So let's take a quick look at just one aspect of the likely market for CCS technology. You see all those red circles on the above map? They represent GHG emissions from coal-fired electricity generators in the US (comparable Canadian emissions are represented by yellow circles; emissions from the oilsands are captured by the blue circle). That gives you a fair idea of how much CCS technology is going to be in demand when the US finally gets around to putting a binding cap on emissions. So why shouldn't Canadians be right there with a workable technological solution? The price of which will surely fall once it goes into mass production.One problem with the concept of CCS is that not all proponents actually believe in it. For example, British Coal Lobbyist Richard Courtney has argued that:
Firstly, the value of carbon sequestration is political: n.b. it is not technological or economic.
There is opposition to power generation systems that emit CO2 as waste (this is similar to opposition to nuclear power systems that emit radioactive waste). A response to the opposition is needed until the AGW scare is ended. And claims of carbon sequestration (cs) provide that needed response although everybody knows cs would be too expensive for it to be used.
A criticism that obviously does not apply to Ms. McCoy.
43 comments:
Right! Just like there is no market for the catalytic converters on our cars.
BCL,
a large number of "deniers" see this as an opportunity for big business and government to tax and make money with little or no improvement.
We prefer improvements in the local infrastructure and clean up of our land and water.
Estimate $ 12 Billion to meet the new legislation for water.
Rivers, lakes could use a local cleanup vs sending Billion to a Carbon Stock Market so companies can repeat a ponzi scheme.
Carbon Capture a boondoggle looking for a home, hello Canada.
"First, the concept has not been successfully tested at a scale necessary for application to full size power plants. Second, designers have failed to integrate the carbon ‘capture’ and ‘storage’ elements of the proposed technology, the central element of its success. Third, the technology uses between 10 to 40 percent of the power plant’s energy capacity. Wide scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase the efficiency gains of the past 50 years, and increase resource consumption by one third. For example, for every four CCS-equipped coal-fired power plants, a fifth would have to be added to make up for the new energy demands. Fourth, CCS could double the operating cost of power plants and lead to electricity price hikes estimated between 21 and 91 percent. Fifth, storing carbon dioxide underground carries significant risks. Long-term leakage rates as low as one percent could erase any benefit to the climate. Finally, the potential environmental impacts from carbon sequestration underground on land or at sea open a host of new liability issues." - source Greenpeace USA, May 2008
Warmers in retreat.
From a recent Pew Research survey on the belief that humans are responsible for global warming: Among all Americans, only 36% blame humans, the lowest figure yet. Last year, 47% blamed humans. - L Solomon,NP
So only 36% of Americans think humans are responsible for global warming you say. Well what do you expect when ~75% of Americans are scientifically illiterate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html
- less than 33% can identify DNA,
- only 10% know what radiation is,
- and (my personal fav) 20% think the sun revolves around the earth
It is not what the average ignorant US citizen thinks, it's what the entire scientific community has concluded that's paramount here. The science is in, WE ARE affecting the climate. It is you GOP-wingnut retards that are the deniers.
TofKW
You can repeat the myth of a consensus, or this is "settled" science.
You can also repeat and call those who have not accepted the fear mongering of diverting Billions to big companies or governments as morons or deniers.
Some of us may have local pollution on a higher priority than saving the Earth from imminent destruction or Polar Bears drowning videos.
Different priorities with limited taxes available.
Oh wise one, please show me a link to ONE proper scientific journal study showing a conclusion that human generated CO2 is not affecting the climate.
BTW - you do realize both the Conservative Party of Canada and the Alberta PC's do recognize CO2 involvement in climate change ...right?
Arguing with you over the obvious is really getting boring. The only conservatives still denying the science are wingnuts like yourself.
Tofkw
your demand I prove something that does not exist is inconsistent with what I said.
You believe in Global Warming fear mongering and imminent destruction.
I won't deny your fear or deny if you believe in God. I am not interested in discussing your religion.
