I have co-authored a book about the global warming scandal regarding the leaked emails from a UK university. I would be pleased if you would consider buying it. My next question is, would you like to see a book called 'The Climate Wars?'
The title is Climategate: The CRUtape Letters. It is available on Create Space here, on Amazon here, on Kindle here, and as a PDF from Lulu here.
"The Climategate scandal covered from beginning to end--from 'Hide the Decline' to the current day. Written by two authors who were on the scene--Steven Mosher and Tom Fuller--Climategate takes you behind that scene and shows what happened and why.
For those who have heard that the emails were taken out of context--we provide that context and show it is worse when context is provided.
For those who have heard that this is a tempest in a teacup--we show why it will swamp the conventional wisdom on climate change.
And for those who have heard that this scandal is just 'boys being boys'--well, boy. It's as seamy as what happened on Wall Street."
As I have been very critical of Michael Mann and his colleagues at Real Climate, it is important for me to be very careful with this piece.
Hi all,
As you may have noticed my output has slackened. This is not due to a lack of interest in environmental topics, but rather to the fact that I have started as a columnist for Examiner.com. I will be writing more frequently there, as I actually get paid to do so.
I welcome your visit there--bookmark me and check back. I get paid by number of visits...
Here's my Examiner home page.
I will continue to post on this weblog--and will probably get back to a semi-regular schedule after the newness of the new toy wears off a bit. Besides, some of the stuff I write here probably wouldn't make it into a daily newspaper column, right?
I've blogged before about Space Based Solar Power and its potential to serve as a very useful alternative technology for generating power. And now, as reported in the Guardian, someone is doing something about it.
Pacific Gas and Electric, the people who bring me my very own electricity, have agreed to purchase power collected by solar panels in space from a company called Solaren.
Now all they have to do is go up there, build the array, and do it. They're only looking for 'the low billions' in investment... Mr. President, are you listening?
I have been trying, off and on, to test some of my ideas by commenting on other weblogs. When I do this on liberal weblogs, I have been deleted, yelled at and called names. I consider myself a skeptic, because although I believe in greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, I am skeptical that it will lead to catastrophe. I like the word skeptic. I don't like the word denier quite so much, but I get called that a lot. Anti-scientific, crank, etc.
But if Charles Osgood has doubts... maybe I'm in the mainstream. Funny, I don't remember moving. Could it be that the main stream is finally catching on?
Washington DC: Veteran CBS newsman Charles Osgood, the host of the CBS News Sunday Morning show since 1994, has released an April 21, 2009 surprise “The Osgood File” radio report questioning man-made global In the radio report, Osgood reveals that “the sun is the dimmest it’s been in nearly a century” and noted that previous quiet sun periods have “led to a mini-Ice Age here on Earth.” Osgood even admonished himself for questioning man-made warming fears by declaring “Hush, Child! You’re not even supposed to suggest that.” Osgood asked: “Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming? Hush, child! You’re not even supposed to suggest that. The only thing that can change global warming is if we human beings --- we Americans, especially --- completely change our ways and our way of life. I’m sure you’ll be hearing more about this solar dimming business, now that the story is out. Remember, you heard it here first...”
1. According to the FAO, 20-25% of CO2 emissions arise from deforestation.
2. According to the UN, between 1.8 and 2.5 billion people do not have access to electricity. They burn wood and animal dung for fuel. The wood they burn is deforestation.
3. Using wood and animal dung is both inefficient and extremely unhealthy. The UN Millenium Development Report in 2007 says that their use as fuel in homes causes more deaths than malaria.
4. One study in Maputo that is widely cited estimated wood consumption as household fuel at 1 cubic meter per person per year (about 800 pounds, or 362 kg). This provides between 7,600 and 9,600 Btu per pound in energy. To save a lot of research, if we estimated that 2 billion people burned 800 pounds of wood each year, yielding between 7,600 and 9,600 Btus (split the difference for average yield of 8,600), yielding per capita consumption of 6,880,000 Btus per year, times 2 billion gets 13.76 x 10 to the 13th power, or 13.76 followed by 13 zeros.
