Syndicate
RSS/XML

Main

Articles

General

The Forum > Article Comments > Global warming - myth, threat or opportunity > Comments

Global warming - myth, threat or opportunity : Comments

By Walter Starck, published 14/7/2008

The most critical problem we now confront is how to provide enough affordable fuel to avoid severe recession before alternative energy can become reality.

Pages:
‹
1
2
3
4
5
›
All

If the author ever gets cancer he should take up smoking to calm his nerves. What helps short term may make the long run worse. That's a new claim that Australia's ocean surrounds absorb all our emissions; perhaps our seas need to absorb some from other countries as well. Coal-to-liquids has at least 80% more emissions than petroleum based fuel and in any case would take decades to develop. The emissions trading scheme if it ever happens would kill it. Gas is a lot better, either compressed or converted to petrol and diesel, and that's probably where Australia should go next. Then there's increased public transport, rail and electric vehicles. Again it probably can't be built in time to avoid an economic slowdown but all fossil fuels including coal will eventually run out as shown by recent price increases. Therefore we have to decarbonise sooner or later so let's make it sooner when the economy has some spare capacity.

Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 14 July 2008 9:46:49 AM

Thanks for that Walter, a voice of reason from someone who has read the new reasearch, rather than listened to the rubbish comming out of our ABC.

Obviously Taswegian pays too much attention to our, not too trust worthy, green mouthpiece.

WE get the public transport myth trotted out yet again, despite the recent studies showing public transport produces more CO2 per passenger mile than private cars. Of course, such information doesn't make it on to ABC news.

Still, go for it mate, with the lack of sun spots, we had better hope that the extra CO2, from all those stinking busses, will help keep us warm, as it looks like the sun will be a bit weak for a while.

Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 14 July 2008 10:26:42 AM

Is is possible that active intervention prevented possible adverse "Y2K millenium bug" outcomes? Is it also possible that concerted, intelligent intervention will help ameliorate damage from threats posed by excessive carbon dioxide?

Posted by LRAM, Monday, 14 July 2008 10:26:50 AM

I agree - it's a great opportunity.

I believe we must make the major decision to go electric.

1. Electricity is clean at it's point of use and it's pollution can be controlled at it's generation source.
2. It can be transmitted with minimum loss nationwide as we already have the national grid in place.
3. It can be produced by various techniques, geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, hydro, gas, coal and we have all of them in abundance.

Electric cars, public transport, railways, lawnmowers etc are all viable and The Tesla Motor Company has shown the way in the development of light, recyclable high storage non lead acid batteries. Further research by our scientists can only improve on them.

If we finally accept that there is no relation between CO2 and global temps we can immediately start building new power stations using coal and gas as we develop and bring the alternatives online leading to the eventual closure of all coal and gas systems.

A nationwide campaign could have us all electric within 20 years and the whiners about motorways and city pollution can put their complaints to rest as all transport would eventually become clean and green leaving our precious coal hydrocarbons for further development such as plastics and medical products and our remaining oil kept as a mainstay for our air transport.

Posted by Janama, Monday, 14 July 2008 10:42:30 AM

Hasbeen,

You claim:

"WE get the public transport myth trotted out yet again, despite the recent studies showing public transport produces more CO2 per passenger mile than private cars."

Could you be provide links to these recent studies?

The material I have seen, which is by no means complete, suggests otherwise. e.g.,

"We have calculated that moving a person over a given distance by public transportation consumes, on average, half the energy of moving a person the same distance by private automobile, SUV, or light truck."
http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2004/Clean%20Bus/1.15.04%20Public%20Transit/shapiro%20remarks.PDF

"Compared to bus travel, travel by car produces 3x more global warming gases; 1.6x more common air pollution; 4.2x more toxic air pollution; 1.2x more water habitat alteration; 4.4x more land habitat alteration; 1.8x more common water pollution; 2.7x more toxic water pollution"
http://www.newcommunityproject.org/transportation.shtml

"A car occupied by one person produces on average 2.06 grams/passenger-mile (g/pm) of nitrogen oxides for work trips. A fully occupied transit bus, on the other hand, would produce 1.54 g/pm, while a fully occupied rail transit system would produce only .47 g/pm for the same distance. Similarly, the car occupied by one person would produce 15.06 g/pm of carbon monoxide and 2.09 g/pm of hydrocarbons. The bus would produce 3.05 g/pm and .2 g/pm of the same pollutants, respectively. From an environmental point of view, trains are the best form of transportation: a full passenger train produces only .02 g/pm pf carbon monoxide and .01 g/pm of hydrocarbons.