I am saying we have to make priorities. Limited by taxes we can raise or transfer. The best uses in my opinion does not include spending a Trillion for little effect.
Simply put my priorties include local solutions that are doable vs fear mongering of a global crisis to set up a Ponzi scheme that will do little to solve real problems we are facing.
I am interested is the efficient use of limited resources to tackle some the casualties under Global Warming Religion.
I am interested is the efficient use of limited resources...
Sure ya are.
This from someone who spends hours and hours and hours screaming at strangers in long comments that say absolutely nothing.
The consensus on climate change does exist. The hold-outs are shills for the oil and gas industry, most of whom don't actually know what they're talking about. The others are people who don't want to believe it because then they have to do something about it. And that hurts profits.
However, I do agree that carbon caps and trading will have no measurable benefit and carbon sequestration isn't feasible.
The consensus on climate change does exist.
If they didn't read in the bankrupt National Post, it doesn't exist.
End of story. These people are hopeless. The only thing we should be planning for now is how to make them pay and pay dearly for wasting so much of our time.
Frankly, I don't know why the legitimate skeptics have been less concerned about marginalising the kooks, the frauds, the sell-outs and the know-nothings. Maybe deep down, there just aren't any legitimate sceptics.
Boddington:
The consensus only exists because, by an act of circular logic, dissenting scientists are automatically labeled kooks, and so only kooks dissent.
In fact, this study by Lindzen shows that one of the crucial assumptions made by climate models is totally wrong. That is, the assumption that the tiny warming produced by CO2 will be amplified by extra water vapor. Its the whole positive/negative feedback question and the whole AGW theory rests on it.
The IPCC posits that manmade CO2 will warm the earth a little bit (after all, CO2 is a trace gas which has a relatively weak GH effect), and that from this slight warming, the atmosphere will contain more water vapor from evaporation, and water vapor is a much more powerful GHG than CO2.
This theory therefore predicts that, as the earth warms, it will create conditions that will make it warm even more, because more longwave radiation will be trapped by the atmosphere. This in turn suggests that as the earth warms, less long wave radiation is emitted from earth to space.
The Lindzen study collected data which shows the exact opposite. As the earth warms, it emits more longwave radiation, meaning that the more it heats up, the more rapidly it cools down - like you would expect (if you put a warm object in a cold room, you would expect that the warmer the object is, the greater the rate of cooling of that object would be).
This essentially falsifies the AGW theory as it currently stands. It destroys the case for drastic measures, and it has thus been ignored by those whose jobs depend on the existence of a crisis.
But never mind all this fact-based sciency stuff, after all im probably just a shill for exxon and I clearly dont know what im talking about because im not in lockstep with al gore. You, however, sound like a wicked scienticizer, speaking of scientilicious concepts like "consensus" and "shills" so please, tell me, what evidence actually convinced you that AGW was real?
Jerome,
I don't try to attack the new religion called AGW. I believe everyone is free to practice any religion they want. I just don't want to pay for it.
If these AGW followers want to a new world order they are free to pursue it.
The supporters of this new religion won't reveal the costs and how they will force every developed country to meet this new doctrine.
A pattern from this group is to call us deniers, and oil shills.
Follow the money, who will stand to benefit from this new sub prime, ponzi scheme Carbon Trading stock market?
Canadien Sense,
yes I know.
You should check out the actual science behind AGW and why its flawed. Its not that hard to understand, and it will make you a more effective denier/shill/planetary traitor.
the science is on our side, so lets expose it for all to see.
Jerome
leaving science out of it, I simply ask the new followers of this relgion to explain how much is this going to cost, how will it be executed and who is trying to lead or control this money.
I have asked the followers of this new religion to allow me to have different priorities with my tax dollars without resorting to insults.
1) We have another $ 12-13 Billion needed to bring our up our infrastructure in Canada to meet the new regulations.
In Ontario we have this new gift from Dalton of $ 25 Billion in debt.
I am looking for the "plan" that will stop, enforce the developing world from increasing their use of those dirty fossil fuels.
This essentially falsifies the AGW theory as it currently stands. It destroys the case for drastic measures, and it has thus been ignored by those whose jobs depend on the existence of a crisis.
There's something odd in arguing that we shouldn't squash debate over global warming, and then proceed to do so except for the side that says that nothing is going on... and because of one paper.
Lindzen is a born contrarian (According to Lindzen, Smoking isn't really linked to cancer)
Now there's nothing wrong with taking the contrary position, but just because you do so doesn't automatically make you right.
Has Lindzen been wrong before? Well, in the 1990's he predicted temperatures would go down, and he used the negative feedback cycle except with respects to water vapour... which turns out not to have happened. He's since disavowed this theory.
the science is on our side, so lets expose it for all to see.
I guess you should have a talk with this guy then.
“To a certain extent, how much confidence you have in any of the evidence is a matter of taste,” said Ron Miller, a NASA climatologist who worked with Lindzen at MIT in the late 1980s. “If you look at any individual piece of evidence—the surface temperature record or the climate models—they all have some uncertainties associated with them. But when I look at it, it seems like everything’s pointing in the same direction, and I find that pretty convincing. I guess Dick doesn’t.” (From here)
Jerome, you've got me. I had no idea water vapor is considered to be a greenhouse "gas". Nor was I aware that anyone is suggesting that water vapor is as great a threat as CO2.
My understanding of the feedback problem is that warming could result in release of methane and
CO2 from non-human sources.
By the way, your analogy about warm objects cooling rapidly doesn't hold. If the atmosphere heats up, it will only cool if there's somewhere for the heat to go. This is the crux of the "greenhouse effect".
Furthermore CS, AGW is not a religion. By definition.
sharonapple88:
and then proceed to do so except for the side that says that nothing is going on... and because of one paper.
I dont believe I've squashed the debate or asked that the debate be squashed except for one side. I welcome debate and if my side is shown to be wrong I am willing to change my mind.
What I said was that the Lindzen paper falsifies the theory as it stands.
Of course, maybe the ERBE data is faulty for some reason, Im willing to hear any criticism of the data and valid interpretations of it - that is what science is after all.
If the data is valid however, and the only possible interpretation of it is truly that the climate has a negative feedback rather than a positive one, AGW as it stands is truly falsified. It would mean that although humans likely do have an impact on climate, such an impact is hardly significant and we need not reorganize the world's economy over it. That would actually be good news, unless of course you work for the IPCC or are somehow sucking on the AGW teat.
And frankly, whether Lindzen has been wrong before is immaterial. Are we only to listen to scientists with a 100% track record? That would eliminate every climate scientist in the world.
But when I look at it, it seems like everything’s pointing in the same direction, and I find that pretty convincing.
except of course, the ERBE data, the missing hotspot, recent cooling, ....
anyways sharonapple88, everytime I engage someone in blogs over this question, I ask them what evidence convinces them that AGW is real and catastrophic. So far, not a single one was able to create even a hint of an answer. Im hoping you can do better than all your predecessors.
Ah, Dr Lindzen, a well known skeptic. Maybe you could try finding someone who's not funded by the energy industry?
- - - - -
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Area of Expertise: A meteorologist, Lindzen is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. His published works include papers on monsoons, how heat and water move around the world, the ice ages and the effects of seasonal changes on the atmosphere. Lindzen worked on -- and was vocally critical of -- the Second Assessment of Climate Change by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released in 1995; that same year he also signed the Leipzig Declaration. He has frequently aired his skepticism in testimony before Congress.
Affiliations & Funding: Dr. Lindzen has claimed in Newsweek and elsewhere that his funding comes exclusively from government sources, but he does not seem to include speaking fees and other personal compensation in this statement. Ross Gelbspan, who did some of the first reporting on climate skeptics' links to industry, wrote in Harper's Magazine in 1995: "[Lindzen] charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute.
