scientific method.
I sometimes feel like I am alone in banging on this drum, but I don’t understand why more people aren’t focused on the extraordinary incompetence that permeates so much of climate science. Too many of my fellow skeptics (and “deniers”) delight in seizing on the corruption revealed in the Climategate e-mails. I suppose focusing on calling the other side “evil” may be more fun and emotionally satisfying. But I think the real story is what we learn from episodes like Watts’ revelations and the climate science community’s reaction thereto.
The supposed science is incredibly sloppy. Mind-numbing, gobsmacking, jawdropping, WTF?!! sloppy. And the sloppiness is everywhere we look. E.g. That Watts showed that almost 90% of the US stations flunk basic standards is extremely important because it raises major questions about the reliablity of the data. The reaction of Karl, Peterson and crew may be every bit as important because it shows that they lack the basic integrity required to do science the right way. But the most important revelation of all, however, is what it shows about the climate science community as a whole. No one ever checked the instruments! How is that even possible? Apparently, no one ever even thought about it. That’s a level of incompetence that is truly frightening.
And we can repeat this exercise, over and over and over. The quality control for the datasets is pathetic. And no one replicates studies. We’re going to incure costs in the trillions, but no one can be bothered to share data, code and methods and no one else will bother to check their work. This isn’t science. This is a farce. The lack of audit or replication is the most important aspect to come out of the whole Mann debacle. It damns not only Mikey for his screwups, but the entire community which embraced his consensus shattering findings without a shrug. It’s impossible to say that was science. It was a bad joke.
If climate models are going to be relied upon, they should be verified and validated. Until they are, they shouldn’t be used. Any study to be relied upon by policymakers should be replicated, preferably more than once. Given the fraud and incompetence that is revealed so often whenever we get a peek behind the curtain, it would be criminal to rely on any study that hasn’t been. The stakes are too high, not to.
Databases, adjustment algorithms, codes, etc. have to be made totally transparent, outsiders need to have an opportunity to analyze what’s been done, and get explanations for the choices made. Given what we know now about Harry’s CRU and GISS, anyone who trusts the numbers isn’t practicing with sufficient scientific rigor.
Given the rampant sloppiness and the failure of anyone to check anything, how can anyone, in good faith, proclaim that the science proves anything?
Lucia, I understand what a lukewarmer is in general, thats why I asked the question.
what percentage of the observed warming do you attribute to GHGs?
10% 50% 90% ???
looking at this UAH graph, we are currently at + 0.28 C above the mean (however that is decided 🙂
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Stan–
I don’t believe catastropic global warming is likely. But I believe AGW is real, caused by man, and it is prudent to take steps to lower our ghg emissions. I’m for some level of actions– but I also think some proposed paths are unworkable. I also think some proposed paths unnecessarily imperils economic prosperity for the world– and those will hurt the poor the most. So, for example, I think those, who when it comes down to brass tacks don’t want use to build nuclear plants, do research on carbon capture, block wind installations everywhere where they might be proposed &etc, are wrong.
If we are going to reduce ghgs, we are going to need to both develop and deploy technologies that generate energy with lower emissions or capture CO2 and sequester it someway. There are tons and tons of people who block deployment of key aspects of everything. This includes: nukes, wind farms, solar farms, distribution systems. Some people want to believe in ghg free generation — but accomplished on some other planet where the industrial installations have absolutely, positively zero impact on nature. (That would me: industrial generation must take place somewhere like the moon.)
We need sociological changes that make people stop doing that.
As for models, V&V, data handling etc: I actually rely on more concrete stuff. There is less ice at the caps than when I was a kid etc. All other things being equal, CO2 and other ghg’s do tend to restrict transmission of heat from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. This is enough to suggest we should be cautious.
How much should we do? Well… that is a political issue and it must be made with uncertainty in mind. But that’s true of all political decisions. We always risk spending money on things that turn out to have been nothing to worry about or to fail to spend money on things that, in hindsight were problems. This problem is not unique to AGW.
Windsea–
No one can answer your question unless you tell them precisely how much warming you consider to have been “observed” over what period of time etc.
But even if you did firm up your question, I have never tried to partition of observed warming in a way that permits me to say “what percentage of observed warming is due to ghg’s.”
Though many ask it (and so must think the question useful), I don’t think it’s a useful question and I don’t plan to expend any energy to figure out my answer to that question. So, the short answer is: I can’t answer that question and don’t want to even try. Ask someone else.
