Enjoy the new WePlayCiv theme!

Any feedback is welcome, just go to this topic: 

 

 

Lancer

"How They Faked Global Warming" [REOPENED: Read post 354]

3,566 posts in this topic

So what you showed us indicates that a saturation treshold in regard to water vapour in the atmosphere is (about to be) reached, yes?

 

 

 

One word: Venus. ;)

I'd be hard pressed to believe circumstances there aren't a consequence of a runaway greenhouse effect.

 

Venus has a completely different air pressure and atmosphere composition to Earth. The surface pressure is 92 times that of Earth (92 Bar vs 1 Bar) and there is 95% CO2 in the atmosphere compared to 0.03% CO2 in Earth's. Vapor is basically non existent on Venus with only 20 ppmv as opposed to Earth's 10-40,000 ppmv at surface level.

 

Now you want me to believe that Runaway Greenhouse Effect was caused by 20 ppmv? :lol:

 

They're wrong in regard to the effects of one of the greenhouse gases then. Admittedly, its the one with the most greenhouse potential in that particular family.

 

Yeah, just one. The one that causes 99% of the GHE. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah he's definitely NOT impartial. He was at the Australian Greenhouse Office....... an alarmist!

 

Oh crap, that means he's impartial to YOUR side! ;)

 

Well like i said the info in the video was interesting and seems correct in terms of the point he was trying to illustrate, but you know even having 7 degrees doesn't make you an expert on everything, as my looking into his background highlighted. His scientific contribution is not in question, but the guy has a history, is a smart chap and has his own agenda. That was all i was pointing out. I mean hey, he made money working for a 'green' department in government and maybe wants to earn more money than he was, he has 7 degrees after all; and he likes the stock market and does speaches at mining conferences...........maybe there is a link in all that somewhere?

 

But from googleing his name you can find out quite a bit about him, it's not all about impartial science, that's the point i'm making here. Which is a shame as from the video, with the science he presents, he comes across as credible enough, shame his background doesn't match that imho.

 

--------------------------------------------

 

'Data sheds light on speed of Greenland's glaciers':

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17952317

 

"Greenland's glaciers are not speeding up as much as previously thought, researchers have estimated.

 

As a result, the ice rivers may be contributing "significantly less" to sea-level rise than had been thought.

 

Previous studies had estimated that the nation's glaciers would double their flow by 2010 and continue to maintain that speed, they explained.

 

But the team, writing in Science, said the glaciers could eventually flow faster than earlier studies estimated.

 

The team of US researchers based their findings on data stretching back to 2000-2001, collected from more than 200 outlet glaciers.

 

"So far, on average, we are seeing about a 30% speed-up in 10 years," observed lead author Twila Moon from the University of Washington, Seattle.

 

This is less than earlier projections, one of which estimated that glacial flow would increase by 100% between 2000 and 2010 before stabilising at that new velocity.

 

The volume of ice and meltwater from land being deposited in the sea has a direct impact on global sea level.

 

Glaciers are the main transportation mechanism that moves this material from the interior of land masses such as Greenland and Antarctica to the oceans.

 

The faster ice-river flow results in an increase in the volume of ice and meltwater ending up in seawater.

 

To produce the findings of the glaciers' velocity rates, the researchers used data collected by Canadian, German and Japanese satellites.

 

"There is the caveat that this 10-year time series is too short to really understand long-term behaviour," said co-author Ian Howat from Ohio State University.

 

"There still may be future events - tipping points - that could cause large increases in glacier speeds to continue.

 

"Perhaps some of the big glaciers in the north of Greenland that have not yet exhibited any changes may begin to speed up, which would greatly increase the rate of sea-level rise," Prof Howat suggested.

 

In contrast to earlier research that glacier flow would increase before maintaining a fixed velocity, the scientists said they found no indication that the glaciers would stop gaining speed during the rest of this century.

 

This meant that, ultimately, the glaciers could make a greater contribution to global sea-level rise than the earlier studies had projected.

 

Jeff Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, said the team had "done much to extend [the] knowledge of Greenland glacier flow speed oscillations and trends".

 

But Dr Kargel, who was not involved in the study, added that the 10 years' worth of data was very brief.

 

"So short, in fact, it verges towards being the glaciological equivalent of weather," he observed.

 

"All said, I think this is valuable analysis, and it probably does mean that Greenland is undergoing a gentler acceleration of mass loss than hitherto considered likely."