Recent viewpoints: On January 31, 2007, Lindzen appeared on Larry King Live and said, regarding fear of global warming, "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves." Weeks later, he told the San Diego Union-Tribune, "To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science." Dr. Lindzen also appeared in the March 8, 2007 film The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired on British television.
A. Boddington,
I am not attacking your belief in AGW. I am questioning the geo political nature of the program and who stands to benefit from control the Trillions being asked.
I will let your science A group bash science B group senseless.
I simply want to know who is paying for it and how will it be executed.
Are those fair questions?
TofKW
your post reflects why I dont want to bash each paper or study angle.
Let's go with your theory *AGW is real.
Now address my points. Thank you.
My understanding of the feedback problem is that warming could result in release of methane and
CO2 from non-human sources.
there are many aspects to the feedback problem, and the permafrost methane is one of them. and that actually goes to show why the IPCC approach is flawed.
as the earth heats up, alot of effects kick in and either serve to increase or decrease the original warming. the release of permafrost methane and the extra evaporation of water being 2 examples of positive feedbacks. There are also a host of negative feedback mechanisms.
What is brilliant about the ERBE data is that it allows to measure directly what is the sum of all these feedback mechanisms, without necessarily knowing what they are, as it measures the heat escaping from the earth.
If more heat escapes as the earth warms, it means that the total feedback is negative. If more heat is trapped as the earth warms, it means taht the total feedback is positive.
Turns out, if the ERBE data holds (and i havent yet seen any attacks on it), that the total feedback is negative.
By the way, your analogy about warm objects cooling rapidly doesn't hold. If the atmosphere heats up, it will only cool if there's somewhere for the heat to go. This is the crux of the "greenhouse effect".
sorry no dice. my analogy is dead on. its not even an analogy, its reality: the earth is a warm object in a cold environment.
the heat has somewhere to go: its called outer space, and the heat escapes in the form of infrared radiation, you know, like the heat that comes from the sun to the earth.
And this is measured directly by ERBE satellites, which, as you might guess, are in space, just where the atmosphere's heat escapes to. And like you said, trapping the heat in the atmosphere is the "crux" of the GHG effect. But, as measured directly by satellites, the heat is not as trapped as the IPCC expects it to be, otherwise it wouldnt have been directly measured by those satellites in space. Hence, the AGW theory is falsified.
Sorry CanadianNonSense, but anyone who tries to equate the quantified scientific work of hundreds of thousands of researchers around to world to ... of all things ... the faith-based belief/non-belief in God, is just not worth debating.
Actually, I'm not even sure why Mr Murphy isn't monitoring his blog to keep crap like yours off this forum.
Ah, Dr Lindzen, a well known skeptic. Maybe you could try finding someone who's not funded by the energy industry?
maybe you could try you know, talking about the science rather than who funds who. its not like there's no monetary interests on the pro-AGW side. just look at the trillions of dollars that are in play at copenhagen.
i dont care if the devil himself is funding these guys, the data speaks for itself. if you cant even say why you believe in something, and you cant answer anything else than ad hominems or shooting the messenger when somebody actually does know what they're talking about, then, let's just say I've achieved my objective with you.
TofKW
After conceding your AGW theory* and asking you for the next step.
Adult Conversation
Costs and geopolitical factors who will control AGW Program which includes enforcement you ask the host to censor and refuse part 2, why?
Jerome,
The net effect of emission and absorption of infrared radiation is what matters. Greenhouse gases both absorb and emit IR. If absorption is increased relative to emission than temperature goes up. I would expect a satellite to detect some infrared radiation emitted by the earth's atmosphere. That falsifies nothing.
I would expect a satellite to detect some infrared radiation emitted by the earth's atmosphere.
of course you would, unless the earth was at 0 Kelvin, but then we'd be an Einstein-Bowes condensate, which is probably not very pleasant.
