Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

okie wrote:

Give me a break. The guy is a naive nutcase.

I googled "Al Gore" and "nuclear energy" in response to your post. It turns out that my memory has mixed up Gore and Hansen. Gore opposes an expansion of nuclear energy because of the proliferation problem.

Thanks for correcting me.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But why do you think urban heat-related mortality would decline significantly as cities became warmer? Shouldn't that be factored into an analysis of probability, cause, danger, risk etc. etc. etc in the overall debate?

it was. The phrase relating to straws and clutching at them comes to mind.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

If solar and wind power are so cheap and available, why are there not more production facilities?

There are all sorts of objections to renewable energy sources as you well know George, ranging from low energy density to landscape protection, but what has really held it back has been the artificially low cost of fossil fuels.

georgeob1 wrote:

Why does it require government subsidies both here and in Europe? Why, given those subsidies, has the application of these sources so consistently fallen behind the projections of their advocates? Is the profit motive dead?

Well I dont know about the US but European manufacturers such as Nordex in Denmark cant make 'em quick enough.

georgeob1 wrote:

It is more than a bit interesting to note that global warming zealots are generally strongly anti-nuclear power. I have a very hard time figuring out how one who claims to be persuaded by the supposed "scientific evidence of looming global catastrophe" could also logically oppose the only available method for quickly reducing CO2 emissions from energy production enough to make a substantial difference.

My bullshite detector is ringing.

Not all of us who accept anthropogenic global warming reject nuclear power. James Lovelock (Gaia theory) for one. I agree its illogical to accept CO2 causes warming and reject the only large scale source of low carbon energy we have. But that is not to ignore the well known problems associated with nuclear power. In any case the energy mix will have to change radically in future, away from oil and gas, not only from climate change considerations, but also because there wont be as much oil and gas around in future.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

There are all sorts of objections to renewable energy sources as you well know George, ranging from low energy density to landscape protection, but what has really held it back has been the artificially low cost of fossil fuels.

"Artificially"? How so?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

It isn't. What do you think of raising the gasoline tax by 15 cents -- about the amount Nordhaus suggests for 2010 -- and see what happens?

This is called a carbon tax. But guess what, the UN bureaucrats don't want this because in their world government big scheme, it would prevent them from pocketting money like they have so far with the world carbon exchange mecanism (more than 300 millions $ go to the World Bank last year just for playing carbon intermediary between the Europeans and the Chinese).
A carbon tax, fine, that's the most efficient way to use if we want to reduce carbon like many economists think so. But for what result ? Give me a number, an estimate, a percentage of the result !!!! Cost/benefits assessment PLS !!!

BTW, to me, saying an added gasoline tax will give some result is like saying more car tax will spur R&D on bikes. A naive fantasy.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
There are all sorts of objections to renewable energy sources as you well know George, ranging from low energy density to landscape protection, but what has really held it back has been the artificially low cost of fossil fuels.

"Artificially"? How so?

I'm glad you picked up on this Thomas. Its something I confess I dont fully understand i.e. the exact mechanism by which oil and gas prices are kept low...I'm going to do a little research.

In the meantime point out the flaw in this thought experiment....

What is the real value of a few litres of petroleum?

Compare tree felling by muscle power or chain saw. How many trees can two men fell in a day using a band saw? And how many if they each used a chain saw? And if they had chain saws but no gasoline, how much would a few litres be worth to them?...i.e. the added value of their day's work (paid by the number of trees cut) compared with using just the band saw?

Similarly ploughing a field. How much value is added to a days work by ploughing with diesel tractor (schlepper....I know all about German tractors...ask walter :wink:) than with two horses?

(Admittedly you have to take into account the capital cost of a very expensive tractor...but its useless without the machine food. Compare that with a bundle of hay. How many bundles of hay and horses does it take to do the same work as a tractor and some diesel?)

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

What is the real value of a few litres of petroleum?

Don't forget to take into account the dirt cheap wage of a Chinese migrant worker or a Burmese slave, Steve. Oil must be kept "artificially" lower than the equivalent of it! Cool

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Thomas wrote:
It isn't. What do you think of raising the gasoline tax by 15 cents -- about the amount Nordhaus suggests for 2010 -- and see what happens?
This is called a carbon tax. ...

That's a name in the USA for a tax on energy sources which emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The so-called gasoline tax in Germany is (since July 15, 2006) now part of the "Energy Tax Law" which includes oil, naturral gas, petrol, diesel, coal, brown coal, coke.

