BBC: What Happened to Global Warming?

[Cactus Annie]

It probably has a large carbon footprint, indeed. That doesn't change the science or the problem, it simply means that we are far from the solution.

I think that this another case where the BBC (and other corporations) are seen to be hypocrites. A few years ago Channel 4 did a 2 hour documentary arguing for man made climate change and the week after the same broadcaster did another 2 hour climate change is nothing to do with us. Representatives scientists from both side of the argument both appeared on a Channel 4 talk show. Last year they did another documentary titled What The Green Movement Got Wrong followed by an hour live studio discussion where scientists from both sides argument debated their views. Viewers also put their views across by sending texts and emails. That is what you call a balanced discussion.

Almost every activity, in some way or another, pollutes.

And people wonder why we don't just switch everything off. Are you willing to stop using your computer, car and electrical appliance just like that?

-
An independent inquiry into these emails proved that there was no wrong doing or falsification in the work. This scandal was a carefully timed attempt (prior to Copenhagen) to cast doubts on the integrity of scientists by taking a few emails out of context. Nothing wrong was going on.

Yeah I heard that so called independent inquiry as well (on the BBC of course). But did you hear about the many scientists who dispute man-made climate change said that the inquiry was not thorough enough in order to get a fair assessment. One scientist called it a white wash. I forget his name, but they are scientists on both side of the argument. Besides Al Gore isn't a Scientist either is he?

Fair enough. There are extremists on both sides of this issue, and there are people who would benefit from action or inaction on this issue. This is inevitable, and is present in every issue. But here again, you have to be careful to ignore demagogues and people who have a particularly large stake in the economic ramifications of an issue.

Unless you haven't noticed, the worldwide economic situation is in a lot dog pooh at the moment. I don't see how any of our countries will ever pay off their national debts certainly not in my lifetime.





You have to stop reading into all the propaganda. There is propaganda from extreme environmentalists (unrealistic expectations about energy use and demand), just like there is propaganda from extreme deniers (climate change is a socialist hoax, clean technologies are evil). Try to find the middle ground, and discuss pragmatic solutions to a problem that is very real.[/QUOTE]

 

[Badyouken]

I'll bite again.

I think that this another case where the BBC (and other corporations) are seen to be hypocrites. A few years ago Channel 4 did a 2 hour documentary arguing for man made climate change and the week after the same broadcaster did another 2 hour climate change is nothing to do with us. Representatives scientists from both side of the argument both appeared on a Channel 4 talk show. Last year they did another documentary titled What The Green Movement Got Wrong followed by an hour live studio discussion where scientists from both sides argument debated their views. Viewers also put their views across by sending texts and emails. That is what you call a balanced discussion.

A balanced discussion would respect the weights of each "side". This is not a 50-50 case where there are as many people disputing the phenomenon as there are asserting it. Qualified, experienced scientists disputing climate change are in a very small minority.

That being said, we do need serious, balanced discussion on the repercussions of this changing climate and the way to mitigate it / adapt to it. Scientists are past the question of whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change - the question has now shifted to devising our best course of action, whatever this means.

And people wonder why we don't just switch everything off. Are you willing to stop using your computer, car and electrical appliance just like that?

Of course not. That is simply not going to happen. The key here is to improve the way we do things: reduce inefficiencies on the supply and demand sides, harness cleaner energy sources, control pollutant emissions, etc. This is being done by countless companies and countries, most often with profit. Doing more with less; or rather, doing more but differently. Even the U.S., back in the late 70s during the oil crisis, managed to grow its economy substantially while significantly curtailing its oil consumption.

Yeah I heard that so called independent inquiry as well (on the BBC of course). But did you hear about the many scientists who dispute man-made climate change said that the inquiry was not thorough enough in order to get a fair assessment. One scientist called it a white wash. I forget his name, but they are scientists on both side of the argument.

Again, this is not a 50-50 issue. As for the emails, I suggest that you take a look at the inquiry report and the actual emails - there is nothing that suggests wrongdoing of any scale. This was a nice PR move prior to Copenhagen, nothing more.

