JJ, you said above that you trust YouTube videos (Breeze interviewing Shakhova) and newspaper columnists (Nafeez on methane hydrates, before he retracted his claims) and you don’t trust the published science, written by the same scientists, because conspiracy.
Right? Just checking.
Chuck Hughessays
So, while some of the readers remain mesmerized by the antics of Inhofe and the clever remarks of Whitehouse, the real world is taking actions that will commit the planet to increasing use of fossil fuels for the indefinite future.
Comment by Jasper Jaynes — 2 Mar 2015
J.J. you certainly make lots of absurd inferences based on a couple of links. If I were you I wouldn’t try to project others motives or interests based on such little evidence. That’s not very “scientific” of you.
Jasper Jaynessays
Hank#450,
” JJ, you said above that you trust YouTube videos (Breeze interviewing Shakhova) and newspaper columnists (Nafeez on methane hydrates, before he retracted his claims) and you don’t trust the published science, written by the same scientists, because conspiracy.”
One way I gauge the level of desperation of posters on blogs is the degree they have to resort to smear. Show me where I made the specific statement you attribute to me above. The full statement, not just bits and pieces. For your benefit, I will make some statements that you can take to the bank.
I trust Shakhova and Wadhams on Arctic methane and ice, because of their decades of hands-on experience and visits to that region, and the quality of their subsequent analyses. The Breeze interviews with Shakhova on methane are the most honest of any I’ve seen on the topic. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect. Shakhova is learning from her American academic colleagues quite well, as expressed in the video: ‘we need more data; we need more money’. However, what she revealed about methane in the interview was pure gold.
Nafeez is a reporter who flip-flopped; I mentioned that explicitly in my comments.
In terms of trusting the published science, I don’t take it as infallible. I gave an example of CDC’s cover-up (alleged) of the MMR vaccine-autism link in #169 of Unforced Variations, January 2015, to show that articles published in even the premier journals by government organizations can be misleading. Is that the only example; doubtful? Is the same cover-up happening for climate change; possibly? We won’t know until a William Thompson of climate change steps forward. Is the situation in climate change worse than we are being told officially? You bet; Breeze’s depiction of the official story as ‘science fiction’ is reasonable, although I would call it ‘science fiction masquerading as truth’.
But, you accomplished your goal. Initial slanderous statements are always remembered more than honest rebuttals.
SecularAnimistsays
wili wrote: “If we are allowed a bit more on renewables issues, I think this passage from a recent important essay be R. Heinberg put some of the positions seen around here in perspective: …”
I think that passage is a perfect example of why the moderators of this site are wise to make discussion of alternatives to fossil-fueled electricity generation off-topic.
It is little more than ill-informed and illogical rhetoric, as is most of the off-topic anti-renewable energy commentary that still appears here from time to time.
Heinberg’s assertion that by stating that a transition to renewable energy can be “easily” accomplished at low or even no net cost, advocates “end up denying oxygen to energy conservation efforts” is nonsense. Advocates of zero-emission electricity generation and advocates of efficiency and conservation are on the same page, and in general they are the same people, and they fully understand that decarbonizing the grid AND maximizing efficiency are complementary. Why is he trying to “pick a fight” between them when no such division exists?
I am very familiar with Heinberg’s writing on “peak oil”. He has been consistently wrong about solar and wind energy for many years.
It is ironic that he writes here that “we will ultimately have to deal with the reality of what solar and wind can actually provide”, when it is Heinberg who has yet to deal with the reality that solar and wind “actually provide” orders of magnitude more energy each and every year than all the energy contained in all the fossil fuels on Earth.
The reality is that whatever other problems we may face, energy scarcity is not one of them. A renewable energy future is a future of energy abundance.
Hank Robertssays
These are easy to find and worth recommending to youngsters or anyone who hasn’t had an education in ecology:
Trophic Cascades
Youtube: How Wolves Change Rivers
Youtube: How Whales Change Climate
We need climate models that include trophic eco-engineering — putting the world back together, as best we can, given that we’ve been tinkering quite a while and lost quite a few of the parts.
Restoring top predators is as important as restoring the photosynthesizers and the soil.
“Initial slanderous statements are always remembered more than honest rebuttals.”
Doesn’t seem to me to be that much substantive difference between the two, in the end–your bottom line statement is that you *don’t* trust the literature, and that you find some of Shakhova’s statements “more honest” than others. But perhaps I’m not getting what you mean. Wouldn’t be the first time.
#453, SA–Mmm. I’m a big believer in the power of renewables to help humanity very significantly over the coming decades, and think that the growth of renewables in our contemporary energy mix is one of the most encouraging things anywhere on the horizon.
But–it does seem to me that we are still going to have to confront the fact of Terrestrial finitude, in respect of energy as in other resources, and that that is going to have some far-reaching results, socially. Really, radical revisiting is going to be needed. So it’s useful to consider what might be necessary, even though (IMO) we’re still far from being able to ‘design the future’.
For those who are interested, global installed wind capacity as of last year was about 370 GW, plus 140 GW solar, for a total of 510 GW. I’m not sure what world total electrical capacity was. I seem to remember all forms of energy use added up to about 18 TW, so the above would represent 2.8% of human energy use.
wilisays
I am shocked, shocked to find that my friend SA takes issue with Heinberg’s (rather modest, to my mind) observation that solar and wind cannot readily provide the levels of energy that ff’s have provided in time to draw down carbon levels at the rates needed. (He does, though, seem to be perfectly described by RH’s line: ” it is common to find passionate but poorly informed climate activists who loudly proclaim that the transition can be easily and fully accomplished at no net cost.”)
Nice rhetorical trick, though, to blur actual solar and wind _electric_ capacity with the total amounts of insolation hitting and wind blowing oer the earth. The fact that you have to resort to such tricks (along with various vague accusations) does not suggest that you have a very strong case here.
It is a shame that such rhetoric does indeed seem to make any rational discussion of the reality of renwable capacity impossible on this important forum. I have a feeling they will again explicitly ban such discussion in the next open forum.
SecularAnimistsays
wili wrote: “I have a feeling they will again explicitly ban such discussion in the next open forum.”
Don’t worry, wili. The commenters who like to attack, disparage and denigrate solar and wind energy in these comment pages have always ignored the moderators’ rules about what is on and off-topic here, and they always will.
Tony Weddlesays
wili,
SA’s position is to be expected. Most people are so desperate for there to be a solution to AGW, without affecting lifestyles much. Because we have become so used to our highly complex industrialised society, we think that it hasn’t been enabled purely by fossil fuels but by human ingenuity and can easily be maintained and enhanced by “simply” switching to another abundant supply of energy that is “renewable”. The full picture is rarely examined because the conclusions that leads to are too horrendous to contemplate.