A bus with as few as seven passengers is more fuel efficient than the average automobile used for commuting. The fuel efficiency of a fully-occupied bus is six times greater than that of the average commuter's automobile, while the fuel efficiency of a fully-occupied rail car is fifteen times greater than that of the average commuter's automobile. A single person who commutes via a transit system instead of driving alone will save 200 gallons of gasoline per year. A 10% nationwide increase in transit ridership would save 135 million gallons of gasoline per year. This fuel efficiency results in personal savings and in a cleaner environment for all."
http://www.cas.usf.edu/philosophy/mass/Stephanie.html

Posted by Lev, Monday, 14 July 2008 10:52:04 AM

Hasbeen

"...recent studies showing public transport produces more CO2 per passenger mile than private cars. Of course, such information doesn't make it on to ABC news."

Because the only news organ in Australia without a commercial vested interest is the ABC, that's what I listen to and watch. I certainly haven't heard about recent studies showing public transport produces more CO2 per passenger mile than private cars.

Now you have me worried because we sold our second car and having resolved to use only public transport unless absolutely necessary, clocked up only 3500 kms in our remaining car last year.

Can you please tell us all which studies you are referring to? Where can I read these studies? The Oil Industry Gazette? The Auto Manufacturers Bulletin? The United Used Car Dealers Monthly?

Posted by Spikey, Monday, 14 July 2008 10:55:46 AM

What oil shortage?

There is plenty of oil available
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/020980.php

You just need to global warming delusionists to stop trying to destroy the economy by stopping the accessing of these massive reserves.

Posted by Grey, Monday, 14 July 2008 11:33:27 AM

Taswegian, your claim that coal to liquids being years away is as ridiculous as the scaremongering about CO2 sequestration being non viable.

Coal to liquids has been around since the second World War, and has been used in South Africa for decades. Google earth Secunda, South Africa to see the "laboratory" experiment!!

Using the put down, sorry arguement, that "because technology has not yet been developed we should rule it out as a solution" would discard the current battery, mass scale private electric cars, and efficient power station development which offer our best hope of taking out insurance for global warming without either large reductions in living standards or world populations.

Posted by miner, Monday, 14 July 2008 11:58:39 AM

Queensland has it all! There is an area of southern Queensland between Dalby and Roma, centred on the town of Chinchilla which is about to become the energy capital of Australia. It has 'clean'coal, gas and underground water. Electric power stations are being built. The people who live there are proud of the contribution their region will make to the ability of Australians to survive the hard times ahead.

Posted by Country girl, Monday, 14 July 2008 1:14:26 PM

Miner what I meant was it would take years to construct a large CTL plant in Australia, not that the technology was unproven. As far as I know there is no large CTL plant with geosequestration that buries the 80% process emissions; that North Dakota plant is tiny compared to South Africa. Then there's still the emissions from tailpipes when the fuel is used in vehicles.

However I quite agree with your remark about unproven technology. We can only bank on what works now. Other technology such as wavepower may be possible but there may never be enough capital to finance it, with or without carbon trading.

Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 14 July 2008 1:24:05 PM

Grey: "You just need to global warming delusionists to stop trying to destroy the economy."

That echos the sentiment expressed in the article I guess. For what its worth, the projected costs of oil from shale is about the same as GTL, but CTL/GTL has decades of commercial successes behind it whereas oil from shale is very new.

However, its the sentiment I wanted to address here. After 5-10 years of bedding in, these processes do indeed yield hydrocarbons at around the $50/barrel mark, often less. But at startup the costs are much higher - around the $80/barrel mark [1]. The investment required for CTL is around the $50,000 per barrel per day mark [2]. In round figures Australia consumes 1 million barrels per day, so it would cost Australian around 50 billion dollars to build the infrastructure to produce its current oil needs.

Combine those two figures - $80/barrel and $50 billion, and you see the real reason it hasn't been done on a big scale yet. No one is going to put up any portion of that $50 billion without a guaranteed return. Right now it looks like a pretty good bet that oil prices won't return to the $80/barrel mark, but when you are asking for billions "pretty good" isn't good enough.

When that investment risk hurdle falls money will pour in into these plants quickly given the current returns. AGW has nothing to do with it. The only real threat AGW poses is a carbon tax. The $40/tonne carbon level often bandied around it adds an additional $23 to the cost of each barrel. At oil's current $150 per barrel price its not much of a hurdle.