Similar to France's taxe pétrolière, isn't it?

0 Replies

last time I looked oil is sold to china in dollars not yuan
similarly to Burma in dollars not kyat.

Point out to me mini the fault in my argument/logic, I'm open to persuasion.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

A carbon tax, fine, that's the most efficient way to use if we want to reduce carbon like many economists think so. But for what result ?

For minimizing the sum of global warming costs and global warming prevention costs.

miniTax wrote:

Give me a number, an estimate, a percentage of the result !!!! Cost/benefits assessment PLS !!!

Nordhaus describes the entire cost/benefit analysis in booklength here. Basically, his approach is a standard, neoclassical growth theory model. Parameters in this model include:

the resources invested to prevent global warming, which aren't available for investing elsewhere, thus slowing economic growth;
the impact of global warming on the productivity of various economic sectors, which he takes from econometric data;
the impact of policies on actually preventing global warming, which he also takes from econometric data. He then asks his model what investment in global warming prevention it takes to minimize the sum of global warming costs and global warming prevention cost.

The result of the analysis is presented in Chapter 7: For different global warming policies proposed, page 34 shows the trajectory of the carbon tax; page 38 shows trajectories of carbon dioxide emissions, page 39 of carbon dioxide concentrations, page 40 global mean temperatures.

Some notable observations:

The carbon tax under the optimal scenario is low: $10/ton in 2005, rising to $70/ton in 2100. That's 3-4 cents per gallon, rising to 21-28 in 2100. (I'm too lazy to calculate it exactly -- and I got the units wrong in the post you were responding to.)
Temperatures, CO2 emissions, and CO2 concentrations are pretty close to the business-as-usual, laissez faire scenario. Since Nordhaus does not consider government failure in setting the right carbon tax rate, laissez-faire is arguably within the range of responsible policies.
The optimal tax is not zero: Global warming does do harm, some of which can theoretically be prevented with carbon taxes.

On balance, since I trust Nordhaus, I'm pretty much on your side of this debate. But the other side has a case too.

0 Replies

January and February have prety much destroyed any "global warming" credibility in the northern/eastern USA. It brought us 30 days of below freezing temps and almost 6 feet of snow. The latter is almost a record, but not.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

What is the real value of a few litres of petroleum?

This question has no well-defined answer because value is subjective and varies from consumer to consumer. All we know is that the value to the workers is higher than the market price, as judged by the workers' willingness to buy oil products. At the same time, the value of the oil to oil producers is less than the market price, as judged by their willingness to sell.

I think this answers your question what's wrong with the thought experiment: You ignore the supply side in the market for oil. Thus, you falsely imply that everyone -- that is, everyone you think of -- values oil higher than its market price. As a consequence, oil falsely looks cheaper than it should be.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

January and February have prety much destroyed any "global warming" credibility in the northern/eastern USA. It brought us 30 days of below freezing temps and almost 6 feet of snow. The latter is almost a record, but not.

Your correct: only northern/eastern USA can be connected to the term 'global'.

('Climate change' is the term, btw.)

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
What is the real value of a few litres of petroleum?

This question has no well-defined answer because value is subjective and varies from consumer to consumer.

But work done, energy expended is not subjective. To fell a tree, the same amount of energy is expended whether through muscle power or petrol power. Comparing the two in the way I did shows how the market price of petroleum seriously underestimates its true value.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

January and February have prety much destroyed any "global warming" credibility in the northern/eastern USA. It brought us 30 days of below freezing temps and almost 6 feet of snow. The latter is almost a record, but not.

While it is true that it is really difficult to feel any sense of urgency re global warming when the wind chill is minus 10 or more degrees, we also need to be consistent that temporary seemingly anomalies in weather are to be expected and are very unlikely to be evidence of any major climate shift or lack thereof. As we have seen in hundreds of pages of posts, however, the GW and AGW skeptics measure such anomalies in centuries and millenia while at least some of the pro AGW crowd tends to use those same periods as sufficient evidence to justify alarm.

I was reading recently that the faster than usual melting of Greenland ice reversed itself some years ago. This is rarely shown in the charts and measurements showing that the ice mass as X less than it was X years ago.

I think the amateur skeptics are unlikely to take either GW or AGW seriously until there is more serious integrity in showing the whole picture and not just the convenient parts of it. Giving Al Gore the oscar for best documentary for a film the skeptics have pronounced mostly pure fiction is one example of a lack of integrity in the process.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
What is the real value of a few litres of petroleum?