5. These people would only need to consume about 160 gallons of oil per year to get the same energy, as oil is much more efficient than wood. The oil burnt would also produce about 65% of the CO2 as that produced by burning wood.
6. In 2007, America consumed 86.24 quadrillion btus, 22.7 quadrillion of which were produced by burning coal or 86.24 x 10 to the 15th power, or 15 zeros. Rich people use a lot more power.
7. Half of America's CO2 emissions come from coal-fired electricity generating plants. As noted above, 20% of worldwide CO2 emissions come from deforestation. Let's call them roughly comparable.
8. I have seen one estimate of $150 billion for replacing American coal power plants with high efficiency natural gas, at the Energy Information Administration (but I lost the link...). This would reduce, but not eliminate, CO2 emissions by about 50%. It seemed certain from what I read that other alternatives would be costlier, especially if intended to reduce emissions by more than 50%.
9. In the past 25 years, an equivalent number of people (2 billion) were provided with access to electricity. But most of them were in cities, and I cannot find how much was spent on this.
10. The cost of providing solar power (much the most expensive possibility) to the remaining third of the population was estimated at $400 billion. However, solar power is not overly welcome by users, due to variability of output, and the cost does not include appliances to use the power.
11. A feasibility study by the DFID estimated the capital needs for energy infrastructure in Africa alone at $11 billion. Multiply by three to cover the rest of the developing world.
Back of the envelope calculations show that providing energy to the poorest third of the world's population could possibly cost one third to one half of the amount estimated to reduce America's CO2 emissions by one quarter. The additional benefits to longevity and the quality of life in the third world make it a compelling alternative to moving from coal fired plants to natural gas in the U.S.
Worth a bit more research, I'd say.
If you cruise the blogosphere as I do, looking at liberal weblogs, and you happen to read posts and comments regarding global warming, it will certainly look as though everybody agrees that man made greenhouse gases are destroying the planet and we must do something right now or we will fry.
But this consensus is false. They achieve this by deleting the comments and banning the posters of contrary opinions. They censor the opposition. The ones I have seen do this include:
Brad DeLong
Crooked Timber
Real Climate
I read in the comments on other blogs that this happens constantly. So if it looks like everybody's on the same page, it's because the other pages are missing.
And a well done to Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias for not being part of the Orwellian Newspeak program. And I should note that I never see this type of behaviour on the sites of skeptics.
Oh--and by the way, if you disagree with me, your disagreements are welcome.
It seems fairly logical that we make greater gains by moving 2 billion poor people off wood than we do by moving 700 million (EU and US) from coal/oil/gas to... something...
Hat tip togreen econometrics
I commented over at Crooked Timber on my thoughts about decarbonization, and of course got called a denialist and an ignorant sod... and these guys are on my side? This is what I said...
"I think the bulk of our emphasis should be on connecting the 1.6-2 billion humans who currently don’t have access to electricity to some grid, any grid, anywhere. Using the Millenium Development Goals as a mechanism… "The industrial world has gone from burning wood to coal to oil to gas. We are now trying to move less than 1 billion people (EU and US) from gas to a new means of generation. If we instead focussed our efforts on moving those in the third world from wood to oil or gas, we would lower CO2 emissions (deforestation causing 20% of manmade CO2, and less efficient forms of fuel releasing more pollutants, including CO2). We would reduce emissions ofCO2. We would help the people on this planet who need it most. And you would get to shut cranks like me up forever. "Decarbonization proceeds at about 0.4% per annum. Energy efficient increases by about 1% per annum. I think our policy goal should be to make improvements in decarbonization at least equal to improvements in energy efficiency. Thinking quantitatively, which would be more beneficial in your opinion? Moving 2 billion people from wood to natural gas, or moving 700 million from oil and natural gas to, well, something?" This is what some jerk replied, Tom, that’s false. It’s not your-opinion-is-wrong wrong, it’s factually wrong. The people burning wood would not emit less carbon if they were moved to electricity generated via