Besides Al Gore isn't a Scientist either is he?

Al Gore is completely irrelevant to this situation. Sure, he is trying to draw attention to an issue that is dear to him, imperfectly perhaps, but he in no way proves or disproves anything.

Unless you haven't noticed, the worldwide economic situation is in a lot dog pooh at the moment. I don't see how any of our countries will ever pay off their national debts certainly not in my lifetime.

You will have to elaborate on your point here.

In any case, it is true that the economic situation put a damper on some investments, especially in the US. Environmental stewardship and profitability are often construed as being competing, trade-offs of sorts. This is understandable, especially in a business environment currently short on capital.

Nevertheless, the business world is rife with examples where sustainable business practices lead to profits. While the US is making up its mind on its course of action, other countries are not shying away from innovation and making huge strides in fields that will be critical in a world with limited resources and strong environmental concerns. The US economy will be in a severe slump if it does not get its act together on this.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Holy crap

Reuters reports:

The biggest snowfall in a century has buried cities in eastern South Korea and prompted rescue operations involving some 12,000 soldiers, as the coldest winter in years grips the peninsula.

Hundreds of motorists were stranded and dozens of buildings collapsed after more than a metre of snow fell over some parts of the region over the weekend. The weather bureau has forecast more heavy snow for the region on Monday.

The country's capital, Seoul, and main industrial hubs were not affected by the storm.

The heavy snow comes just a few weeks after temperatures hit record lows, causing the Han River in central Seoul to ice over for the first time in years.

North Korea also recorded its coldest January in 26 years.

The BBC quoted a local newspaper that described the region being hit by a "snow bomb". A local resident, Park Chae-ran, said "I am 83 years old. It's the heaviest snow in my life. I am really grateful for the soldiers' help."

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Whoa.

Man, I don't even think I'VE seen that much snow before! That's insane.

Angela

 

[DrTeeth]

Awesome!

Hey, I love snow! We don't get much of it around here...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

You can have all of mine. I'll Fed Ex it to you.

It's so pretty when it's black and filthy on the sides of the roads too.

 

[kramwest1]

You can have all of mine. I'll Fed Ex it to you.

It's so pretty when it's black and filthy on the sides of the roads too.

I like seeing the filth strata after a plow has been by.
Gray, White, Black, maybe a sand layer in there--fascinating. Did anyone mention it's been a long winter?

 

[Cactus Annie]

A balanced discussion would respect the weights of each "side". This is not a 50-50 case where there are as many people disputing the phenomenon as there are asserting it. Qualified, experienced scientists disputing climate change are in a very small minority.

Climate and the environment are far too complex for any of us to understand, so to have so-called scientist to proclaim they have all the answers to know its cause is completely false.

Have you ever heard the phrase they use when they say "since records began" ? This demonstrates that scientists have only been keeping records for a tiny fraction of planet earth's existence. Furthermore humans themselves have only been occupying earth for a minimal amount of time. What do you think the naughty dinosaurs had done to bring about the catastrophic events that brought their downful? Were the T-Rex's poluting the environment with carbon by driving gas guzzlers? There arms were rather short to reach the steering wheel weren't they? We live in a volatile solar system. I've heard scientists say that we are overdue for a major natural environmental disaster. That Icelandic volcanic eruption last year was tiny. They are many large dangerous volcano's that are close to erupting and thus ripping out all life. Volcano's are major contributer to carbon in the atmosphere.

It is arrogant to suggest that humble earthlings are capable of bringing armaggedon. Planet earth has been the home to far larger species.

Again, this is not a 50-50 issue. As for the emails, I suggest that you take a look at the inquiry report and the actual emails - there is nothing that suggests wrongdoing of any scale. This was a nice PR move prior to Copenhagen, nothing more.

That's not what I heard. I've heard scientists from various sources calling the investigation fraudulent.

They are those who claim environmentalist are anti-capitalists who do not want vulnerable people to make a decent living for themselves. "They should not cut down the Amazon rainforest" They have to don't they?