But the attitude that we can switch to renewables and maintain the kind of society that it took fossil fuels to produce is no much different from the climate change denier community in that it presupposes that no significant changes to society are required. To date, I’ve yet to read anything that shows the oppposite of what Heinberg, and others, have concluded. And, yes, citing the enormous amount of energy that wind and solar contain in total is really a non-argument that shows they haven’t really thought about it in depth.
Heinberg’s latest is also a good read and mentions the failed, well funded, Google project to find a way to provide abundant affordable renewable energy to power our society. They conclude it can’t be done.
In terms of trusting the published science, I don’t take it as infallible. I gave an example of CDC’s cover-up (alleged) of the MMR vaccine-autism link in #169 of Unforced Variations, January 2015, to show that articles published in even the premier journals by government organizations can be misleading. Is that the only example; doubtful? Is the same cover-up happening for climate change; possibly? We won’t know until a William Thompson of climate change steps forward.
if “CDC’s cover-up (alleged) of the MMR vaccine-autism link” is your best example of why you trust Shakhova and Wadhams more than you trust Gavin Schmidt, I’ll give more weight to Gavin, despite my bitter disillusionment at learning he’s not infallible. We don’t know of any cover-up happening for climate change now, and if a “William Thompson of climate change” steps forward, we still won’t know.
TW: “the attitude that we can switch to renewables and maintain the kind of society that it took fossil fuels to produce is no much different from the climate change denier community in that it presupposes that no significant changes to society are required.”
BPL: If you think we have to abandon cities, or manufacturing, or cars to save the planet, show your work. Otherwise, please take your arrogant, condescending attitude and shove it up your anarcho-primitivism.
Jasper Jaynessays
Wili#446,
I find Heinberg’s comments to be relatively wishy-washy. The link I posted in #450 is more direct, straight-forward, and to the point. It is based on solid research, and an honest assessment of the literature and social landscape. The main takeaways are:
“the environmental movement has relegated itself to cheerleading and mindless chants and that it’s time for us to step away from the pom-poms. I encounter a boundless enthusiasm for creating positive change when holding dialogues with environmental groups. Unfortunately, the mainstream environmental movement is channeling that energy into an increasingly corporatist, and what I call a “productivist,” set of priorities.”
“The modern environmental movement has rolled over to become an outlet for loggers, energy firms and car companies to plug into. It is now primarily a social media platform for consumerism, growth and energy production – an institutionalized philanderer of green illusions. If you need evidence, just go to any climate rally and you’ll see a strip mall of stands for green products, green jobs and green energy. These will do nothing to solve the crisis we face, which is not an energy crisis but rather a crisis of consumption.”
“There is an impression that we have a choice between fossil fuels and clean energy technologies such as solar cells and wind turbines. That choice is an illusion. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels through every stage of their life. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels for mining operations, fabrication plants, installation, ongoing maintenance and decommissioning. Also, due to the irregular output of wind and solar, these technologies require fossil fuel plants to be running alongside them at all times. Most significantly, alternative energy financing relies on the kind of growth that fossil fuels drive.”
In a nutshell, ‘clean’ energy is not clean, and ‘renewables’ are not renewable. Neither brings us anywhere near sustainability. ‘Nuff said.
Jasper Jaynessays
Mal#465,
“if “CDC’s cover-up (alleged) of the MMR vaccine-autism link” is your best example of why you trust Shakhova and Wadhams more than you trust Gavin Schmidt, I’ll give more weight to Gavin,”
You’re missing the point of why I posted the (alleged) CDC cover-up of the MMR vaccine-autism link in #169, Unforced Variations, January 2015. The purpose was to show that, if the incentives for cover-up exist, one cannot exclude the possibility of cover-up occurring. In the CDC case, the cover-up was not one rogue researcher, but rather agency wide (alleged). Subsequently, it has included the mainstream media as well. The stakes for climate change are far higher, the incentives for cover-up of extremely serious consequences exist, and there is no way I could honestly rule out the possibility of cover-up of the potential for the most serious of consequences. Consider the following hypothetical: assume McPherson is correct, and we have until mid-century left. What would happen to the global social order if this became known? There are just too many incentives to suppress public consideration of the possibility of anything even near this level of catastrophe.
In terms of who to believe on the major methane release issue, I base it mainly on hands-on experience. Shakhova, Wadhams, and perhaps others have decades of hands-on experience with the ice and methane, and they have produced very credible analyses as a result.
Obviously, there is a leap required when we get to predictions. There are myriad approaches one can use to predict the likelihood of large methane releases. There are a variety of analytical techniques, and they have some degree of validity. But, an equally valid approach, and one typically more widely accepted, is to make use of groups of experts, either in panel form or otherwise. There is no substitute for the opinions of real experts. In my view, Shakhova and Wadhams are the key experts here.
JJ: Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels through every stage of their life. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels for mining operations, fabrication plants, installation, ongoing maintenance and decommissioning. Also, due to the irregular output of wind and solar, these technologies require fossil fuel plants to be running alongside them at all times. Most significantly, alternative energy financing relies on the kind of growth that fossil fuels drive.
BPL: This specious argument relies on the power source for these things eternally being fossil fuels. The whole point of renewable energy is to replace all these sources. The idea that we’re going to keep using coal plants to fire up electric cars is just stupid. No. We’ll use solar plants for that. Fossil fuels to drive mining machinery? No, biomass fuels–and more recycling and less mining. And the intermittency argument has been answered over and over and over again, to the point where I find it hard to believe you haven’t heard the counter-arguments.
FYI, solar thermal plants in California have achieved better on-line time than nearby coal plants. They store excess heat from the day in molten salts and use it to run the turbines at night and in cloudy weather. Fossil fuels are NOT eternally necessary for advanced technology, and we do not need to save the world by abandoning advanced technology.
Of course endless growth isn’t possible. The idea that renewable energy advocates want endless growth is a straw man. I am as much for a steady-state world economy as any other environmentalist. I do not think we need anarcho-primitivism to achieve that.
Tom O'Reillysays
Planting scientific seeds at the 4th International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, May 2014, Sarajevo
BPL, for the record, I also think that the ‘renewables rely on ffs’ is a particularly weak point in the argument, one I have argued against many times using much the same points as you do. Every new technology or fuel source relied at first on previous technologies and fuel sources, but that doesn’t mean that the new ones were for ever reduceable to the old ones. We long ago passed the point where the net energy being produced by renewables surpassed the amount of energy needed to build them.