gas. They’d emit more. Electricity generation inefficiencies, grid inefficiencies, wood being biomass in the first place, people using more energy because now they can … the reasons why you’re wrong are so many that I can only consider your point to be another form of denialist obfuscation. If you’re sincere, then you’re so careless, you should be ashamed of yourself. To forestall straw man #2, of course people without access to electricity should have it. So connect them to the grid, or give them independent power generators. The process of converting the grid to non-CO2 generating sources, or of developing local generators that are not CO2-generating, will help with that. To which I had to reply... Hi all, obviously I would encourage doing both—but as far as priorities go, I think that in this case the humane thing to do for the poorest on the planet is also the smartest thing we can do to combat greenhouse gases, pollution and conserving resources. I actually thought that this was so basic and well-known that it didn’t need much in the way of referencing—guess I was wrong. Energy Comparison Natural gas provides the highest efficiency level followed by oil. Wood offers the lowest efficiency per pound at 1.9 KWH/lb and is followed by coal with twice the efficiency at 3.8KWH/lb. Oil offers almost a 70% efficiency improvement over coal and propane is just slightly more efficient than coal. Fuel Energy Efficiency
Rick, I’m glad your’e so convinced of your opinion. You might look at this before instantly assuming that I am careless or a denialist. You might start using that calculator before making judgements about the character of people you don’t really know very well.
1 pound of wood = 6,401 BTUs = 1.9 KWH
1 pound of coal = 13,000 BTUs = 3.8 KWH
1,000 cubic foot of natural gas = 1,000,021 BTUs = 299 KWH
1 gallon of oil = 138,095 BTUs = 40.5 KWH
1 gallon of propane = 91,500 BTUs 26.8 KWH
Wood = 1.9 KWH per pound
Coal = 3.8 KWH per pound
Natural Gas = 6.9 KWH per pound (liquid and gas measures are calculated at 6.3 pounds per gallon)
Oil = 6.4 KWH per pound
Propane = 4.3 KWH per pound
Update: Same jerk, same story:
"Denialist. You use stats for home heating efficiency for a comparison which you stated as being between burning of wood by people off the grid and connecting them to the grid. Converting heat energy into electricity involves large losses. So does sending it over a grid. And, of course, CO2 within wood has just been taken out of the atmosphere / ecosphere, and returning it doesn’t add CO2 to the system in the same way that digging up natural gas does. In other words, all of my original objections stand. Denialist." The Fools In Town Are On Our Side....
We used to burn wood. Then charcoal. Now we're on oil and natural gas. Each of these steps has involved burning less carbon. Each step has been less polluting--and has emitted less greenhouse gases. Each step has caused an advance in living conditions as well, being more efficient, less labor intensive, less damaging to human health.
But each of these steps has left a large proportion of humanity out. There are too many people still burning wood for fuel. Too many using carbonised wood and primitive charcoal. We still use too much coal.
We are now embarked on a race to adopt carbon free generating technology for the advanced countries. As usual, this mad race is actually putting the cart before the horse. We would benefit more from helping the world's poor catch up with where we are now. Now, I am not advocating that we do nothing with regards to solar, wind, nuclear and the seemingly ignored OTEC and Space Based Power Satellites that tickle my fancy. Far from it. But we could do more good for the planet and more good for its people (and possibly more for our consciences) by hooking the poorest of the poor up to any grid at all, no matter how it was powered. Yes, even coal.
There are 2 billion people without access to electricity. They burn wood, very inefficiently and animal dung, very unhealthily, killing more people than malaria. To get the wood they deforest the area around their homes. Deforestation is estimated to cause 20% of human greenhouse gas emissions. It may also have a greater effect on climate than CO2, according to Roger Pielke Sr. They have to burn more wood than any other fuel they would use, because it is inefficient. Bringing these people into the 19th Century would do more for the planet than pushing ourselves into the 21st.
But we could do both.
We have been 'decarbonizing' at a rate of between 0.4% and 0.5% per year since the industrial revolution. We have also been increasing the energy efficiency of our devices at between 1% and 2% per year--for just as long. We are actually solving this problem. But there's no reason to leave it to our grandchildren to finish the job. We could take major steps now.
