climate

An open reply to James Hansen's open letter

Dear Dr. Hansen:

An old engineer's dictum says "fast, cheap, good: pick two." Unfortunately, and I'm sure completely contrary to your intention, your solution to global warming favors "cheap" over fast.

Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and a "smart grid" deserve first priority in our effort to reduce carbon emissions. With a rising carbon price, renewable energy can perhaps handle all of our needs. However, most experts believe that making such presumption probably would leave us in 25 years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide. Such a result would be disastrous for the planet, humanity, and nature.

Fourth generation nuclear power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do the entire job).

OK, this begs the question of why depending on efficiency, carbon negative forestry and agriculture, and renewables would leave us "in 25 years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide."

We certainly have the physical capacity to build wind and solar generators that could provide all our power. Archer and Jacobson, perhaps the world's leading experts on wind potential, estimate that wind energy at 80 meters in commercially developable sites alone could could supply [PDF] five times the world's current energy demand. Note the emphasis: That is not five times world's current electricity consumption, but five times total world energy consumption, including cars and factories and non-electric heating¹. Similarly, solar thermal power plants of the type already running in U.S. deserts² can provide the world's entire energy needs [PDF] from less than 1 percent of total desert land³. Those are only two possibilities, albeit the ones with the biggest potential with today's technology.

'Anti-science syndrome' plagues the right-wing as well as blogosphere

Note: Watts Up With That, one of the web's most anti-scientific blogs, is a finalist for the Weblog award "Best Science Blog." Even more farcically, early voting suggests Watts has a chance of winning (see here). Since the fine science blog Pharyngula is doing well in the voting, I'd now suggest voting for it.

 

In this post I'm going to present the general diagnosis for "anti-science syndrome" (ASS). Like most syndromes, ASS is a collection of symptoms that individually may not be serious, but taken together can be quite dangerous -- at least it can be dangerous to the health and well-being of humanity if enough people actually believe the victims.

One tell-tale symptom of ASS is that a website or a writer focuses their climate attacks on non-scientists. If that non-scientist is Al Gore, this symptom alone may be definitive.

The other key symptoms involve the repetition of long-debunked denier talking points, commonly without links to supporting material. Such repetition, which can border on the pathological, is a clear warning sign.

Scientists who kept restating and republishing things that had been widely debunked in the scientific literature for many, many years would quickly be diagnosed with ASS. Such people on the web are apparently heroes -- at least to the right wing and/or easily duped.

If you suspect someone of ASS, look for the repeated use of the following phrases:

Skeptic screed on progressive news site recycles familiar myths

This post was co-written with David Roberts.

Recently Harold Ambler, climate crank and proprietor of TalkingAboutTheWeather.com, published an essay on Huffington Post replete with gross factual errors about the science of climate change.

Word is that this was an editorial slip-up on HuffPo's part; they don't typically provide a place for this kind of agitprop. The essay is gone from the site's portal pages and rumor has it The Huff herself may address the issue soon.

Regardless, the essay is out there getting skeptics all twitterpated (again). These folks can't find a scientific journal with two hands and a flashlight, but nothing escapes their RSS feeds.

So lets examine a few of the claims again. After all, the only thing hucksters need is for the rest of us to get tired of repeating the same damn truths over and over again. Right?

Right off the bat Mr. Ambler recycles a classic, one of the most durable and thoroughly discredited skeptic chestnuts:

Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide [in the ice age record], unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years.

The basic science of atmospheric carbon dioxide is well explained in the IPCC reports and on numerous web sites, including in Grist's How to Talk to a Skeptic series. It's puzzling that it continues to confuse skeptics.

House Speaker says she has the votes for a cap-and-trade bill, but …

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday said she has enough votes in the House to pass cap-and-trade legislation aimed at curbing greenhouse-gas emissions, but she's not certain Democrats will be able to do that in 2009.

"I'm not sure this year, because I don't know if we'll be ready," Pelosi said in a press conference yesterday. "We won't go before we're ready."

E&E reports ($ub req'd):

Pelosi acknowledged the December deadline looming over U.N. negotiations toward a new international climate change agreement. "We're sensitive to Copenhagen and the rest of that," she said, referring to the Denmark capital that will host the next annual U.N. conference. "And it's a very high priority for me."