 

[Diemen]

Size doesn't matter.

Planet earth has been the home to far larger species.

Larger in terms of size, sure. But in terms of destruction of its surroundings and usage of the Earth's resources, no species has ever come even remotely close to humans.

 

[BVS]

It is arrogant to suggest that humble earthlings are capable of bringing armaggedon. Planet earth has been the home to far larger species.

But it's not arrogant to think we can do whatever we want and not impact the environment around us? Really?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It is arrogant to suggest that humble earthlings are capable of bringing armaggedon. Planet earth has been the home to far larger species.

Oh, yeah, the planet itself will still exist and just rebuild and revitalize itself until whatever space-related disaster (asteroids, black holes, burning up from the sun if that whole sense of order gets out of whack, whatever) out there destroys it. And you're right that some of this change is natural. Indeed, there are some shifts in the earth's environment we're not going to be able to do anything about.

But our pollution and abuse of the land we've been fortunate enough to spend this time on doesn't exactly HELP matters, and even if it doesn't destroy the earth itself, it hurts us as a society. People can get sick and die off this crap. So on that level, at least, that should give you cause for some concern.

Angela

 

[purpleoscar]

YouTube - Inhofe Takes on Global Warming Alarmist Attempted Ambush

Thank God for Senator Inhofe! See Republicans are looking out for the next generation. They are going to prevent more lost jobs from higher energy prices so that there will be a future. That will include jobs for Democrats who can't get a "green" job.

 

[the iron horse]

But it's not arrogant to think we can do whatever we want and not impact the environment around us? Really?

I have never agreed that we can just trash the planet.

My question has been about the scare tactics being used by the doom day prophets of "Climate Change."

Are we heretics if we question their science or opinion?




Target Earth International -- Target Earth Resources -- Refusing and Recycling

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Thank God for Senator Inhofe! See Republicans are looking out for the next generation. They are going to prevent more lost jobs from higher energy prices so that there will be a future. That will include jobs for Democrats who can't get a "green" job.

Errrrrr...no.

I've heard Inhofe's take on global warming (and other various issues). He's an idiot.

Angela

 

[Badyouken]

It is arrogant to suggest that humble earthlings are capable of bringing armaggedon. Planet earth has been the home to far larger species.

Arrogant?

You seem to be approaching this whole issue from a very emotional, almost spiritual angle ("Nature cannot possibly be bothered by humans"), with little respect for facts or critical thinking. There are many examples where humans affect their environment: the urban heat island effect, acid rain from sulphur oxide emissions, smog from particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions, ozone depletion, etc. The latter is an interesting example in light of the current political issues surrounding climate change: we figured out one of the causes of ozone depletion (the use of CFCs), acted on it (the Montreal Protocol), and now the ozone layer is reportedly slowly recovering (let's not jump the shark yet, but still).

The same goes for greenhouse gases. Human activity releases abnormally high amounts of greenhouse gases, leading to an increase in their concentration in the atmosphere. Absolutely no debate here. The fact that some gases cause a greenhouse effect has been known since the 19th century, and ascertained in the 20th century. Not much debate here either. The question now is: what will happen, and how should we go about mitigating the impacts?

(How do you know that dinosaurs really existed? That was way before we started keeping records! )

 

[Badyouken]

I have never agreed that we can just trash the planet.

My question has been about the scare tactics being used by the doom day prophets of "Climate Change."

Are we heretics if we question their science or opinion?

I can agree with this. Some people are taking it too far to fit an agenda. But this happens on both sides: extreme environmentalists who are divorced from reality, and climate change skeptics who are, well, divorced from reality.

The issue with climate change is one of communication. Generally speaking, the media does a poor job of reporting the facts and too often ends up mixing science and politics.

An interesting initiative from Google was announced today in this regard:

Google Science Communication Fellows

 

[purpleoscar]

Errrrrr...no.

I've heard Inhofe's take on global warming (and other various issues). He's an idiot.