Carbon credits and emission offsets right now are crap--phantom forest planting in many cases and well meaning projects that would never survive a cost benefit analysis in others. But I would let a coal plant operate full bore--if they would open one in areas where the poor have no electricity at all.
There's no way to spin this as anything positive.
“NPR.org, April 17, 2009 · The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. It is the first step to regulating pollution linked to climate change.”
Here is a link to watch for it being published: Here are the instructions for submitting comments: Instructions for Submitting Written Comments on the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/
Click on “Todays Federal Register” about the middle of the page.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received on or before 60 days from date of publication in the Federal Register. If you submitted comments on the issues raised by this proposal in dockets for other Agency efforts (e.g., the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Regulating Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act), you must still submit your comments to the docket for this
action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171) by the deadline if you want them to be considered.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: GHG-Endangerment-Docket@epa.gov.
It would appear that over the past year the arguments of skeptics have gathered force. More scientists have expressed skepticism, to the point where exchanges of lists on both sides seem to have equal weight. But I think it is time we skeptics argue for a positive policy outcome.
I believe that we should make the case that at the very least, we have time to do the science right. Temperatures have plateaued over the past decade, and the impacts of sunspots and volcanic activity are likely to dampen any tendency for temperatures to rise for a few years. This offers us enough time to get the science right and to prepare a course of action that makes sense for us regardless of who's right on this subject.
Here are my thoughts:
1. Let's measure temperatures correctly. Let's site stations according to specifications, make sure there are enough stations, cover land, sea and the troposphere, and make sure we can trust satellite data. Let's find good proxies and work on understanding what they tell us about past climatic conditions.
2. Let's make prudent investment in research and development regarding alternative means of generating power. We need to abandon the nightmare that is biofuels, and push towards scaleable technologies, ranging from nuclear to OTEC to Space Based Power Satellites. Let's do the engineering work, pilot projects and get the grid ready for this century's changes.
3. There are other ways that humans affect the climate, through deforestation, land-use policies and interruptions of the hydrologic cycle. We can start with mitigation efforts on these pernicious practices--and some of them will actually reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.
4. Let's put a price on carbon. The mechanism is open to discussion, and the price as well. But let's establish the fact that pollution, consumption of fossil fuels, and emission of greenhouse gases incurs a real or potential cost to society.
5. Let's reward efficiency where we find it, and encourage it with pricing mechanisms. From weatherising houses to solar collectors on office buildings, let's make this easy to do and reward it with tax incentives or even subsidies.
Oh, wait--isn't that Obama's energy plan? And here I thought I was being a genius...
Update: I forgot one other important point--let's make public transportation better, easier and a better choice for more people.
This is starting to look a bit bizarre. As I mentioned (twice) earlier, I go through a slew of liberal weblogs every day--Atrios, DeLong, Kleiman, Yglesias, Tapped, Crooked Timber and Kevin Drum). They always have some kind of post on global climate change. But for the last week, there's nothing. It seems to have disappeared from the liberal agenda.
I'm actually pleased, because my fellow liberals don't normally make sense on the issue. But it's weird. Just to check, I'm following other well-known webloggers right now, Republicans and Democrats--and they don't have anything either. Megan McCardle, nothing for over a week. Andrew Sullivan--nothing. Ross Douthat--nothing. Marc Ambinder--nothing. Ta Nehisi Coates--thought he had one, but it was about eating greens, not Greens... nothing. James Fallows--two posts about pollution in Beijing, but nothing about the climate implications. Just dirty air. Jeffrey Goldberg--nothing. Ezra Klein--nothing.
Okay, let's check some more. Ann Althouse--nothing. Daily Kos--nothing. No, that's it. I'm calling it. Global climate change has dropped off the face of the earth.
The celebrated weblog Watts Up With That (winner of this year's Science Blog award--I think it came in second place last year, too) today published a simple chart, which I show below. It compares computer model predictions with several sets of observations of the Earth's temperatures. The figures all use 1979 as a base date and show how the computer models predict more warming than we actually see, with divergence beginning in about 1999.
