OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Hey, he is The Prime Minister.
Dont like his plans then vote him out.
Dont like his plans then vote him out.
Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Wonder how they will generate the electricity to charge the batteries?
GLG
Well-Known Member
That's an excellent question Ziggy. If the Tesla was here in BC then it would be 95% charged on GHG free hydro as that's where we get our electricity. A similar internal combustion engine car would be 90% GHG fossil fuel and 10% ethanol. Other states and countries are moving to 15% to 30% renewables so simple math tells us that it would still make sense to go electric when and where you can. Consider also that a lot of folks that have made the switch to electric cars also have solar panels on the roof of there houses. If they have enough panels they could, in theory, power their house and their car off the panels. You use the grid as a battery when your panels are producing electricity and you and your car are at work. When you need to recharge the car you pull the power back off the grid at night. If I lived in Vancouver I would have bought an all electric car for my wife as they seem to have the charging stations and are moving in that direction. Here if Comox Valley we only 2 or 3 charging stations and no dealers that are setup yet to service the cars. I decided to buy the 2014 Prius C hybrid for her and so far we are 100% happy with it. It's not a plugin as that was not an option for that model. Wish it was but at this point it is getting 3.9L per 100km and that works for us. I'm finding that I leave my truck at home and take her car, when I can, to run around town. It seems to be popular around here because I'm seeing lot's around. The car has a computer that keeps track of everything including the price of fuel when you fill it up. It calculates the cost of each trip and keeps track of how much time it spends on gas or electricity. So far after 5500 km it has worked out to $275 for fuel. That's 5 cents per km. It runs on the traction motor (electric) 47% of the time. It creates power for the battery from coasting and braking. Perhaps in a few years I'll get her one of those cheap Teslas (LOL) that are 100% electric. All depends on what is out there when it's time to upgrade. Wish I would have bought her one back in 2012 because I would have saved thousand's in fuel. Nice to poke a sharp stick in the eye of those oil companies.
Last edited by a moderator:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I love the concept but at this point I see it more as a wealthy mans toy With its 120 k price tag, few can afford it?. As an alternative I don't see fully electric vehicles as a feasible option, at least at this point in time.
The inability to generate power to charge their batteries needs to be addressed to make them viable. We currently see massive environmental opposition to the expansion of hydro sources, site C being a prime example. Wind farms are apparently a threat to birds,and don't even mention nuclear generated power. That leaves few options.
Solar power is often suggested but it can't even keep my backyard moonrays glowing other than for a couple of long summer months. Solar Panels are large, cumbersome and relatively inefficient as are battery banks
that would need to accompany them. I may be wrong but I doubt in today's world a solar home charging system is available in Canada that could charge a car at least not one that would not be cost and space prohibitive .
At the very least to work for most people even if it were possible to regenerate power from solar energy, at least two storage systems would be required, one onboard and one at the charging base. This would again result in a significant increase in cost!
Remember the resistance on the mainland to enhancing the power lines to Vancouver Island because the current grid had reached capacity? Imagine if electric vehicles became popular?
I think you have probably found the best use of electrical vehicle power in your hybrid. I don't see all electric vehicles for the masses as anything more than a pipe dream (not pipe line) at this point. If however it ever becomes practical and cost effective however, sign me up.
The inability to generate power to charge their batteries needs to be addressed to make them viable. We currently see massive environmental opposition to the expansion of hydro sources, site C being a prime example. Wind farms are apparently a threat to birds,and don't even mention nuclear generated power. That leaves few options.
Solar power is often suggested but it can't even keep my backyard moonrays glowing other than for a couple of long summer months. Solar Panels are large, cumbersome and relatively inefficient as are battery banks
that would need to accompany them. I may be wrong but I doubt in today's world a solar home charging system is available in Canada that could charge a car at least not one that would not be cost and space prohibitive .
At the very least to work for most people even if it were possible to regenerate power from solar energy, at least two storage systems would be required, one onboard and one at the charging base. This would again result in a significant increase in cost!
Remember the resistance on the mainland to enhancing the power lines to Vancouver Island because the current grid had reached capacity? Imagine if electric vehicles became popular?
I think you have probably found the best use of electrical vehicle power in your hybrid. I don't see all electric vehicles for the masses as anything more than a pipe dream (not pipe line) at this point. If however it ever becomes practical and cost effective however, sign me up.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/10/0...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=131014
Christy Clark's No Pro at LNG Poker
Energy giants gamble that marks from BC are ready to lose their money.
By Bill Tieleman, 7 Oct 2014, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
clark-lng-600.jpg
Cartoon by Greg Perry.
Related
Premier's LNG Dreams Given Reality Check By Japanese Expert
Visiting from Tokyo, Dr. Ken Koyama says BC faces 'severe' competition in selling gas to Asia.
Has LNG Become Political LSD in BC?
Any government that thinks liquefied natural gas is a fix-all is clearly hallucinating.
Premier, Let Us in on LNG Tax Break Talks
Government could be giving up billions in order to secure the building of natural gas plants.
Read more: Energy,
"In poker, good players win and poor players lose." -- Lou Krieger, poker player and author
Imagine being a lousy poker player facing some of the world’s sharpest aces and you see the odds that the B.C. Liberals will lose big money to get giant liquefied natural gas companies to invest here.
The only consolation for the government is that taxpayers will pay for the LNG players’ winnings.
This week the B.C. Legislature resumes sitting to table legislation setting the taxes on LNG exports and the environmental standards that will have to be met by the companies considering building extremely expensive plants to process exports to Asia.
And the B.C. Liberals are already losing at your expense, as expert LNG card players see a mark at the table with more money than skill.
Premier Christy Clark is desperate for a deal, having bet everything in last year's provincial election on her ability to create an LNG nirvana in B.C., with a $100 billion windfall and 100,000 new jobs promised to voters.
Card sharks like the CEO of Malaysia's Petronas -- Shamsul Abbas -- played the province like a sucker last month, threatening publicly he was "ready to call off" its planned $11 billion Prince Rupert LNG plant because of the "lack of appropriate incentives."
"The project remains uncertain and I doubt we will be able to make a positive (final investment decision) by year-end," said the master player.
And Monday he was back at it, warning that unless B.C. lowered taxes, Petronas would delay the "marginal" LNG plant by 10 to 15 years!
"In our last portfolio review exercise, the current project economics appeared marginal," Shamsul said. "Missing this date will have the impact of having to defer our investments until the next LNG marketing window, anticipated in 10-15 years."
Stuck at the table
Can you feel the money leaving your wallet now?
That's because the B.C. Liberals quickly backtracked from earlier statements that there would be a seven per cent tax on LNG net income after capital costs are recovered to now saying it would only be "up to" seven per cent.