Angela

Have fun with the tax increases! And when the climate continues to naturally change you'll have to scratch your head as to what was accomplished.

BTW I assure you there are many intelligent people on both sides of the debate that would not look at him as an idiot. I sware Democrats must be drooling to start a depression. There should be some basic economics courses taught in high school that explain how economic growth works. Energy taxes will be passed on to the consumer lowering their disposable income. Tell me does that increase the pace of the growth in the economy or decrease it? And what is the U6 U.S. unemployment rate before an energy tax is implemented?

No I don't think he's an idiot. In order to actually stop the human increase of CO2 in the world atmosphere you would have to shutdown all coal plants now and stop driving cars and stop taking vacations with plane travel. Where are the travel agents going to work? A smaller green tax will hurt but not enough to stop the use of fossil fuels (because they will still be cheaper than wind and solar) so what's the point? What are we playing with 1 to 2 degrees of warming (assuming the models are correct)? The IPCC predictions of 6 degrees increase is total BS. There is no realistic technology coming to replace fossil fuel for decades if not more. Government should be funding prototypes and when they are ready for primetime there will be venture capitalists who will want to take that on.

 

[kramwest1]

Thank God for Senator Inhofe! See Republicans are looking out for the next generation. They are going to prevent more lost jobs from higher energy prices so that there will be a future. That will include jobs for Democrats who can't get a "green" job.

Higher energy prices are inevitable. Our growing population is using too many resources, particularly of the fossil fuel kind, to keep prices low. We would do well to conserve and cut back simply to manage supply, nevermind what burning those energy stores may be doing to the environment.

Jobs?
Good luck finding and keeping a job when people on the coasts are forced to move inland due to rising sea levels.
The U.S. could barely deal with the displacement of people caused by New Orleans being flooded.

Again, we had better hope climate change is mostly human caused so that we can effect a change. If these simply are Nature's forces at work, we are fucked.

 

[Dfit00]

Have you guys heard about Tesla Motors and Elon Musk?

It's an electric car manufacturer that is going to revolutionize the electric car industry with some upcoming models. They are developing the technology each day that even GM and Nissan have already launched the Chevrolet Volt and the Nissan Leaf respectively.

Tesla Motors | Premium Electric Vehicles

 

[Diemen]

Tesla's been around for a while now. The roadster, while a pretty significant statement technically and environmentally, has pretty much been a novelty for the rich so far. I think the real test will be their gorgeous (and impressively spec'd) upcoming sedan. If that can gain them some legitimate interest (and, more importantly, meaningful marketshare) in the luxury crowd, and if the Volt lives up to the hype, then we should hopefully see the rest of the automakers take electric cars seriously.

 

[Badyouken]

Have fun with the tax increases! And when the climate continues to naturally change you'll have to scratch your head as to what was accomplished.

How much will it cost to adapt to climate change? A view held by many is that the costs of adaptation considerably outweigh the costs of mitigation. This is obviously a difficult and debatable analysis since it requires us to quantify the value of life, political stability, and a host of highly complex systems over long periods of time.

That raises one problem with this whole issue: it will be very difficult to quantify success. Arguing that things would have been much worse if we had not acted properly may be valid but will probably not be of much comfort for most people, I'm afraid.

I sware Democrats must be drooling to start a depression.

Come on.

There should be some basic economics courses taught in high school that explain how economic growth works. Energy taxes will be passed on to the consumer lowering their disposable income. Tell me does that increase the pace of the growth in the economy or decrease it? And what is the U6 U.S. unemployment rate before an energy tax is implemented?

What you're forgetting are all the externalities related to life-cycle use of fossil energy. While their wholesale / retail price is quite low, their overall cost is much larger. This failure to properly set the price of the commodity keeps prices artificially low and does us no service.

In any case, energy prices will increase. Fossil fuel reserves are limited - oil especially - and demand is increasing at a breakneck speed. The recession put a stop to the rise in oil and commodity prices, but it is likely that this will only prove to be temporary. Then what will we do? As energy prices increase, alternative sources will become more attractive and will be developed. A price on carbon could help speed up this transition; but regardless, it is inevitable. Countries that were prime movers in these new markets will sustain strong growth and job creation. The link between innovation and growth should also be taught in school...