So we do agree there. I am, on the other hand, rather fond of anarcho-primitivism ‘-).
#467–“…more direct, straight-forward, and to the point.”
Another strange comment. In my reading of the two links, they are saying things that are quite distinct; it’s a matter of substance, not just tone.
Heinberg essentially says that renewables are necessary, but not sufficient, to address the climate crisis–we will also need to shift away from the current consumerist economic model. Horn–or, actually, his interviewee, Zehner–says that renewables are nothing but greenwashing–an “illusion”.
Clearly, these positions are not equivalent to each other. (And, FWIW, I think the first position may be to some degree correct, while the second is clearly not, as at least one of his premises is no longer true.)
The 2015 PDC Hypothetical Asteroid Impact Scenario
At the 2015 IAA Planetary Defense Conference (PDC), to be held April 13 – 17, 2015 in Frascati, Italy, a hypothetical asteroid impact scenario will be presented and used as a basis for discussion. NOTE: Although this scenario is realistic in many ways, it is completely fictional and does NOT describe a real potential asteroid impact….
Oh for Dog’s sake. Well, I think I won’t be reading any more of JJ’s contributions. Dude, if you can’t even go to Snopes for a confirmation, you really shouldn’t be saying anything…ever.
” BPL: This specious argument relies on the power source for these things eternally being fossil fuels. The whole point of renewable energy is to replace all these sources. The idea that we’re going to keep using coal plants to fire up electric cars is just stupid. No. We’ll use solar plants for that. Fossil fuels to drive mining machinery? No, biomass fuels–and more recycling and less mining. – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/unforced-variations-feb-2015/comment-page-10/#comments”
You are mixing up time frames. When alternative sources are implemented initially, the external energy they require is essentially all fossil. As time goes on, and the alternatives are implemented, the fossil share drops. Presently, at this very early stage of implementation, the external energy is essentially all fossil. While this could change substantially decades from now with rapid alternative implementation, we do not have the luxury of being able to burn a large base load of fossil during that period without the most dire consequences. The transient problem cannot be ignored.
SecularAnimistsays
All I can say about the attacks on renewable energy (and the personal attacks on renewable energy advocates) that are being posted here, is this:
The moderators of this site have repeatedly and clearly stated that discussion of mitigation in general and non-fossil-fueled electricity generation in particular, is off-topic for this site.
The moderators of this site have repeatedly, politely and firmly asked that commenters refrain from such discussions here.
There are plenty of other places where up-to-date news on renewable energy, efficiency, smart-grids, microgrids, electric vehicles, and related technologies and industries can be found, and plenty of other places where well-informed, fact-based discussions of such subjects are appropriate.
JJ: You are mixing up time frames. When alternative sources are implemented initially, the external energy they require is essentially all fossil. As time goes on, and the alternatives are implemented, the fossil share drops. Presently, at this very early stage of implementation, the external energy is essentially all fossil. While this could change substantially decades from now with rapid alternative implementation, we do not have the luxury of being able to burn a large base load of fossil during that period without the most dire consequences. The transient problem cannot be ignored.
BPL: A wind farm can be deployed in 9 months. And the more is deployed, the more the mix is non-fossil-fuel. The worst thing we could do would be to hold back on renewables now.
I recently noticed an interesting convergence. The long term growth of both solar and wind capacity is exponential. The growth rate for solar is higher than for wind power but wind power is currently ahead in capacity. If we take a capacity factor of 20% for solar and 30% for wind, how long does it take to cover the roughly 20 TW of energy demand you recall?
This seems to be a faster rate than pledges coming in for Paris are anticipating so we might have some confidence that those pledges are going to be met.
“BPL, for the record, I also think that the ‘renewables rely on ffs’ is a particularly weak point in the argument, one I have argued against many times using much the same points as you do. Every new technology or fuel source relied at first on previous technologies and fuel sources, but that doesn’t mean that the new ones were for ever reduceable to the old ones. We long ago passed the point where the net energy being produced by renewables surpassed the amount of energy needed to build them.”
You’ve overlooked the main point. See my response to BPL, #476.
freemikesays
Is there any information someone can point me to about whether Antarctica’s land and sea ice have a net gain or loss? With NASA recently stating that the sea ice is at a record extent the usual suspects are jumping into denial mode. Thanks for any information.
Since there are people here who create graphs, you can now add the Unreal 4 engine to your disposal, the new version has been released for free. I thought it would be cool to see some 3D graphs maybe or even more sophisticated modelling of the climate system. So maybe this will be useful https://www.unrealengine.com/what-is-unreal-engine-4
Jasper Jaynessays
Kevin#472,
” I think the first position may be to some degree correct, while the second is clearly not, as at least one of his premises is no longer true.”
Well, rather than you making one-sided statements without the benefit of a response by Zehner, why don’t you challenge him to a debate on RC. You and he would be the sole participants in a thread. He could post for a couple of pages, or each of you could have a couple of pages, and then for the next week you would go back and forth and debate the issues. One-sided attacks with no response are propaganda, not debate; we can do better.
wilisays
JJ wrote: “The transient problem cannot be ignored.” This I agree with.
Further on primitivism: “Human beings will be happier– not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie, but when they learn to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.” Kurt Vonnegut
“I am as much for a steady-state world economy as any other environmentalist.”
I see a lot of environmentalist as wanting to get out of the way of the wild, which probably requires using technology to reduce impacts on the natural world. That kind of thing doesn’t really occur is an economy that is constrained from growing out of bad situations and practices. There are others that want to garden the world, seeing no way to avoid interference and thus a need to be beavers to the world, creating niches for other species as we make things nice for ourselves as well. Again, that does not seem to be something that can be accomplished without growth. There are others who are concerned mainly about pollution and ensuring clean water and air. This could be about the urban environment as much as the countryside. Obviously, growth out of the unhealthy ways of doing things is needed to address that.
I think the idea of the steady state economy is more about trying to apply a zero sum view of ecology to economics. It ignores that while evolution is slow in ecology, it is very rapid in economics so that the concepts don’t translate well and end up misapplied. But, even in ecology, the example of evolution and expanding diversity show that the zero sum approach is only an approximation. Once you start making assumptions explicit, like saying “carrying capacity” for a mid-20th century technology base, or for a mid-19th century technology base and notice these are very different things, you see that the steady state economy concept has some pretty weak foundations.
