How To Break The Climate Deadlock

[musterion]

How To Break The Climate Deadlock

Tactical, low yield nukes.

 

[kmoney]

In the new issue of Scientific American there is an article about carbon capture.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ay-be-too-expensive-to-combat-climate-change/

Unfortunately this one is not free. Only a preview shows, which shows almost nothing. Here is more of a summary:

Mississippi Power is building the Kemper 'clean coal' power plant to generate electricity from the dirtiest form of coal and capture the resulting carbon dioxide emissions instead of sending them into the atmosphere. Kemper will sell the CO2 to a company that will pump it down into diminishing oil fields to force out more oil; roughly one third of the CO2 emissions is supposed to remain trapped underground there. Burning the oil, however, would send new emissions into the sky. Costs at Kemper and a few other similar facilities are very high, raising doubt about whether the approach is economically sustainable; to date, 33 carbon capture and storage projects have been shut down or canceled worldwide. Without effective, affordable carbon capture, nations at this month's Paris climate talks that are committing to cut emissions will not be able to meet their pledges.

I'm skeptical about carbon capture because of uncertainty about the risks and potential for leaking but there doesn't seem to be any viable way around it.

 

[gcthomas]

In the new issue of Scientific American there is an article about carbon capture.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ay-be-too-expensive-to-combat-climate-change/

Unfortunately this one is not free. Only a preview shows, which shows almost nothing. Here is more of a summary:




I'm skeptical about carbon capture because of uncertainty about the risks and potential for leaking but there doesn't seem to be any viable way around it.

Given that the coal in the ground will likely be dug up and burned eventually, carbon capture is essential. The UK government has just scrapped a big project to develop the technology - very short sighted.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Since GC won't investigate the claims of ozone depletion by my original author because of his supposed unique views on electromagnetics, I have presented facts published by Robert A. Ashworth in the paper

CFC Destruction of Ozone - Major Cause of Recent Global Warming!

Robert A. Ashworth, Senior Vice President of Technology
Mr. Ashworth is Senior Vice President of Technology of ClearStack Power, LLC, and is responsible for technology development for the company.

If he still will not investigate, then he actually holds an anti science position and subscribes to the theory of science by committee. This view is even flawed by its own standard. Their supposed consensus is from scientists who work in some way related to climate. When you narrow it down to scientists who actually work in causation, the consensus disappears.

The website Cornwall Alliance.org has the following article:

Curry deals another blow to climate consensus

by climate scientist Judith Curry she quotes another paper that says the following:

The climate experts with credibility in evaluating this statement are those scientists that are active in the area of detection and attribution. “Climate” scientists whose research areas is ecosystems, carbon cycle, economics, etc speak with no more authority on this subject than say Freeman Dyson.

It also says that, "But perhaps the most important point is that of the scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC consensus, a disproportionately large number of these skeptical scientists are experts on climate change detection/attribution. Think Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, etc. etc.

Bottom line: inflating the numbers of ‘climate scientists’ in such surveys attempts to hide that there is a serious scientific debate about the detection and attribution of recent warming, and that scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC consensus conclusion are disproportionately expert in the area of climate change detection and attribution. "

CFCs have destroyed ozone in the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere causing these zones in
the atmosphere to cool 1.37 oC from 1966 to 1998. This time span was selected to eliminate the
effect of the natural solar irradiance (cooling-warming) cycle effect on the earth's temperature.
· The loss of ozone allowed more UV light to pass through the stratosphere at a sufficient rate to
warm the lower troposphere plus 8-3/4" of the earth by 0.48 oC (1966 to 1998).
· Mass and energy balances show that the energy that was absorbed in the lower stratosphere
/upper troposphere hit the lower troposphere/earth at a sustainable level of 1.69 x 1018 Btu more
in 1998 than it did in 1966.
· Greater ozone depletion in the Polar Regions has caused these areas to warm some two and one-
half (2 ½) times that of the average earth temperature (1.2 oC vs. 0.48 oC). This has caused
permafrost to melt, which is releasing copious quantities of methane, estimated at 100 times that
of manmade CO2 release, to the atmosphere. Methane in the atmosphere slowly converts to CO2
and water vapor and its release has contributed to higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
· There is a temperature anomaly in Antarctica. The Signey Island landmass further north, warmed
like the rest of the Polar Regions; but south at Vostok, there has been a cooling effect. Although
the cooling at Vostok needs to be analyzed in more detail, because of the large ozone hole there,
black body radiation from Vostok (some 11,400 feet above sea level) to outer space is most likely
the cause. Especially, since this phenomenon occurred over the same period that stratospheric
ozone destruction took place.

