Jim Hansen (and 16 others)'s new dire warning

[AvantHiatus]

Your opinion flies in the face of science. Sitting back and doing nothing is the worst thing this country could do.

I would make an argument in respect towards Blizzard's viewpoint. This is a drawdown and economic overhaul that requires international participation.

 

I don't side with the crowd that says the US must experience the most rapid reductions in emissions just because we have released the lion's share of world emissions. There are definitely anti-humanitarian elements within the climate change activist movement.

 

We need a smart and structured transition (rather than an abrupt cutting of emissions) in conjunction with immediate 75-90% carbon sequestration at all major sources of GHG emissions. This involves extensive usage of bio-char and synthetic liquid fuels for vehicles.

 

Blizzard may be right but for the wrong reasons.

[Blizzard92]

Climate science is a mixture of politics, tribalism, cult-like religion, extreme environmentalism and a gross simplification of how the atmosphere works.  It is not a rigorous science anyway and most of the objectivity is gone. The state of learning about our climate system will be at a stand-still until this "science" that you say fades away. I am glad to be on the "other side" because we will be right in the long run. I hope to live another 30-40 years to see it...god willing and I sure hope the politicians don't limit our energy supply and make people suffer. Less energy = poor quality of life for societies and ironically a destruction of the environment...just look at Haiti on google earthi!!! They have virtually NO TREES left because they have no reliable supply of energy.  The burning of oil, coal and natural gas is the only way to sustain mankind. Solar energy seemed promising but I have read recently that to supply the world's growing energy needs, even if panels hit 55% efficiency the theoretical limit, it would take hundreds of years to manufacture the needed panels. Renewables will never be a reliable source and they are destructive to the environment too...wind farms = dead birds and bats. Environmentalists don't care about this? Ugh. what a ridiculous sham this whole mess is.    

I cannot believe I am actually reading some of these statements in this thread. The entire field of climate science is constructed from interdisciplinary fields in a very checks and balances-like system as donsutherland1 alluded to. And if we continued with the mindset that renewables are just as destructive as fossil fuels, we would quickly reaching the tipping point.  

[blizzard1024]

I cannot believe I am actually reading some of these statements in this thread. The entire field of climate science is constructed from interdisciplinary fields in a very checks and balances-like system as donsutherland1 alluded to. And if we continued with the mindset that renewables are just as destructive as fossil fuels, we would quickly reaching the tipping point.  

 

Not having enough energy for a society is much more destructive to the environment than fossil fuels. Haven't you ever seen what has happened in third world countries without enough energy?? they destroy the environment. Plus wind farms fragment forests and kill birds and bats and are "visual" pollution in a natural landscape. They have ruined a lot of our beautiful mountains in the east. Virtually all of the progress we have made in civilization is due to fossil fuels. Changing that to quickly would be harsh, anti-civilization and anti-human. I am pro-human and pro-civilization. sorry.

[nflwxman]

Not having enough energy for a society is much more destructive to the environment than fossil fuels. Haven't you ever seen what has happened in third world countries without enough energy?? they destroy the environment. Plus wind farms fragment forests and kill birds and bats and are "visual" pollution in a natural landscape. They have ruined a lot of our beautiful mountains in the east. Virtually all of the progress we have made in civilization is due to fossil fuels. Changing that to quickly would be harsh, anti-civilization and anti-human. I am pro-human and pro-civilization. sorry.

 

Do you know how much forest is cleared for each 3 MW wind turbine? I will enlighten you. It takes a 50 foot radius around the base. Or approximately the same amount of clearing as a two story house.  Birds and bats are seriously an issue for you?  Stop driving your car, don't build houses, stop expanding urban areas, and make sure to keep your cat indoors, because they kill a sh*tton more birds than wind turbines ever will. 

 

Oh, you are concerned with mountaintops now?  Make sure you take a look at a google earth image of Wise county, VA; where they have literally removed mountaintops for coal extractions and changed the natural topography by over 200 feet.  Or be sure to look at Wyoming County, PA; where shale fracking rigs are set up all over the mountaintops like a checkerboard.  Oh, and there are like tens of thousands of those in PA alone.  Just a few examples for you to investigate.

 

I even left out the AGW component for you.  You need better talking points, friend.

[blizzard1024]

Do you know how much forest is cleared for each 3 MW wind turbine? I will enlighten you. It takes a 50 foot radius around the base. Or approximately the same amount of clearing as a two story house.  Birds and bats are seriously an issue for you?  Stop driving your car, don't build houses, stop expanding urban areas, and make sure to keep your cat indoors, because they kill a sh*tton more birds than wind turbines ever will. 