You’re missing the point of why I posted the (alleged) CDC cover-up of the MMR vaccine-autism link in #169, Unforced Variations, January 2015. The purpose was to show that, if the incentives for cover-up exist, one cannot exclude the possibility of cover-up occurring. In the CDC case, the cover-up was not one rogue researcher, but rather agency wide (alleged). Subsequently, it has included the mainstream media as well.
The possibility of a cover-up can never be excluded, if you believe that three may keep a secret even if none are dead. My point was that allegations tell us nothing until they stand up to scrutiny. The example you offered of an alleged cover-up turned out, upon investigation, to be a deliberate deception by a couple of scientific outsiders, known charlatans who took advantage of Thompson’s naivete for their personal aggrandizement. Their scheme was easily exposed. Actual cover-up attempts often unravel with equal ease, when honest investigators start pulling threads.
There is no substitute for the opinions of real experts. In my view, Shakhova and Wadhams are the key experts here.
There is no substitute for peer review. An scientist is only an expert if her scientific peers agree that she’s correct, after rigorously examining her claims. Unless you are part of that process, you have no way to know whether she, and you, are fooling yourselves or not.
I’m not so sure it’s a specious argument. When it is demonstrated that renewable energy infrastructure can be built, operated and maintained with renewable energy then you will have a point. It’s not just about embedded energy but more about the use of CO2 producing activities. Greenhouse gases are the problem and we need to stop producing them. Whatever society results is what we (and/or future generations) will have to live with.
Jasper Jaynessays
Mal#489,
“The example you offered of an alleged cover-up turned out, upon investigation, to be a deliberate deception by a couple of scientific outsiders, known charlatans who took advantage of Thompson’s naivete for their personal aggrandizement.”
This is the third attack on my CDC posting; two by you, and one by Ladbury. Somehow, the attacks on this subject are on-topic, but my attempted responses are off-topic, and not posted.
Antarctic sea ice is up, but that’s because it’s moving off the land. The GRACE satellies report Antarctic ice mass has decreased at an accelerating rate for years. Still, the increased Antarctic sea ice is a factor of four smaller than the decreased Arctic sea ice, so world sea ice is down.
Jon Kellersays
#482 freemike:
Here is an article that will put the antarctic sea ice record highs in the proper perspective:
Actually, it is your position which is needing defense. Energy payback times for solar are small http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/26/solar-energy-payback-time-charts/ and a train load of solar panels transports more energy that 200 train loads of coal. Your concerns are extraordinarily marginal.
SecularAnimistsays
wili wrote: “SA doesn’t want us to discuss renewables”
That’s not true. I love to discuss renewable energy.
But not here, because the moderators of this site have repeatedly said that discussion of mitigation in general, and non-fossil-fuel energy technologies in particular, is off-topic for this site, and have repeatedly asked that commenters refrain from such discussions here.
If you are interested in renewable energy, a good newsfeed site is CleanTechnica.com. And there are innumerable sites where discussions of solar, wind, nuclear, efficiency, storage, EVs, etc. are ongoing.
On Arctic CH4? How anyone could consider Gavin more expert than Shakhova is a mystery. One has spent over a decade doing direct research there, one hasn’t.
Hello?
Reputation and/or status has nothing to do with nothing. Shakhova, et al., are doing the research and their analysis parallels what we see. Gavin’s comments on the subject have been extraordinarily conservative, and still are more conservative than conditions warrant, imo. Increasing numbers of thermokarst lakes, increasing sub-sea emissions, now big holes being blown out of the tundra? We even have what are believed to be increasing emissions off of Washington in the Pacific and possible new emissions of the west coast, too.
Hello?
You’d think the ice cores they did showing thaw the full length of the cores would shake people up a bit, but…
This is a no-brainer. Gavin is far from the expert on this issue, and I question the analytical skills of *anyone* that would take Gavin’s word over Shakhova on this specific issue.
This takes nothing from Gavin as a scientist, but it clearly is not his area of expertise.
Re: The long list of renewables are wonderful and cars too and you can’t prove nuttin’ and so the world I want is exactly what I’m gonna get cause there are no limits and your a %^&#%$& posts:
* There is no legitimacy to any claim renewables are currently completely dependent on FFs. If this site had a “block” function, I’d use it on anyone who said otherwise because they have demonstrated a seriously diminished analytical ability. After all, this is not an issue that is in question.
* Using the argument they are now FF-dependent, but can’t be assumed to be in the future, so Heinberg, et al. have no legitimate point is absurd. The only way to come to that conclusions are exactly two: Brain dead or some of the worst risk assessment you will ever see.
Putting the future of the planet on a future maybe could probably be argued to be a form of insanity. Seriously, who would risk the planet for a few more years of comfort?
This is all the more evident when one considers simplification can eliminate all risks of an ELE, as well as ensure future generations will not only survive but maybe have the time to find those solutions that *do* allow never-ending use of wind and solar.
As for cars… good god… if you think they are sustainable, you’re quite simply deluding yourself. It’s not worth addressing. Also, the logic is not that we must prove they are not sustainable (that is obvious and requires no math, no science, no studies to understand), it is on you to prove it is. The waste alone is unsustainable. The risk to humanity does not lie in us being wrong, it lies in you being wrong.
Still, can’t resist smacking down such an (intentionally?) absurd claim, so:
Historian Mark Foster has estimated that “fully one-third of the total environmental damage caused by automobiles occurred before they were sold and driven.” He cited a study that estimated that fabricating one car produced 29 tons of waste and 1,207 million cubic yards of polluted air. Extracting iron ore, bauxite, petroleum, copper, lead, and a variety of other raw materials to process steel, aluminum, plastics, glass, rubber, and other products necessary to construct automobiles consumes limited resources, uses great amounts of energy, and has serious environmental repercussions. In recent years, for example, the automotive industry in several developed countries was a major purchaser of iron and steel (30 percent), lead for batteries (46 percent), aluminum (23 percent), and platinum for exhaust fume control (41 percent). Approximately 75 percent of the cost of the industry’s power comes from electricity, but the auto industry also consumes natural gas (15 percent of energy expenditures), and coal and coke (over 8 percent), as well as steam, oil, and propane.
It seems to me that the willingness to do something, if only a little, will help to keep the jointly undertaken efforts like the EPA regulation of power plants and CAFE standards on track. It is these collective actions that are both effective for the US and provide leadership internationally which is needed to get China and India to turn around.
JJ, you said above that you trust YouTube videos (Breeze interviewing Shakhova) and newspaper columnists (Nafeez on methane hydrates, before he retracted his claims) and you don’t trust the published science, written by the same scientists, because conspiracy.
Right? Just checking.
