The real problem is nothing to do with CO2, AGW, Global Warming or whatever, it is this:
"At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said. Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
David, I second Paul Dennis's comments about this thoughtful and balanced piece. If we could only see such views expressed regularly in the MSM it might lead to a sensible discussion before the politicians lead us to renewable-energy ruin. I find it remarkable that so many climate scientists are convinced by their models despite the fact that these same models have been unable to replicate the climate over the Holocene (the 10,000 years or so since the end of the last Ice Age). Whereas proxy data suggest a 'Holocene Optimum' some 5-7,000 years ago followed by an irregular decline in temperatures until the end of The Little Ice Age, climate models indicate a gradual rise in temperature throughout that period. Something is clearly wrong with the models and yet our leaders seem prepared to spend trillions of pounds dealing with a crisis that may not even exist. It is hard to believe that western governments have been willing to go so far on such questionable data. Instead of investing yet more money in IPCC type studies whose raison d'être seems to be merely to confirm alarmist predictions we need to subject these models to thorough and critical testing.
David, this is a thoughtful introduction and describes well my own position. I’ve spent a significant part of my career trying to (i) measure past Earth surface temperatures over geologic time, and (ii) to understand the natural processes that control the surface temperature. From my own research and that of others a clearer picture of climate sensitivity is emerging. Estimates made on time scales ranging from the historical record, through to hundreds of millions and billions of years points to a sensitivity of ca. 1.2 to 1.6 deg C per doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is below, or at the very lowest end of estimates that emerge from climate models (coupled GCM’s), and those promoted by the IPCC and other NGO’s. It also goes some way to explaining the growing disparity between the satellite tropospheric temperature record and the projections of GCM’s where there is a near x2 difference in the rate of temperature rise. I note the recent STAR study by NASA is now in excellent agreement with the UAH tropospheric temperature record, and both agree with tropospheric temperatures measured in meteorological balloon studies.
All this points to the fact that an optimum approach is to focus on adaptation over the coming decades and allowing time for development of new nuclear technologies to replace hydrocarbons as our main energy source. The low EROEI, environmental impact, intermittency, lack of energy storage options and implied energy poverty of renewables (wind and solar) are well described in David McKay’s book and it is wonder, that as a chief government scientist, ministers, MP’s, Lords, members of the CCC etc. all seem to be completely unaware of the book and the implications of his in-depth study. One can only conclude that they are being wilfully blind, are suffering from inflated egos that suggest they can ‘save the world’, or are being pressured by other supra-national bodies. I think it notable that many western governments are following similar solutions and paths towards energy poverty and all the implications this has for the wealth and health of society.
Of course the answer lies in energy dense nuclear power. I wouldn’t put significant resources into fusion power. It seems to me that the payback time is on the order of many decades, to possibly even centuries. Even then the scientific and engineering challenges may not be soluble. Fission is where it is at. There are a remarkable number of new opportunities ranging from small modular reactors (SMR’s) with quick build times to emerging technologies involving thermal storage using molten salt. An example is the Hitachi Natrium reactor which has the promise of being able to provide both base load, and rapid response cycling to cover demand variability on an hourly basis. I look forward to your discussion of these.
One lives in hope that common-sense will eventually prevail but I fear it won’t be until the limitations of wind and solar at grid scale are actually felt by the whole of society. Even then I’m sure there will be siren voices that say all we need to do is build more capacity - all of it built by China using cheap, plentiful coal!
This is a very thoughtful (and thought-provoking) contribution with an action plan and a bit of a navigation guide. The suite of micro-reactors and SMRs are attractive for post-modern economies. In my view, emerging economies in Asia and the Indian sub-continent to be followed by Africa will be best served with Gigawatt scale reactors. Fusion may look like a silly bet now, but S-curves are difficult and subject to lots of forces - rather spend brain power on proton-Boron fusion (bottom of S-curve) than better PV efficiency (top of S-curve) as the high-power laser spin-offs will pay the bills.
Paul, I'm fully on-board with your comments on CO2. I'm also impressed, though rather surprised, that you have managed to peer-review some of the paleoclimatology research. I thought that was a closed shop run by Michael Mann et al. Keep up the good work!
