Judith Curry asks for climate sanity

Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry is one of very few senior climate scientists to reach out to the climate skeptics and outright denialists that are behind the "Climategate" scandal. Here she writes of her interest in seeing some research "sanity" prevail.

The scandal itself is of course at least eight or nine-tenths manufactured by unscrupulous denialist exploitation of minor weaknesses in some parts of both the research itself, and the way that it has been presented and defended by a tiny minority of scientists. I tend to think of it as a storm in a teacup. This too shall pass.

But what should I think about Curry's essay? Because in many ways she's quite right. We really should try to let reason prevail, and let the data begin to speak for themselves again.

That at least is my policy in my teaching. I've been teaching climate science to quite conservative youngsters for many years now, and I do find that the data speak better for themselves that I can speak for them. The majority of students in my classes are moderate climate skeptics. They usually come away at the end with a moderately deeper appreciation for the science, and are better able to understand the risks and uncertainties. It's good work, and redeeming, and I must be a good dooby, doing the right thing.

But what grips me about this whole debate is how little it really matters in the light of oil depletion and technological improvement in renewables and efficiency.

This, I think, is where it helps to be trained in engineering and economics as well as climate change. Only the interdisciplinary perspective here can really sort out the problems. But the problem is getting sorted out.

Because the new low-emissions technology in the pipeline now is just excellent. Looking better and better every month.

By the time we have another ten years of technological advancement and deployment in amorphous solar, fourth generation nuclear power, algal biofuels, green building and retrofit, hybrid-electric vehicles, smart grid technology, and even the hyped-up Bloom Boxes, we won't be worrying nearly as much about how we're going to reduce emissions any more.

No, what really matters is not so much whether we worry about this climategate scandal and restoring trust, but whether we keep up the pace of technology innovation and deployment.

Anyone who thinks we're going to want to burn coal when all these newer, cheaper, cleaner systems are available is not paying attention.

So do we need to rebuild the public's trust in climate science? Well, it would be nice. But it's not the most important thing, and it isn't going to decide the outcome. And the public is lazy and fickle. It's a lot of effort.

Newsflash: A good majority of the American public routinely doesn't trust science. On the one had we have the flat-earth anti-evolution crowd, on the other we have organic-granola crunching advocates of homeopathy. Flat-earthers can't accept climate science because they think the planet didn't evolve anyway. And while our left-leaning organic types like climate science because it fulfills their expectation that evil humans are killing Mother Gaia, and the solution is to collectivize and go back to the land, I'm not sure I want this kind of wishy-washy thinking on my side in any case.

I think at this point we could perhaps stop trying quite so hard to convince the public about climate change, and we might actually do succeed better as a result. We could perhaps even run the risk of not passing a climate bill (which would be the main reason for educating the public in the first place). If Jim Hansen is right and the advent of an El Nino means another bumper hurricane crop and another hottest year on record, that will help a bit. But I'm no longer so desperate to have people understand, to have them see what I see in the data.

Instead we could let oil price settle the issue for us. Now that the Chinese economy is back on track, demand will begin to outstrip supply again, perhaps even this year, and so all these new technologies will get a boost. A few strategically placed subsidies and research grants might accelerate the process of R & D and deployment.

The main thing would be not to build new coal-fired power plants and to phase out the ones we have. But price points can do that as efficiently as public pressure and legislation can, or more so, given how long it has taken to get Congress to even think about the issue. And coal is desperately centralized, as power goes. While the coal power itself is cheap, it's expensive to keep patching together this centralized grid that delivers the power to market, and it isn't secure. It will make a lot more sense to use the new technologies and ideas to begin to create a more decentralized grid.

Because if there's one thing the American public does agree on, it's that everyone likes a bargain.

Plus, if we really don't want to be owned by China, we need to be masters of our own technological fate. Luckily, a lot of these new patents are well-and-truly American.

Crop Mobs: New idea in community agriculture

This from the NYT today.

Sounds like fun. When will Womerlippi Farm get theirs?

Hype over: Bloom Box revealed in CA

The secretive Bloom Energy Co has revealed its new fuel cell. There's even a specifications page, a price, and they are apparently taking orders. The specs are for 100KW rated output for $700,000. That's a whopping $7 per installed watt, which is about the price of the cheaper solar systems and way more expensive than wind, solar thermal, improved insulation, or coal, oil, and natural gas combustion. It uses methane for fuel, either from geological or biofuel sources, and it puts out the same amount of CO2 per unit fuel as any other methane device. It does however, have the higher overall efficiency of a fuel cell, over 50% thermal efficiency, which compares well to that of the internal combustion engine, but poorly to that of natural gas combined heat and power systems.

This is only a breakthrough if they can get the price down, and/or come up with biogas generation systems to match.

It is however, a good candidate for distributed generation of base load, so it goes on the same list as the Hyperion small-scale thorium reactor, and is a great potential contributor to grid security and grid hardening.

I don't see any mention of use for transportation. Is there something about the new solid oxide fuel cell format that prevents its use in a car or truck or train? I'd like to know.

For Env. Sustainability class: Steve Schneider's new book

For ecological economics and energy classes on market failures, externailties, and cost benefit analysis

Teasers versus the real thing

Another mysterious story about a new energy system appeared in today's Guardian. Unlike the first, which appears to have died quietly in the foggy no-mans land of cyber news, this one may have legs.

A secretive Silicon Valley start-up firm will unveil a new fuel cell system on Wednesday. This story, which stands up to shallow verification attempts, seems kosher. I guess we'll see. Here's the link to the most detailed coverage I found.

Don't bother watching the company's video. It's just the kind of supposedly inspirational media BS that firms come up with nowadays, especially when the IPO looms.

Have none of these communications majors read Orwell? Don't they realize that this kind of mind-junk just backfires with truly independently-minded people?

So I have grave doubts as to whether this wonderful new fuel cell will come up to specs, mostly because any company that resorted to this kind of vacuous self-promotion must be at least partly composed of spivs, flim-flam men, and get-rich-quick manipulators.

The willingness that the liberal media shows for helping these types of folks succeed in promoting energy start-ups is interesting. It shows how desperate we are for the quick fix. The Guardian, once the bastion of northern British Fabianism, is one of the worst. Even my Sheffield uncle that used to work for HMG in the good old bad old days of old Labour, who has probably read this paper since 1949, has given up on it at this point.

Want a quick energy fix? Sorry. Can't help you. I don't sell drugs.

Want a medium-quick, cost effective fix, I've got one for you.

Start by weatherizing and insulating your home.

Start this weekend. Why not? You've been talking about how important energy and climate change are for years. Why not actually do something. Start small, if you have to. One roll of R 19, one can of spray foam.

Total cost forty bucks. Marginal personal and intellectual integrity, priceless.

If you don't have any manual skills of any kind, like you can't hit a nail with a hammer even one time in two (if you're another Orwellian new-speaking, mind-numbing communications major), you'll have to hire someone, and it will cost three times as much, but it will still significantly reduce climate emissions, and it will still pay for itself.

Go on! What are you waiting for? The second coming?

Sheep in the sights again: Another urban shepherd story

People still aren't getting it, but the sheep (who are soon to have lambs) and I don't mind. We can play the long game. After all, we've been around for millenia, we shepherds and our sheep.

It may take years but sooner or later we'll figure out that sheep reduce climate emissions from grass mowing drastically. And that mowing is a significant source of emissions that is well worth being reduced.

And the sheep will have their day. And we will relearn to eat lamb chops and perhaps even haggis.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sam-baldock-urban-shepherd-ethical