So, while some of the readers remain mesmerized by the antics of Inhofe and the clever remarks of Whitehouse, the real world is taking actions that will commit the planet to increasing use of fossil fuels for the indefinite future.
Comment by Jasper Jaynes — 2 Mar 2015
J.J. you certainly make lots of absurd inferences based on a couple of links. If I were you I wouldn’t try to project others motives or interests based on such little evidence. That’s not very “scientific” of you.
Hank#450,
” JJ, you said above that you trust YouTube videos (Breeze interviewing Shakhova) and newspaper columnists (Nafeez on methane hydrates, before he retracted his claims) and you don’t trust the published science, written by the same scientists, because conspiracy.”
One way I gauge the level of desperation of posters on blogs is the degree they have to resort to smear. Show me where I made the specific statement you attribute to me above. The full statement, not just bits and pieces. For your benefit, I will make some statements that you can take to the bank.
I trust Shakhova and Wadhams on Arctic methane and ice, because of their decades of hands-on experience and visits to that region, and the quality of their subsequent analyses. The Breeze interviews with Shakhova on methane are the most honest of any I’ve seen on the topic. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect. Shakhova is learning from her American academic colleagues quite well, as expressed in the video: ‘we need more data; we need more money’. However, what she revealed about methane in the interview was pure gold.
Nafeez is a reporter who flip-flopped; I mentioned that explicitly in my comments.
In terms of trusting the published science, I don’t take it as infallible. I gave an example of CDC’s cover-up (alleged) of the MMR vaccine-autism link in #169 of Unforced Variations, January 2015, to show that articles published in even the premier journals by government organizations can be misleading. Is that the only example; doubtful? Is the same cover-up happening for climate change; possibly? We won’t know until a William Thompson of climate change steps forward. Is the situation in climate change worse than we are being told officially? You bet; Breeze’s depiction of the official story as ‘science fiction’ is reasonable, although I would call it ‘science fiction masquerading as truth’.
But, you accomplished your goal. Initial slanderous statements are always remembered more than honest rebuttals.
wili wrote: “If we are allowed a bit more on renewables issues, I think this passage from a recent important essay be R. Heinberg put some of the positions seen around here in perspective: …”
I think that passage is a perfect example of why the moderators of this site are wise to make discussion of alternatives to fossil-fueled electricity generation off-topic.
It is little more than ill-informed and illogical rhetoric, as is most of the off-topic anti-renewable energy commentary that still appears here from time to time.
Heinberg’s assertion that by stating that a transition to renewable energy can be “easily” accomplished at low or even no net cost, advocates “end up denying oxygen to energy conservation efforts” is nonsense. Advocates of zero-emission electricity generation and advocates of efficiency and conservation are on the same page, and in general they are the same people, and they fully understand that decarbonizing the grid AND maximizing efficiency are complementary. Why is he trying to “pick a fight” between them when no such division exists?
I am very familiar with Heinberg’s writing on “peak oil”. He has been consistently wrong about solar and wind energy for many years.
It is ironic that he writes here that “we will ultimately have to deal with the reality of what solar and wind can actually provide”, when it is Heinberg who has yet to deal with the reality that solar and wind “actually provide” orders of magnitude more energy each and every year than all the energy contained in all the fossil fuels on Earth.
The reality is that whatever other problems we may face, energy scarcity is not one of them. A renewable energy future is a future of energy abundance.
These are easy to find and worth recommending to youngsters or anyone who hasn’t had an education in ecology:
Trophic Cascades
Youtube: How Wolves Change Rivers
Youtube: How Whales Change Climate
We need climate models that include trophic eco-engineering — putting the world back together, as best we can, given that we’ve been tinkering quite a while and lost quite a few of the parts.
Restoring top predators is as important as restoring the photosynthesizers and the soil.
We’re just lately seeing climate modeling including the bottom end of the food chain — plankton.
“Initial slanderous statements are always remembered more than honest rebuttals.”
Doesn’t seem to me to be that much substantive difference between the two, in the end–your bottom line statement is that you *don’t* trust the literature, and that you find some of Shakhova’s statements “more honest” than others. But perhaps I’m not getting what you mean. Wouldn’t be the first time.
#453, SA–Mmm. I’m a big believer in the power of renewables to help humanity very significantly over the coming decades, and think that the growth of renewables in our contemporary energy mix is one of the most encouraging things anywhere on the horizon.
But–it does seem to me that we are still going to have to confront the fact of Terrestrial finitude, in respect of energy as in other resources, and that that is going to have some far-reaching results, socially. Really, radical revisiting is going to be needed. So it’s useful to consider what might be necessary, even though (IMO) we’re still far from being able to ‘design the future’.
> JJ, you said above
Click on the word “above” — it’s a hypertext link to JJ’s original full text earlier in this thread. Always check the original.
Please can we ban mitigation again in the next unforced variations thread ? Or have a separate mitigation thread ?
For those who are interested, global installed wind capacity as of last year was about 370 GW, plus 140 GW solar, for a total of 510 GW. I’m not sure what world total electrical capacity was. I seem to remember all forms of energy use added up to about 18 TW, so the above would represent 2.8% of human energy use.
I am shocked, shocked to find that my friend SA takes issue with Heinberg’s (rather modest, to my mind) observation that solar and wind cannot readily provide the levels of energy that ff’s have provided in time to draw down carbon levels at the rates needed. (He does, though, seem to be perfectly described by RH’s line: ” it is common to find passionate but poorly informed climate activists who loudly proclaim that the transition can be easily and fully accomplished at no net cost.”)
Nice rhetorical trick, though, to blur actual solar and wind _electric_ capacity with the total amounts of insolation hitting and wind blowing oer the earth. The fact that you have to resort to such tricks (along with various vague accusations) does not suggest that you have a very strong case here.
It is a shame that such rhetoric does indeed seem to make any rational discussion of the reality of renwable capacity impossible on this important forum. I have a feeling they will again explicitly ban such discussion in the next open forum.
wili wrote: “I have a feeling they will again explicitly ban such discussion in the next open forum.”
Don’t worry, wili. The commenters who like to attack, disparage and denigrate solar and wind energy in these comment pages have always ignored the moderators’ rules about what is on and off-topic here, and they always will.
wili,
SA’s position is to be expected. Most people are so desperate for there to be a solution to AGW, without affecting lifestyles much. Because we have become so used to our highly complex industrialised society, we think that it hasn’t been enabled purely by fossil fuels but by human ingenuity and can easily be maintained and enhanced by “simply” switching to another abundant supply of energy that is “renewable”. The full picture is rarely examined because the conclusions that leads to are too horrendous to contemplate.