No I don't think he's an idiot. In order to actually stop the human increase of CO2 in the world atmosphere you would have to shutdown all coal plants now and stop driving cars and stop taking vacations with plane travel. Where are the travel agents going to work? A smaller green tax will hurt but not enough to stop the use of fossil fuels (because they will still be cheaper than wind and solar) so what's the point?

I'd like to see your numbers on those last points. In many cases, conservation and efficiency measures are already cheaper than fossil fuels. Solar is still ways out; wind is catching up and in some regions viable. But these guys are just the usual suspects, there is much more to mitigation than wind and solar. Here again, it will become important to consider the total cost of energy, not just the wholesale / retail price of the fuel itself.

That being said, a step change would indeed be required to achieve the 1-2C targets. This won't happen, we won't stop travelling or driving. But this doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything and keep our energy model - it is becoming increasingly clear that it is not sustainable, whether because of environmental stresses, geopolitical issues, or supply / demand considerations. Gradual changes are most definitely possible, and scores of innovations are just waiting for the right price signal to emerge.

What are we playing with 1 to 2 degrees of warming (assuming the models are correct)? The IPCC predictions of 6 degrees increase is total BS. There is no realistic technology coming to replace fossil fuel for decades if not more. Government should be funding prototypes and when they are ready for primetime there will be venture capitalists who will want to take that on.

Interesting to see you suggest that government should invest in select technologies - pretty far from your free-market ideals. In any case, this can be a good step, but it is often inefficient, while putting a price on carbon helps the market innovate where it is most cost efficient.

 

[kramwest1]

In any case, energy prices will increase. Fossil fuel reserves are limited - oil especially - and demand is increasing at a breakneck speed. The recession put a stop to the rise in oil and commodity prices, but it is likely that this will only prove to be temporary. Then what will we do? As energy prices increase, alternative sources will become more attractive and will be developed. A price on carbon could help speed up this transition; but regardless, it is inevitable. Countries that were prime movers in these new markets will sustain strong growth and job creation. The link between innovation and growth should also be taught in school...

There is speculation from the Wikileaks documents about Saudi Arabia's oil that we already may have hit peak oil.
Regardless of when we hit peak oil, we should be saving petroleum for its use in other things. Our modern lives can use something else to power our engines, but it is far more difficult to replace oil in plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers.

I'd like to see your numbers on those last points. In many cases, conservation and efficiency measures are already cheaper than fossil fuels. Solar is still ways out; wind is catching up and in some regions viable. But these guys are just the usual suspects, there is more to mitigation than wind and solar. Here again, it will become important to consider the total cost of energy, not just the wholesale / retail price of the fuel itself.

New, efficiently-sited wind farms have the same kW/h cost as new coal plants. That is a no-brainer.

 

[kramwest1]

Tesla's been around for a while now. The roadster, while a pretty significant statement technically and environmentally, has pretty much been a novelty for the rich so far. I think the real test will be their gorgeous (and impressively spec'd) upcoming sedan. If that can gain them some legitimate interest (and, more importantly, meaningful marketshare) in the luxury crowd, and if the Volt lives up to the hype, then we should hopefully see the rest of the automakers take electric cars seriously.

Honda's plug-in hybrid and electric Fit will roll out for the 2012 model year.
I'm sure they won't be cheap, but reliable? Oh hell yeah Honda.

 

[Badyouken]

There is speculation from the Wikileaks documents about Saudi Arabia's oil that we already may have hit peak oil.
Regardless of when we hit peak oil, we should be saving petroleum for its use in other things. Our modern lives can use something else to power our engines, but it is far more difficult to replace oil in plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers.

I read those wikileaks cables - quite interesting. It's getting hard to trust reserve estimates, since there is just so much at stake.

