This webcast features perspectives from operational technology (OT), information technology (IT) as well as the general industry outlook, to provide attendees insight into the challenges utilities are facing today as well as a holistic view into smart grid strategies to more...
Grid threats increase daily - from foreign foes, terrorists, criminals and hackers. Utilities are tasked with guarding against a rising tide of potentially disruptive intrusions into their power grid and electronic networks. What will it take to keep the power more...
Monday Jun 24, 2013
- Tuesday Jun 25, 2013 -
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - USA
Data Informed´s Marketing Analytics and Customer Engagement provides marketing, sales, and customer support managers with the information they need to create an effective data-driven customer strategy. more...
We know you have something to say!
There is an immediate need for articles on
the hot topics in the Power Industry!
EnergyPulse, like no other publication,
also provides a means for our readers to
immediately interact with experts like you.
During the last decade, technologies have been developed and demonstrated at scale to economically produce natural gas from shale rock formations. As a result, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that the US has about 800 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas. Just ten years ago, this shale gas was considered uneconomic. At a forward price of $5 per thousand cubic feet, this gas now has a value of $4 trillion. This is a huge economic stimulus. Unlike government spending and/or tax cuts to stimulate economic growth, this opportunity will not increase deficits and national debt. Rather, it will result in over $1 trillion in new taxes paid to federal and state governments.
This single opportunity is not sufficient to jump-start the US economy. But there are many other similar opportunities with a total value over $40 trillion. Together, they could create millions of good jobs, stimulate sustainable economic growth, improve energy security, and enhance environmental protection. Some of the best opportunities are as follows:
Shale Oil: Shale oil is liquid oil locked in shale rocks similar to shale gas. The technologies for producing shale oil are the same as those that have proven successful for shale gas -- horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. These technologies are already being used to produce over 500,000 barrels of oil per day in the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations in North Dakota and Texas. The Department of Energy (DOE) recently released a report which estimates that the US has 24 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in shale rocks. The value of this shale oil is $2.4 trillion at a forward price of $100 per barrel.
Enhanced Oil Recovery: The EIA estimates that onshore fields in the lower 48 states contain over 80 billion barrels of oil that is recoverable with conventional technologies. The DOE estimates that an additional 40 billion barrels can be recovered from these fields with carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery. The technology is proven: The oil industry is already producing 240,000 barrels of oil per day with it, mostly in the Permian Basin in Texas. And the technology has a unique environmental advantage: Most of the injected carbon dioxide is permanently sequestered. However, only recently has the price of oil increased so the technology is economically viable (with modest incentives) for anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The value of this additional 40 billion barrels of oil is $4 trillion at $100 per barrel.
Alaska Oil: The trans-Alaska pipeline was constructed in the 1970s. Over 16 billion barrels of oil have flowed through it to date. North Slope oil production (and flow through the pipeline) peaked in the 1980s at slightly over 2 million barrels per day. Since then, production has declined to less than 600,000 barrels per day. The pipeline will eventually have to be shut down if no new large oil fields are developed. The EIA estimates that Alaska contains more than 40 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, most in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and offshore. The value of this oil is $4 trillion at $100 per barrel. This oil revenue is important for the US as a whole, but it is especially critical to the economic well-being of Alaska.
Light Vehicle Efficiency: Current and emerging technologies have created the opportunity to dramatically increase light vehicle fuel economy. Recognizing this, Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations have increased CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. As a result, the fuel economy of new light vehicles could double during the 15-year period from 2010 to 2025. This could decrease projected oil consumption (and imports) by about 50 billion barrels in the next 50 years. The value of this oil is $5 trillion at $100 per barrel. This savings will be partially offset by the increased cost of light vehicles.
Offshore Oil and Gas: The EIA estimates that technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources offshore the lower 48 states are about 60 billion barrels and 300 trillion cubic feet, respectively. The value of this oil is $6 trillion (at $100 per barrel) and the value of this gas is $1.5 trillion (at $5 per thousand cubic feet). Some people believe that the recent Macondo blowout in the Gulf of Mexico raises questions about whether the energy industry can safely produce this oil and natural gas. However, the cost and environmental impact of this blowout, as large as they were, are insignificant compared to the opportunity. Much was learned from this accident -- and the lessons learned will improve the safety of future offshore production in the lower 48 states, Alaska, and globally. The accident should not be a reason to forego this valuable resource. Other countries such as Canada, Mexico, and Cuba are proceeding with offshore oil exploration and production, often in waters near the US coastline, so the best defense against future spills may be to lead in developing improved technology.