But the attitude that we can switch to renewables and maintain the kind of society that it took fossil fuels to produce is no much different from the climate change denier community in that it presupposes that no significant changes to society are required. To date, I’ve yet to read anything that shows the oppposite of what Heinberg, and others, have concluded. And, yes, citing the enormous amount of energy that wind and solar contain in total is really a non-argument that shows they haven’t really thought about it in depth.
Heinberg’s latest is also a good read and mentions the failed, well funded, Google project to find a way to provide abundant affordable renewable energy to power our society. They conclude it can’t be done.
Moderators — The link to Climate Progress has been moved to
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/
so the side bar needs updating.
Thank you.
Jasper Jaynes:
if “CDC’s cover-up (alleged) of the MMR vaccine-autism link” is your best example of why you trust Shakhova and Wadhams more than you trust Gavin Schmidt, I’ll give more weight to Gavin, despite my bitter disillusionment at learning he’s not infallible. We don’t know of any cover-up happening for climate change now, and if a “William Thompson of climate change” steps forward, we still won’t know.
TW: “the attitude that we can switch to renewables and maintain the kind of society that it took fossil fuels to produce is no much different from the climate change denier community in that it presupposes that no significant changes to society are required.”
BPL: If you think we have to abandon cities, or manufacturing, or cars to save the planet, show your work. Otherwise, please take your arrogant, condescending attitude and shove it up your anarcho-primitivism.
Wili#446,
I find Heinberg’s comments to be relatively wishy-washy. The link I posted in #450 is more direct, straight-forward, and to the point. It is based on solid research, and an honest assessment of the literature and social landscape. The main takeaways are:
“the environmental movement has relegated itself to cheerleading and mindless chants and that it’s time for us to step away from the pom-poms. I encounter a boundless enthusiasm for creating positive change when holding dialogues with environmental groups. Unfortunately, the mainstream environmental movement is channeling that energy into an increasingly corporatist, and what I call a “productivist,” set of priorities.”
“The modern environmental movement has rolled over to become an outlet for loggers, energy firms and car companies to plug into. It is now primarily a social media platform for consumerism, growth and energy production – an institutionalized philanderer of green illusions. If you need evidence, just go to any climate rally and you’ll see a strip mall of stands for green products, green jobs and green energy. These will do nothing to solve the crisis we face, which is not an energy crisis but rather a crisis of consumption.”
“There is an impression that we have a choice between fossil fuels and clean energy technologies such as solar cells and wind turbines. That choice is an illusion. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels through every stage of their life. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels for mining operations, fabrication plants, installation, ongoing maintenance and decommissioning. Also, due to the irregular output of wind and solar, these technologies require fossil fuel plants to be running alongside them at all times. Most significantly, alternative energy financing relies on the kind of growth that fossil fuels drive.”
In a nutshell, ‘clean’ energy is not clean, and ‘renewables’ are not renewable. Neither brings us anywhere near sustainability. ‘Nuff said.
Mal#465,
“if “CDC’s cover-up (alleged) of the MMR vaccine-autism link” is your best example of why you trust Shakhova and Wadhams more than you trust Gavin Schmidt, I’ll give more weight to Gavin,”
You’re missing the point of why I posted the (alleged) CDC cover-up of the MMR vaccine-autism link in #169, Unforced Variations, January 2015. The purpose was to show that, if the incentives for cover-up exist, one cannot exclude the possibility of cover-up occurring. In the CDC case, the cover-up was not one rogue researcher, but rather agency wide (alleged). Subsequently, it has included the mainstream media as well. The stakes for climate change are far higher, the incentives for cover-up of extremely serious consequences exist, and there is no way I could honestly rule out the possibility of cover-up of the potential for the most serious of consequences. Consider the following hypothetical: assume McPherson is correct, and we have until mid-century left. What would happen to the global social order if this became known? There are just too many incentives to suppress public consideration of the possibility of anything even near this level of catastrophe.
In terms of who to believe on the major methane release issue, I base it mainly on hands-on experience. Shakhova, Wadhams, and perhaps others have decades of hands-on experience with the ice and methane, and they have produced very credible analyses as a result.
Obviously, there is a leap required when we get to predictions. There are myriad approaches one can use to predict the likelihood of large methane releases. There are a variety of analytical techniques, and they have some degree of validity. But, an equally valid approach, and one typically more widely accepted, is to make use of groups of experts, either in panel form or otherwise. There is no substitute for the opinions of real experts. In my view, Shakhova and Wadhams are the key experts here.
JJ: Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels through every stage of their life. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels for mining operations, fabrication plants, installation, ongoing maintenance and decommissioning. Also, due to the irregular output of wind and solar, these technologies require fossil fuel plants to be running alongside them at all times. Most significantly, alternative energy financing relies on the kind of growth that fossil fuels drive.
BPL: This specious argument relies on the power source for these things eternally being fossil fuels. The whole point of renewable energy is to replace all these sources. The idea that we’re going to keep using coal plants to fire up electric cars is just stupid. No. We’ll use solar plants for that. Fossil fuels to drive mining machinery? No, biomass fuels–and more recycling and less mining. And the intermittency argument has been answered over and over and over again, to the point where I find it hard to believe you haven’t heard the counter-arguments.
FYI, solar thermal plants in California have achieved better on-line time than nearby coal plants. They store excess heat from the day in molten salts and use it to run the turbines at night and in cloudy weather. Fossil fuels are NOT eternally necessary for advanced technology, and we do not need to save the world by abandoning advanced technology.
Of course endless growth isn’t possible. The idea that renewable energy advocates want endless growth is a straw man. I am as much for a steady-state world economy as any other environmentalist. I do not think we need anarcho-primitivism to achieve that.
Planting scientific seeds at the 4th International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, May 2014, Sarajevo
How Brains Think by Prof George Lakoff – Cognitive Scientist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldDAfoVdYU8
http://theconversation.com/what-science-communicators-can-learn-from-listening-to-people-25087
http://theconversation.com/facts-wont-beat-the-climate-deniers-using-their-tactics-will-24074
BPL, for the record, I also think that the ‘renewables rely on ffs’ is a particularly weak point in the argument, one I have argued against many times using much the same points as you do. Every new technology or fuel source relied at first on previous technologies and fuel sources, but that doesn’t mean that the new ones were for ever reduceable to the old ones. We long ago passed the point where the net energy being produced by renewables surpassed the amount of energy needed to build them.
So we do agree there. I am, on the other hand, rather fond of anarcho-primitivism ‘-).