I imagine the change over will start soon. As CO2 emissions will double when we use CTL oil, we will get to see whether those AGW delusionists are right. Looking forward to it?

miner, CO2 sequestration isn't viable right now, and may never be. This is ridiculously easy to verify with google.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics
[2] http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/report/report.pdf

Posted by rstuart, Monday, 14 July 2008 2:31:52 PM

Now in the interest of balance,Graham will have to find a AGW zealot to put their case.I looking for a zealot that can explain why the planet has cooled at a time when CO2 levels have accelerated.

So far neither NASA,Ross Garnaut,the Pope,God,or George Pell can explain it.[Placed in asending order of importance]

Has AGW taken a holiday or has Ocean acidification now replaced it?Could it have been cancelled due to World Youth week or has god changed the laws of chemistry and physics?

Now it seems all the cows on the planet have to monitored for flatulance since they put out 25% of GW gases .Now I'm confused.Is yourthane,mythane,or methane that is the problem?Perhaps it not a problem of innuendo,but outuendo!There seems to be a proliferation of the latter coming out of both Canberra and the CSIRO.

Posted by Arjay, Monday, 14 July 2008 7:02:35 PM

This whole global warming business, together with the problem of peak oil, could be solved if the federal government installed a machine in parliament house to recycle hot air into crude oil.

Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 14 July 2008 7:31:43 PM

"Over the past two years climate all over the world has inexplicably begun a pronounced cooling."

I struggled with motivation to read the rest of the article after this line. What's wrong with learning a bit of statistics, and understanding what a five year average is?!

"Global warming is a distant and uncertain possibility of a problem that most likely does not even exist, at least in the catastrophic form being predicted."
Most likely? Er, I understand what the author's trying to say, but that's an extremely bad choice of words. The IPCC reports all talk about percentage possibilities of catastrophic or otherwise happening, and that's over the 50% mark. Hence, it is *not* "mosy likely".

Arjay, why would Ross Garnaut be able to explain it. He's not a scientist, and not able to understand the science fully. He's even said that. So, GG.

Posted by Chade, Monday, 14 July 2008 8:03:09 PM

Chade,NASA has found that the oceans have been cooling for the last 5yrs.So from next yr they should be cooling?The Oceans absorb 80-90% of the sun's energy and are the prime driver of climate.

If you look at the long history of climate,CO2 has never led temp change.CO2 always follows by some 800 yrs.The temps variations we are experiencing now,all fall within the parameters of normal variations covering the last two thousand yrs.

My mind is open to the influences of CO2,the AGW zealots have no doubts at all.This is not a healthy sign of either good science or good judgement.

Ross Garnaut has set himself up as some sort of authority and thus like god,needs to be made accountable.

Posted by Arjay, Monday, 14 July 2008 8:27:57 PM

I know someone who bought shares in the Chinchilla coal-to-liquids operation a few years ago for about 18 cents each. They were not far off $4 the other week.

However, as far as providing all our petroleum needs, I think the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is rather low. I will just pull these figures out of my head becuase I can't quite remember (will check up later) but if memory serves, there is nothing like light, sweet crude which returns about 100 barrels for every 1 barrel used in the extraction process. As long as it is an easy to extract spot and not extremely deep/in very deep water/ in savage tundra conditions etc. Compare this with shale oil which the best technology has managed to push to about 4 barrels for every 1 used. Unlike light crude which we simply drill down to and up it comes (initially) under it's own pressure, we have to expend petroleum mining and processing shale oil before we even get something like crude oil to crack.

So with coal being so superabundant, if it were as viable as pumping up crude, we would have developed a huge global industry by now.

I think we are probably reaching the end of the easy, cheap oil and will have to make do with less. Which will likely be very painfull and force a great deal of change.

Posted by Fozz, Monday, 14 July 2008 8:46:49 PM

Arjay

If the ocean is cooling, then why are sea levels rising? A research team has found that ocean warming has been underestimated, explaining the apparent contradiction.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/06/18/scisea118.xml

Posted by Fester, Monday, 14 July 2008 9:31:20 PM

Arjay, I see you've got a lot of sources there backing up your claims. And by a lot I mean none.

"Ross Garnaut has set himself up as some sort of authority and thus like god,needs to be made accountable."
No, you asked for Garnaut to explain your claim that the "planet" has cooled (but now you say only the oceans have cooled). He's not able to explain either for or against. He's also not accountable for the science. So, again, GG.
He also did not "set himself up", and that's a silly statement. The Government appointed him to do a job, and he's doing it - and you're here raging against him for it.