 

[patrick jane]

CFCs have destroyed ozone in the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere causing these zones in
the atmosphere to cool 1.37 oC from 1966 to 1998. This time span was selected to eliminate the
effect of the natural solar irradiance (cooling-warming) cycle effect on the earth's temperature.
· The loss of ozone allowed more UV light to pass through the stratosphere at a sufficient rate to
warm the lower troposphere plus 8-3/4" of the earth by 0.48 oC (1966 to 1998).
· Mass and energy balances show that the energy that was absorbed in the lower stratosphere
/upper troposphere hit the lower troposphere/earth at a sustainable level of 1.69 x 1018 Btu more
in 1998 than it did in 1966.
· Greater ozone depletion in the Polar Regions has caused these areas to warm some two and one-
half (2 ½) times that of the average earth temperature (1.2 oC vs. 0.48 oC). This has caused
permafrost to melt, which is releasing copious quantities of methane, estimated at 100 times that
of manmade CO2 release, to the atmosphere. Methane in the atmosphere slowly converts to CO2
and water vapor and its release has contributed to higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
· There is a temperature anomaly in Antarctica. The Signey Island landmass further north, warmed
like the rest of the Polar Regions; but south at Vostok, there has been a cooling effect. Although
the cooling at Vostok needs to be analyzed in more detail, because of the large ozone hole there,
black body radiation from Vostok (some 11,400 feet above sea level) to outer space is most likely
the cause. Especially, since this phenomenon occurred over the same period that stratospheric
ozone destruction took place.

What is that supposed to mean, eh ?

 

[ClimateSanity]

What is that supposed to mean, eh ?

It means there is evidence for global warming caused by ozone depletion. The evidence that carbon dioxide is causing global warming is lacking. All they have is correlation. Even then the correlation is undermines their position. Carbon dioxide increases follow temperature increases; not the other way around .
The signature that would show carbon dioxide to be the culprit is the lower troposphere above the tropics should warm more rapidly than the rest of the planet. This has not been the case. A signature of ozone depletion caused warming is more rapidly warming arctic areas. The evidence strongly supports this.

 

[gcthomas]

The website Cornwall Alliance.org has the following article:
by climate scientist Judith Curry she quotes another paper that says the following:

The climate experts with credibility in evaluating this statement are those scientists that are active in the area of detection and attribution. “Climate” scientists whose research areas is ecosystems, carbon cycle, economics, etc speak with no more authority on this subject than say Freeman Dyson.

Judith Curry strongly believes that AGW is real and present. You might want to dishonestly quote-mine her, but she is not on your side here.

 

[Stripe]

The most recent Scientific American has an article called 'How to Break the Climate Deadlock'. The main idea in the article is that progress on climate change can't be made with only reliance on free markets. There must be some government intervention, through carbon taxes or a trading system and then investment in renewable technology.

The problem is they advocate spending billions of taxpayer dollars on plans that have a tenuous link to an unproven hypothesis with outcomes that will have no significant effect.

 

[gcthomas]

The problem is they advocate spending billions of taxpayer dollars on plans that have a tenuous link to an unproven hypothesis with outcomes that will have no significant effect.

You are right on one out of three parts of that ...

 

[Stripe]

You are right on one out of three parts of that ...

And the one part that you think is right is reason enough to justify rejecting the hype.

 

[Stripe]

What should be done to spur real change?

You could start with rational debate rather than the fallacy of begging the question. :thumb:

 

[gcthomas]

And the one part that you think is right is reason enough to justify rejecting the hype.

You don't just reject the hype (which needs rejecting), you reject good science. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Stripe]

You reject good science.

Nope.

 

[kmoney]

You could start with rational debate rather than the fallacy of begging the question. :thumb:

There are many threads on TOL to debate climate change. This one is primarily for those who accept that there is a problem and think we should try to do something about it. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

There are many threads on TOL to debate climate change. This one is primarily for those who accept that there is a problem and think we should try to do something about it. :thumb:

Ah.

A non-science thread.

My mistake. :wave2:

 

[kmoney]

Ah.

A non-science thread.

My mistake. :wave2:

k, bye. :wave2:

 

[ClimateSanity]

This quote is from an email sent by Phil Jones of the CRU unit in east anglia to his climate colleagues when they were preparing the IPCC AR4 report:


“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

As it turns out, the papers in question were kept in the report because it was against the rules not to do so. Phil was new to the team and was unaware of that rule.

What this shows is the eagerness of one person in the government subsidized climate community to keep contrarian papers out of the literature. Since this is just a sampling of communications in said community, the likelihood this is more prevalent is good.

 

[gcthomas]

What this shows is the eagerness of one person in the government subsidized climate community to keep contrarian papers out of the literature.

You got that mixed up. It wasn't about keeping papers out of the peer reviewed literature, but an apparent attempt at keeping papers that had already been published in peer reviewed journals out of the non peer reviewed IPCC report. (like a form of peer review, really)

Since this is just a sampling of communications in said community, the likelihood this is more prevalent is good.

It was not a sample, but the result of a trawl through thousands of stolen emails looking for phrases to mine and repeat out of context.