 

---------------------------

 

links in the article proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Venus has a completely different air pressure and atmosphere composition to Earth. The surface pressure is 92 times that of Earth (92 Bar vs 1 Bar) and there is 95% CO2 in the atmosphere compared to 0.03% CO2 in Earth's. Vapor is basically non existent on Venus with only 20 ppmv as opposed to Earth's 10-40,000 ppmv at surface level.

 

Now you want me to believe that Runaway Greenhouse Effect was caused by 20 ppmv? :lol:

 

The difference between Venus and Earth is that on our planet the biggest part (over 99,9 etc %) of CO2 is still locked in mantle and oceans. Even if only the CO2 locked in the oceans is released (something that will happen eventually when the oceans evaporate due to solar aging), we're talking about something like a 15-20% composition of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. In short, the beginning of Venusian circumstances on Earth.

 

Luckily, that's all still a couple billion years ahead of us. ;)

But it is a runaway greenhouse effect. Just as happened with Venus itself a couple billion years in the past. :p

 

Yeah, just one. The one that causes 99% of the GHE. ;)

 

What makes you so sure there's no as of yet unknown side-effect from say a huge increase of methane in the atmosphere?

We probably won't know until it happens, like for instance the effects of CFC's were discovered after their widespread use.

 

In short, I found your initial post took too little of the bigger picture into account, Dale. :cute:

Share this post


Link to post
Well like i said the info in the video was interesting and seems correct in terms of the point he was trying to illustrate, but you know even having 7 degrees doesn't make you an expert on everything, as my looking into his background highlighted. His scientific contribution is not in question, but the guy has a history, is a smart chap and has his own agenda. That was all i was pointing out. I mean hey, he made money working for a 'green' department in government and maybe wants to earn more money than he was, he has 7 degrees after all; and he likes the stock market and does speaches at mining conferences...........maybe there is a link in all that somewhere?

 

But from googleing his name you can find out quite a bit about him, it's not all about impartial science, that's the point i'm making here. Which is a shame as from the video, with the science he presents, he comes across as credible enough, shame his background doesn't match that imho.

 

James Hanson also gets paid to make speeches at various conferences. Does that make his science corrupt as well?

Share this post


Link to post
......................

 

In short, I found your initial post took too little of the bigger picture into account, Dale. :cute:

 

And this is my biggest issue with much of the anti-agw debate (and right-wing ideology in general btw). It takes very finite individual topics and says "so see x does not equal y" ergo so global warming is wrong etc. Those behind it very rarely will consider all the other equations that go into making the whole.

 

I can see the attraction of simplifying the issue, it can easily be spread through the wider population, and the problem is way more complex than any one person (how ever many degrees they have) will be able to understand. Heck we are only just begining to grasp the bigger picture in relation to global warming and man made contributions to environmental change, and this is in a field where hundreds of super qualified scientists have been trying to understand it more clearly over the last 20-30 years or so.

 

So in that context i just ask myself one simple question:

 

Is it possible for our (mankinds) actions to have an effect in the finite system of our enclosed atmosphere and environment? I mean is it? can that be a real outcome?

 

If it is not, then a basic scientific principle (cause and effect) must be flawed.

If it is possible then we carry a burden of responsibility to mankinds future generations to understand the issue as fully as possible and make the changes needed to not endanger those future generations. Any other course is irresponsible at best.

 

It's very clear, and very simple that even a layman like myself can grasp the issue clearly enough. I don't need graphs or video clips to understand it. And i'm happy to leave the science upto those in that field, that's their job after all.

Share this post


Link to post
In short, I found your initial post took too little of the bigger picture into account, Dale. :cute:

 

And this is my biggest issue with much of the anti-agw debate (and right-wing ideology in general btw). It takes very finite individual topics and says "so see x does not equal y" ergo so global warming is wrong etc. Those behind it very rarely will consider all the other equations that go into making the whole.

 

If you've taken any notice at all about what I've been saying through this thread, and my stance on the topic, then you would know I agree that man can influence climate. You would also know that my issue with the topic is the amount that is claimed that man can alter climate, ie: climate sensitivity.

 

It's all about the vapor in my book. Claims that vapor is a strong positive feedback just are not supported by observations. Models assume a static relative humidity, which when combined with specific humidity creates a high positive vapor feedback and Runaway Greenhouse Effect. Observations show a decreasing relative humidity which when combined with specific humidity creates a low vapor feedback, possibly even zero feedback. The difference between a climate sensitivity of ~3C and ~1.6C is a couple hundred years of extra time to change THE RIGHT WAY. As I see it, the world is being pushed into changing the wrong way.