Posted by Chade, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:03:20 AM

Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 9:39:30 AM

Strewth! Years ago I taught this myopic style of reasoning to sell products only then we called the “Reduction to the ridiculous technique” (Answer each point in isolation, ignore the ‘Big Picture”) followed by “YOU might miss out threat technique” (if it’s wrong YOU’ll miss out on something).

Fundamentalist “intelligent design” (sic) theorist use this same methods of pedantic fact by fact arguing while ignoring the linkages between disparate facts.

The problem isn’t ‘global warming’ as understood by the public aided and abetted by self interested or opportunistic “nay sayers”. Warming, cooling who cares what is important that the environment that supports us is being polluted to the point of being no longer able to recover. Evidence is both apparent and from multi- disciplined Science (Agriculture to Zoology). It therefore stands to reason that any solution should be also multi-focused THERE IS NO magic Bullet.

Comparisons with Y2K are spurious as it was a single discipline issue failure.

The much overlooked issue is that our civilization is based on petrochemicals products and by-products. Petrochemicals (oil) supplies us with plastics, fabrics, tyres, flavourings, dyes, pharmaceuticals in fact almost every thing we associate with modern living. Common sense there dictates we seek other forms of fuel and cut emissions but the others?

The author’s “…drastic cuts in carbon emissions to prevent global-warming is to climate what anorexia is to obesity” is colourful but hardly accurate. His assumptions are predicated on the belief that current ways are the only ways. This issue proves that our current ways (version of Capitalism?) are dysfunctional.

To even consider profit and galloping intellectual inertia as more acceptable than potentially human survival is bizarre at best. It reminds me of the man who fell from the Empire State building. He was heard saying as passed each floor “So far so good. Where’s the problem?”

To me it comes down to really want to be the most spectacular among the other fossil record? Like the Indian Chief said in essence “When all the food is gone try eating your money”

Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 12:25:46 PM

The authors updated their earlier work to show that the oceans were not in fact cooling - this was a spurious result caused by two uncontrolled biases in the Argo instruments. To cite:

Correction to “Recent Cooling 1 of the Upper Ocean”

Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman,3, Gregory C. Johnson and John Gilson

Two systematic biases have been discovered 9 in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work.

Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0–750 m) ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006] appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles. This error will ultimately be corrected. However, until corrections have been made these data can be easily excluded from OHCA estimates (see http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ for more details). Another bias was caused by eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data that are systematically warm compared to other instruments [Gouretski and Koltermann, 2007]. Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling.

Or in more layman's terms:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/ocean-cooling-and-global-warming/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/

Posted by Barry Brook, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 2:12:30 PM

Barry,

Maybe Don Aitken should be made aware of this as he mentions the Argo research in his article

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7639&page=0

I don't like people of his stature misrepresenting the science.

Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 2:49:30 PM

So it's all just a big conspiratorial scam to raise more taxes?

Considering that it's the politicians who actually implement these measures that are going to take any hit at the ballot box and mainly future ones - years from now - who will reap any huge taxation benefits, I don't think that argument makes much sense, especially when entire governments could change in that period.

What politicians tend to do is to create some sort of menace, amplify and distort it and then bravely step in to save us all in the hope of winning more votes at the next election.

The can't do that here because any perceived benefits would take years to become known.

Maybe - just maybe - the scientists are telling the truth.

Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 3:47:47 PM

"Being energy independent would be a huge competitive advantage in a time of high energy costs and shortages everywhere else." Not at all - the competitive price for the fuel would be what it gets on the world market. Competitive advantage derives from being able to offer the buyer a more attractive deal than your competitors while getting at least as high a return on your investment and inputs as you could in their best alternative use, it's not affected by being "energy independent."

Posted by Faustino, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 5:52:33 PM

Maybe - just maybe - the scientists are telling the truth.

which scientists is the question wobbles.

Posted by Janama, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 12:31:23 PM

Janama: "which scientists is the question wobbles."

Yes, I agree Janama. The climate scientists, ie those that have spent their lifetimes studying climate, are as far as I can tell unanimous in their decision - AGW is real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Oreskes.2C_2004

The dissenters come from political scientists (like Don Aitkin), anthropologists, people who study flowers and all sorts of fields unrelated to climate science.

As you say, it really does come down to which group you are going to believe.

Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 1:23:32 PM

Pages:
‹
1
2
3
4
5
›
All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy