Posts from — December 2009

Last week, I appeared on the premier of John Stossel’s new show on Fox Business – a show titled (appropriately enough) Stossel.  The topic was global warming and, happily, I had an hour (well, actually only about 43 minutes once you subtract out the commercials) to discuss the issue with John and members of the studio audience.  If you missed the show, you can catch it here.

My arguments on Stossel tracked those offered here at MasterResource last month.  In short, I had no interest in engaging in a debate about the physical science of natural versus anthropogenic climate change.

I was entirely interested in the implications for public policy if we accept the most recent IPCC report at face value.  I think it’s quite interesting that even if one accepts the common definition of what constitutes “mainstream science” on this issue that one is still hard pressed to put forward a defensible mitigation scheme.

Alas, my inbox suggests that a number of people who watched the show thought I was too willing to accept the contention that there has been warming and that man likely has a lot to do with it.  Instead, a number of Fox viewers wanted me to launch World War III over the climate record. 

I didn’t for two reasons.  First, I am not a scientist and am more comfortable leaving that debate to those engaged fully in that field.  I know that this doesn’t stop a lot of people from holding forth regardless, but it stops me.  Second, one can be correct about the climate history being short of what Al Gore or Michael Mann make it out to be without being correct about the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has little to do with the warming at present.  For some reason, that’s an impossible point for many people to grasp. [Read more →]

Editor Note: Author John Etherington, formerly a Reader in Ecology at the University of Wales, has extensively researched the implications of intermittently available renewable electricity generation, particularly wind power. He is a Thomas Huxley Medallist at the Royal College of Science and a former co-editor of the International Journal of Ecology.

 

 It may be a bit too late to order copies of the just published 198-page The Wind Farm Scam (Stacy International, 2009) by British ecologist John Etherington as a holiday gift, but it’s well worth getting (and giving) copies of the book as soon as you can secure them.

The book should be required reading for every high school, college, and university student — especially in those institutions offering energy and environmental programs.

Although the book written about the UK experience, most of its facts about “wind farms” are applicable worldwide.  It explains wind energy—and its limitations and environmental insults—in easily understood terms  It explains why wind will never provide a significant, reliable source of electricity.

As in the US, “wind farms” in the UK are being built primarily because of government fiat and huge government-forced subsidies, not because of their true environmental, economic, or energy benefits.  Apparently, the tax breaks and subsidies in the US are even more attractive than those in the UK since two major oil companies, BP and Shell, have pulled out of UK “renewable” energy programs with the intent of focusing their attention (and renewable rent seeking) on the US and Canada.

Personally, I found Dr. Etherington’s well-researched and clear-headed discussion of wind energy a very welcome relief from the wind energy madness now underway in the US.

For example: [Read more →]

Editor’s Note: Jim Manzi is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and blogs at both National Review’s The Corner and at The American Scene.

It is amusing to watch advocates of rapid, aggressive carbon dioxide emissions reduction, when confronted with the plain facts of the consensus scientific projections for climate change and its associated damages, move from “science says we must do this or die” to “well, actually, the science is pretty uncertain, so it’s possible that we might die,” and then proceed to some restatement of Pascal’s Wager.

Friedman’s Throw

Tom Friedman’s recent New York Times column is a perfect illustration of this logic.  I’ll quote him at length, before demonstrating that his emission-cuts-as-insurance analogy breaks down once you plug in actual numbers:

This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.

What we don’t know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before. We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible” in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic” warming.

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

Computing the Odds

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading bookie for this game.  The current IPCC consensus forecast is that, under fairly reasonable assumptions for world population and economic growth, global temperatures will rise by about 3°C by the year 2100 (Table SPM.3). Also according to the IPCC, a 4°C increase in temperatures would cause total estimated economic losses of 1–5 percent of global GDP (page 17). By implication, if we were at 3°C of warming at the end of this century, we would be well into the 22^nd century before we reached a 4°C rise, with this associated level of cost. [Read more →]

Three previous posts have examined the emissions problem related to intermittent industrial windpower that is firmed up with fossil-fuel generation.