Share this post


Link to post
If you've taken any notice at all about what I've been saying through this thread, and my stance on the topic, then you would know I agree that man can influence climate. You would also know that my issue with the topic is the amount that is claimed that man can alter climate, ie: climate sensitivity.

 

It's all about the vapor in my book. Claims that vapor is a strong positive feedback just are not supported by observations. Models assume a static relative humidity, which when combined with specific humidity creates a high positive vapor feedback and Runaway Greenhouse Effect. Observations show a decreasing relative humidity which when combined with specific humidity creates a low vapor feedback, possibly even zero feedback. The difference between a climate sensitivity of ~3C and ~1.6C is a couple hundred years of extra time to change THE RIGHT WAY. As I see it, the world is being pushed into changing the wrong way.

 

I guess the thread has become so long-winded that details on how you stand got lost on me so to speak.

And personally, I'd like to make a reservation about how you feel about the "wrong way". I'm more inclined to think things are pushed the quick way (which is wrong in a way ;) ).

Share this post


Link to post

I think we can now answer the question "How They Faked Global Warming".

 

A bit of smoke, and a lot of bull****.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah we can close this thread now. Your question in the OP of how they faked it has been answered. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

It was the dinosaur farts! No seriously!

 

'Dinosaur gases 'warmed the Earth':

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792

 

:lol: even though it is credible enough, our beef cattle do much the same today.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

'Climate ship plots course through the battering waves':

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17972206

 

"The European Union hosts this week what could be one of the most significant meetings of the year on climate change.

 

Last December's UN climate summit, in the South African port of Durban, saw heated discussions on a proposal that governments should commit to agreeing a new comprehensive global emissions-limiting deal with some kind of legal force before 2015.

 

Reluctant nations found themselves up against a burgeoning coalition of principally small countries from the developed and developing worlds alike, which found common interest in tackling climate change as quickly as possible.

 

The rainbow coalition included the EU, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), small islands vulnerable to impacts such as rising sea levels, and progressive Latin American countries such as Costa Rica.

 

The giant container ships steaming into and out of the Durban docks were matched stylistically by the delegations striding from conference room to conference room, their beetle brows and purposeful gaits testament to the precious cargo they might deliver.

 

And deliver they did, eventually, with governments committing to agree a new global deal by 2015 and have it in force by 2020, with every country included.

 

But it was just a promise; and promises have been broken before on the wheels of realpolitik.

 

Since Durban, real world issues have begun to bear down on those leading the charge towards that new global deal.

 

Recession continues to stalk the eurozone. And even though many European governments say green measures will not impoverish them further and may even make them richer, few are acting as though they believe it.

 

Opposition to the inclusion of international aviation within the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) from countries such as China, the US and Russia has increased. As a result some European governments and senior EU officials fear a trade war could be triggered with nations that include eurozone creditors.

 

Meanwhile, environment ministers and officials from the smaller developing countries are increasingly engaged not with the UN climate process, but with preparations for June's Rio+20 summit.

 

And here they are finding that on issues such as overseas aid contributions, Europe is not always behaving as the friend it appeared to be in Durban.

 

That issue carries over into the climate change discussions, because here too the rich world has promised money - $100bn per year by 2020 - and if pledges are not being met in the arena of overseas aid, why should those developing countries believe pledges will be met in the climate context?

 

Just five months on, the Durban coalition is a little battered.

 

On Monday and Tuesday in Brussels, at least 30 of the coalition's key members will meet to re-state their Durban commitment and talk about some of the key steps they can take in the short term to give the 2015 process some momentum.

 

That's an urgent priority, as the first meeting of the working group on the new process (the Durban Platform) is just a couple of weeks away and the visions of various countries on how it should progress are very different.

 

They'll be talking about what needs to be done to ensure that an adequate proposal goes on the table at the next UN climate summit, in Qatar in December, for putting EU emission cuts (and possibly others too) under the Kyoto Protocol.

 

They'll need to discuss how the 2015 deal can bring all countries into a new agreement that will eventually regulate emissions from all countries, yet contains the principle of equity at its heart, allowing poor countries room to emit carbon as they develop.

 

They'll be trying to navigate the remaining hurdles to fully implementing new international schemes to bring financial support and clean technology from developed countries to their poorer counterparts.

 

And they'll discuss Rio+20 as well - not least because some of the proposals on the table there, such as a goal to double the global share of renewable energy by 2030 and moves to make agriculture more sustainable, would by themselves slow the rise of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Along the way, they'll be hoping to pick up a few countries such as Australia that didn't make it clear in Durban whether they belonged to the group pushing for the new deal or the one being pulled towards it reluctantly.

 

Ministers and officials will be coming to Brussels fresh from an informal two-day session at UN climate convention headquarters in Bonn, where they've heard United Nations Environment Programme chief scientist Joseph Alcamo outline a few key issues.

 

He told delegates that steps such as setting tighter rules on car emissions, regulating for energy efficient goods and building urban mass transit systems are already having an impact that can be measured.

 

But he also said that without much faster uptake of such measures, the best estimate for the year 2100 would be a world that is on average 2.5-5C warmer than in pre-industrial times.

 

Governments have heard such messages plenty of times before, of course.

 

And they're likely to hear them louder than ever next year when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes the first instalment of its fifth Assessment Report, which is likely to forecast harsher impacts ahead on factors such as sea level rise than the previous edition.

 

The geopolitics are not auspicious for a massive, game-changing leap on climate change this year.

 

China is preparing for a change of leadership later this year, with President Hu Jintao and other senior figures set to step down. Presidential elections in the US and in France could usher in a major change of direction.

 

So the priority is to get things right on the deliverables. And the current Danish EU presidency offers a window to do that, with its energetic Climate Minister Martin Lidegaard working alongside his predecessor Connie Hedegaard, now EU Climate Commissioner, in a co-ordinated push.

 

South Africa's International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, who chaired the Durban talks, said recently it was vital that "the gains made in Durban are not rolled back by being overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem and the task at hand".

 

Hence the importance of the Brussels meeting, small and select though it is, as an opportunity to re-focus and re-energise - to get the small things right, and establish a framework for the bigger political negotiations that lie ahead."

 

----------------------------

 

about a gazillion links in the article proper :)

 

@ Dale and Lancer, i didn't know that site or Steve MacIntyre, so i found this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre

 

He and the CRU have history it seems ;)

Edited by El_Cid

Share this post


Link to post
@ Dale and Lancer, i didn't know that site or Steve MacIntyre, so i found this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre

 

He and the CRU have history it seems ;)

 

Still doesn't disprove the fact the UEA lied openly and knowingly to the ClimateGate investigators.

Share this post


Link to post

I got a history too. I find it interesting how much effort the warming extremists :cute: put into the lives of those that oppose their bizarre theories. I guess at some level they realize that the science doesn't support their position and have moved on to less savory tactics?

Share this post


Link to post

As the old saying goes: two can play that game. :p

Share this post


Link to post

Absolutely! ...and believe me Geo, there's more than two of them! :p

Share this post


Link to post

'Gaia creator rows back on climate':

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17988492

 

"The scientific maverick James Lovelock says climate catastrophe is not so certain as he previously suggested.

 

Dr Lovelock, one of the world's leading environmental thinkers once warned climate change would reduce mankind to a few breeding pairs in the Arctic.

 

On BBC Radio 4's The Life Scientific he gave credit to scientists who question the inevitability of conclusions from climate change computer models.

 

But he maintained it was probably too late to stop climate change.

 

He warned: "We are moving in a direction which won't do humanity any good at all if we just go on doing it."

 

His double-edged message was that the planet would "heal itself" from an overdose of greenhouse gases - but probably over millions or tens of millions of years.

 

The interview had the hallmarks of a brilliant, individual thinker who admits that he enjoys being provocative, and recaps several points that he made in an interview recently with MSNBC.

 

It will be applauded by sceptics who argue that the certainties of climate science have been exaggerated.

 

But it will infuriate mainstream climate scientists who have been striving to quantify those uncertainties.

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports specify ranges of uncertainty in their projections, and climate scientists point out that it is Dr Lovelock himself who helped to generate undue public concern over the inevitability of an imminent climate catastrophe with his 2006 book The Revenge of Gaia.

 

Writing in the Independent in January 2006, Dr Lovelock said: "Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence.

 

"It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort… We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics."

 

The BBC Today Programme convened a scientific panel in 2006 to review the book. The general conclusion was the Dr Lovelock had made an extreme case, although Prof Chris Rapley from UCL defended his stance.