Lucia
As much as I respect you, and that is immense,I believe you are avoiding a simple question asked by windsea. Its the same question that many scientists are asking. If you ‘think’ (note – not believe) that man cause the planet to warm you as a scientist should do this from a scientific perspective. That is to have at least some basic reasoning that leads you to suspect that AGW is a reality and that reasoning should also persuade you that you can put a handle onto the proportion of warming that belongs to humans. If you can’t then you cannot say that agw is a reality. Conversely, you cannot say that AGW is invalid beacause you have insufficient data to make the decision either way.
Me, I’m a physicist (solid state) and I have looked at all the KNOWN data that I could find and I review it every day, yes! every day. I cannot conclude that agw is a reality of great consequence and I see not evidence whatsoever for immediate and dire economic action. I know that humankind cannot effect significant changes to our weather and I see no proof that we can effect changes to our weather at all even minute ones (including cloud seeding where the evidence is poor). The energy budget of our climate is immense. I can find no justification in the science for acceptance of the premise that humans can in any way change or control this energy. If one examines the energy budget of the planet beginning with the smaller amounts, PDO, AMO, ENSO etc ‘thermalhaline’ and then the sources of weather and the results of weather there is nothing there that suggests we could possibly influence it in any significant way.
My mind is open, I’m a scepitical scientist, convince me otherwise with a full engineering study of the climate and its influences and I will change, I promise.
Like Richard Feynman, I have no beliefs, I need no idols, to understand the world in which I live.
As I said at the beginning I admire your work, really so please accept my thanks for your efforts.
Stephen
windansea,
“how strong is your “luke†and can you quantify it?”
A fair question. I am not certain of the true sensitivity, but my guess is somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5C per doubling of CO2, with the most likely value between 1.1 and 1.2. I base this on the observed temperature rise, total GHG forcing in the IPCC range, but discounting most of the substantial (but very uncertain) aerosol cooling currently claimed by the IPCC. This relatively low sensitivity requires that the dominant lag period for the oceans is relatively short, that is, most of the ocean heat flux associated with a surface temperature change takes place in 5-8 years. This short lag period seems to me consistent with Argo based calculations of ocean heat content since 2003 and the measured surface temperature trends for the same period. As more Argo data is collected, I believe that relatively short ocean lags will become quite apparent, though there will probably always be people who claim vast heat is being lost to the oceans below 2000 meters. In the absence of substantial emissions reductions, global average temperatures may reach ~0.7C higher than today by ~2060. With draconian reductions, perhaps 0.5C higher than today.
But no matter what the sensitivity turns out to be, the inevitable and substantial rise in CO2 over the next 15-20 years (for sure reaching 430 PPM or more) and the concurrent trend in global temperatures should make any significant GCM errors pretty obvious. I may not be around to see it, but the question of the true sensitivity value will certainly be answered within 20 years, and policy decisions can then be made based on a rational evaluation projected warming.
stephen–
Ok. Well… then I’ll switch to “I don’t understand the question”. In all seriousness, I don’t know how one partitions.
Obviously, if I had confidence in a particular model with a high sensitivity, I might say 250% of observed warming is due to ghg’s but we are experiencing a massive dip explained by “internal variability”. In contrast, if I have confidence in the average model, I’d say something similar, but that only 150% of the observed warning is due to ghg’s. In contrast, if I convince myself look at the data that everything is noise, I could say 0% of the observed warming is due to ghg’s and the rest is due to … something. (Leprechauns?)
I really don’t know how to quantify the amount due to ghgs unless I have a basis to estimate how much warming I would expect ghg’s to cause. Then, if I know the obseved amoung, I can do simple fractions.
I know I expect ghg’s to cause some non trivial warming, and that it’s not so small as to expect it to be undetectable. That’s it. But other than that, based on things I know, I can’t really bound the fraction due to ghg’s to a range any tighter than 20% – 200%! And I don’t know that I could do it if I did a lot of work. I’m perfectly willing to report that I am not inclined to devote 1 month of 24/7 effort to figuring out a better answer. There are many questions I can’t answer, and I’m content to let that be one of them.
If other people know their answer to that question, I respect that. If they think it’s important and want to work on coming up with the answer, I respect that. But my answer is pretty much “I don’t know.”