Finance Minister Mike de Jong says there "won't be any surprises" in the tax -- and that's likely true, since the only surprise would be if it remained at seven per cent.
Clark says she is "very confident that we are going to conclude that negotiation successfully."
So am I -- very confident that we are going to give up billions of dollars because Clark simply cannot afford to walk away from the table, especially after Apache announced it was giving up on B.C. and ending its equal partnership with Chevron for a $15 billion Kitimat LNG plant, leaving the project in doubt.
And LNG Minister Rich Coleman says B.C. hit "a sweet spot" with its taxation plans.
"We got back from the industry that the numbers we hit made sense," Coleman said last week.
Oh, I bet they made sense, since every tax point is worth billions to either B.C. or the LNG companies.
Who's laughing?
After Petronas first upped its ante by threatening to leave B.C., Coleman tried to keep a poker face.
"We'll probably laugh about this when it's all over," he said in response.
Actually, the last laugh will go to Petronas and the other LNG companies when they get exactly what they want from the B.C. Liberals -- and then chuckle all the way to the bank. [Tyee]
Christy Clark's No Pro at LNG Poker
Energy giants gamble that marks from BC are ready to lose their money.
By Bill Tieleman, 7 Oct 2014, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
clark-lng-600.jpg
Cartoon by Greg Perry.
Related
Premier's LNG Dreams Given Reality Check By Japanese Expert
Visiting from Tokyo, Dr. Ken Koyama says BC faces 'severe' competition in selling gas to Asia.
Has LNG Become Political LSD in BC?
Any government that thinks liquefied natural gas is a fix-all is clearly hallucinating.
Premier, Let Us in on LNG Tax Break Talks
Government could be giving up billions in order to secure the building of natural gas plants.
Read more: Energy,
"In poker, good players win and poor players lose." -- Lou Krieger, poker player and author
Imagine being a lousy poker player facing some of the world’s sharpest aces and you see the odds that the B.C. Liberals will lose big money to get giant liquefied natural gas companies to invest here.
The only consolation for the government is that taxpayers will pay for the LNG players’ winnings.
This week the B.C. Legislature resumes sitting to table legislation setting the taxes on LNG exports and the environmental standards that will have to be met by the companies considering building extremely expensive plants to process exports to Asia.
And the B.C. Liberals are already losing at your expense, as expert LNG card players see a mark at the table with more money than skill.
Premier Christy Clark is desperate for a deal, having bet everything in last year's provincial election on her ability to create an LNG nirvana in B.C., with a $100 billion windfall and 100,000 new jobs promised to voters.
Card sharks like the CEO of Malaysia's Petronas -- Shamsul Abbas -- played the province like a sucker last month, threatening publicly he was "ready to call off" its planned $11 billion Prince Rupert LNG plant because of the "lack of appropriate incentives."
"The project remains uncertain and I doubt we will be able to make a positive (final investment decision) by year-end," said the master player.
And Monday he was back at it, warning that unless B.C. lowered taxes, Petronas would delay the "marginal" LNG plant by 10 to 15 years!
"In our last portfolio review exercise, the current project economics appeared marginal," Shamsul said. "Missing this date will have the impact of having to defer our investments until the next LNG marketing window, anticipated in 10-15 years."
Stuck at the table
Can you feel the money leaving your wallet now?
That's because the B.C. Liberals quickly backtracked from earlier statements that there would be a seven per cent tax on LNG net income after capital costs are recovered to now saying it would only be "up to" seven per cent.
Finance Minister Mike de Jong says there "won't be any surprises" in the tax -- and that's likely true, since the only surprise would be if it remained at seven per cent.
Clark says she is "very confident that we are going to conclude that negotiation successfully."
So am I -- very confident that we are going to give up billions of dollars because Clark simply cannot afford to walk away from the table, especially after Apache announced it was giving up on B.C. and ending its equal partnership with Chevron for a $15 billion Kitimat LNG plant, leaving the project in doubt.
And LNG Minister Rich Coleman says B.C. hit "a sweet spot" with its taxation plans.
"We got back from the industry that the numbers we hit made sense," Coleman said last week.
Oh, I bet they made sense, since every tax point is worth billions to either B.C. or the LNG companies.
Who's laughing?
After Petronas first upped its ante by threatening to leave B.C., Coleman tried to keep a poker face.
"We'll probably laugh about this when it's all over," he said in response.
Actually, the last laugh will go to Petronas and the other LNG companies when they get exactly what they want from the B.C. Liberals -- and then chuckle all the way to the bank. [Tyee]
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/10/1...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=131014
Four Questions about LNG that Demand Answers
As BC's promised gas boom goes pffft, Premier Clark must come clean.
By Rafe Mair, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
PetronasDog_600px.jpg
Cartoon by Ingrid Rice.
Related
Premier's LNG Dreams Given Reality Check By Japanese Expert
Visiting from Tokyo, Dr. Ken Koyama says BC faces 'severe' competition in selling gas to Asia.
VIEW: LNG isn't BC's only economic option
Carbon Footprint of BC LNG Boom Could Rival Oilsands
That is, if the province's natural gas riches are developed as planned. But there's another way.
Read more: Energy, BC Politics,
The entire question of LNG has reached a sorry pass indeed. The premier's policy seems to be crumbling before our eyes.
Let's not forget that Premier Clark and her Liberals pulled the 2013 election out of the jaws of defeat by promising a Liquefied Natural Gas industry to the extent of a trillion dollar addition to the economy, $100 billion into a "prosperity fund," an LNG plant built by 2015, and all of our debts paid off. We would be on easy street.
But the whole business on the eve of 2015 is at square one. There is no commitment by any company to build an LNG plant in British Columbia. That these election promises were preposterous, as I and many more expert than I said at the time, is patently obvious.
Now, the chickens have come home to roost. Negotiations with Petronas, the only LNG company apparently interested, have descended into a public squabble.
This means that the premier has the opportunity of doing now what should have been done in the first place. She needs to do whatever it takes to put to rest four pressing questions about LNG in British Columbia.
1. What are the safety risks to people and nature?
The public is entitled to know what the environmental issues are.
What is the consequence of "fracking," the method the industry will use to produce gas for export? Fracking forces chemical-laden water underground to crack loose trapped shale gas and extract it.
How safe is LNG when being transported by pipeline, by train, or by ship? Some 15 years ago I had to research this subject of environmental safety of LNG for a speech, and determined that an LNG plant was considered to be "safe" -- however, if there was a problem, it was catastrophic. LNG plants and ships can, for example, explode with devastating force if targeted by a terrorist group. This is something the public should know about and be able to assess.