This does not mean that all computer models are wrong. It does not mean that global warming does not exist. It definitely does not mean that humans are not putting out greenhouse gases.
But it definitely means we need to get more and better data and think about what we're doing. And above all else, it means that we do have time to get this more and better data. If the sky is falling, it isn't starting today. We have time to do the science right.
Update: As brought to my attention in the comments, Watts Up With That actually got the chart from an equally interesting skeptical site, Lucia's The Blackboard. (Thanks Barry W.)
Since the 1840s, the industrialised world has increased energy efficiency at an astonishingly regular rate--between 1% and 2% per year, depending on how it's measured. This means that energy efficiency doubles every 70 years.
We've 'squandered' those savings in the past by increasing the work we ask motors and turbines to do. As the donkey grows up we ask it to haul a bigger load. Heavier cars, air conditioning, bigger refrigerators, etc.
Now, if we want to use energy efficiency to reduce fuel consumption, the answer is simple. We limit increases on the load. CAFE standards do it implicitly, by mandating miles per gallon. But for motors that don't move, it might be a lot easier to achieve by limiting the size of the load. A lighter car uses less fuel. (So do lighter passengers, in case you've missed your morning workout...). But smaller refrigerators use less energy. The principle is clear, and as old as your grandmother's admonishment not to boil more water than you need for your morning tea.
I do not want the world to give up on creature comforts and the luxuries that have become necessities in the modern world. I don't think it's necessary. The machinery we use in 2079 will be twice as efficient as it is today. Let's just build into the system that we use improvements to reduce fuel consumption.
The best thing is, as with weatherising your house or office, this makes perfect sense regardless of who is right about greenhouse gases and global warming. We can leave it out of the conversation.
It's now been 5 days since I've seen any kind of a post on climate change and related topics on the liberal blogs I normally frequent. It's not as if there's a lot of other news going on--they're blogging about Mexican lobbies (Yglesias), the ongoing financial fever (DeLong), research review boards (Kleiman) and other stuff that seems like it's sat in the closet waiting for a slow news day.
Kevin Drum finally posted a shout out to President Obama for mentioning cap and trade, but it's small beer compared to the hysteria of last month.
Did we win and just not notice it? How come my fellow Democrats have abandoned global warming rhetoric for a week? Believe me, it's not as if they've let a week go by in recent history without a fair share of alarmism.
What's going on here?
By 'our side' I mean the Democrats.
Before we get to this morning's news, a bit of background. Air travel is estimated to produce between 2.5% and 5% of human greenhouse gas emissions. Air travel is also an area where much improvement can be expected in the natural course of events, as airlines immediately save money when efficiency improves. Airlines should be natural allies of those wanting to conserve, and should serve as a well of support for intelligently designed programs. From today's Mail Online:
"Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party, suggested that travellers who regularly jet off to the Costas are threatening the lives of others - and do as much damage as thugs who stab people in the street.
Ms Lucas, who is also a Member of the European Parliament, made the controversial comment during a televised ITV debate about plans for a proposed third runway at Heathrow. She also hit out ‘binge flying’ and people who have second homes abroad.
When asked if flying to Spain was as bad as knifing a person in the street, Ms Lucas said: ‘Yes - because they are dying from climate change.’
This is my inaugural post in the category, The Fools In Town Are On Our Side, where I will put posts from liberals and Greens that make me cringe with their stupidity.
I've seen Caroline Lucas on the BBC interview show Question Time. She is not unintelligent--she's fierce, committed--and absolutely wrong on this. And she's going to get creamed. European Parliament members travel a lot, and I will bet her airmiles will come back to embarrass her.
My day normally starts with a grand tour of liberal blogs (I balance them with a few conservatives, like Tim Worstall). I hit Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong, Atrios, Crooked Timber, Tapped, Matt Yglesias and Mark Kleiman. That normally gets me through my cup of coffee and out of my fog.