The real problem is nothing to do with CO2, AGW, Global Warming or whatever, it is this:
"At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said. Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
David, I second Paul Dennis's comments about this thoughtful and balanced piece. If we could only see such views expressed regularly in the MSM it might lead to a sensible discussion before the politicians lead us to renewable-energy ruin. I find it remarkable that so many climate scientists are convinced by their models despite the fact that these same models have been unable to replicate the climate over the Holocene (the 10,000 years or so since the end of the last Ice Age). Whereas proxy data suggest a 'Holocene Optimum' some 5-7,000 years ago followed by an irregular decline in temperatures until the end of The Little Ice Age, climate models indicate a gradual rise in temperature throughout that period. Something is clearly wrong with the models and yet our leaders seem prepared to spend trillions of pounds dealing with a crisis that may not even exist. It is hard to believe that western governments have been willing to go so far on such questionable data. Instead of investing yet more money in IPCC type studies whose raison d'être seems to be merely to confirm alarmist predictions we need to subject these models to thorough and critical testing.
David, this is a thoughtful introduction and describes well my own position. I’ve spent a significant part of my career trying to (i) measure past Earth surface temperatures over geologic time, and (ii) to understand the natural processes that control the surface temperature. From my own research and that of others a clearer picture of climate sensitivity is emerging. Estimates made on time scales ranging from the historical record, through to hundreds of millions and billions of years points to a sensitivity of ca. 1.2 to 1.6 deg C per doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is below, or at the very lowest end of estimates that emerge from climate models (coupled GCM’s), and those promoted by the IPCC and other NGO’s. It also goes some way to explaining the growing disparity between the satellite tropospheric temperature record and the projections of GCM’s where there is a near x2 difference in the rate of temperature rise. I note the recent STAR study by NASA is now in excellent agreement with the UAH tropospheric temperature record, and both agree with tropospheric temperatures measured in meteorological balloon studies.
All this points to the fact that an optimum approach is to focus on adaptation over the coming decades and allowing time for development of new nuclear technologies to replace hydrocarbons as our main energy source. The low EROEI, environmental impact, intermittency, lack of energy storage options and implied energy poverty of renewables (wind and solar) are well described in David McKay’s book and it is wonder, that as a chief government scientist, ministers, MP’s, Lords, members of the CCC etc. all seem to be completely unaware of the book and the implications of his in-depth study. One can only conclude that they are being wilfully blind, are suffering from inflated egos that suggest they can ‘save the world’, or are being pressured by other supra-national bodies. I think it notable that many western governments are following similar solutions and paths towards energy poverty and all the implications this has for the wealth and health of society.
Of course the answer lies in energy dense nuclear power. I wouldn’t put significant resources into fusion power. It seems to me that the payback time is on the order of many decades, to possibly even centuries. Even then the scientific and engineering challenges may not be soluble. Fission is where it is at. There are a remarkable number of new opportunities ranging from small modular reactors (SMR’s) with quick build times to emerging technologies involving thermal storage using molten salt. An example is the Hitachi Natrium reactor which has the promise of being able to provide both base load, and rapid response cycling to cover demand variability on an hourly basis. I look forward to your discussion of these.
One lives in hope that common-sense will eventually prevail but I fear it won’t be until the limitations of wind and solar at grid scale are actually felt by the whole of society. Even then I’m sure there will be siren voices that say all we need to do is build more capacity - all of it built by China using cheap, plentiful coal!
This is a very thoughtful (and thought-provoking) contribution with an action plan and a bit of a navigation guide. The suite of micro-reactors and SMRs are attractive for post-modern economies. In my view, emerging economies in Asia and the Indian sub-continent to be followed by Africa will be best served with Gigawatt scale reactors. Fusion may look like a silly bet now, but S-curves are difficult and subject to lots of forces - rather spend brain power on proton-Boron fusion (bottom of S-curve) than better PV efficiency (top of S-curve) as the high-power laser spin-offs will pay the bills.
Paul, I'm fully on-board with your comments on CO2. I'm also impressed, though rather surprised, that you have managed to peer-review some of the paleoclimatology research. I thought that was a closed shop run by Michael Mann et al. Keep up the good work!