1. Part I presented a framework of the necessary considerations and an interim assessment of the effects on fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions until sufficiently comprehensive studies can be performed in the areas indicated. This analysis shows approximately the same gas burn and an increase in related emissions, including CO2, compared to the no-wind case.
2. Part II reviewed the simplistic, incomplete approach that is usually claimed by wind proponents and policy makers. Introducing necessary considerations shows the dramatic, negative impacts presented in Part I.
3. Part III critically reviewed an article by Milligan et al, introduced in a post on Knowledge Problem in response to Part I. The Milligan article claims negligible reductions from the theoretical maximum and contains questionable material.

This post deals with issues raised in comments and other feedback received to date. Further comments and debate on new issues will continue this series.

Reciprocating Engine Gas Plants as Wind Shadowing/Back-up

It has been suggested by Donald Hertzmark and Robert Peltier of MasterResource that reciprocating engine gas plants as wind shadowing/back-up be recognized as a partial solution to the wind emissions problem. It is also mentioned by Milligan et al.

Specifically, Midwest Energy (MWE) in Kansas has implemented a natural gas-fired plant consisting of nine 8.4 MW reciprocating gas engines to help support MWE’s 325 MW total system demand and back-up power supply in the event of a transmission outage. The MWE system will also be accommodating 49 MW of industrial wind power by the end of 2009, representing 16 per cent of the peak load in capacity terms.

An additional advantage of the small multi-engine configuration is its ability to provide back-up power for the wind component. The reciprocating engines are fast-starting and represent a spinning reserve capability, which suits them for this task, especially as individual engines can be added or removed from production as needed, as opposed to the ramping up and down of a larger unit, such as a gas turbine. It is important to note that the capacity ranges for gas turbine plants start at the top end of those for the reciprocating engine plants. The question is: is this a better solution than gas turbine plants for wind shadowing/back-up?

In addressing this, some considerations are: [Read more →]

Recent reports from the Urban Land Institute and other planning advocates insist that so-called smart growth—a term meaning more compact urban development, combined with heavy investments in mass transit as an alternative to driving—is an essential tool in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In heeding this call, the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress want to impose a national land-use planning policy that threatens the property rights of every landowner in the country.

Smart-growth advocates project that miles of driving over the next forty years will grow faster than improvements in fuel economy or development of alternative fuels, so it will be impossible to meet GHG reduction targets unless we coerce people out of their cars. Based on this, they argue that Americans must drive less to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets.

To reduce driving, or at least the growth in driving, smart growth calls for increasing urban population densities, mixing residential with retail and other uses so that everyone can be within walking distance of shops and jobs, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars on transit systems so people won’t have to drive. The reality is that urban planners began promoting these policies long before global warming was an issue, yet the evidence that compact development can significantly reduce energy consumption and air pollution remains as elusive as ever.

Despite this lack of evidence, the secretaries of Transportation and Housing & Urban Development have signed an agreement to require the nation’s 400 or so metropolitan areas to write plans aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by becoming more compact and relying more on mass transit and less on auto driving. The administration calls this its “livability initiative,” even though it isn’t clear just how cities will be more livable if the people in them are less mobile.

These rules are to be implemented by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), a little-known level of government that was imposed by the feds back in the 1960s. [Read more →]

Editor’s note: Bradley’s op-ed appeared in the December 8th Washington Times under the title “Alarmists Cold-Shoulder Facts”)

Facts are awfully stubborn things. And global-warming alarmists—who generally don’t let facts get in the way of a good, agenda-driven argument—recently lost a key ally in the run-up to the U.N. global-warming pep rally opening today in Copenhagen. They lost actual data supporting their claims.