For months now, I could not get through the Tour without seeing two or three posts about climate change that just set my teeth on edge. These guys (why are they all guys?) write intelligently and compellingly on a series of subjects (Hey, I'm a Democrat for a reason, right?), but when it comes to climate change it seems like they all take a stupid pill.
But for the past 4 days, there's been nothing. And I'm wondering why? Did John Holdren's semi-insane announcement about re-polluting the atmosphere to stop global warming put everyone off? Was James Hansen's protest in England too ridiculous to put up with? Was there some other big news item that distracted them? It doesn't seem so. Why is all quiet on the Western Front?
Or maybe they just discovered that Earth has been warmer than it is today for 3 million out of the past 6 million years?
Five years from now we will be spending prodigious sums of money on alternative ways of generating power. Today, most people think that means building more windmills and installing more solar panels--and that may end up being the case.
Much of the Obama administration's rhetoric about their energy plan has been focused on climate change and cutting back U.S. emissions of CO2. And indeed, one element of their overall strategy, having CO2 declared a pollutant, is something I think ridiculous.
However, as far as the rest of Obama's energy plan goes, if each element of it were presented to us by a Republican administration arguing for energy independence, it's quite likely that the supporters and opposers would cheerfully change their stance. If a President McCain were to appear before Congress and argue in favour of cap and trade, with the aim of reducing American independence on foreign oil, Republicans would find a way to support him and Democrats to oppose. Whoops! McCain did argue in favour of cap and trade. Hmmm.
Similarly, as far as investing in research and development into energy, well the Republicans supported that for years. It was directed at oil and natural gas (and by and large it worked--we are more efficient at extraction than before and we have access to oil that we were previously unable to reach because of this research), but the principle is the same. Redirecting it to alternative energy sources should not be that big a deal.
Weatherising houses to reduce the waste of energy is really non-partisan and non-controversial. Ron Paul could win votes with that.
I support Obama's energy campaign. I think the numbers are right and the direction is good. I even support cap and trade, as it is more likely than a carbon tax to encourage innovation in finding ways to reduce emissions.
But why be so vocal about tying it to climate change? Why not angle for some Republican support? Nancy Pelosi and friends actually got Senator Inhofe, a devout skeptic on climate change, to join with the Democrats on reducing congressional energy expenditure. Nancy did it by not saying one blessed word about climate change.
There's a phrase I'm looking for. It describes what happens when your enemies use a denigratory term about you, one that they choose, is not true, insulting and used only to hurt. When done for racial purposes, it is now a crime. When done to superimpose gender values, it is also illegal.
In order to follow the global warming debate, we get to learn about new things. Tree rings, and why they are thick or thin. History, such as the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age. This has become important, as the global warming alarmists want us to believe that it has never been hotter than now. So they constructed a chart based on the thickness of tree rings to show just that. (Never mind that the creator of the tree ring dataset said 'Don't use this as a proxy for temperatures.') During the analysis of the data, two very well documented historical periods--the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, were sort of written out of the record books. When this was pointed out to the alarmists, a lot of tap dancing began.
I'm a San Francisco liberal. Nancy Pelosi is my representative and I will be voting for her in the next election. But, I'm skeptical about the catastrophic claims made by some regarding the effects of greenhouse gases. This weblog is about trying to make these two facts about myself cohere.
Climate change has become so politicized that it's almost impossible to state one's position simply--but I will try and do so here. Climate change catastrophists classify those who disagree with their position as 'deniers,' Republicans in bed with big oil, etc. Well, there's at least one exception. Here's what I believe regarding climate change:
1. The greenhouse effect is real.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 parts per million will, in isolation, tend to raise the Earth's temperature by between 1 and 1.5 degrees C.
3. Some scientists postulate that increased CO2 will initiate a positive feedback cycle that will amplify the effect by causing, for example, water vapour, to retain more heat. These scientists fear that the amplification will cause the 1-1.5 degree increase to be more like 4-7 degrees.
4. This hypothesis regarding positive feedback has not been proven.
5. Evidence found so far seems to suggest that this hypothesis may not be true.
If I utter statement 4 in certain circles, I get in trouble quite quickly. If I dare to use statement 5, some think me mad.