Oil Sands: Canada currently provides over 2 million barrels of oil to the US each day -- more than any other country. Their oil sands resource is estimated to be 1.7 trillion barrels, of which 170 billion barrels are currently classified as proven reserves. The market value of these proven reserves is $17 trillion at $100 per barrel. Because the Canadian and US energy industries and economies are closely linked, the economic benefit associated with using Canada's oil sands resources will accrue to both countries. Oil companies are making good progress reducing the environmental impact of oil sands production, including the development of in-situ recovery methods that require no mining. If the US fails to use this resource, other countries such as China will, and the environmental impact could be greater if this oil is shipped through the Pacific Northwest and processed in Chinese refineries.
Energy Independence: The US consumed approximately 7 billion barrels of liquid fuels in 2010. Of this, over 4 billion barrels were produced in the US or imported from Canada. The remainder (less than 3 billion barrels) was imported from other countries. By taking advantage of the above opportunities, oil imports from countries other than Canada could be reduced to near-zero in the next 25 years. This can be achieved as follows: 1) increase US oil production by 1 billion barrels per year, 2) increase oil imports from Canada by 1 billion barrels per year, and 3) decrease US oil consumption by 1 billion barrels per year through improved efficiency and use of alternative fuels. This will make the US and Canada essentially energy-independent -- and provide a solid foundation for sustainable economic growth for many decades, while alternative energy resources and technologies are developed.
Smart energy policy could capture all of these opportunities, creating an economic stimulus of at least $40 trillion and perhaps much more if all indirect (ripple) effects are included. The resulting economic boost will be spread over 50 to 100 years. This is much better than a short-term stimulus because it will benefit many generations and provide a basis for long-term economic growth.
Some people argue that the US should not exploit its fossil fuel resources, and focus instead on renewable energy. However, the opposite argument is far more persuasive: The US needs to use its fossil energy resources (prudently, of course) to grow its economy, in order to afford to develop and deploy alternative and renewable energy technologies and address climate change. Only by intelligently using its fossil energy resources can the US realize its full economic potential and achieve its key social, political, and environmental objectives.
For information on purchasing reprints of this article, contact sales. Copyright 2013 CyberTech, Inc.
You left out coal, no coal to liquids in your stimulus for the future. We have the technology last I read $40/barrel break even cost of converting coal into a liquid fuel stock. We also have the option of continuing to burn coal for power generation as a stimulus. If you count coal the US has plenty of fossil fuel reserves for the near term.
We do import a lot transportation fuel and trying to work coal out of the mix has it challenges, but we a far better off than many who lack any resource to fuel there economy. It is interesting the coal is being repalced because of its CO2 GHG emissions when it appears that Gas Extraction and leakage of methane will have a larger impact on global warming than continuing to burn coal.
It is too bad that the science of global warming is politics.
Ferdinand E. Banks 12.30.11
It might be true that the US has a comprehensive energy policy, but they simply do not want to advertise. On the other hand, as economics teachers supposedly always say, maybe they do have one, but the ladies and gentlemen who put it together are incompetent.
China of course does have one, and eventually - if not sooner . Russia will also have one. That's why the bells will keep ringing for China, and eventually the Kremlin bosses will look down their noses at morons like Niall Ferguson, who thinks that Turkey and Indonesia are countries of the future, and not Russia and Brazil.
Len Gould 12.30.11
Jerry. The science of global warming is clear and clean (though not yet 100% certain, it is very near). Then the stinking mess of politics gets ladled on top, from radical green crazies who want to use it to revert society to stone ages, to radical right corporatists who want to use some sort of religious belief to overrule the science, like some nutter creationists.
The science is readily available and accessible to anyone who can comprehend highschool physics and maths, though it takes some practice to recognize and weed out the politics.
Len Gould 12.30.11
I've concluded that the solution to the mess is to eliminate politics. See "True Democracy" coming soon.
Malcolm Rawlingson 12.30.11
I think you missed the point Jerry was making Len which is this. If you believe in Global Warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions then the gas to focus on is methane not CO2.There is almost no discussion of methane which is supposed to be ten times more powerful as a global warming agent than CO2. While it is easy to place emphasis on readily identifiable CO2 emitters like coal burning power plants it is less easy to place blame on the billions of small methane emitters called cows. Perhaps you can use your mathematical wizardry to estimate the tonnage of methane emitted rom this source. I believe there was an Australian study done on this which estimated that human and bovine methane gas emissions were a significantly gtreater source of GHG effects than burning coal. Comments?
Malcolm Rawlingson 12.30.11
Sad to say that politics will outlive science Len.
If as you say the science is clean and clear then perhaps you can offer a pluasible explanation as to why the earth was much warmer than it is today with far less CO2 in the atmosphere, That is the bit conveniently left out of the famous hockey stick curve. Or perhaps offer an explanation as to why the largest coal field in the world lies beneath Antarctica which appears to be kinda cold right now and not a place where carbonaceous materials would grow.