The question is how the amount of ir radiation emitted by the earth fluctuates with temperature.
All (as in 100%, no exception) the computer models used by the IPCC to support their position are premised on the idea that as the earth warms, the GH effect increases (because of water vapor), and traps more radiation from escaping into space. this is how they manage to predict catastrophic warming.
The ERBE data shows the exact opposite.
The basic premise of catastrophic AGW is false. The GH effect does not increase enough as the earth warms to counteract all the negative feedback mechanisms.
"You can repeat the myth of a consensus, or this is "settled" science."
You're an idiot, Scents.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
"the science is on our side,"
If by "science" you mean one paper from a fossil shill, which has recieved no support from his peers and which depends on outdated data to support its conclusions. If you think that overturns the entire field, you've obviously Scents intellectual peer.
lenny:
thanks for providing an actual scientific response to my posts. the attack on the ERBE data seems valid, based on the satellite's changing altitude. Apparently the adjusted data still implies negative feedbacks, but I will look into this further.
its too bad though that you couldnt resists insults and that you've misinterpreted my statements. i never said it overthrows the entire field - whatever that means. just that the catastrophic warming is likely not going to happen. slightly negative feedbacks or even zero feedbacks is still not enough to justify reorganizing the world economy over.
Jerome,
Actually, you did say "the AGW theory is falsified". That's a pretty emphatic dismissal of alot of research.
I'm not necessarily refering to you, but I think that much of the resistance to AGW theory is ideologically driven. If somebody could demonstrate that the global economy would benefit from efforts to curtail fossil fuel consumption, I think that many of the deniers would be among its greatest advocates.
Turns out, if the ERBE data holds (and i havent yet seen any attacks on it), that the total feedback is negative.
Criticisms of the Lindzen and Choi paper.
I believe the Clement paper referenced there is this one.
"Using observational data collected over the last 50 years and complex climate models, the team has established that low-level stratiform clouds appear to dissipate as the ocean warms, indicating that changes in these clouds may enhance the warming of the plane"
Going by the science things are getting better and much much worse at the same time.
Boddington:
my 12:58 post says: "the AGW theory is falsified as it currently stands"
I'm not necessarily refering to you, but I think that much of the resistance to AGW theory is ideologically driven. If somebody could demonstrate that the global economy would benefit from efforts to curtail fossil fuel consumption, I think that many of the deniers would be among its greatest advocates.
yes, just as the support for it is ideologically driven too. if the solution did not entail redistributing wealth, many commies would just be bored with it. there are a gazillion side arguments that can be had on this point, but i try to stay focused on the central question: will man-made co2 produce catastrophic warming? there is no evidence to suggest that it will.
sharonapple88:
im familiar with the clement paper. it is dealt with very well at this blog:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/climate-feedbacks-from-measured-energy.html
You're not going to get anywhere with the patent lawyer Jerome Bastien. He is never wrong.
This is a face that was either slapped too much or no not enough in high school, don't you think?
*chortle*
yes, just as the support for it is ideologically driven too. if the solution did not entail redistributing wealth, many commies would just be bored with it.
And there you have it. In a nutshell. Little Jerome is fighting a much bigger battle than just bad climate science. He's doing his bit to defeat WORLD COMMUNISM.
Another criticism of Lindzen & Choi and their uses of models.
Also an interesting paper on how the sun may not be linked to global warming.
This is a face that was either slapped too much or no not enough in high school, don't you think?
haha dont hate me cause im pretty.
And there you have it. In a nutshell. Little Jerome is fighting a much bigger battle than just bad climate science. He's doing his bit to defeat WORLD COMMUNISM.
Yes, I am CAPITALISM-MAN! I fight my arch-nemesis, the evil SOCIALISTO. And I dont even wear tights.
Not quite, although you have a point that if the question was purely academic, I wouldnt have so much interest in it. Same with everybody else I guess. When another group of scientists will claim the world will end unless we give them billions, I will be part of those who examine their claims quite closely too, I just think its common sense.