 

"The fact that you've been taking higher-end, pessimistic predictions of the IPCC is something that shouldn't be dismissed, even if there's only a 5% or even a 1% probability that they might be real," Prof Rapley said.

 

"Would you get on an aeroplane if the pilot told you there was a 5% or a 1% probability that you wouldn't reach your destination?"

 

Today Dr Lovelock implied that he had over-stated the certainty of catastrophe at the time.

 

"There's a lot of climate change deniers who are not just paid servants of the oil industry as they're demonised as being - they're sensible scientists," he said.

 

"There's no great certainty about what the future is going to be so legislation based on green pressure to say 'in 2050 the temperature will be so much' is not really very good science at all."

 

This latter comment will annoy policymakers who have been trying to obtain international agreement on emissions cuts on the basis of computer models which are inherently uncertain but which almost all point towards the risk of dangerous climate change.

 

One IPCC scientist, who said he didn't want to be drawn into a personal argument with Dr Lovelock, said: "Jim exaggerated the certainties of climate change before, which wasn't helpful then. His recent comments aren't helpful now.

 

"They will be seized on by people who argue that science is too uncertain to inform policy - and that's absolutely not the case. He's blown too hot, now he's blowing too cold."

 

Prof Hans von Storch of the Meteorological Institute at the University of Hamburg told BBC News: "Lovelock certainly exaggerated in 2006. It seems that the extreme position on both sides are losing ground, and that is good."

 

But Dr Lovelocks's underlying message is potentially just as alarmist as before. When asked if the planet could heal itself from its current CO2 burden he said: "I think it will; it just doesn't have the same time constant as we do.

 

"It thinks in terms of millions of years or even hundreds of millions of years. It doesn't respond like us. There was a natural event 55 million years ago when an accident caused the release of about the same amount of CO2 in the air that we have put in a short while.

 

"And the temperatures really zoomed. There were crocodiles in the Arctic. God knows what the rest of the Earth was like. But in a hundred million years, it sank back to normal."

 

Dr Lovelock is the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, which posits that the Earth is a self-regulating mechanism which until now has kept conditions ideal for life. This idea underpins the newly minted "Earth system science" and has taken on mystical overtones for some environmentalists.

 

In his interview on The Life Scientific, he was asked if it was too late to stop climate change. He replied: "I think it probably is but I don't have evidence that would convince you."

 

Over several years, the 92-year-old Dr Lovelock has raised the question of whether it is worthwhile attempting to cut greenhouse gas emissions. He told BBC Today Programme in 2010 that the idea of trying to save the planet "is a lot of nonsense".

 

"We can't do it," he said at the time. "If it's going to be saved, it will save itself... The sensible thing to do is to enjoy life while you can."

 

He has been at odds with the UK environment movement over his passion for nuclear power and avowed hatred for wind turbines in his beloved Devon. In The Life Scientific interview, he pointed out that no-one had died from the Fukushima disaster but that a large earthquake would topple wind turbines on to people's homes."

 

--------------------------

 

links in the article proper.

 

I read a book by Lovelock years ago, it was pretty interesting and reminded me of the the Giaia faction in SMAC, which must have been based on that work :nod:

Share this post


Link to post
Claims by Australian climate scientists that they faced death threats (which Australian "alarmists" beat up to smear "deniers") has been debunked by Australia's Privacy Commissioner.

 

Climate scientists' claims of email death threats go up in smoke

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-scientists-claims-of-email-death-threats-go-up-in-smoke/story-e6frgcjx-1226345224816

 

ANU deaththreatGate enters MEGA FAIL territory. Death threats were received AFTER the scientists "were rushed to secure facilities for their protection". :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/05/10/the-dog-ate-my-death-threats-ii/

Share this post


Link to post

By more than a MONTH after they were moved?

Share this post


Link to post

Just pulling your leg, mate. :D

Share this post


Link to post

lol yeah we need a huge ass planet for a month delay ;) Maybe they were just sensitve pencil-neck scientists that got some flak on a forum and freaked out? Whatever, it hardly makes much difference to the fact of global warming, it's a very fringe side-show at best to the challange at hand imho.

 

'Whatever happened to carbon capture?':

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18019710

 

"The process was patented back in the 1930s, and it is reckoned to be one of the most important technologies we have for tackling greenhouse gas emissions.

 

So you might well ask: "Whatever happened to carbon capture and storage (CCS)?"

 

The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts global energy demand increasing by at least one-third by 2035.

 

The majority of that increase will come from burning fossil fuels; and without capturing and storing some of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that result, this implies a significant addition to global warming.