Puzzlings facts to those with a questioning attitude.
Malcolm Rawlingson 12.30.11
T o answer Jim's questions raised in his very good article above I would like to offer a good reason why the USA does not want to develop these resources (yet). It is easier to manufacture US dollars and ship them to Saudi Arabia in exchange for boatloads of oil. When the Saudi oil wells run dry that is when these reserves will be developed. That is why the Saudi's are keen to develop their own refineries rather than continuing to ship crude to US refineries. These oil field are not limitless and I suspect are already in decline. Once the wells run dry oil revenue dries up and all the Saudi's have left is sand and US dollars and you can't buy much with either. I suspect also that this is the reason why Obama is loathe to approve the Keystone pipeline which will supply both Canadian and US oil (from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota) directly to the large refineries in Texas as a direct replacement for oil coming in from the Middle East and Venezuela. Why burn your own resources when you can use someone else's?
Len Gould 12.31.11
Malcolm: "why the earth was much warmer than it is today with far less CO2 in the atmosphere," - The only legitimate comparisons to current climate for earth is historic periods when the continents were all arranged similarly, vegetation was comparable, and the sun was operating in a mode comparable to present. If you confirm all that for us, ONLY then can we start discussing atmospheric makeup, but I'm quite sure you'll find that the comparison only holds back about 10^6 yrs, or about when the present ica age cycles began. And in that time frame, I've seen no evidence of a GHG content higher than present.
However, I realize the discussion is pointless, since you're opreating from a religios viewpoint and not a scientific one.
Len Gould 12.31.11
Re. the Keystone and oil sands, even if it is deem ed smarter to burn imported oil as long as possible before switching to local reserves (which is somewhat plausible in pure economic terms), building and keeping operatable the Keystone etc. purely as insurance against price spikes due to foreign uncertainties would be a wise move. But then pure economics doesn't allow for suce advance planning.
Malcolm Rawlingson 1.2.12
Len, We will continue to agree to disagree on this topic, except to say that global warming theories will remain theories since they can never be proven scientifically. It is also a well proven law of mathematics that if a theory is disproven only once then it is no longer universally true. Hence my reference to significant changes to climate that have occurred in the past and were clearly nothing to do with man made carbon dioxide. Human beings were not around and thererefore could not possiblt have cause it. Logic (not religion) therefore dictates that there is either more than one mechanism that causes climate to change or that the current theory is wrong. Much work is going on by NASA scientists and others on the interaction of the earth's atmosphere with the solar wind and it's ssociation with sun spot activity. these theories not only explain the current phenomena but also explain past historical changes in climate. Those who dismiss this work without due consideration are doing their intellect a great injustice.
Happy New Year to you all. Looks like we humns made it through another year relatively unscathed.
Malcolm Rawlingson 1.2.12
Back to the original topic of Jim's paper here, there are significant events taking place around the world in the natural gaas arena that are well worth highlighting as they support
Malcolm Rawlingson 1.2.12
Sorry pressed the return key by mistake.......continuing from the post above. as they support Jim's contention of trillion dollar opportunities for the North America. Firstly there are over 90 LNG terminals being built around the world. That means the gas market is no longer a continental market but a world wide market. Secondly the USA and Canada have major surplusses of gas. Storage is full and the price is now half what it was last year. However to get at the natural gas liquids of the Bakken and Marcellus shales natural gas is the by product. That is why there is so much gas about. Now let's go to Qatar which is the worlds largest natural gas exporter. Most of it goes to Europe and is undercutting Gazprom (the giant Russian utility) causing it to lose billions in revenue. Recently Qatar and Russia have been in negotiations to build a giant LNG facility in Siberia. As part of that deal Russia wants Qatar to limit supplies of LNG to Europe thus forcing up the price. Now let's go back to north America. Most LNG facilities built on this continent were for the IMPORT of LNG to prevent a shortfall in supply that was predicted at that time. As Len eloquently points out that has changed completely. Many of these facilities are now being adapted to EXPORT LNG. Thus the USA and Canada will be exporting natural gas to Europe in direct competition to Gazprom and Qatar. So we have a glut of natural gas in North America that is likely to continue for years to come. One of the means of mopping up that surplus is to export it. Another means of mopping up the supply is to replace coal fired generation with natural gas which is a trend that you willsee occur as the older dirtier plants are retired. It could even replace some nuclear although I have some reservations about that since the volatility of gas prices historically makes the use of these facilities for base load generation unpredicatble. Another means of mopping up the supply is to use it as a transportation fuel to replace gasoline. That is easy to do from an engineering perspective and only requires a simple conversion to existing engines. Of course we have only discussed a few parts of he world here. If LNG becomes a world traded commodity as it has every indication of becoming then any country with gas fields can become part of that world wide trade. Poland for example is sitting above vast shale gas deposits and is hiring US expertise to exploit it. With access to ports and gas pipelines into Europe Poland is likely to become a major gas exporter in the next 10 years. Australia has discovered vast conventional gas fields off the Western Australian coast and plans to anchor the worlds largest floating vessel to liquefy it. transfer it to tankers and export it to Japan and China. So a trillion dollar opportunity for North America - absolutely. Finally I would draw your attention to a congressional report published in March 2011 that details the vast energy resources now available to the USA. I suspect that the USA will use these reserves - especialy oil - when the time is politically right and in the meantime will use oil from elesewhere. The same is not true of the natural gas business...at least I don't think so based on what I can see. Malcolm