To cleverly say that LNG transported in ships poses no danger begs the question as to why Prime Minister Harper, when it was proposed that LNG laden ships from the United States pass our eastern shores, said "no way." (As one who lives within a few miles of a proposed LNG plant and on the ocean where the ships will pass I have a particular interest in that question.)
2. What are the true potential economic benefits of LNG here?
The second question which has never been addressed, at least to my satisfaction and I doubt very much to the satisfaction of the public, is what are the economic advantages in having an LNG plant?
Labour unions set their hair on fire when it's proposed that a pipeline be abandoned. This is what labour unions are supposed to do -- except the workers they're trying to attract will only be there for the construction of the pipelines and probably will be crews from out of province. Is it the same when an LNG plant is built? Is it a specialized construction meaning that very few British Columbians will have anything other than menial jobs?
What are the permanent jobs left over? The evidence is that they will be minimal. If that's the case, where is the trillion dollar economy coming from?
LNG plants are not labour intensive. They are run by very few, low wage employees. What then is the great advantage except to the people who own natural gas companies and LNG plants if almost no one in the community is employed by the operation? Where is the economic advantage to the community if no wages come out of the company?
What is British Columbia going to make out of this by way of royalty fees and taxes? Tyee contributing editor Andrew Nikoforuk, an expert in such matters, makes the point that taxes on the company income are illusory since most of that income will likely be spirited out of province before the taxman gets anywhere near it!
Companies will resist unto death a tax on the gross profits, meaning that whatever percentage the government and a company agree upon may well be illusory.
The point is that the public of British Columbia should know with some precision just what money is coming in to B.C.'s coffers from the LNG industry. We know that about the lumber industry and the mining industry and other industries. Why not LNG?
International energy companies are pretty tough customers. I have written here and elsewhere, and say with confidence again, that Premier Clark and her minister Rich Coleman are way over their heads dealing with these people. Neither of them have any background whatsoever to indicate an ability to negotiate on matters of complicated industry and high finance with multinational energy corporations.
3. Who is Premier Clark really working to serve?
There is a more important point, I think. Any fair reading of what has happened and what is likely to happen indicates that Premier Clark has a deep personal and political stake in this issue.
That stake means that the well-being of the province she is elected to serve is subservient to the selfish desire of the BC Liberals to obscure their absurd and grossly irresponsible 2013 promises and get elected in 2017 anyway.
The premier's concern is not that the environmental questions be raised and answered nor that we look too closely at what, if any, economic advantages LNG will bring. Her concern now is that she has committed to this trillion dollar industry with its hundred billion dollar "prosperity fund" and the quick greenlighting of one or more LNG plants. She must somehow deal with this in an effective political way by the next election in 2017.
Let me spell it out. The premier's primary motivation at this point is not the well-being of the province of British Columbia but her own political skin.
Harsh, but in my view an inescapable inference.
4. Will Premier Clark come clean with the public and put experts in charge?
The responsible thing for the premier to do is to back off and appoint professional negotiators to deal with the matter from here on. She should immediately demand that the ministry of environment undertake a full independent review, with full public involvement of all of the many and serious environmental issues involved. At the same time the finance minister should be instructed to commission an independent report on what the economics of an LNG industry in British Columbia truly are.
Properly handling this matter and making a full disclosure to the public requires a premier and government whose only concern is the long term well-being of the people they serve.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that the principal concern of Premier Christy Clark is her own well-being rather than ours. [Tyee]
Four Questions about LNG that Demand Answers
As BC's promised gas boom goes pffft, Premier Clark must come clean.
By Rafe Mair, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
PetronasDog_600px.jpg
Cartoon by Ingrid Rice.
Related
Premier's LNG Dreams Given Reality Check By Japanese Expert
Visiting from Tokyo, Dr. Ken Koyama says BC faces 'severe' competition in selling gas to Asia.
VIEW: LNG isn't BC's only economic option
Carbon Footprint of BC LNG Boom Could Rival Oilsands
That is, if the province's natural gas riches are developed as planned. But there's another way.
Read more: Energy, BC Politics,
The entire question of LNG has reached a sorry pass indeed. The premier's policy seems to be crumbling before our eyes.
Let's not forget that Premier Clark and her Liberals pulled the 2013 election out of the jaws of defeat by promising a Liquefied Natural Gas industry to the extent of a trillion dollar addition to the economy, $100 billion into a "prosperity fund," an LNG plant built by 2015, and all of our debts paid off. We would be on easy street.
But the whole business on the eve of 2015 is at square one. There is no commitment by any company to build an LNG plant in British Columbia. That these election promises were preposterous, as I and many more expert than I said at the time, is patently obvious.
Now, the chickens have come home to roost. Negotiations with Petronas, the only LNG company apparently interested, have descended into a public squabble.
This means that the premier has the opportunity of doing now what should have been done in the first place. She needs to do whatever it takes to put to rest four pressing questions about LNG in British Columbia.
1. What are the safety risks to people and nature?
The public is entitled to know what the environmental issues are.
What is the consequence of "fracking," the method the industry will use to produce gas for export? Fracking forces chemical-laden water underground to crack loose trapped shale gas and extract it.
How safe is LNG when being transported by pipeline, by train, or by ship? Some 15 years ago I had to research this subject of environmental safety of LNG for a speech, and determined that an LNG plant was considered to be "safe" -- however, if there was a problem, it was catastrophic. LNG plants and ships can, for example, explode with devastating force if targeted by a terrorist group. This is something the public should know about and be able to assess.
To cleverly say that LNG transported in ships poses no danger begs the question as to why Prime Minister Harper, when it was proposed that LNG laden ships from the United States pass our eastern shores, said "no way." (As one who lives within a few miles of a proposed LNG plant and on the ocean where the ships will pass I have a particular interest in that question.)
2. What are the true potential economic benefits of LNG here?
The second question which has never been addressed, at least to my satisfaction and I doubt very much to the satisfaction of the public, is what are the economic advantages in having an LNG plant?
Labour unions set their hair on fire when it's proposed that a pipeline be abandoned. This is what labour unions are supposed to do -- except the workers they're trying to attract will only be there for the construction of the pipelines and probably will be crews from out of province. Is it the same when an LNG plant is built? Is it a specialized construction meaning that very few British Columbians will have anything other than menial jobs?
What are the permanent jobs left over? The evidence is that they will be minimal. If that's the case, where is the trillion dollar economy coming from?
LNG plants are not labour intensive. They are run by very few, low wage employees. What then is the great advantage except to the people who own natural gas companies and LNG plants if almost no one in the community is employed by the operation? Where is the economic advantage to the community if no wages come out of the company?
What is British Columbia going to make out of this by way of royalty fees and taxes? Tyee contributing editor Andrew Nikoforuk, an expert in such matters, makes the point that taxes on the company income are illusory since most of that income will likely be spirited out of province before the taxman gets anywhere near it!
Companies will resist unto death a tax on the gross profits, meaning that whatever percentage the government and a company agree upon may well be illusory.
The point is that the public of British Columbia should know with some precision just what money is coming in to B.C.'s coffers from the LNG industry. We know that about the lumber industry and the mining industry and other industries. Why not LNG?
International energy companies are pretty tough customers. I have written here and elsewhere, and say with confidence again, that Premier Clark and her minister Rich Coleman are way over their heads dealing with these people. Neither of them have any background whatsoever to indicate an ability to negotiate on matters of complicated industry and high finance with multinational energy corporations.
3. Who is Premier Clark really working to serve?
There is a more important point, I think. Any fair reading of what has happened and what is likely to happen indicates that Premier Clark has a deep personal and political stake in this issue.
That stake means that the well-being of the province she is elected to serve is subservient to the selfish desire of the BC Liberals to obscure their absurd and grossly irresponsible 2013 promises and get elected in 2017 anyway.
The premier's concern is not that the environmental questions be raised and answered nor that we look too closely at what, if any, economic advantages LNG will bring. Her concern now is that she has committed to this trillion dollar industry with its hundred billion dollar "prosperity fund" and the quick greenlighting of one or more LNG plants. She must somehow deal with this in an effective political way by the next election in 2017.
Let me spell it out. The premier's primary motivation at this point is not the well-being of the province of British Columbia but her own political skin.
Harsh, but in my view an inescapable inference.
4. Will Premier Clark come clean with the public and put experts in charge?
The responsible thing for the premier to do is to back off and appoint professional negotiators to deal with the matter from here on. She should immediately demand that the ministry of environment undertake a full independent review, with full public involvement of all of the many and serious environmental issues involved. At the same time the finance minister should be instructed to commission an independent report on what the economics of an LNG industry in British Columbia truly are.
Properly handling this matter and making a full disclosure to the public requires a premier and government whose only concern is the long term well-being of the people they serve.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that the principal concern of Premier Christy Clark is her own well-being rather than ours. [Tyee]
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/10/10/F...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=131014
Why France's Former Enviro Minister Said 'No' To Canada’s Oil Lobby
That, and other insights on Harper's climate agenda from a Q&A with Corinne Lepage.
By Geoff Dembicki, 10 Oct 2014, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
Lepage_Corinne-300.jpg
Former French Environment Minister Corinne Lepage: Climate change is 'an economic discussion and it’s also about power in the world.'
Related
Why Europe Could Decide Fate of Canada's Oil Sands
Tories and petro firms worry oil sands restrictions in Europe will spread to other key nations. They're lobbying hard to prevent it.
Tar Sands Oil Some of World's Dirtiest: Report
Findings counter studies that put bitumen's carbon footprint slightly higher than regular crude.
What I Saw with a German Tour of the Oilsands
Strangely, it wasn't the oilsands anyone can find on the Internet.
Corinne Lepage is used to standing up to big oil companies. In 1978, an oil tanker operated by the U.S. company Amoco spilled 69 million gallons of oil off the coast of Brittany, France. Over six times bigger than the Exxon Valdez disaster, it was one of the largest oil spills in human history. Lepage was a young lawyer at the time, and for the next 12 years she battled Amoco in court, eventually winning $85.2 million in damages, and setting a legal precedent for victims of pollution.
So when Lepage -- who's since served two years as France's Environment Minister, attended five international climate talks, and just ended one term as a member of the European Parliament -- was recently lobbied by Canadian ambassador Ross Hornby on behalf of Alberta's oil sands, she stood her ground. Hornby tried to persuade Lepage that the oil sands were no worse for the climate than other fuel sources. "My position was 'no,'" Lepage told The Tyee in an interview from France.
Yet after five years of such lobbying from the Canadian government, the European Commission just announced it may be relaxing a climate law intended to restrict fuel made from the oil sands. Lepage will be speaking Nov. 12 at a forum in Vancouver on solutions to climate change. Keep reading The Tyee's exclusive Q&A to see what else she had to say about Stephen Harper's "very bad" climate agenda, and why she's "skeptical" the 2015 negotiations in Paris will create a positive outcome.
On the legal difficulties of holding oil firms liable for spills:
"The disaster of Amoco happened in 1978… We worked on this case for 12 years with a lawyer from New York, and the case was in Chicago…The accident was caused by the ship Amoco Cadiz. The owner of this ship was the Amoco Cadiz Society, but the society was nothing. The society had an owner, which was Amoco Cadiz Transport, and that had an owner, Amoco Cadiz International, and this has an owner, it was Standard Oil of Indiana. The question was if Standard Oil And Amoco International were responsible or not, and the judge said 'yes'… After, in the court of appeal we won on the question of damages but it was not a lot of money." [France got $85.2 million after asking for $2 billion].
On what the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks were really about:
"I was a member of the European delegation… With Copenhagen we had very big hopes because we thought it was possible to have an agreement. But it ended up being impossible… Between China and the United States [the talks] are not only about the climate. It's an economic discussion and it's also about power in the world. The climate becomes an instrument for those questions of power and economics."
On why Lepage said 'no' to Canadian oil sands lobbying:
"The European Parliament asked to include the higher emissions from tar sands production [in its Fuel Quality Directive, which limits high carbon transport fuels]… All the time Stephen Harper argued that non-conventional oil has the same emissions as conventional oil… I received the ambassador of Canada [Ross Hornby] for this point and my position was 'no.' I want to make some separation between Canada and some provinces of Canada, because it was the province of Alberta that pushes a lot on tar sands, and that was the position of Canada's ambassador. But it was quite different when we met with the Quebec delegation, who have a very, very different position." [Quebec belongs to a carbon trading market with California].
On why Canada is holding back international climate talks:
"Not only does Canada not want to advance on Kyoto Protocol two, they continue to defend the tar sands… Canada has not been helpful [in the COP negotiations] and the position of Stephen Harper is probably the worst position. Maybe it can be combined with the Australian and Polish position, but it's a very bad position."
On why we shouldn't be too hopeful for consensus at Paris 2015:
"I am skeptical. I want to be optimistic because I think it is the last chance to do something [on climate change]. But I'm not sure, because the international context is very bad, with the question of Iraq and Syria and the conflict between Russia and the European Union and States. The French people are also in a difficult situation for the economy. But perhaps we'll have good news when we see what's happening." [Tyee]
Geoff Dembicki reports on energy and climate change for The Tyee. Find his previous articles here.
Why France's Former Enviro Minister Said 'No' To Canada’s Oil Lobby
That, and other insights on Harper's climate agenda from a Q&A with Corinne Lepage.
By Geoff Dembicki, 10 Oct 2014, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
Lepage_Corinne-300.jpg
Former French Environment Minister Corinne Lepage: Climate change is 'an economic discussion and it’s also about power in the world.'
Related
Why Europe Could Decide Fate of Canada's Oil Sands
Tories and petro firms worry oil sands restrictions in Europe will spread to other key nations. They're lobbying hard to prevent it.
Tar Sands Oil Some of World's Dirtiest: Report
Findings counter studies that put bitumen's carbon footprint slightly higher than regular crude.
What I Saw with a German Tour of the Oilsands
Strangely, it wasn't the oilsands anyone can find on the Internet.
Corinne Lepage is used to standing up to big oil companies. In 1978, an oil tanker operated by the U.S. company Amoco spilled 69 million gallons of oil off the coast of Brittany, France. Over six times bigger than the Exxon Valdez disaster, it was one of the largest oil spills in human history. Lepage was a young lawyer at the time, and for the next 12 years she battled Amoco in court, eventually winning $85.2 million in damages, and setting a legal precedent for victims of pollution.
So when Lepage -- who's since served two years as France's Environment Minister, attended five international climate talks, and just ended one term as a member of the European Parliament -- was recently lobbied by Canadian ambassador Ross Hornby on behalf of Alberta's oil sands, she stood her ground. Hornby tried to persuade Lepage that the oil sands were no worse for the climate than other fuel sources. "My position was 'no,'" Lepage told The Tyee in an interview from France.
Yet after five years of such lobbying from the Canadian government, the European Commission just announced it may be relaxing a climate law intended to restrict fuel made from the oil sands. Lepage will be speaking Nov. 12 at a forum in Vancouver on solutions to climate change. Keep reading The Tyee's exclusive Q&A to see what else she had to say about Stephen Harper's "very bad" climate agenda, and why she's "skeptical" the 2015 negotiations in Paris will create a positive outcome.
On the legal difficulties of holding oil firms liable for spills:
"The disaster of Amoco happened in 1978… We worked on this case for 12 years with a lawyer from New York, and the case was in Chicago…The accident was caused by the ship Amoco Cadiz. The owner of this ship was the Amoco Cadiz Society, but the society was nothing. The society had an owner, which was Amoco Cadiz Transport, and that had an owner, Amoco Cadiz International, and this has an owner, it was Standard Oil of Indiana. The question was if Standard Oil And Amoco International were responsible or not, and the judge said 'yes'… After, in the court of appeal we won on the question of damages but it was not a lot of money." [France got $85.2 million after asking for $2 billion].
On what the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks were really about:
"I was a member of the European delegation… With Copenhagen we had very big hopes because we thought it was possible to have an agreement. But it ended up being impossible… Between China and the United States [the talks] are not only about the climate. It's an economic discussion and it's also about power in the world. The climate becomes an instrument for those questions of power and economics."
On why Lepage said 'no' to Canadian oil sands lobbying:
"The European Parliament asked to include the higher emissions from tar sands production [in its Fuel Quality Directive, which limits high carbon transport fuels]… All the time Stephen Harper argued that non-conventional oil has the same emissions as conventional oil… I received the ambassador of Canada [Ross Hornby] for this point and my position was 'no.' I want to make some separation between Canada and some provinces of Canada, because it was the province of Alberta that pushes a lot on tar sands, and that was the position of Canada's ambassador. But it was quite different when we met with the Quebec delegation, who have a very, very different position." [Quebec belongs to a carbon trading market with California].
On why Canada is holding back international climate talks:
"Not only does Canada not want to advance on Kyoto Protocol two, they continue to defend the tar sands… Canada has not been helpful [in the COP negotiations] and the position of Stephen Harper is probably the worst position. Maybe it can be combined with the Australian and Polish position, but it's a very bad position."
On why we shouldn't be too hopeful for consensus at Paris 2015:
"I am skeptical. I want to be optimistic because I think it is the last chance to do something [on climate change]. But I'm not sure, because the international context is very bad, with the question of Iraq and Syria and the conflict between Russia and the European Union and States. The French people are also in a difficult situation for the economy. But perhaps we'll have good news when we see what's happening." [Tyee]
Geoff Dembicki reports on energy and climate change for The Tyee. Find his previous articles here.
http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=13&id=71976&l=e&special=&ndb=1 target=
Ocean acidification poses a latent danger to fishing nations
WORLDWIDE
Monday, October 13, 2014, 02:40 (GMT + 9)
A group of 30 scientists meeting in South Korea warned fishing countries, and especially those in the Caribbean, of the increasing ocean acidification.
Because to the Caribbean nations fishing is an important source of income, experts recommend to take into account the results of the new international report on ocean acidification, prepared by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
"Ocean acidification may have very specific impacts on particular types of fishing, so it is especially important for small island developing states and the people who depend on a specific type of fishing," pointed out S.J. Hennige, senior editor of the report, IPS reported.
And Carol Turley of Plymouth Marine Laboratory and co-author of the report, stressed that "we are in a world where the ocean acidifies very quickly, so we have to act very quickly."
In the Caribbean, processing, marketing, boat building and mesh making sectors, among others, directly employ more than 120,000 people and thousands of others are hired in a more indirect way.
The document emphasizes that acidification is worsening almost inevitably, a situation that harms some marine organisms and ecosystems and also the goods and services they provide.
Meanwhile, David Obura, director of Research and Development of Oceanic Coast in the Indian Ocean, stated that food security is under threat in the Caribbean and other nations that depend on fishing.
"Ocean acidification alters the chemistry of seawater, which affects the growth of fish, usually negatively. So productivity will drop," warned Obura.
Hennige explained that the problem is that more and more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, and it will get worse if nothing is done about it.
"It is not a problem caused by the Caribbean, it is worldwide, and a global solution is needed," he said.
According to Susan Singh-Renton, deputy executive director of the Regional Fisheries Mechanism in the Caribbean, all what the report outlines can be applied to the Caribbean.
"Ocean acidification is a serious concern because it means that seawater, as a means of supporting life, is changing in a very fundamental way," she highlighted.
And she added: "Given that the ocean ecosystem is so complex, it is not possible to foresee the consequences for sure, but it is certain that they will be important to the tropical islands, especially those whose economies are based on the health and beauty of its coral reefs."
Furthermore, Turley stressed that only industrialized countries can measure acidification so it is necessary to act quickly and start exporting that knowledge to countries such as the Caribbean ones and to small island developing States.
Hennige considers that the forecasts indicate that by the end of this century, ocean acidification will cause an economic loss of USD 1,000 million.
By Analia Murias
editorial@fis.com
www.fis.com
Ocean acidification poses a latent danger to fishing nations
WORLDWIDE
Monday, October 13, 2014, 02:40 (GMT + 9)
A group of 30 scientists meeting in South Korea warned fishing countries, and especially those in the Caribbean, of the increasing ocean acidification.
Because to the Caribbean nations fishing is an important source of income, experts recommend to take into account the results of the new international report on ocean acidification, prepared by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
"Ocean acidification may have very specific impacts on particular types of fishing, so it is especially important for small island developing states and the people who depend on a specific type of fishing," pointed out S.J. Hennige, senior editor of the report, IPS reported.
And Carol Turley of Plymouth Marine Laboratory and co-author of the report, stressed that "we are in a world where the ocean acidifies very quickly, so we have to act very quickly."
In the Caribbean, processing, marketing, boat building and mesh making sectors, among others, directly employ more than 120,000 people and thousands of others are hired in a more indirect way.
The document emphasizes that acidification is worsening almost inevitably, a situation that harms some marine organisms and ecosystems and also the goods and services they provide.
Meanwhile, David Obura, director of Research and Development of Oceanic Coast in the Indian Ocean, stated that food security is under threat in the Caribbean and other nations that depend on fishing.
"Ocean acidification alters the chemistry of seawater, which affects the growth of fish, usually negatively. So productivity will drop," warned Obura.
Hennige explained that the problem is that more and more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, and it will get worse if nothing is done about it.
"It is not a problem caused by the Caribbean, it is worldwide, and a global solution is needed," he said.
According to Susan Singh-Renton, deputy executive director of the Regional Fisheries Mechanism in the Caribbean, all what the report outlines can be applied to the Caribbean.
"Ocean acidification is a serious concern because it means that seawater, as a means of supporting life, is changing in a very fundamental way," she highlighted.
And she added: "Given that the ocean ecosystem is so complex, it is not possible to foresee the consequences for sure, but it is certain that they will be important to the tropical islands, especially those whose economies are based on the health and beauty of its coral reefs."
Furthermore, Turley stressed that only industrialized countries can measure acidification so it is necessary to act quickly and start exporting that knowledge to countries such as the Caribbean ones and to small island developing States.
Hennige considers that the forecasts indicate that by the end of this century, ocean acidification will cause an economic loss of USD 1,000 million.
By Analia Murias
editorial@fis.com
www.fis.com
http://www.capradio.org/articles/2014/10/13/climate-change-may-be-impacting-fish-spawning-numbers/
Climate Change May Be Impacting Fish Spawning Numbers
Ky Plaskon
Monday, October 13, 2014 | Sacramento, CA | Permalink
play
The U.S. Forest Service is trying to understand how fish spawning in streams around Lake Tahoe might be affected by climate change. This is a good year to see some of the impacts.
Every year at this time, thousands of people come to see thousands of Kokanee Salmon spawn in Taylor Creek on Lake Tahoe’s south shore. Among them, visitor Bob Morneau.
“Last year the creek here was really flooded with fish they were spawning, they were jumping and looked like thousands of fish," says Morneau.
This year there are very few fish.
US Forest Service Biologist Sarah Muskopf says low stream flow and warmer water temperatures have reduced the number of non-native Kokanee.
“This year it is kind of a signal of climate change.”
The threatened native Lohontan Cuthroat trout that spawn in spring will have a hard time too.
“It’s kind of like kicking someone when they are down, so these warmer temperatures are definitely going to hit them the most.”
Muskopf says a new stream monitoring system being developed this year may help biologists figure out where to build spawning pools and shady cool spots in streams so fish can cope with the anticipated effects of climate change.
Climate Change May Be Impacting Fish Spawning Numbers
Ky Plaskon
Monday, October 13, 2014 | Sacramento, CA | Permalink
play
The U.S. Forest Service is trying to understand how fish spawning in streams around Lake Tahoe might be affected by climate change. This is a good year to see some of the impacts.
Every year at this time, thousands of people come to see thousands of Kokanee Salmon spawn in Taylor Creek on Lake Tahoe’s south shore. Among them, visitor Bob Morneau.
“Last year the creek here was really flooded with fish they were spawning, they were jumping and looked like thousands of fish," says Morneau.
This year there are very few fish.
US Forest Service Biologist Sarah Muskopf says low stream flow and warmer water temperatures have reduced the number of non-native Kokanee.
“This year it is kind of a signal of climate change.”
The threatened native Lohontan Cuthroat trout that spawn in spring will have a hard time too.
“It’s kind of like kicking someone when they are down, so these warmer temperatures are definitely going to hit them the most.”
Muskopf says a new stream monitoring system being developed this year may help biologists figure out where to build spawning pools and shady cool spots in streams so fish can cope with the anticipated effects of climate change.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141014150749.htm
NASA study finds 1934 had worst North American drought of last thousand years
Date:
October 14, 2014
Source:
NASA
Summary:
A new study using a reconstruction of North American drought history over the last 1,000 years found that the drought of 1934 was the driest and most widespread of the last millennium. Using a tree-ring-based drought record from the years 1000 to 2005 and modern records, scientists found the 1934 drought was 30 percent more severe than the runner-up drought (in 1580) and extended across 71.6 percent of western North America.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061661
NASA study finds 1934 had worst North American drought of last thousand years
Date:
October 14, 2014
Source:
NASA
Summary:
A new study using a reconstruction of North American drought history over the last 1,000 years found that the drought of 1934 was the driest and most widespread of the last millennium. Using a tree-ring-based drought record from the years 1000 to 2005 and modern records, scientists found the 1934 drought was 30 percent more severe than the runner-up drought (in 1580) and extended across 71.6 percent of western North America.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061661
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Yet another significant paper finds low climate sensitivity to CO2, suggesting there is no global warming crisis at hand
10 hours ago October 14, 2014
Hot on the heels of the Lewis and Curry paper, we have this new paper, which looks to be well researched, empirically based, and a potential blockbuster for dimming the alarmism that has been so prevalent over climate sensitivity. With a climate sensitivity of just 0.43°C, it takes the air out of the alarmism balloon.
A new paper published in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change by renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about [0.6C], about 7 times less than the IPCC claims, but in line with many other published low estimates of climate sensitivity.
The paper further establishes that climate sensitivity to tiny changes in solar activity is comparable to that of CO2 and by no means insignificant as the IPCC prefers to claim.
The following is a Google translation from the German EIKE site with an overview of the main findings of the paper, followed by a link to the full paper [in English].
Assessment of global warming due to CO2 and solar influence
Currently climate sensitivity (discussed for example here ) is claimed by the IPCC mid-value to be 3.0 C (AR4) as the most probable value, but others have determined much lower values of 1.73C or 1C or even 0.43C. Prof. Hermann Harde, renowned physicist and Spektral analytiker has determined from his new paper the climate sensitivity is [0.6 C]
Editor’s note: The “climate sensitivity” said quantity was invented to carry the presumption in meaningful ways into account that the global mean temperature of the atmosphere could possibly be driven in a certain way by increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the air. To this end, forces defined (postulated) called. “Forcings”, whose influence, by means of certain physically based and mostly plausible assumptions, to accomplish this increase as migration out of balance. One of the factors is required for the climate sensitivity. It indicates how much K (° C) doubling the heating of the CO2 concentration rises.
Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2
Hermann Harde* , Experimental Physics and Materials Science , Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg , Germany
Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change, In Press
Abstract
We present an advanced two-layer climate model, especially appropriate to calculate the influence of an increasing CO2-concentration and a varying solar activity on global warming. The model describes the atmosphere and the ground as two layers acting simultaneously as absorbers and Planck radiators, and it includes additional heat transfer between these layers due to convection and evaporation. The model considers all relevant feedback processes caused by changes of water vapour, lapse-rate, surface albedo or convection and evaporation. In particular the influence of clouds with a thermally or solar induced feedback is investigated in some detail. The short- and long-wave absorption of the most important greenhouse gases water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone are derived from line-by-line calculations based on the HITRAN08-databasis and are integrated in the model. Simulations including an increased solar activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 ̊ C and a solar influence of 0.54 ̊ C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 ̊ C (doubling of CO2) and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 ̊ C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).
Calculated surface temperature TE (red) and lower tropospheric temperature TA (blue) as a function of CO2 concentration, based on a combination of thermally and solar induced cloud feedback.
Calculated surface temperature TE (red) and lower tropospheric temperature TA (blue) as a function of
CO2 concentration, based on a combination of thermally and solar induced cloud feedback.
Conclusion
The objective of this paper was to examine and to quantify the influence of GH-gases on our climate.
Based on the HITRAN-2008 database [4] detailed spectroscopic calculations on the absorptivities of water
vapour and the gases carbon dioxide, methane and ozone in the atmosphere are presented.
The line-by-line calculations for solar radiation from 0.1–8 mm (sw radiation) as well as for the
terrestrial radiation from 3–100 mm (lw radiation) show, that due to the strong overlap of the CO2 and
CH4 spectra with water vapour lines the influence of these gases significantly declines with increasing
water vapour pressure, and that with increasing CO2-concentration well noticeable saturation effects are
observed limiting substantially the impact of CO2 on global warming.
The calculations were performed for three climate zones, the tropics, mid-latitudes and high-latitudes,
based on actual data of the water vapour content, which is considerably varying with altitude above ground
as well as with the climate zone and, therefore, with the temperature. The vertical variation in humidity
and temperature as well as in the partial gas pressures and the total pressure is considered by computing
individual absorption spectra for up to 228 atmospheric layers and then integrating from ground level up
to 86 km altitude.
The varying path length of sun light in these layers, which depends on the angle of incidence to the
atmosphere and therefore on the geographic latitude and longitude, is included by considering the Earth
as a truncated icosahedron (Bucky ball) consisting of 32 surface elements with well defined angles to the
incident radiation, and assigning each of these areas to one of the three climate zones.
Propagation of the long-wave radiation, in particular the up- and down-welling radiation, emitted
by the atmosphere itself, as well as their variation with temperature are derived from radiation transfer
calculations for each zone.To identify the influence of the absorbing gases on the climate and particularly the effect of an
increasing CO2-concentration on global warming, we developed an advanced two-layer climate model,
which describes the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere as two layers acting simultaneously as absorbers
and Planck radiators. Also heat transfer by convection and evaporation between these layers is considered.
At equilibrium each, the surface as well as the atmosphere, deliver as much power as they suck up from
the sun and the neighbouring layer or climate zone.
The model includes sw and lw scattering processes at the atmosphere and at clouds, in particular
considering multiple scattering between the surface and clouds. It also includes the common feedback
processes like water vapour, lapse rate and albedo feedback, but additionally takes into account the
influence of a temperature dependent sensible and latent heat flux as well as temperature induced and
solar induced cloud cover feedback.
As direct reference for the incident and outgoing fluxes in the model we use the energy and radiation
budget scheme of Tremberth et al. [20], which at a reference CO2 concentration of 380 ppm and a ground
temperature of 16 °C can well be reproduced.
With the sw and lw absorptivities as the key parameters in such model then the surface temperature
and the lower atmospheric temperature are calculated as a function of the CO2 concentration. From the
temperature variations, found at doubled CO2 concentration, the CO2 climate sensitivity and air sensitivity
are derived.
Particularly the individual feedback processes with their different influence on the climate sensitivity
are extensively discussed. While the albedo- and to some degree the lapse rate feedback are adopted from
literature, the water vapour feedback is derived from the sw and lw absorptivity calculations over the
different climate zones. With an amplification at clear sky conditions of 1:5 and at mean cloud cover of
1:2 these values are smaller than assumed in other climate models [27, 28].Since it is found that with increasing CO2 concentration the air temperature is less rapidly increasing
than the surface temperature, the convection at the boundary of both layers rises with the concentration.
As a consequence more thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. Similarly, with
increasing temperature also evaporation and precipitation are increasing with the ground temperature.
Both these effects contribute to negative feedback and are additionally included in the simulations.
A special situation is found for the influence of clouds on the radiation and energy budget. From
measurements of the global cloud cover over a period of 27 years it is deduced that the global mean
temperature is increasing with decreasing cloud cover [25]. However, it is not clear, if a lower cloud
cover is the consequence of the increasing temperature, or if the cloud cover is influenced and at least to
some degree controlled by some other mechanism, particularly solar activities. In the first case a strong
amplifying temperature induced cloud feedback had to be considered, this for the climate sensitivity as
well as for a respective solar sensitivity, whereas in the other case the temperature induced cloud effect
would disappear for both sensitivities and only a solar induced cloud feedback had to be included due to
the solar influence.
10 hours ago October 14, 2014
Hot on the heels of the Lewis and Curry paper, we have this new paper, which looks to be well researched, empirically based, and a potential blockbuster for dimming the alarmism that has been so prevalent over climate sensitivity. With a climate sensitivity of just 0.43°C, it takes the air out of the alarmism balloon.
A new paper published in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change by renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about [0.6C], about 7 times less than the IPCC claims, but in line with many other published low estimates of climate sensitivity.
The paper further establishes that climate sensitivity to tiny changes in solar activity is comparable to that of CO2 and by no means insignificant as the IPCC prefers to claim.
The following is a Google translation from the German EIKE site with an overview of the main findings of the paper, followed by a link to the full paper [in English].