 

To meet the internationally agreed target of keeping the temperature rise since pre-industrial times below 2C (3.6F), the IEA calculates there should be about 1,500 full-scale CCS plants in operation by 2035.

 

Currently, there are just eight.

 

"I think we're a bit behind where we need to be," says Brad Page, CEO of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, with laconic Antipodean understatement.

 

"And that means we're going to need governments to step up and get supportive policies in place for clean energy generally and also for CCS."

 

I am speaking to Mr Page at a seminar in Bergen, Norway, attended by luminaries of the nascent industry who came to see the world's largest CCS research facility inaugurated at Mongstad just along the coast.

 

A theme running through many of their presentations is that political support for countering climate change has fallen since the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009.

 

In Europe, the main mechanism designed to spur low-carbon generation is the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and the price that puts on emitting carbon dioxide.

 

"That's very important, because if everyone is walking around thinking that emissions are cost-free, there's no initiative for doing anything about it," says Ola Borten Moe, Norway's Minister of Petroleum and Energy.

 

"So I think it's crucial that not only in Europe but elsewhere that companies get a clear signal from the market."

 

CCS makes electricity more expensive. Extra fuel needs to be burned to drive the process of capturing CO2 from the power station's flue gas, and to pump it down to its resting place in rock deep underground.

 

If the carbon price were high, companies would find it cheaper to run coal- and gas-fired power stations with CCS fitted than to pay for the CO2 emitted from conventional plants.

 

However, the European carbon price is now so low - about 7 euros ($9) per tonne - that the only signal it sends is "carry on emitting".

 

The price has fallen because of the recession and because European governments have lobbied against tightening caps on emissions. Tough caps deliver a high carbon price.

 

Australia's new carbon price will come in at $23 per tonne, and is likely to fall further - also too low to spur businesses to invest in CCS.

 

So as things stand, there is no sign that carbon pricing is going to drive an expansion in CCS.

 

If the carbon price was the only driver of change, most renewables would founder as well - as would nuclear, in all probability.

 

But in Europe and elsewhere, many governments support renewable energy with substantial subsidies, delivered in a number of forms.

 

As a result, installation of wind power grew across the world by 27% per year over the period 2005-10, and solar photovoltaic by an astonishing 56% annually.

 

But governments are not supporting CCS in the same way.

 

There is an irony here, because successive reports by international and national agencies suggest that electricity from coal- or gas-fired power stations fitted with CCS is probably going to be cheaper than offshore wind farms and solar panels - and in some cases, depending on assumptions about fuel prices, as cheap as onshore wind.

 

"You're looking at a 70-100% increase in the production cost of electricity from fitting CCS; but in terms of the cost of electricity delivered [to the customer] it goes up by say 30%," says Howard Herzog from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has been researching the technology for more than a decade.

 

"Renewables probably get the most support from government in terms of production subsidies; if CCS got some of the same subsidies, I think you'd see a lot more projects."

 

Instead, government support for CCS tends to come in the form of one-off grants for construction.

 

The biggest was the $3bn pledged by President Barack Obama as part of the US economic stimulus package. But China, South Korea, Japan, Canada and the UK are also in various stages of investment.

 

A recent report from the UK Energy Research Council showed that the UK especially has abundant potential for storing CO2 under the seabed - potentially building a new business taking waste gas from more landlocked parts of Europe.

 

However, the falling carbon price has drastically curtailed European Commission plans to fund up to 12 projects across the continent. It is now likely to support just a handful.

 

Against this backdrop, you might ask why there are as many as eight large-scale CCS projects in the world.

 

The answers are that none are fitted on power stations, and that they all make money in other ways.

 

The oldest project is the Sleipner gas field off the Norwegian coast.

 

Norway's carbon tax means it is cheaper for the company involved, Statoil, to extract and bury the CO2 contained in the natural gas than vent it to the atmosphere.

 

Five of the other facilities pump the CO2 down into oil wells, increasing the pressure and enabling the operators to recover more oil - a benefit so significant that they are prepared to pay about $40 per tonne.

 

Five of the seven plants under construction will also use the captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).

 

"If we can get the technology accelerated by EOR, that's wonderful," Bjorn-Erik Haugan, CEO of the Norwegian state CCS agency Gassnova, told delegates at the seminar.

 

"But we should not mistake this for combating climate change."

 

While governments wrestle with financial questions, engineers from academia and the corporate sector are exploring various ideas for making CCS more efficient and thus cheaper.

 

Most attention centres on the capture part of the process, which is the most energy-intensive.

 

In part, the idea is to refine the approach first recognised in the 1930s, which exploits the chemical affinity between carbon dioxide and nitrogen-based molecules such as ammonia or the closely-related amines.

 

But other capture technologies based on fine membranes are also in development.

 

Meanwhile, other completely different approaches involve burning coal in pure oxygen (oxyfuel), or turning it into a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which is then burned.

 

These allow for much easier extraction of CO2; but the extra processing still consumes more energy.

 

Because both of these approaches need totally new plant, they have received less attention than post-combustion capture technologies such as amines, which can be fitted onto the end of existing power stations.

 

Another more radical idea is called chemical looping. It involves taking oxygen to the fuel not as a gas, but bound to a metal such as iron or calcium, and should in principle make combustion more efficient.

 

How far any of these progress probably depends less on engineers than on the economic support packages that politicians can develop.

 

To some extent, it also depends on environmental groups and the public.

 

The UK's Green Party, for example, has little time for CCS which it regards as an unproven distraction from renewables and energy efficiency improvement; and in Germany, local peoples' concerns about adverse impacts of storing CO2 underground recently forced cancellation of the Jaenschwalde CO2 burial project.

 

But others point out that CCS is able to eliminate CO2 production from industries such as cement and steel, as well as electricity generation, again through absorbing it from waste gases.

 

A yet more radical vision sees using CCS on power stations burning biomass; and this is where the equation realy begins to turn around.

 

In this vision, crops absorb CO2 as they grow; but the CO2 released when they are burned is captured and buried. Electricity generation becomes a net absorber of CO2 rather than a net emitter."

 

----------------------

 

links in the article proper.

Share this post


Link to post

What good is carbon capture now? Carbon is practically blameless, hardly a crime, barely a misdemeanor, might qualify as an infraction but hardly a reason to capture and sequester. :dunno:

 

Throw old Sol in the lockup...

Share this post


Link to post

CCS has not been proven at an economically-sound large-scale. CCS is god damn expensive.

Share this post


Link to post

Which is kind of odd when you think on the basic principle. Filter stuff then bury it in a deep hole: it sounds simple enough. We have the tech for it, but i suspect in terms of adapting current industry to support it, that is where the expense lays as you are talking large scale modification of working plants and factories etc, and on the budget sheet it is an 'extra' expense which probably counts for alot.

 

---------------------------

 

'Save the planet', science leaders urge G8 governments':

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18026572

 

"Leaders of the global science community have issued joint statements to world leaders meeting at the G8 summit later this month in the US.

 

National science academies from 15 countries have called on the leading industrialised economies to pay greater heed to science and technology.

 

The academies include those from the US, China, India and the UK.

 

The organisations agreed three statements on tackling Earth's most pressing problems.

 

According to Dr Michael Clegg of the US National Academy of Sciences: "In the long term, the pressing concerns are managing the environment in a way that assures that future generations have a quality of life that's at least as equivalent to the quality of life we enjoy today."

 

As the host G8 nation, the US national academy has taken the lead this year, working with counterparts to draw up a co-ordinated message for the summit.

 

For the past seven years, science academies representing countries that are attending the summit have issued statements to inform delegates of vital science and technology matters.

 

This year, they are targeting leaders attending not just the G8 summit but also the G20, the Rio+20 environmental summit, and other important events.

 

In past G8 summits, the views of the collective academies have been influential. World leaders including Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have previously met with representatives of the global science community and the text from their statements has ended up in the final summit communiques.

 

"I think most governments pay attention to science," says Dr Clegg

 

"The fact we have a consensus of a great diversity of countries is an indication of the importance of priorities that we as leaders of the global science community place on these issues".

 

The three so-called "G-Science" statements say that priority should be given to finding ways of finding a coherent way of simultaneously meeting water and energy needs, building resilience to natural disasters and developing better ways of measuring greenhouse gas emissions in order to see if individual countries are meeting their international obligations to reduce emissions.

 

The first G-Science statement called on leaders to consider water and energy as closely linked issues. Otherwise, it says, there will be shortages of both. The statement recommends that governments pursue policies that integrate the two, emphasise conservation and encourage regional and global cooperation.

 

The second statement says more can be done to minimise the impact of major international disasters, such as a tsunami or nuclear accident. In addition to regular risk surveillance, the G-Science statement recommends building "resilience" to catastrophic events by, for example, improving public health systems.

 

The third statement calls for more accurate and standardised methods to estimate human and natural sources and sinks of greenhouse gases. It recommends that all countries produce annual reports of their greenhouse gas emissions and sinks. The academies also call for greater international cooperation to share new technologies and scientific data.

 

The statements have been signed by the leaders of the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the US."

 

--------------------

 

:b: sounds reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post

'Europe struggles for climate lead':

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18043201

 

"UN climate talks open in Germany on Monday, with the EU struggling to keep its position of a global leader.

 

Small developing countries that linked up with the EU in a new coalition last year say the bloc must commit to tougher emission cuts and more finance.

 

Existing pledges on "climate aid" run out at the end of this year, and the EU has yet to clarify what happens then.

 

Most EU nations want to increase carbon cuts but they have not worked out how to negotiate around Poland's blocking.

 

Attempts to toughen the EU's target from 20% to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 have stumbled on Polish government fears about its economic impact on the major coal-producing and coal-burning nation.

 

Last December's annual UN climate summit, in South Africa, saw the EU team up alongside at least 80 nations, primarily small island states and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), in a new "rainbow coalition" pressing for a new global deal that would eventually restrict all nations' emissions.

 

At a small informal meeting in Brussels last week, just over 30 nations from the coalition took stock of the situation, with members of the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis) urging the EU to adopt the 30% target as soon as possible.

 

"There was agreement that it's got to go up to 30%," Tony de Brum, Minister in Assistance of the Marshall Islands, told BBC News.

 

"We don't want to be intrusive or over-reaching, but we said 'we don't think the disagreement in your group is so overwhelming - when 26 say yes and one says no, we think you could probably bring along the dissident, so please don't come to us with this kind of excuse'."

 

However, EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said moving to a 30% target this year would be "very, very challenging".

 

Some from Aosis and the LDCs are wondering why the EU cannot simply find a way of moving forward on climate change without one of its member states, given that it recently agreed a new fiscal compact that excludes two.

 

Meanwhile, the Ecofin group of EU finance ministers is also meeting this week to discuss financial contributions for developing countries.

 

The EU has pledged - and according to its own analysis, largely committed - 7.2bn euros ($9.3bn) over the period 2010-12 as its share of the "fast-start finance" package agreed at the UN summit in Copenhagen in 2009.

 

The expectation had been that the developed world, including the EU, would begin to ramp up contributions from public and private sources in order to meet the long-term target, also agreed at Copenhagen, of providing $100bn per year by 2020.

 

However, a leaked draft of the Ecofin agreement seen by BBC News shows that EU ministers have not agreed what they will provide in the way of finance after 2012, nor how they will provide it.

 

The draft talks in terms of developed nations "needing to identify" a pathway to the $100bn target. Some money could be raised through the recently introduced charge on aviation emissions, but this is not certain.

 

"At a critical moment in the fight against climate change, Europe looks to be sitting back rather than stepping up," said Lies Craeynest of Oxfam.

 

"To build a partnership for climate action with poor countries, the EU must finally move to its promised 30% emissions reductions target, and outline new milestones for scaling up its climate finance."

 

The coming two weeks of talks at UN climate convention (UNFCCC) headquarters in Bonn - an annual event - will see negotiators beginning work on the pathway towards agreeing a new global deal in 2015, known as the Durban Platform.

 

Discussions will also focus on developed countries' commitments to cut emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, whose current targets expire at the end of this year.

 

In December, the EU promised to put its existing 20% target under the protocol - a key demand of developing countries that appreciate its legal nature.

 

Among other developed countries, Japan and Russia have indicated they will not take the Kyoto path, while Canada said it would leave the protocol at the end of the year. The US left about a decade ago.

 

That means that the EU and its coalition partners are keen to bring remaining developed countries into the fold.

 

Along with the EU, Norway, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand have submitted plans to the UNFCCC detailing how they might turn their existing unilateral voluntary commitments into the legal form required by the Kyoto Protocol.

 

But the language of the Australian and New Zealand submissions suggests they have not formally decided to take this step, with New Zealand especially linking its decision to progress on the Durban Platform.

 

However, a number of major developing countries including China and India are lukewarm about the new process.

 

And with China and the US seeking changes of leadership over the next 12 months, many observers are not expecting much progress to be made either in Bonn or at the annual end-of-year UN climate summit, to be hosted by Qatar."

 

------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now