Natural Gas will indeed play a very important role in the energy sector during this and subsequent decades. A few more logs on this fire may include: 1) development of the large offshore fields found by Israel; 2) development of the recently announced large fileds offshore of Brazil using floating processing facilities similar to that developed for Australia; 3) commitment by Korea to aggressive development of gas based fuel cells for CHP applications; 4) conversion of certain Middle East electricty generation from oil to natural gas; 5) active efforts to capture more of the substantial amounts of gas still being flared; etc.
Also of interest are the Black & Veatch forecasts indicating that coal use for generation in the USA may drop upto 16% by 2020 and may only cature 16% market share by 2036 (down from a peak of about 57% just a few years ago)with natural gas holding 44% and non-hydro renewables hitting 13%.
Malcom, I'm fairly familiar with the NASA work related to solar irradiance and magnetic (and galactic cosmic ray) influence on climate. While these can play a role, I'm not aware of work indicating these are key drivers of present climate change. For example, solar activity has been implicated as contributing to the little ice age and cosmic rays appear to have a role in cloud formation. However, neither of these effects appear to provide an adequate explanation of present day warming. I'd appreciate links if you have them. Everything I have seen indicates that: 1) warming is certain; 2) the primary forcing agent is GHG.
Murray Duffin 1.3.12
Y'all really need to quantify things, especially production rates for new wells and decline rates for old fields. If oil shales can offset declines between now and 2020 we will do well. If the old free flowing conventional gas wells go into decline in paRALLEL WITH THE PAST DECLINE IN DISCOVERY, THERE IS NO WAY THAT SHALE GAS CAN OFFSET THE DECLINE (excuse caps lock). Individual wells decline so rapidly that new wells can't be drilled fast enough once we have a few years in production. See www.foslnrg.blogspot.com . Len I can send you 31 pages of urls demonstrating that the science of AGW is far from settled, and indeed probably isn't even science, but that's a side issue. Jim, I think that if you do your own research you will find that EIA estimates of produceable reserve are greatly exaggerated.
Matt G 1.3.12
"Energy Policy" is just double speak for "Energy Subsidies." True free-marketers would let the market determine the "energy policy"
Malcolm Rawlingson 1.3.12
Thanks Mike, I agree with you that there are many other developments that support Jim's paper above regarding trillion dollar opportunities. It is estimated that the Candadian oil sands alone are worth 17 trillion at todays prices. The examples I gave are only some of the more notable examples and there are many others as you rightly point out.
Thanks for your interest in the topic of atmospheric interaction with solar radiation. I read several papers on this a couple of years ago and will post the references to them once I have located them. The key to me was that this work explained all historical changes in the worlds climate very accurately. Len has noted some catastrophic events which indeed have affected climate but only for short periods in geologic time. Enough to wipe out certain life forms but not enough to affect long term changes in climate. It is these events that are not explained by carbon dioxide concentrations and are the very ones that were left out of the now discredited hockey stick graph. As I said earlier the lack of a coherent theory that explains all changes in climate logically means that carbon dioxide is not and cannot be the only mechanism at work. What I do find annoying is the lack of willingness to consider other options. Scientists should continually question their theories and I am not convinced that this is the case. Anyone questioning global warming these days is now considered a heretic. I hear repeatedly on the news that almost any severe weather is now attributable to global warming when study after study after study shows the weather to be no more severe now than it has been in the past. Hurricanes are a case in point. Neither the frequency nor the severity (wind speed) has changed significantly in the last 50 years. The damage caused has changed but that is due to the fact that there is more human stuff to be damaged not that the weather event was more severe. I am sorry if my questioning of these theories makes me some kind or religious heretic but it would put me in the company of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein so I don't mind. Going back to natural gas you mentioned the gas fuel cells as a key development. I agree 100% that this technology could result in major changes to the electricity business. I have been looking into these devices and if prices come down to around $5,000 it would be an economic proposition for any household since only one utility (gas) would be required. They are essentially mini CHP plants and are silent. Widespread adoption would require extension of the gas distribution network but it has the distinct advantage that it could conceivably do away with the requirement for overhead power lines. That is a technology to watch for. Thanks for your comments. Malcolm
Jerry Watson 1.3.12
I do like your economic justification; I have been amazed since my first Intro to Economics class back in 1979 of how the US could continue to get away with trading its paper as if it is backed some commodity like wheat, oil or gold. For a long time I believed some event would set off a flood of the US currency coming home and fuel inflation, like post WW1 Germany, measured in daily whole numbers rather than percent.