 

Oh, you are concerned with mountaintops now?  Make sure you take a look at a google earth image of Wise county, VA; where they have literally removed mountaintops for coal extractions and changed the natural topography by over 200 feet.  Or be sure to look at Wyoming County, PA; where shale fracking rigs are set up all over the mountaintops like a checkerboard.  Oh, and there are like tens of thousands of those in PA alone.  Just a few examples for you to investigate.

 

I even left out the AGW component for you.  You need better talking points, friend.

 

I strongly agree with your points that urban sprawl, building houses in pristine forests and wild areas, letting cats run outdoors,  fragmenting sensitive landscape for fracking and removing mountaintops are terrible and I disdain this just like you. In my life I have only hit 3 birds and a few animals while driving. I am very careful. What pisses me off is the latin american countries and other tropical third world countries that are so poor and lack energy that they use wood for fuel and massacre the tropical forests. If they just had a high living standard and access to cheap energy this would not be the case. Our country went through this phase in the 1800s and early 1900s until fossil fuels were cheap and used. 

[donsutherland1]

With respect to energy generation, the decline of coal has had very little impact on electricity prices. Since 2008, coal usage for electricity consumption has fallen 18% (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_2_01_a). Average electricity prices (in nominal terms) have risen 7.3% (2008-2014) from $0.0974/kwh to $0.1045/kwh (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?agg=2,0,1&geo=g&freq=M).

 

In real terms (adjusted for inflation) using the PCE price deflators (2008: 100.065 and 2014: 109.100), the price of electricity has fallen 1.6% between 2008 and 2014.

 

In short, at least to date, the market-driven decline of the coal industry has not had an adverse impact on electricity prices. Developments related to alternative sources of supply have more than offset the decline of coal. Externalities not reflected in the price of electricity include health-related gains (reduced expenditures due to coal-related illnesses), so the actual benefit to society has been larger than the modest real decline in electricity prices.

[blizzard1024]

With respect to energy generation, the decline of coal has had very little impact on electricity prices. Since 2008, coal usage for electricity consumption has fallen 18% (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_2_01_a). Average electricity prices (in nominal terms) have risen 7.3% (2008-2014) from $0.0974/kwh to $0.1045/kwh (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?agg=2,0,1&geo=g&freq=M).

 

In real terms (adjusted for inflation) using the PCE price deflators (2008: 100.065 and 2014: 109.100), the price of electricity has fallen 1.6% between 2008 and 2014.

 

In short, at least to date, the market-driven decline of the coal industry has not had an adverse impact on electricity prices. Developments related to alternative sources of supply have more than offset the decline of coal. Externalities not reflected in the price of electricity include health-related gains (reduced expenditures due to coal-related illnesses), so the actual benefit to society has been larger than the modest real decline in electricity prices.

 

I read something very disconcerting on solar energy. Basically, if we went to 100% solar we would need the size of Delaware and Maryland in land mass for panels. Plus to manufacture all the panels needed it would take over a century even if we achieve maximum efficiency for a solar panel at 55%. This is quite sad and not plausible. I could see more solar panels for home owners which would be awesome but not for the larger industrial needs of our growing world-wide population. Coal is being replaced by natural gas in many areas...and it is cleaner burning less CO2 emissions. I am all for less pollution...and coal is pretty bad. I do agree.

[donsutherland1]

I read something very disconcerting on solar energy. Basically, if we went to 100% solar we would need the size of Delaware and Maryland in land mass for panels. Plus to manufacture all the panels needed it would take over a century even if we achieve maximum efficiency for a solar panel at 55%. This is quite sad and not plausible. I could see more solar panels for home owners which would be awesome but not for the larger industrial needs of our growing world-wide population. Coal is being replaced by natural gas in many areas...and it is cleaner burning less CO2 emissions. I am all for less pollution...and coal is pretty bad. I do agree.

I don't think it is practical to rely 100% on solar power for the nation's energy needs. Solar can be part of a future portfolio of sources, but aside from limits requiring alternatives, some degree of redundancy with alternatives should also be available.

 

Also, single solar panels have limits, but one can stack the panels to move beyond the single panel limit.

[donsutherland1]

For those who are interested, the Hansen team has issued its first response to serious comments on its paper. This response deals with the issue of the boulders found in the Bahamas.

 

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/C5615/2015/acpd-15-C5615-2015.pdf

[mitchnick]

With respect to energy generation, the decline of coal has had very little impact on electricity prices. Since 2008, coal usage for electricity consumption has fallen 18% (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_2_01_a). Average electricity prices (in nominal terms) have risen 7.3% (2008-2014) from $0.0974/kwh to $0.1045/kwh (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?agg=2,0,1&geo=g&freq=M).

In real terms (adjusted for inflation) using the PCE price deflators (2008: 100.065 and 2014: 109.100), the price of electricity has fallen 1.6% between 2008 and 2014.

In short, at least to date, the market-driven decline of the coal industry has not had an adverse impact on electricity prices. Developments related to alternative sources of supply have more than offset the decline of coal. Externalities not reflected in the price of electricity include health-related gains (reduced expenditures due to coal-related illnesses), so the actual benefit to society has been larger than the modest real decline in electricity prices.

For reasons unrelated to climate change issues, commodity prices are at historical lows. Bring commodity prices back, which is inevitable, and the price of electricity goes way up. No, no one can say when they go back up, but they will. And you can almost bet it will be at the wrong time and after changes to energy production making a switch back to carbon based products cost prohibitive, exactly what the left (and it looks like that includes you too Don) wants.

[donsutherland1]

For reasons unrelated to climate change issues, commodity prices are at historical lows. Bring commodity prices back, which is inevitable, and the price of electricity goes way up. No, no one can say when they go back up, but they will. And you can almost bet it will be at the wrong time and after changes to energy production making a switch back to carbon based products cost prohibitive, exactly what the left (and it looks like that includes you too Don) wants.

Of course many factors i.e., near-stagnant economies in much of Europe, slowdown in China, slowdown/recession in parts of Latin America, supply war driven in part by Saudi Arabia's attempt to lead to an exit of heavily-indebted unconventional oil producers from the market, etc., are all leading to the recent sharp declines in oil and commodity prices. But even if one were dealing with 2014, rather than 2015, the major premise that the reduction in coal usage didn't have an adverse price impact on electricity in real (inflation-adjusted) terms would hold. Industry shifts that have seen increases in natural gas, among other sources, have more than compensated for the decline in coal.

 

On the point of commodities price volatility, I fully expect that there will come a point in the not-too-distant future where prices will reach notably higher levels than at present. A resumption in sustained robust growth in Europe, continued growth in the U.S., stronger growth in China, and continued strong growth in India could drive demand higher. Supply shocks (geopolitical, industry shakeout, etc.) could also lead to price increases.

 

My point that coal is a declining industry is based strictly on industry dynamics. That decline has been underway well before the EPA ramped up regulations. It is secular in nature. Given changing consumer tastes and preferences and shifting investor funding preferences/risk perceptions, it is difficult to envision much of a revival for coal even if there were no new EPA regulations, unless a completely novel use for coal were found and no other alternatives offered comparable or superior value. 

 

Back in July, Bloomberg.com reported:

 

 

 

Bonds are where coal companies turn to raise money for such things as new mines and environmental cleanups. But investors are increasingly reluctant to lend to them. Coal bond prices tumbled 17 percent in the second quarter, according to an analysis by Bloomberg Intelligence. It's the fourth consecutive quarter of price declines and the worst performance of any industry group by a long shot.

 

Bonds fluctuate less than stocks, because the payoff is fixed and pretty much guaranteed as long as the borrower remains solvent. A 17 percent decline is huge, and it happened at a time when other energy bonds—oil and gas—were rising.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-13/the-latest-sign-that-coal-is-getting-killed

 

Industry decline is not a new phenomenon. Numerous strong headwinds are buffeting the coal industry. Substitutes such as natural gas now provide superior value and are supplanting coal in the nation's energy mix. Coal's single biggest growth market, China, is now turning toward cleaner substitutes after Beijing and other cities have been suffering through years of frequent bouts of extremely hazardous air. Health-related risks for coal miners (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2011-172/pdfs/2011-172.pdf), not to mention coal-related air and water pollution, also raise insurable risks for coal producers, creating a cost squeeze. These factors would be present even if there were no debate whatsoever about greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the argument that the coal industry would be growing or even prospering absent the climate change debate is not founded in structural industry realities. 

 

Finally, in terms of overall energy sources, my view is that a portfolio of sources will be needed to assure a reliable and relatively low-cost supply of energy, and, yes, oil production capability will need to be among such flexibility at least through the medium-term. I favor investment in those multiple approaches. I also favor maintaining a degree of flexibility or redundancy in various areas to offset supply shocks from one source or another. 

[ORH_wxman]

Another important point to support Don's argument against worrying about massive price increases is that innovation tends to respond to the market fairly well.

 

One of the reasons we saw hyper-acceleration in natural gas technology was the price shock on crude oil back in 2008...there became a much more urgent demand to become independent on energy commodities. There was already innovation in the field, but it accelerated at a breakneck pace after 2008.

 

That doesn't mean every regulation is good...but it is important to remember that innovation is a strong force that can oppose price increases.

[skierinvermont]

Coal is far more expensive than wind and natural gas, and even solar. It's basically the dirtiest most expensive source of energy in existence. 

[skierinvermont]

I read something very disconcerting on solar energy. Basically, if we went to 100% solar we would need the size of Delaware and Maryland in land mass for panels. Plus to manufacture all the panels needed it would take over a century even if we achieve maximum efficiency for a solar panel at 55%. This is quite sad and not plausible. I could see more solar panels for home owners which would be awesome but not for the larger industrial needs of our growing world-wide population. Coal is being replaced by natural gas in many areas...and it is cleaner burning less CO2 emissions. I am all for less pollution...and coal is pretty bad. I do agree.

 

This is a lie. The area of solar panels to cover the U.S. at current efficiency levels is tiny and barely visible to the human eye. It also does not include the possibility of rooftop solar which could probably supply more than all the energy needed.

 

 

Just think about it.. a big rooftop system can supply the power for the house it is on and half a dozen other houses. 

 

A little common sense and you can spot these lies much easier.

[skierinvermont]

For reasons unrelated to climate change issues, commodity prices are at historical lows. Bring commodity prices back, which is inevitable, and the price of electricity goes way up. No, no one can say when they go back up, but they will. And you can almost bet it will be at the wrong time and after changes to energy production making a switch back to carbon based products cost prohibitive, exactly what the left (and it looks like that includes you too Don) wants.

 

Why would switching back to commodity driven power (coal, natural gas) be cheaper once commodity prices rise? Rising commodity prices would only hasten the switch to renewables which are much less commodity intensive. Switching today avoids the economic damage when natural gas and coal prices inevitably rise.

 

Coal is the dirtiest and most expensive energy. Even natural gas costs slightly more than wind. Rising commodity prices will only make wind and solar even cheaper in comparison.

 

Your mindset seems to be stuck in the 1990s. One day you will wake up and the idea of coal being the largest power producer in the U.S. will seem like a distant memory. Maybe then the technological progress that has occurred will dawn on you.

[skierinvermont]

The new EPA regulations basically codify into law the decade long decline of coal and guarantee its eventually demise as a major energy source.

 

The money, cost-effectiveness, and lobbying power is now on the side of natural gas and wind power. These regulations reflect their ultimate victory over coal.

[rygar]

This is a lie. The area of solar panels to cover the U.S. at current efficiency levels is tiny and barely visible to the human eye. It also does not include the possibility of rooftop solar which could probably supply more than all the energy needed.

 

 

Just think about it.. a big rooftop system can supply the power for the house it is on and half a dozen other houses. 

 

A little common sense and you can spot these lies much easier.

 

but skier, remember houses need a lot less power than other structures.  I don't know if it is the size of delaware/maryland, but it would likely be huge.  Think of all the industry requirements.  Common sense goes both ways.

[SVT450R]

Do you know how much forest is cleared for each 3 MW wind turbine? I will enlighten you. It takes a 50 foot radius around the base. Or approximately the same amount of clearing as a two story house.  Birds and bats are seriously an issue for you?  Stop driving your car, don't build houses, stop expanding urban areas, and make sure to keep your cat indoors, because they kill a sh*tton more birds than wind turbines ever will. 

 

Oh, you are concerned with mountaintops now?  Make sure you take a look at a google earth image of Wise county, VA; where they have literally removed mountaintops for coal extractions and changed the natural topography by over 200 feet.  Or be sure to look at Wyoming County, PA; where shale fracking rigs are set up all over the mountaintops like a checkerboard.  Oh, and there are like tens of thousands of those in PA alone.  Just a few examples for you to investigate.

 

I even left out the AGW component for you.  You need better talking points, friend.

Well said.  Another negative with coal that you don't hear to much about is the dangerous coal ash.  Vice news did a documentary on it for those interested.

 

https://youtu.be/hvx-W-XAie0

[skierinvermont]

but skier, remember houses need a lot less power than other structures.  I don't know if it is the size of delaware/maryland, but it would likely be huge.  Think of all the industry requirements.  Common sense goes both ways.

 

Yes and all the excess power from rooftop would go to those other buildings. The area of panels required is not that big and totally feasible. It is a matter of mathematics.

[csnavywx]

Yes and all the excess power from rooftop would go to those other buildings. The area of panels required is not that big and totally feasible. It is a matter of mathematics.

The tech and prices for panels are where they need to be to facilitate change in most areas, there's no doubt about that. Storage, on the other hand, isn't. Capacity factor and intermittency are important and energy storage WILL have to be built out full scale or else renewables are going to have a really hard time getting past 10-20% penetration in primary energy consumption figures. Hell, Germany only sits at ~3.5% of primary energy consumption right now from solar and wind, despite the breathless headlines about reaching 50% renewable generation on the afternoon of a single spring day. That's primarily due to a lack of decent storage.

[FloridaJohn]

I read something very disconcerting on solar energy. Basically, if we went to 100% solar we would need the size of Delaware and Maryland in land mass for panels. Plus to manufacture all the panels needed it would take over a century even if we achieve maximum efficiency for a solar panel at 55%. This is quite sad and not plausible. I could see more solar panels for home owners which would be awesome but not for the larger industrial needs of our growing world-wide population. Coal is being replaced by natural gas in many areas...and it is cleaner burning less CO2 emissions. I am all for less pollution...and coal is pretty bad. I do agree.

 

I think I have posted this before, but this is how much land area it takes to supply energy via solar panels.

 

The left-most square is for the world, the middle square is just for Europe, and the right-most square is for Germany alone.

 

[chubbs]

The Hanson paper will not be published by Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Comments on the paper and responses are available at link below providing insight into the peer review process. Issues identified by reviewers include: length, tone and lack of support for the ice sheet decay/melt weater cases modeled.

 

edit: I was evidently premature as the status has been switched back to under review. Hanson indicates in one posting that the paper will be updated to respond to the posted comments with the next version shorter and with clarifications.

 

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015-discussion.html

[AvantHiatus]

It's somewhat bizarre that they gathered a 'tone' from the paper. It's another example of classic human bias of being declined without a good reason other than too extreme and if correct, would change everything.

 

Hansen, as usual is very cooperative and professional. The paper will see the light of day eventually in a peer-reviewed setting and it will be taken seriously.

[csnavywx]

I think I have posted this before, but this is how much land area it takes to supply energy via solar panels.

 

The left-most square is for the world, the middle square is just for Europe, and the right-most square is for Germany alone.

 

The problem is that this vastly understates the challenge of the problem. It's fine as a back-of-the-envelope calculation for land area feasibility, but beyond that, it's not useful.

 

As for a more in-depth look at it, I highly recommend that folks give this a thorough read: http://www.withouthotair.com/

 

Solar prices are a bit out of date, but it's easy enough to make the adjustments and a vast majority of the arguments still hold.

[chubbs]

Hanson's paper has been published. The final is shorter with substantial revisions showing the impact of peer review. Hanson also summarizes the findings and implications in the video below:

Paper (open access)

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html

Video and transcript

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/ice-melt-sea-level-rise-and-superstorms-the-threat-of-irreparable-harm/

[bobbutts]

Hanson's paper has been published. The final is shorter with substantial revisions showing the impact of peer review. Hanson also summarizes the findings and implications in the video below:

Paper (open access)

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html

Video and transcript

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/ice-melt-sea-level-rise-and-superstorms-the-threat-of-irreparable-harm/

From the lack of response can I gather that everyone here agrees with everything from the paper and video?

[ORH_wxman]

From the lack of response can I gather that everyone here agrees with everything from the paper and video?

 

 

The peer review defanged a lot of the really ridiculous stuff in the original draft...but the view on those doubling times for SLR is still at odds with most of the literature.

[tamarack]

Yes and all the excess power from rooftop would go to those other buildings. The area of panels required is not that big and totally feasible. It is a matter of mathematics.

 

I like mathematics.  So I did some arithmetic on the statement I've copy/pasted below:

 

I read something very disconcerting on solar energy. Basically, if we went to 100% solar we would need the size of Delaware and Maryland in land mass for panels.

 

Using the combined land areas from those two states and the 2015 US population, that "disconcerting" factoid (if accurate) calculates to 1,011 sq.ft. per person.  Doesn't seem quite so horrible, put in those terms.  But as Don says, a diverse portfolio is the sensible way to go.  Counting on some silver bullet solution to energy is foolhardy.