Windsea–
No one can answer your question unless you tell them precisely how much warming you consider to have been “observed†over what period of time etc.
well, I did post a link to UAH graph which has us .28 C above 0
anyway not trying to ask a trick question or put you on the spot, just curious if lukewarmers can quantify their beliefs
windansea–
Some can quantify their beliefs; some can’t. Some can quantify if you ask a question about climate sensitivity but if you ask “What percent of observed warming is due to ghg’s.”
Windandsea
Roy Spencer attempts to quantify this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
A Demonstration that Global Warming Predictions are Based More On Faith than On Science
I think nearly everyone can agree that we need to find alternative sources of energy. I’ve always been concerned that AGW is more about ‘stick it to the man’ politics than it is about wanting to solve a problem. But setting that aside, if the goal is to develop alternative energy technology, then we should fund a manhattan project to develop Thorium reactors, more efficient solar technology, etc. We then should set up generous technology transfer licenses (sort of like GPL for process and methods) and then let the private sector commercialize the R&D. We should make sure that there’s a path to allow the innovators to get really rich, and then the government should get out of the way and let innovation happen.
If, on the other, the goal is simply to socialize a large part of the economy for political purposes, then we should do exactly what we are currently doing — cap and trade, regulations, etc.
The question about the percentage of lukewarmhood calling for action controlling GHGs assumes that one needs to have a crisp answer and that one needs this crisp answer before taking action, as if taking no-action was more risk-free or something.
George Tobin (Comment#30165)
January 14th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
[deletia]
I get a bi-partisan leg tingle when somebody says “let’s find a way to screw OPEC.â€
You aren’t alone there, but sadly the world keeps sending them money, which they are quite happy to accept. OPEC cleverly maintains the supply at a level below the demand which articially keeps the price as higher than it otherwise would be. Trillions of our dollars later, which they spent on decadence and buying up our assets, we keep on marching to their drum beat. North America (I. Am. Canadian.) should actively use our own oil resources enough to take turn the supply/demand around and bring the price down, thus taking OPEC out of the driver’s seat.
willard
We don’t need a crisp answer before taking action. People take action based on gooey answers all the time.
“]There aren’t really the Bell Labs out there.” The implication is that there’s no one to do the “right” work–so the government should step in.
Having worked with a windmill manufacturer twenty years ago, I find it something short of self-evident that no one’s doing the “right” work.
Even when there was a Bell Labs, moreover, deciding what the “right” work is was tricky indeed. In 1969 I worked on tooling up for manufacturing their Picturephone at a rate of (if I remember correctly) 50,000 per month. Obviously a misallocation of resources. But only AT&T’s shareholders suffered for it, and market forces (such as they were for AT&T in that era) imposed a correction.
I have little faith that such a localization of loss and so prompt a correction will occur for government support of, say, carbon sequestration.
Joe Born–
In the summer of 1977, I had summer job at Bell Labs. I finished my main assignment, then during the final two weeks, I helped a Ph.D. in electrical engineering blow up Princess Telephones. Bam! Pow!
Lucia (#30320),
Why Princess phones? Did you blow them up with current surges (simulated lighting strikes) or some other method?
In my first industrial job, I worked in research on polyvinyl chloride. Since phone systems used a lot of PVC wire insulation, and wires can sometimes get hot, Bell Labs had a group of researches working on molecular imperfections in the polymer and heat stability. I attended a couple of conferences where the Bell Labs group presented their results. They were so out in left field that the industrial folks (who actually knew how to make the stuff!) could only look at each other and shake their heads in disbelief. Lack of competition (like telephone services in those days) usually leads to wasted resources.
SteveF–
Because Princess phones had been blowing up in people’s houses and he was trying to identify the conditions that caused them to blow up. He tried various different conditions and sometimes the phones blew up, sometimes they didn’t.
That’s all I know. I’d just graduated from high school and had a summer gig. I was done with my project, so I just tagged along and got to help him with various different routine things. In the last two weeks, I shadowed a number of people and tried various other things. Blowing up phones was the most memorable.
Windsea
George Tobin (Comment#30165)
I’m in the ‘coherent’ energy policy camp as well.
Thermal Coal hit $100/tonne yesterday.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc47aa5e-00ad-11df-ae8d-00144feabdc0.html
The ‘unrestrained’ growth in fossil fuel use seems to have hit a point where normal free market economics is going to cause restraint.