However, so many nations have so much US currency now, I have come to believe US currency has passed critical mass and the stability US currency is economically more important to the nations holding it than to the US itself. I do not believe countries holding our currency can easily or quickly escape from the current situation. I would argue the currency they are holding is already worth less than the paper it is printed own but as long as no one flinches it does not really matter. The emperor can stroll naked as long as he wants because no one can afford not to brag about the beauty of his robe. Unlike the fable if someone tries point he is naked a thousand voices will proclaim the beauty of the robe until the detractors are silenced.
To me it appears that the US remains in the cat bird seat. Inflation that would crush the Social Security fund would be offset in the real value of the US debt. The big US losers would be those with wealth in dollars liking the aging avoiding risk of the stock market; however, nationwide if wages keep up even their losses would likely be made up by real the reduction in the debt of the younger generations.
Anyway got off on a tangent, just my thoughts on it, Professor Bank can point out the flaws in my simplistic reasoning.
bill payne 1.3.12
'Natural Gas will indeed play a very important role in the energy sector during this and subsequent decades. '
McDONALD, Ohio (AP) — Officials said Saturday they believe the latest earthquake activity in northeast Ohio is related to the injection of wastewater into the ground near a fault line, creating enough pressure to cause seismic activity.
The brine wastewater comes from drilling operations that use the so-called fracking process to extract gas from underground shale. But Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director Jim Zehringer said during a news teleconference that fracking is not causing the quakes.
A boom in gas production using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has led to a patchwork of local drilling standards. Now, several states are revising or formulating rules, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is studying the effects of fracking on drinking water and weighing nationwide regulations.
One reason we do this that we were invited to participate in the 2011 natural gas irp.
Altenergy ... and possible fraud .. facinates us.
New Mexico wind generation of electricity field trip.
The current Iran situation we have been involved in for 20 years.
Malcolm: "are the very ones that were left out of the now discredited hockey stick graph." -- That statement simply parrots coal industry PR. The "hockey stick" has not been discredited, only VERY slightly modified, which modifications in NO way altered the logical conclusions to take from it. As I stated in another discusson forum "the graph may have changed slightly, but remains looking decidedly like a certain implement used to manipulate a puck about an ice field". If you can come up credible data to refute this, please post.
bill payne 1.3.12
Asian and European energy producers are spending billions of dollars to amass stakes in oil and natural-gas discoveries from Ohio to British Columbia even as earthquakes and tainted water threaten to stall the biggest drilling boom (BAKEHORZ) in at least two decades.
"The science of global warming is clear and clean (though not yet 100% certain, it is very near)." What complete nonsense. The problem is so complex that we can not even attach statistical estimates to the future global temperature forecasts and that is a mathematical fact. We simply have insufficient knowledge to make any mathematical meaningful predictions.
Further, even if by some miracle one could establish the level of future global warming associated with increased CO2, there is virtually no way to ascertain whether good outweighs the bad. Example: consider the last ice age. The planet is now warmer, and we are better off because it is warmer.
High-priced "carbon free" renewable energy, as promulgated by global warming hysteria, does nothing to actually reduce CO2 and only serves to needlessly drain our wallets. Worse yet, the real threat to our livelihoods is completely ignored.
Mankind needs reasonably priced energy to thrive. The opportunities mentioned in the article directly address this critical need. An element of these opportunities (e.g. producing and using energy more efficiently) is vastly more effective at reducing CO2 emissions than the current "politically correct" array of renewable energy technologies.