Not quite, although you have a point that if the question was purely academic, I wouldnt have so much interest in it. Same with everybody else I guess. When another group of scientists will claim the world will end unless we give them billions, I will be part of those who examine their claims quite closely too, I just think its common sense.
This sounds like the same logic used by people arguing that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and people against vaccines. (Interesting disccussions with one of them... apparently, viruses and bacteria is really cellular debris, cellular garbage.) Scientists have some evil agenda.... I've seen people spend thousands of dollars on quack cures because they believe mainstream "western" medicine is corrupt and only interested in money. (Sorry about the digression here.)
Look, there's nothing wrong with taking a contrary point as long as you're open to being wrong, as long as you're open to the data. Otherwise, you're tangling with monsters of your own design.
Look, there's nothing wrong with taking a contrary point as long as you're open to being wrong, as long as you're open to the data. Otherwise, you're tangling with monsters of your own design.
agreed, and I am open to data and arguments that are contrary to my view. that is the foundation of science. I dont see that kind of attitude from the other side though.
with respect to taking a scientist's word for it just because scientists are apparently incorruptible, I dont buy it.
any scientific claim should be, and typically is double-checked, and examined closely. there are tons of disagreements in all sorts of scientific fields. its just that if the solution offered to a professed problem is self-serving, or seems to closely fit a particular political point of view, it should be even more closely examined. in the end though, its all about empirical evidence.
Yes, I am CAPITALISM-MAN! I fight my arch-nemesis, the evil SOCIALISTO. And I dont even wear tights.
If you actually said things like this, I'd think you were sane. It's the grandiosity of your claim that the theory of AGW has been falsified that is really disturbing. At best, all it shows is that you are quite likely very susceptible to confirmation bias.
Instead of targeting socialists exclusively, another hidden agenda worth looking into that might be motivating the pro-AGW side is that of a faction of capitalists/free marketers, who just want to ditch older technology in favour of their own innovations.
It's the grandiosity of your claim that the theory of AGW has been falsified that is really disturbing.
sure - I tried to qualify that claim but perhaps i should have qualified it a bit more clearly.
What has been falsified, in my view, and this again is subject to the ERBE data (and other datasets) holding up, is the idea of positive feedbacks. I fully concede that this may turn out to be wrong, but to suggest that a strong positive feedback has been proven is also false. The science on this point is not crystal clear. However, at this stage, based on what I know, the data doesnt fit the positive feedback hypothesis, which means its been falsified.
I dont dispute that extra GHGs increase temperatures, as a general proposition. That can be shown in a simple lab experiment. It's the extent to which human-produced CO2 will cause devastation that is in question.
Instead of targeting socialists exclusively, another hidden agenda worth looking into that might be motivating the pro-AGW side is that of a faction of capitalists/free marketers, who just want to ditch older technology in favour of their own innovations.
Wow, I couldnt agree more. In fact, its the involvment of firms like Goldman Sachs in the creation of a carbon market that scares me more than greenpeace hippies. Like, a million times more. Also of interest, apparently Enron was a big backer of Kyoto. I fear people like them, and all the renewable energy companies who are getting subsidies by the truckload.
At his point, I'd throw in with the innovators. More energy-efficient, less mechanical, less over-engineered, less intrusive technology that relies on newer science is just simply a better bet.
Not that I care anymore. If I thought any of this was really improving humanity, I would. But it isn't. It's just making people dumber and meaner.
with respect to taking a scientist's word for it just because scientists are apparently incorruptible, I dont buy it.
You can't bribe them all. (Joke)
But if you're going to question the science, you have to question Lindzen and Choi's data as well. There are criticism made about their paper that makes it less than perfect. But in the end, as someone noted, one paper doesn't negate the whole science. All it does is call for more study and examination.
Going to leave off with a quote from Stephen Jay Gould on debate: "Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact—which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position."
Post a Comment