This question has no well-defined answer because value is subjective and varies from consumer to consumer.
But work done, energy expended is not subjective.

A gallon of gasoline will save X hours of manual labor for lumberjack Alfred and Y hours of manual labor for farmer Bertha. In general, X will not equal Y. Perhaps "subjective" wasn't the perfect word for this, but the point is that the value of gasoline, measured in human labor, will vary between individuals.

Steve 41oo wrote:

Comparing the two in the way I did shows how the market price of petroleum seriously underestimates its true value.

Only if you define "value of gasoline" as "labor saved by consuming gasoline". But there is no compelling reason to define value that way. An equally good definition is "labor expended to produce gasoline". Apply the logic of your argument to oil workers instead of lumberjacks, and you will find that the market price of petroleum "seriously overestimates its true value". This means the logic of your argument can't be correct.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:
Where the hell do you get your argument that solar and wind are 3 to 10 times more expensive than fossil fuel? The markets in the US have determined that wind power electric is only about 5-10% more. The current technology produces power from wind turbines at about 5 cents per kwh. Not a whole lot more than fossil fuels.

Then there is this..
Debating the true cost of wind power

Quote:
The independent study, commissioned from international energy consultants PBPower, puts all energy sources on a level playing field by comparing the costs of generating electricity from new plants using a range of different technologies and energy sources.
The cheapest electricity will come from gas turbines and nuclear stations, costing just 2.3p/kWh, compared with 3.7p/kWh for onshore wind and 5.5p/kWh for offshore wind farms.

If you want to argue the cost versus benefits then stop making up numbers Minitax. There is no 3 to 8 times more expensive.

No, I don't make up numbers. Even with your example, the price of wind is 2x that of fossil fuel. Solar cost is at least 2x that of wind, even in sunny places. But compared to what price of the barrel (gaz price is indexed on the Brent and the WTI)? The price of the barrel has been multiplied by 3 in just 4 years for no geological reason, just by geopolitics. Last summer, it peaked at 75$/barrel, last month, it was around 55$. Oil out of the rigs is so dirt cheap that OPEC just need to open wide their tap to shatter all the alternative energy plans, as they did in the 70s (remember all those who heavily invested in the wonderland of wind generation, a 5 century old technology, and have lost their underpants by then). Wind and solar are "alternatives" in rich countries only because there is plenty of money, subsidies, governement interference and credulous investors. But it wouldn't survive a second in a true competitive market otherwise you'll see plenty of them in third world countries where more than 50% people don't have electricity.

There is another solution to make alternative energy cheap and cheaper relative to nuclear or fossil fuels. Make the life of the latter impossible with centralized regulations, litigation, and various bureaucratic unfair treatment. That's what the European bureaucrats are doing. Self-fullfilling prophecy is so easy to make.

Oil produces almost zero electricity in any country I can think of. You are now attempting to change the subject. Oil is not coal. Oil is not natural gas. You have shown us nothing to compare wind and solar to carbon based electric production.

Wind has a large upfront capital cost and a cheap ongoing cost. Coal has a cheaper upfront cost but a larger ongoing cost. You used only the high end of wind power but even at that 2x is not your 3-10 times cost. You have provided nothing to support your kwh cost of solar.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

January and February have prety much destroyed any "global warming" credibility in the northern/eastern USA. It brought us 30 days of below freezing temps and almost 6 feet of snow. The latter is almost a record, but not.

Let me make this as clear as possible for you cj..

The earth's orbit is NOT affected by global warming.

I am curious as to where in the northeast 30 days of below freezing temperatures is a record. Buffalo averages 30 days with snowfall. I hardly think that every day without snow in Buffalo is above freezing.

In the northern plains we had a 50 degree day in the middle of February this year. We have hardly had more days below freezing than an average year. We have had less.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the amateur skeptics are unlikely to take either GW or AGW seriously until there is more serious integrity in showing the whole picture and not just the convenient parts of it. Giving Al Gore the oscar for best documentary for a film the skeptics have pronounced mostly pure fiction is one example of a lack of integrity in the process.

I find it interesting that you judge Gore's film only by his skeptics.

Perhaps it should be judged based on the actual science which tends to be more accurate than not.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Perhaps it should be judged based on the actual science which tends to be more accurate than not.

Perhaps it should be, but I doubt that it is. After all, we're talking about the same institution that awarded a "best documentary" Oscar to Michael Moore not too long ago.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know