New, efficiently-sited wind farms have the same kW/h cost as new coal plants. That is a no-brainer.

This is good progress. Hopefully prices keep moving in this direction.

But coal plants still have strong advantages: steady, reliable power output; much larger capacity per project; few siting constraints; good financing opportunities (at the moment). These buggers are tough to take out.

 

[purpleoscar]

Higher energy prices are inevitable. Our growing population is using too many resources, particularly of the fossil fuel kind, to keep prices low. We would do well to conserve and cut back simply to manage supply, nevermind what burning those energy stores may be doing to the environment.

Most hikes have more to do with moratoriums on drilling, futures gamblers and an oil cartel. The irony is that even with energy taxes it's still cheaper than nuclear.

Jobs?
Good luck finding and keeping a job when people on the coasts are forced to move inland due to rising sea levels.
The U.S. could barely deal with the displacement of people caused by New Orleans being flooded.

Only alarmists talk this way. Sea level has been rising since the little ice age. Was that all industry? It also moves up and down over time as opposed to a steady increase:

Sea level may drop in 2010 | Watts Up With That?

All the wild propaganda of quick floods (like James Hansen's prediction New York would be flooded by the year 2000) is just that, agitation/propaganda.

One fact is certain. A drop in sea level for 2 of the past 5 years is a strong indicator that a changing sea level is not a great concern. In order for the IPCC prediction to be correct of a 1m increase in sea level by 2100, the rate must be almost 11 mm/yr every year for the next 89 years. Since the rate is dropping, it makes the prediction increasingly unlikely. Not even once in the past 20 years has that rate ever been achieved. The average rate of 2.7 mm/yr is only 25% of the rate needed for the IPCC prediction to be correct.

This is yet another serious blow the accuracy of the official IPCC predictions for the coming century. The fact that CO2 levels have been higher in the last 5 years that have the lowest rate of rise than the years with lower CO2 levels is a strong indicator that the claims of CO2 are grossly exaggerated.

Again, we had better hope climate change is mostly human caused so that we can effect a change. If these simply are Nature's forces at work, we are fucked.

Sorry but man doesn't have that much power (though we all like to think we do, especially politicians).

 

[kramwest1]

Sorry but man doesn't have that much power (though we all like to think we do, especially politicians).

No, we don't. The hydrocarbons that we burn for energy do.

 

[purpleoscar]

How much will it cost to adapt to climate change? A view held by many is that the costs of adaptation considerably outweigh the costs of mitigation. This is obviously a difficult and debatable analysis since it requires us to quantify the value of life, political stability, and a host of highly complex systems over long periods of time.

And with the Copenhagen Consensus you have the opposite view. The third world wants our standard of living and it would be hypocritical to be pro Bono's philanthropy but prevent the third world from growing. Wind and solar is not going to hack it. Since there is no technology that can replace fossil fuels we would have to wait until someone like Craig Venter can create enough bacteria to convert CO2 into octane in large enough quantities, or new nuclear fusion technologies move from prototype to something safe and viable.

Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That raises one problem with this whole issue: it will be very difficult to quantify success. Arguing that things would have been much worse if we had not acted properly may be valid but will probably not be of much comfort for most people, I'm afraid.

The major problem is what is natural and what is man made. That hasn't been even close to be proven:

Aren't we supposed to have more storms now? Is Global Warming/Climate Change supposed to have less winter or more winter? No matter what happens the AGW types say they predicted it. It also becomes fishy when you have supposed scientists using El Nino and La Nina variations as proof of AGW.

Come on.

Go tell that to the Spanish. Even they ditched their solar subsidies. At 20% unemployment and a horrible budget, economic realities appear. The U.S. isn't immune to the same story. If I wanted a depression I would follow the same course of action. Whether it's intended or not it hurts. Though I should qualify my words because SOME Democrats are against wiping out coal because they have constituents that would vote them out if they did.

What you're forgetting are all the externalities related to life-cycle use of fossil energy. While their wholesale / retail price is quite low, their overall cost is much larger. This failure to properly set the price of the commodity keeps prices artificially low and does us no service.

In any case, energy prices will increase. Fossil fuel reserves are limited - oil especially - and demand is increasing at a breakneck speed. The recession put a stop to the rise in oil and commodity prices, but it is likely that this will only prove to be temporary. Then what will we do? As energy prices increase, alternative sources will become more attractive and will be developed. A price on carbon could help speed up this transition; but regardless, it is inevitable. Countries that were prime movers in these new markets will sustain strong growth and job creation. The link between innovation and growth should also be taught in school...

Are we in the middle ages with "just prices" that Aquinas supported? There is no clairvoyance to special knowledge to allow bureaucrats to set the price. The artificial price would be after cap and trade. Even the current prices are somewhat artificial because of regulation and a cartel. You totally ignore the European experience. Green jobs cost jobs overall. Higher energy prices means you will have less money in your pocket to buy and save, meaning lost jobs. If green jobs could gain jobs they would have to be not only better than nuclear is right now but be close to fossil fuels. In which case we would be celebrating because lots of people would want to invest in cheaper energy sources.

Our move to green energy is going to be much slower than you want because of economics. This is already happening in Spain and Germany. They stuggle with just the most basic targets to meet.

We do teach about innovation in school but the problem here is that the AGW supporters want growth without the innovation.

I'd like to see your numbers on those last points. In many cases, conservation and efficiency measures are already cheaper than fossil fuels. Solar is still ways out; wind is catching up and in some regions viable. But these guys are just the usual suspects, there is much more to mitigation than wind and solar. Here again, it will become important to consider the total cost of energy, not just the wholesale / retail price of the fuel itself.

You just answered it. Solar and wind can't replace it so what technology related to your point of "In many cases" are you talking about? At best nuclear can replace coal but we don't want all countries to have nuclear because many would like to use it for more nefarious reasons than energy. If the U.S. did it there would have to be some decades to build it and we still would use oil and natural gas as well. I would love to see Obama actually pushing for nuclear instead of just talking about it.

That being said, a step change would indeed be required to achieve the 1-2C targets. This won't happen, we won't stop travelling or driving. But this doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything and keep our energy model - it is becoming increasingly clear that it is not sustainable, whether because of environmental stresses, geopolitical issues, or supply / demand considerations. Gradual changes are most definitely possible, and scores of innovations are just waiting for the right price signal to emerge.

Yes it will be gradual and the market will exploit cheap energy sources whether they are green or not. BTW we don't have any scientific smoking gun that can actually predict with models exactly our progress of 1-2C when nature has more variability than that.

CO2 is hardly the main climate driver. The climate models are too reductive to predict well. When the natural climate wants to go into an ice age 10 times the CO2 doesn't affect it. CO2 creates marginal warming. Once the blanket is set adding more is not going to kill the planet. We would have to run out of fossil fuels to actually try and aim for the Cambrian period. Doubling CO2 will have little effect.

Interesting to see you suggest that government should invest in select technologies - pretty far from your free-market ideals. In any case, this can be a good step, but it is often inefficient, while putting a price on carbon helps the market innovate where it is most cost efficient.

I don't have "pure" free market ideals. What does that mean? Should I be against all government? Should NASA never go into space? Government needs to be limited because the private sector can only pay so much one generation at a time. The U.S.'s current budget will send the country into a debt crisis. We can't afford billions of dollars of green taxes. I'd rather have prototypes created that prove themselves before we foist them on the general public.

 

[purpleoscar]

No, we don't. The hydrocarbons that we burn for energy do.

No because we will still have natural cyclical variations that will do more damage to us than burning hydrocarbons.

 

[Diemen]

The major problem is what is natural and what is man made. That hasn't been even close to be proven:

Graph Tip #1: Always label your axes. Otherwise I'm going to have to assume that graph is indicating the melting ice caps.

 

[PhilsFan]

So we'll stop polluting when we run out of fossil fuels? Cool. Because honestly, the difference will be like ten years.

Peak oil is closing in.