#467–“…more direct, straight-forward, and to the point.”
Another strange comment. In my reading of the two links, they are saying things that are quite distinct; it’s a matter of substance, not just tone.
Heinberg essentially says that renewables are necessary, but not sufficient, to address the climate crisis–we will also need to shift away from the current consumerist economic model. Horn–or, actually, his interviewee, Zehner–says that renewables are nothing but greenwashing–an “illusion”.
Clearly, these positions are not equivalent to each other. (And, FWIW, I think the first position may be to some degree correct, while the second is clearly not, as at least one of his premises is no longer true.)
And in ‘routine news’, UAH is out with February data–the monthly anomaly is a tad lower, but still fairly warm, at 0.30 C.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/pdc15/
JJ, on the issue of MMR vaccination and autism.
Oh for Dog’s sake. Well, I think I won’t be reading any more of JJ’s contributions. Dude, if you can’t even go to Snopes for a confirmation, you really shouldn’t be saying anything…ever.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp
BPL#469,
” BPL: This specious argument relies on the power source for these things eternally being fossil fuels. The whole point of renewable energy is to replace all these sources. The idea that we’re going to keep using coal plants to fire up electric cars is just stupid. No. We’ll use solar plants for that. Fossil fuels to drive mining machinery? No, biomass fuels–and more recycling and less mining. – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/unforced-variations-feb-2015/comment-page-10/#comments”
You are mixing up time frames. When alternative sources are implemented initially, the external energy they require is essentially all fossil. As time goes on, and the alternatives are implemented, the fossil share drops. Presently, at this very early stage of implementation, the external energy is essentially all fossil. While this could change substantially decades from now with rapid alternative implementation, we do not have the luxury of being able to burn a large base load of fossil during that period without the most dire consequences. The transient problem cannot be ignored.
All I can say about the attacks on renewable energy (and the personal attacks on renewable energy advocates) that are being posted here, is this:
The moderators of this site have repeatedly and clearly stated that discussion of mitigation in general and non-fossil-fueled electricity generation in particular, is off-topic for this site.
The moderators of this site have repeatedly, politely and firmly asked that commenters refrain from such discussions here.
There are plenty of other places where up-to-date news on renewable energy, efficiency, smart-grids, microgrids, electric vehicles, and related technologies and industries can be found, and plenty of other places where well-informed, fact-based discussions of such subjects are appropriate.
JJ: You are mixing up time frames. When alternative sources are implemented initially, the external energy they require is essentially all fossil. As time goes on, and the alternatives are implemented, the fossil share drops. Presently, at this very early stage of implementation, the external energy is essentially all fossil. While this could change substantially decades from now with rapid alternative implementation, we do not have the luxury of being able to burn a large base load of fossil during that period without the most dire consequences. The transient problem cannot be ignored.
BPL: A wind farm can be deployed in 9 months. And the more is deployed, the more the mix is non-fossil-fuel. The worst thing we could do would be to hold back on renewables now.
BPL (#460),
I recently noticed an interesting convergence. The long term growth of both solar and wind capacity is exponential. The growth rate for solar is higher than for wind power but wind power is currently ahead in capacity. If we take a capacity factor of 20% for solar and 30% for wind, how long does it take to cover the roughly 20 TW of energy demand you recall?
For solar, taking 200 MW of capacity in 1995 and 100,000 MW in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics#mediaviewer/File:PV_cume_semi_log_chart_2014_estimate.svg we get to 100,000,000 MW in 39 years from 1995 since (log(100 TW)-log(200 MW))/(log(100,00 MW)-log(200 MW))/17 years)=39 years. So 2034 is when we may expect solar PV to cover all energy demand.
For wind, taking 7,600 MW of capacity in 1995 and 369,553 MW in 2014 http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/3_global_cumulative_installed_wind_capacity_1997-2014.jpg we get to 60,000,000 MW in 39 years from 1997 since (log(60 TW)-log(7,600 MW))/(log(369,533 MW)-log(7.500 MW))/17 years = 39 years. So, 2036 is where we may expect wind power to cover all energy demand.
So, within just a couple years of each other, either technology can be projected to grow to cover all current demand.
A driver for ongoing exponential growth for PV is the still falling cost of manufacture. It is expected that panels will cost $0.36/W to produce in 2017. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-cost-reduction-drivers-in-2017
This seems to be a faster rate than pledges coming in for Paris are anticipating so we might have some confidence that those pledges are going to be met.
Oh, and the final installment in my series “How Do We Know We Need To Act On Climate Change?” is now up.
Thanks, again, to those checking it out. And, again, any feedback would be most welcome.
http://doc-snow.hubpages.com/hub/How-Do-We-Know-That-Climate-Change-Will-Be-Mostly-Bad
Wili#476,
“BPL, for the record, I also think that the ‘renewables rely on ffs’ is a particularly weak point in the argument, one I have argued against many times using much the same points as you do. Every new technology or fuel source relied at first on previous technologies and fuel sources, but that doesn’t mean that the new ones were for ever reduceable to the old ones. We long ago passed the point where the net energy being produced by renewables surpassed the amount of energy needed to build them.”
You’ve overlooked the main point. See my response to BPL, #476.
Is there any information someone can point me to about whether Antarctica’s land and sea ice have a net gain or loss? With NASA recently stating that the sea ice is at a record extent the usual suspects are jumping into denial mode. Thanks for any information.
Since there are people here who create graphs, you can now add the Unreal 4 engine to your disposal, the new version has been released for free. I thought it would be cool to see some 3D graphs maybe or even more sophisticated modelling of the climate system. So maybe this will be useful https://www.unrealengine.com/what-is-unreal-engine-4
Kevin#472,
” I think the first position may be to some degree correct, while the second is clearly not, as at least one of his premises is no longer true.”
Well, rather than you making one-sided statements without the benefit of a response by Zehner, why don’t you challenge him to a debate on RC. You and he would be the sole participants in a thread. He could post for a couple of pages, or each of you could have a couple of pages, and then for the next week you would go back and forth and debate the issues. One-sided attacks with no response are propaganda, not debate; we can do better.
JJ wrote: “The transient problem cannot be ignored.” This I agree with.
Further on primitivism: “Human beings will be happier– not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie, but when they learn to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.” Kurt Vonnegut
SA doesn’t want us to discuss renewables, so I guess that leave us with…extinction?? ‘-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EqaCWFow4g
What SecularAnimist wrote @ #477.
BPL (#469)
“I am as much for a steady-state world economy as any other environmentalist.”
I see a lot of environmentalist as wanting to get out of the way of the wild, which probably requires using technology to reduce impacts on the natural world. That kind of thing doesn’t really occur is an economy that is constrained from growing out of bad situations and practices. There are others that want to garden the world, seeing no way to avoid interference and thus a need to be beavers to the world, creating niches for other species as we make things nice for ourselves as well. Again, that does not seem to be something that can be accomplished without growth. There are others who are concerned mainly about pollution and ensuring clean water and air. This could be about the urban environment as much as the countryside. Obviously, growth out of the unhealthy ways of doing things is needed to address that.
I think the idea of the steady state economy is more about trying to apply a zero sum view of ecology to economics. It ignores that while evolution is slow in ecology, it is very rapid in economics so that the concepts don’t translate well and end up misapplied. But, even in ecology, the example of evolution and expanding diversity show that the zero sum approach is only an approximation. Once you start making assumptions explicit, like saying “carrying capacity” for a mid-20th century technology base, or for a mid-19th century technology base and notice these are very different things, you see that the steady state economy concept has some pretty weak foundations.
Jasper Jaynes:
The possibility of a cover-up can never be excluded, if you believe that three may keep a secret even if none are dead. My point was that allegations tell us nothing until they stand up to scrutiny. The example you offered of an alleged cover-up turned out, upon investigation, to be a deliberate deception by a couple of scientific outsiders, known charlatans who took advantage of Thompson’s naivete for their personal aggrandizement. Their scheme was easily exposed. Actual cover-up attempts often unravel with equal ease, when honest investigators start pulling threads.
There is no substitute for peer review. An scientist is only an expert if her scientific peers agree that she’s correct, after rigorously examining her claims. Unless you are part of that process, you have no way to know whether she, and you, are fooling yourselves or not.
wili,
I’m not so sure it’s a specious argument. When it is demonstrated that renewable energy infrastructure can be built, operated and maintained with renewable energy then you will have a point. It’s not just about embedded energy but more about the use of CO2 producing activities. Greenhouse gases are the problem and we need to stop producing them. Whatever society results is what we (and/or future generations) will have to live with.
Mal#489,
“The example you offered of an alleged cover-up turned out, upon investigation, to be a deliberate deception by a couple of scientific outsiders, known charlatans who took advantage of Thompson’s naivete for their personal aggrandizement.”
This is the third attack on my CDC posting; two by you, and one by Ladbury. Somehow, the attacks on this subject are on-topic, but my attempted responses are off-topic, and not posted.
freemike 482,
Antarctic sea ice is up, but that’s because it’s moving off the land. The GRACE satellies report Antarctic ice mass has decreased at an accelerating rate for years. Still, the increased Antarctic sea ice is a factor of four smaller than the decreased Arctic sea ice, so world sea ice is down.
#482 freemike:
Here is an article that will put the antarctic sea ice record highs in the proper perspective:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Tony (#490),
Actually, it is your position which is needing defense. Energy payback times for solar are small http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/26/solar-energy-payback-time-charts/ and a train load of solar panels transports more energy that 200 train loads of coal. Your concerns are extraordinarily marginal.
wili wrote: “SA doesn’t want us to discuss renewables”
That’s not true. I love to discuss renewable energy.
But not here, because the moderators of this site have repeatedly said that discussion of mitigation in general, and non-fossil-fuel energy technologies in particular, is off-topic for this site, and have repeatedly asked that commenters refrain from such discussions here.
If you are interested in renewable energy, a good newsfeed site is CleanTechnica.com. And there are innumerable sites where discussions of solar, wind, nuclear, efficiency, storage, EVs, etc. are ongoing.
HadCRUT4 is in for January at 0.686ºC, the sixth warmest anomaly on record.
A question — what’s going on with that persistent cold anomaly south-east of Greenland? It’s generally unusually cold there, I’ve noticed for some years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201501.gif
#453, 456, 465
On Arctic CH4? How anyone could consider Gavin more expert than Shakhova is a mystery. One has spent over a decade doing direct research there, one hasn’t.
Hello?
Reputation and/or status has nothing to do with nothing. Shakhova, et al., are doing the research and their analysis parallels what we see. Gavin’s comments on the subject have been extraordinarily conservative, and still are more conservative than conditions warrant, imo. Increasing numbers of thermokarst lakes, increasing sub-sea emissions, now big holes being blown out of the tundra? We even have what are believed to be increasing emissions off of Washington in the Pacific and possible new emissions of the west coast, too.
Hello?
You’d think the ice cores they did showing thaw the full length of the cores would shake people up a bit, but…
This is a no-brainer. Gavin is far from the expert on this issue, and I question the analytical skills of *anyone* that would take Gavin’s word over Shakhova on this specific issue.
This takes nothing from Gavin as a scientist, but it clearly is not his area of expertise.
Re: The long list of renewables are wonderful and cars too and you can’t prove nuttin’ and so the world I want is exactly what I’m gonna get cause there are no limits and your a %^&#%$& posts:
* There is no legitimacy to any claim renewables are currently completely dependent on FFs. If this site had a “block” function, I’d use it on anyone who said otherwise because they have demonstrated a seriously diminished analytical ability. After all, this is not an issue that is in question.
* Using the argument they are now FF-dependent, but can’t be assumed to be in the future, so Heinberg, et al. have no legitimate point is absurd. The only way to come to that conclusions are exactly two: Brain dead or some of the worst risk assessment you will ever see.
Putting the future of the planet on a future maybe could probably be argued to be a form of insanity. Seriously, who would risk the planet for a few more years of comfort?
This is all the more evident when one considers simplification can eliminate all risks of an ELE, as well as ensure future generations will not only survive but maybe have the time to find those solutions that *do* allow never-ending use of wind and solar.
As for cars… good god… if you think they are sustainable, you’re quite simply deluding yourself. It’s not worth addressing. Also, the logic is not that we must prove they are not sustainable (that is obvious and requires no math, no science, no studies to understand), it is on you to prove it is. The waste alone is unsustainable. The risk to humanity does not lie in us being wrong, it lies in you being wrong.
Still, can’t resist smacking down such an (intentionally?) absurd claim, so:
Sustainable, my a… uto!
Rafael (#445),
It seems to me that the willingness to do something, if only a little, will help to keep the jointly undertaken efforts like the EPA regulation of power plants and CAFE standards on track. It is these collective actions that are both effective for the US and provide leadership internationally which is needed to get China and India to turn around.
#496–Thanks, MA. Duly noted…
#497–Second that. I was just noticing that same pattern the other day.