But Pelosi said she could not guarantee that President-elect Barack Obama would be able to sign a cap-and-trade law before Copenhagen.

"I would certainly hope so, but I can't tell you that that is the case right now," she said. "Of all the bills that we have done, you know I sort of know the policies, I know what the possibilities are, this is the most, should we say, controversial, not controversial, mysterious."

Pelosi added that any legislation on cap-and-trade needs to be crafted carefully. "We have to do it right. I don't think we can take any chances. So this is going to take some very thorough scrutiny as to how we go forward."

The staggering cost of new nuclear power

A new study [PDF] puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour -- triple current U.S. electricity rates!

This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today -- and 10 times the cost of energy efficiency (see here).

The new study, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power [PDF], is one of the most detailed cost analyses publicly available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former Assistant to the Chairman and to Commerce Counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.

This important new analysis is being published by Climate Progress because it fills a critical gap in the current debate over nuclear power -- transparency. Severance explains:

The dumbest headline of 2009

On the very first day of 2009, the L. A. Times ran a story that already seems a lock to win the year's dumbest headline award. And dumbest subhead: "Recent moves by lame-duck officials, though frustrating to environmentalists, offer the president-elect time and political cover to deliberately craft rules on emissions, energy lobbyists say."

Yes, the LAT thinks that accelerating new coal plant construction, greenhouse-gas emissions, and the wanton destruction of the planet's livability will give Obama "breathing room to fight global warming."

You might just as well argue that waterboarding gives its victims "breathing room" -- after all, right after you have been waterboarded, you breathe like you have never breathed before, desperately gasping for air.

Why large future warming is very likely

A friend of mine from college emailed me the other day and expressed some skepticism about the connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. It occurred to me that it would make a good topic for my next post.

So here is the reasoning that has led me to conclude that business-as-usual carbon dioxide emissions will lead to temperature increases over the next century of around 3 degrees C.

First, it has been known for over 150 years that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the planet. In fact, the very small number of credible skeptics out there, such as Dick Lindzen and Pat Michaels, are on record agreeing that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will warm the planet. What they argue is that the warming will be very small. More on that later.

The conclusion that emitting greenhouse gases will result in warming does not rest on the output of climate models, but is a simple physical argument that predates the invention of the computer. And if you don't believe in physics, take a look at Venus. That planet features a thick carbon dioxide atmosphere and consequently a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.

So we know that adding carbon dioxide is going to warm the planet. This leads us to the real question: How much warming are we going to get?

Conservative icons take to The NYT to tout the magic of a revenue-neutral carbon tax

In last weekend's New York Times, conservatives Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) and Arthur Laffer had an op-ed claiming that a revenue-neutral "tax shift" would make conservatives "the new administration's best allies on climate change."

Color me skeptical. Laffer, of course, is a conservative legend, an economist whose curve has given a great many mendacious right-wing legislators intellectual cover in the war on taxes. Inglis is best known for telling Mitt Romney that Mormons aren't Christians.

It's notable when prominent conservatives don't try to deny or downplay climate change. But that's a mighty low bar to clear these days.

There is a crucial bit of weasel wording here: "If the bill's authors had instead proposed a simple carbon tax coupled with an equal, offsetting reduction in income taxes or payroll taxes, a dynamic new energy security policy could have taken root."

It matters a great deal whether a carbon tax reduces "income taxes or payroll taxes." Energy taxes are generally regressive unless offset. Reducing payroll taxes would provide some progressivity; reducing income taxes would provide additional regressivity. (Many workers pay no income tax at all.) You can bet conservatives would love that. "The good news is that both Democrats and Republicans could support a carbon tax offset by a payroll or income tax cut," they say. Everything's in that "or."

As with many carbon tax fans these days, Inglis wildly overstates the effects of a modest price on carbon:

Umbra on resolutions for 2009

Dearest Readers, A Happy New Year to you all. I hope that you look back fondly on 2008, and have big happy plans for 2009. I do. You and I may have similar happy plans, in fact. I plan to feel happy about my federal government. This column has always been written in the shadow […]