In defiant acts of desperation, many out-of-the-mainstream environmental alarmists quickly moved to plan B. Some cite the current El Niño—a natural climate variation—warning of “record” high temperatures just on the horizon.

Others continue to trumpet “studies” that paint terrifying environmental fairy tales if world governments do not immediately criminalize carbon, ban fossil fuels, and ration energy.

But these tactics are not new. Paul Ehrlich’s “population bomb” of the 1960s predicted food riots in the United States and around the world. Today, obesity is a bigger problem.

Remember the Club of Rome’s 1972 prediction of resource exhaustion? Fifty-seven predictions were made regarding 19 minerals, and all either have been proved false or will be.

Perhaps most hypocritical is the global-cooling scare promoted by, among others, Mr. Obama’s science czar, John Holdren. Today, Mr. Holdren says a billion people may perish from global warming by 2020.

It’s understandable why public opinion continues to squarely reject the apocalyptic vision of climate change. In Washington, pragmatic politicians of both parties balk at even watered-down proposals to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that will bring higher energy costs and more government control.

There simply is not an appetite for this social-engineering project. And despite the dire warnings of an intellectual cadre, the public is getting it right. The Earth’s average temperature is virtually unchanged from a dozen years ago—a result not predicted by climate modelers or activists.

The rate of sea-level rise has slowed to a crawl, throwing cold water on ice-melting scares. Global hurricane activity is near a 30-year low. Fatalities from tornadoes across the United States this year are on course to be the lowest in more than a decade. (Yes, some scientists link global warming to tornadoes.) In 2009, much of the Midwest and Northeast shivered through the coldest summer in recent memory. [Read more →]

[see bottom of post for an update]

Steve McIntyre, chief blogger and workhorse at the blog ClimateAudit, has a recent post which is grabbing a lot of attention across the web and being trumpeted by some as a triumphant unmasking of the fraudulent behavior in the preparation of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR).

Science/science policy blogger Roger Pielke Jr. covers Steve’s post, with a post of his own, under the title The “Trick” in Context. However, I think the post should more accurately have been titled The “Trick” in “Context.” For the “context” is one supplied by Steve McIntyre. My read of the relevant emails surrounding the incident in question doesn’t lead me to the same conclusions as Steve.

Context must be supplied in this case. For as anyone who has looked through any of the leaked/stolen Climategate emails (available here) quickly realizes, most of the email threads are not complete from start to finish, and, as is typical of most conversations, they assume the participants already know a lot of what is being discussed, including the context. To outside parties peering in, often the context must be derived, inferred, or guessed at.

The topic in question has to do with development of the discussion and graphics to be included in the paleoclimate section of Chapter 2 of the IPCC’s TAR. (The IPCC has since published its Fourth Assessment Report [AR4], which dedicates an entire chapter to paleoclimate rather than a brief section of a single chapter.) The discussion taking place in the emails highlighted by McIntyre is about what the best scientific understanding (at the time) of what the earth’s temperature behavior was during periods that pre-date the widespread direct temperature measurements made by thermometers (in this case, the past 1,000 years or so).

This is relevant to the issue of anthropogenic climate change because quantifying the degree of “natural” variability of the earth’s temperature helps to understand how unusual our current warmth might be. To some people, it is also important because they want to use it to try to argue that the earth’s temperature has gotten to be as high as it is now solely because of natural process. But this view is almost certainly wrong.

The Temperature ‘Trick’ Revisited

McIntyre has dedicated a phenomenal amount of time and energy into trying to decipher just how paleoclimate researchers have come to assemble their millennial temperature reconstructions—which are necessarily built upon uncertain data, relationships, and interactions—and then trying to determine whether the methods (and thus the ultimate results) are robust. [Read more →]

Roger Pielke Sr. is a well respected climatologist and professor. His blog is a top go-to place on the Internet for those searching for the happy middle of the contentious climate-change debate. (His son, Roger Pielke, Jr., also has a must-read blog for Climategate students.)

Here at MasterResource, Chip Knappenberger covers climate science. Knappenberger is skeptical of ultra-skepticism and trenchantly challenges exaggerated science in the service of climate alarmism.

In this tradition, I recently read a very interesting post on Pielke senior’s blog, titled “Three Distinctly Different Climate Science   Perspectives,” that is worth sharing with MasterResource readers. Here is what he wrote, and my critical comment is at the end.

There needs to be recognition that there are three distinctly different viewpoints with respect to the extent that humans alter the climate system.

(This subject is discussed in our paper: Pielke Sr. et al., Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413.

I have listed the three viewpoints below: [Read more →]

With thousands of politicians and environmentalists meeting in Copenhagen to discuss ways to achieve major cuts in global carbon dioxide emissions, one might assume that the need for drastic increases in nuclear power capacity would be an obvious solution – a path forward upon which factions on both the Left and the Right could agree.

Alas, that is not happening. Instead, the Green/Left in the US continues its decades-long opposition to nuclear, all the while insisting that the only way forward is through greater use of alternative energy sources like solar and wind.

Los Angeles Times: Now and Way Back Then

Consider the unsigned editorial published by the Los Angeles Times on November 28. The piece, titled “No new nukes – plants, that is,”[1] declares that nuclear energy “is not a reasonable solution because plants take too long to build and cost far too much.” California’s paper of record recommends, predictably, that the US invest more money in “renewable power sources such as solar, wind and geothermal,” as well as “solar thermal storage facilities and plants that generate electricity using biomass.” It concludes that “Nuclear power is a failed experiment of the past, not an answer for the future.”

That piece reminded me of another Los Angeles Times editorial that I found during some recent research at the Library of Congress. While looking for articles about federal price controls on oil and natural gas, I came across another unsigned editorial from the Los Angeles Times, published in May 1975 called “Natural Gas: What to Do.” At that time, the US was facing a shortage of natural gas, a problem that was largely caused by federal price controls on interstate gas sales. The Times declared that a windfall profits tax should be imposed on the gas producers who “failed to plow most of the profits back into the hunt for new supplies.” The paper went on to conclude that “The choice is not between cheap and expensive natural gas, because there is no such thing as a plentiful supply of cheap gas.”

Of course, there’s no way that the Times could have foreseen how the shale gas revolution[2] would overhaul the US natural gas sector. But the paper’s stance on nuclear power is of a piece with the myopia of America’s most influential environmental activists. [Read more →]

When you fly overnight from Johannesburg to Europe the lights become thin just north of Lusaka, Zambia, a few more in Zambia’s Copper Belt and then nothing (and I mean nothing) until the North African coastline. For most of this 11-12 hour flight there are no artificial lights below. From the Sahara on south, but excluding South Africa, a region that is home to more than 400 million people consumes less electricity than New York City.

The World At Night (courtesy of Bert Christensen. Click to enlarge.)

• And yet this area includes major oil producers:
  Nigeria produces 2.1 million b/d oil and consumes 19 billion kWh/y
  Angola produces 2.0 million b/d oil and consumes 3.2 billion kWh/y
  Equatorial Guinea produces 0.36 million b/d and consumes 26 million kWh/y
  Other sub-Saharan Africa oil producers supply more than 1 million b/d to world markets.
  New York City produces 0 b/d oil and consumes 75 billion kWh/y

Apparently some are bothered by the prospect that Africa could light up.

We Don’t Want What You Have (Wanna Bet?)

Many of those who would save the earth from the scourge of modern energy want us to believe that it is no big deal that as many as 1.5 billion people, more than three fourths of the population of the world’s poorest countries, lack any access to modern energy. They still use wood and charcoal for cooking, and sometimes a bit of kerosine for lighting. For most of these people the only realistic way to gain access to modern energy is to leave the village or town and move to the city. [Read more →]