Michael Keller 1.3.12
For those interested in a reasoned overview discussion of some of the problems with climate change: http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/03the-real-holes-in-climate-science
Micheal: "We simply have insufficient knowledge to make any mathematical meaningful predictions." -- 1) It takes very little knowledge of physics to catch on to the fact that thermal infrared radiation, esp. at certain wavelengths, travels more slowly through a column of oxygen + nitrogen + trace CO2, than through a similar length column of oxygen + nitrogenwith no CO2. 2) It is obvious to even a half blind person that the levels of atmospheric CO2 + methane were very tightly co-ordinated with air temperatures throughout the past 400,000 years of which we have records from Vostock ice cores. 3) The "preponderance of published climate science" as reviewed and understood by the expert reviewers on the IPCC panel representing the opinions of about 95% of scientists qualified to publish on the subject solidly disagree with you.
Murray Duffin 1.4.12
Len, there are 2 major problems with your position: first the whole AGW alarm id based on models and not on science, and the models have been very wrong for the last decade+. Second the models don't deal with atmospheric convection, which transports about 10 times as much heat to the top of theb atmosphere as radiation.
For a handful of recent posts on the internet see the following. I have about 200 more posted mover the last 3 years.
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/a-climate-of-belief/ The best paper I have seen on GCMs and the SRES. Excerpt But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.”
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/ the climategate e=mails analyzed – in detail
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/ Excellent analysis demonstrating no CO2 induced warming.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pacific_decadal.pdf and http://hidethedecline.eu/media/BLANDET/What%20Surface%20Temperature%20V2_R%20Clark_9%2020%2010.pd fMore evidence of natural causes of warming and inadequacies of climate models.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/ Another reformed believer
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/on-the-ipccs-undue-confidence-in-coupled-ocean-atmosphere-climate-models-a-summary-of-recent-posts/#more-53769 IPCC models thoroughly debunked, with references that letv warmers repeat the work for themselves.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/a-look-at-treemometers-and-tree-ring-growth/ so much for dendrochronology. And then see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/03/paging-mike-mann-your-dendrochronologist-will-see-you-now/#more-54107 in the Climategate papers, release 2.
Murray Duffin 1.4.12
Jerry, look at MMT - google "Modern Money Theory" The economics you were taught in 1979 was probably almost as wrong as what I was taught in the mid 60s. My first reaction to MMT was to scoff, but then I put in about 150 hours of study and am convinced it is right. I have seen no refutation by any "neo-classical" economist. Note that we do not borrow from China(or anywhere else) to run our deficits. They buy Treasuries to get at least some interest on their acount rather then just having the asset sit idle.
Michael Keller 1.4.12
It takes little knowledge of science to draw completely unsupported conclusions. Science is easily corrupted by the pursuit of money, which pretty much characterizes much of the "green-energy" crowd (and most politicians for that matter).
Len Gould 1.4.12
Murray. Sorry, the first link of yours I went to was some blob of argument by a chemist named Patrick Frank is a Ph.D. chemist named Patric Frank. At the level of (go/no go) decision making on the issue of climate, I expect the chemist, IF he is correct, to convince the climatologists, THEN I'll consider him.
If any of your links to scepticism are by legitimate climatologists in peer reviewed publications, please point that out.
Don Hirschberg 1.4.12
We were told that we were doomed if CO2 emissions went over those of 1990. (So told by “all the best scientists.”) We are now at something like 200% of 1990 emissions. Yet new coal mines are being opened and coal hauling capacities increased and new coal burners going on line for their projected 40(?) year runs every few days just in India and China. Electrification in 50 sub-Saharan countries has hardly begun but whose populations have already outgrown food supply and there is some actual starvation. There are 300 million people in India with no service whatsoever and many more with little service. The figure 300 million is significant as that was the highest WORLD population ever up until about 1000 years ago.
Despite failing to provide ourselves electric service worldwide we have not succeeded in reducing CO2 emissions. We have not succeeded in keeping them from increasing. We have not even succeeded at bending the growth curve. And nobody seems to face the fact that burning more natural gas makes it worse.
Sustainability is still being talked about as a goal. We had sustainability. It was the norm (except for the last 1000 years) but never were more than 300 million people sustained.
We have too many people. We did it to ourselves, and I think we would do it all over again even knowing what is known today. Some of us knew it 50 years ago and were considered nuts then and reprehensible now for not having done anything about it.
We are all immersed in and peeing in the same pool. Reduction of C02 emissions for altruistic reasons by a country does economic damage to that country and makes that country by some measure less competitive. Its citizens make the sacrifice. Good deeds must be punished
Don Hirschberg 1.4.12
Apropos to my post above: I just saw this on the news: "The United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and members of the European Union have all revealed that there will be no treaty signed at the international climate change talks coming up in Durban, South Africa. The most developed nations of the world say they cannot even guarantee an agreement over how to combat climate change by 2016. Furthermore, if any new legally binding agreement over reducing emissions is agreed upon, the earliest date it will come into effect will be sometime in 2020." In 2020 !!
Don Hirschberg 1.5.12
2020. By then we will have almost a billion more people. Few of them come with any generating capacity and more than likely none come with zero emissions.
Len Gould 1.5.12
Micheal: It amuses me to see that you think grants to climate scientists and renewables installers is the main money issue involved with the climate change debate. Considering the coal industry stakes, and Exxon's record (recently made public) of trying to influence the discussion in every way their finances would enable, that's so naive its almost sweet.
Murray Duffin 1.7.12
Len, your response is typical of "warmers" whose minds are closed. Evidently you didn't read ther paper, or check any of its references. Based on the papers I have read over the last 17 years (about 450 peer reviewed), I would judge that on average published Climatologists are not at all as bright as Physicists and probably not as Chemists. For sure the study of Climatology per se does not provide real expertise in statistics, modelling, gas physics, atmospheric chemistry etc. When experts in these fields critique their own disciplines, as utilized in papers on climatology, it is likely that their critique is more valid than the Climatologist's and therefore should not be ignored. When such critique is applied the work of the Climatologists is frequently found to be in error. If you reject such work a priori you are choosing to believe error, even if unknowingly. "there are none so ignorant as those who will not learn". Read the paper. It invalidates the output of climate models as presented by the IPCC, and is readily understandable by a layman. The points made have nothing to do with Climatology, and require no knowledge of climatology. Also read the acknowledgments at the end. The paper was reviewed by a panel of very well qualified people in several appropriate disciplines including climatology.
"The author thanks Prof. Carl Wunsch, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Prof. Paul Switzer, Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Prof. Ross McKitrick, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Prof. Christopher Essex, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Prof. Sebastian Doniach, Departments of Physics and Applied Physics, Stanford University, Dr. Gerald L. Browning, Research Scientist (Emeritus), Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA), Colorado State University, and Ms. Christine Adams, Redwood City, CA, for reviewing a prior version of this manuscript. The patience and consideration of Prof. McKitrick in performing all the Phillips-Perron tests in SI Section 4 is also very gratefully acknowledged. Any errors and all conclusions herein remain the sole responsibility of the author."
Now let me provide some references to critiques of the physics of climatology, done by qualified physicists, some with specific expertise in gas/climate physics, and peer reviewed. You won't want to read them either, for fear that they will challenge your cherished belief.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/hans-jelbring-the-greenhouse-effect-as-a-function-of-atmospheric-mass/ Another argument (peer review published in 2003) for the irrelevance of CO2, supported by this argument from a century earlier and never refuted http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-loschmidt-gravito-thermal-effect-old-controversy-new-relevance/ and apparently independently developed in this conference poster http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/unified-theory-of-climate-nikolov-and-zeller/ . This argument is stirring a lot of controversy with exchanges from both sides about erroneous physics. Further support appears here http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.1508v2.pdf . Another paper here http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=9233 (see link to the whole paper) supports the above arguments and puts paid to both the “physics” and consensus arguments for AGW.
Murray Duffin 1.7.12
Len, here is an excerpt from a paper on the influence of contributors to pro and con AGW work
The Movement Runs Out of Gas Americans’ interest in taking action against global warming is waning, but environmental groups insist that public opinion plays no role in explaining Congress’s failure to enact comprehensive climate change legislation. Instead, green groups attribute the failure to achieve their goals to the money and power of their opponents. According to their reckoning, environmental groups are stymied by what amounts to a conspiracy of the oil industry, global warming deniers, and the Koch brothers’ vast right-wing network. In the summer of 2011, Dr. Matthew Nisbet of American University released a pioneering 80-page report, which undermines this argument. Nisbet’s report, “Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate,” rejects the argument that the environmental movement has been outspent by right-wing donors like the Koch brothers. It says the data is inconclusive on how much supporters and opponents of a cap-and-trade bill are spending to affect the outcome. For instance, Nisbet compared the budgets of the conservative movement (think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations) to national environmental organizations. He found that in 2009, major conservative outlets took in a total of $907 million in revenue, and spent $787 million. By comparison, green groups took in $1.7 billion that year and spent $1.4 billion. Another $394 million went specifically to climate-change related programs. Nisbet also looked at lobbying. In the aggregate, conservatives spent a bit more: $272 million vs. $229 million. But in election spending, they far outspent environmentalists in 2010. For instance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $33 million, the Karl Rove-advised American Crossroads spent $22 million and its affiliated Crossroads GPS spent $17 million in political contributions. By contrast, the League of Conservation Voters spent $5.5 million, Defenders of Wildlife spent $1 million and the Sierra Club only $700,000. However, state ballot initiatives tell a different story. California’s Proposition 23 is a case in point. The 2010 initiative, heavily funded by Texas-based oil companies, would have halted California regulations on greenhouse gas emissions until there was a decline in the state’s rate of unemployment. Supporters of the measure raised about $10.6 million. But opponents raised $25 million, with significiant sums from environmental groups. The National Wildlife Foundation reported spending $3 million, the National Resources Defense Council $1.67 million, and the League of Conservation Voters $1.1 million. Nisbet also looked at foundation funding for climate change projects. What he found confirmed a 2007 study, “Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming,” which noted that philanthropists are strategic funders of environmental causes and seek to achieve specific policy goals. It’s clear that overall, the environmental movement does not have a money problem.
Note the conclusion. Then you might check the IPCC budget and grants. Their resources dwarf the anti-AGW crowd. I'll bet you don't check, because you don't want to know. Another chericshed belief would be in jeopardy.
Len Gould 1.7.12
Murray: a) I definitely recognize the discredited name "Ross McKitrick" among those references. b) What the US congress does (or why) is entirely beyond logical analysis and has no space in a technical discussion. c) That philanthropists primarily fund most solid research into climate change is an argument against your point, and should have coprorations and governments embarassed. Thankfully we do have the UN, which has so far proven to be at least partly un-buyable though its summary conclusion papers are still heavily edited by US politicians, meaning they most likely understate the problems.
Look Murray, I used to go along with the tactic of flooding a discussion with endless references to quasi-scientific papers published mostly in questionabe journals, but I've grown weary of the chase for verifiable facts. Let your "expert non-climatologists" convince the IPCC, then we can talk.
Don Hirschberg 1.7.12
What is the bone of contention here?
Roger Arnold 1.7.12
Murray, I haven't been spending much time at EnergyPulse for the last few years, but I do check in periodically. When I scanned the comments for this article, I was delighted to see your comments.
We've crossed swords in years past on the subject of AGW. I see you haven't changed your positions. You'll be unsurprised to hear that neither have I. But even though we disagree, I've never doubted your sincerity. So once again, for auld lang syne, "have at you, sir".
You say "the models don't deal with atmospheric convection, which transports about 10 times as much heat to the top of the atmosphere as radiation." The fact that you make that statement indicates, ipso facto, that you have been taken in by well-crafted junk.
It's absolutely correct that convection transports about 10 times as much heat to the "top of the atmosphere" (you meant top of the troposphere) as thermal radiation. It's absolutely wrong that the general circulation models (GCMs) used by CC researchers don't account for that. The researchers would be idiots to build their GCMs without taking account of atmospheric convection.
When one encounters a thesis that requires one to believe that an entire class of researchers are complete idiots about their area of expertise, it's a pretty good bet that it's the thesis that is a crock. Just a rule of thumb, but one I've found to be pretty reliable.
What your skeptic sources are likely challenging is the way that the GCMs account for convection. It's statistical, in the same way that modeling of turbulent flows is always, and by necessity, statistical. The models don't attempt to model the behavior of individual convection cells, but you can be sure that they include well-validated models for the effects of those cells.
Your sources can accurately say that the GCMs don't operate at the level of granularity that would be needed to simulate the formation and evolution of individual convection cells. It isn't computationally feasible to do that, even with today's supercomputers. Also not necessary, since the statistical treatment of convective transport work quite well for what the GCMs are modeling. However, your propagandists don't mention that. They just note that GCMs don't model individual convection cells, and allow the naive reader to conclude "they don't account for convection".
Murray Duffin 1.12.12
Hi Roger, nice to "hear" from you. Haven't been here much lately either, but I do like crossing swords on AGW occasionally. You may be right about some inclusion of convection, but when I see descriptions and comments about the incomin g solar radiation being balanced by outgoing radiant energy, and they don't display radiation as being from the top of the troposphere ( I would include a diagram from one fairly recent paper if I knew how to), then I am pretty confident that convection is either being excluded or seriously underestimated. Anyway that still leaves us with the primary issue that there is little to no valid and testable AGW science outside of model simulations and that results from different models cover a widespread of future warming (wider than total warming in the past century), and that models have failed to predict the non warming trend we have experienced for the last 14 years, while CO2 concentration continues its rise. The IPCC SRES projections don't take into account limitations in fossil fuel CO2 sources, and don't include error bands, so their catastrophic projections become meaningless. One could go on and on. All best wishes. Murray
Larry Page 5.29.12
There are many opportunities popping up in every corner of the world. One is the Light Vehicle Efficiency. Because we are depending so much in oil there are many companies that are focusing on manufacturing vehicles that do not use oil. These are the electric vehicles. These vehicles are using auto parts that are not dependent on oil which make them efficient. These industry is booming right now. And I can see a really big market out of these.