Assessment of global warming due to CO2 and solar influence
Currently climate sensitivity (discussed for example here ) is claimed by the IPCC mid-value to be 3.0 C (AR4) as the most probable value, but others have determined much lower values of 1.73C or 1C or even 0.43C. Prof. Hermann Harde, renowned physicist and Spektral analytiker has determined from his new paper the climate sensitivity is [0.6 C]
Editor’s note: The “climate sensitivity” said quantity was invented to carry the presumption in meaningful ways into account that the global mean temperature of the atmosphere could possibly be driven in a certain way by increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the air. To this end, forces defined (postulated) called. “Forcings”, whose influence, by means of certain physically based and mostly plausible assumptions, to accomplish this increase as migration out of balance. One of the factors is required for the climate sensitivity. It indicates how much K (° C) doubling the heating of the CO2 concentration rises.
Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2
Hermann Harde* , Experimental Physics and Materials Science , Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg , Germany
Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change, In Press
Abstract
We present an advanced two-layer climate model, especially appropriate to calculate the influence of an increasing CO2-concentration and a varying solar activity on global warming. The model describes the atmosphere and the ground as two layers acting simultaneously as absorbers and Planck radiators, and it includes additional heat transfer between these layers due to convection and evaporation. The model considers all relevant feedback processes caused by changes of water vapour, lapse-rate, surface albedo or convection and evaporation. In particular the influence of clouds with a thermally or solar induced feedback is investigated in some detail. The short- and long-wave absorption of the most important greenhouse gases water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone are derived from line-by-line calculations based on the HITRAN08-databasis and are integrated in the model. Simulations including an increased solar activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 ̊ C and a solar influence of 0.54 ̊ C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 ̊ C (doubling of CO2) and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 ̊ C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).
Calculated surface temperature TE (red) and lower tropospheric temperature TA (blue) as a function of CO2 concentration, based on a combination of thermally and solar induced cloud feedback.
Calculated surface temperature TE (red) and lower tropospheric temperature TA (blue) as a function of
CO2 concentration, based on a combination of thermally and solar induced cloud feedback.
Conclusion
The objective of this paper was to examine and to quantify the influence of GH-gases on our climate.
Based on the HITRAN-2008 database [4] detailed spectroscopic calculations on the absorptivities of water
vapour and the gases carbon dioxide, methane and ozone in the atmosphere are presented.
The line-by-line calculations for solar radiation from 0.1–8 mm (sw radiation) as well as for the
terrestrial radiation from 3–100 mm (lw radiation) show, that due to the strong overlap of the CO2 and
CH4 spectra with water vapour lines the influence of these gases significantly declines with increasing
water vapour pressure, and that with increasing CO2-concentration well noticeable saturation effects are
observed limiting substantially the impact of CO2 on global warming.
The calculations were performed for three climate zones, the tropics, mid-latitudes and high-latitudes,
based on actual data of the water vapour content, which is considerably varying with altitude above ground
as well as with the climate zone and, therefore, with the temperature. The vertical variation in humidity
and temperature as well as in the partial gas pressures and the total pressure is considered by computing
individual absorption spectra for up to 228 atmospheric layers and then integrating from ground level up
to 86 km altitude.
The varying path length of sun light in these layers, which depends on the angle of incidence to the
atmosphere and therefore on the geographic latitude and longitude, is included by considering the Earth
as a truncated icosahedron (Bucky ball) consisting of 32 surface elements with well defined angles to the
incident radiation, and assigning each of these areas to one of the three climate zones.
Propagation of the long-wave radiation, in particular the up- and down-welling radiation, emitted
by the atmosphere itself, as well as their variation with temperature are derived from radiation transfer
calculations for each zone.To identify the influence of the absorbing gases on the climate and particularly the effect of an
increasing CO2-concentration on global warming, we developed an advanced two-layer climate model,
which describes the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere as two layers acting simultaneously as absorbers
and Planck radiators. Also heat transfer by convection and evaporation between these layers is considered.
At equilibrium each, the surface as well as the atmosphere, deliver as much power as they suck up from
the sun and the neighbouring layer or climate zone.
The model includes sw and lw scattering processes at the atmosphere and at clouds, in particular
considering multiple scattering between the surface and clouds. It also includes the common feedback
processes like water vapour, lapse rate and albedo feedback, but additionally takes into account the
influence of a temperature dependent sensible and latent heat flux as well as temperature induced and
solar induced cloud cover feedback.
As direct reference for the incident and outgoing fluxes in the model we use the energy and radiation
budget scheme of Tremberth et al. [20], which at a reference CO2 concentration of 380 ppm and a ground
temperature of 16 °C can well be reproduced.
With the sw and lw absorptivities as the key parameters in such model then the surface temperature
and the lower atmospheric temperature are calculated as a function of the CO2 concentration. From the
temperature variations, found at doubled CO2 concentration, the CO2 climate sensitivity and air sensitivity
are derived.
Particularly the individual feedback processes with their different influence on the climate sensitivity
are extensively discussed. While the albedo- and to some degree the lapse rate feedback are adopted from
literature, the water vapour feedback is derived from the sw and lw absorptivity calculations over the
different climate zones. With an amplification at clear sky conditions of 1:5 and at mean cloud cover of
1:2 these values are smaller than assumed in other climate models [27, 28].Since it is found that with increasing CO2 concentration the air temperature is less rapidly increasing
than the surface temperature, the convection at the boundary of both layers rises with the concentration.
As a consequence more thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. Similarly, with
increasing temperature also evaporation and precipitation are increasing with the ground temperature.
Both these effects contribute to negative feedback and are additionally included in the simulations.
A special situation is found for the influence of clouds on the radiation and energy budget. From
measurements of the global cloud cover over a period of 27 years it is deduced that the global mean
temperature is increasing with decreasing cloud cover [25]. However, it is not clear, if a lower cloud
cover is the consequence of the increasing temperature, or if the cloud cover is influenced and at least to
some degree controlled by some other mechanism, particularly solar activities. In the first case a strong
amplifying temperature induced cloud feedback had to be considered, this for the climate sensitivity as
well as for a respective solar sensitivity, whereas in the other case the temperature induced cloud effect
would disappear for both sensitivities and only a solar induced cloud feedback had to be included due to
the solar influence.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Particularly the individual feedback processes with their different influence on the climate sensitivity
are extensively discussed. While the albedo- and to some degree the lapse rate feedback are adopted from
literature, the water vapour feedback is derived from the sw and lw absorptivity calculations over the
different climate zones. With an amplification at clear sky conditions of 1:5 and at mean cloud cover of
1:2 these values are smaller than assumed in other climate models [27, 28].Since it is found that with increasing CO2 concentration the air temperature is less rapidly increasing
than the surface temperature, the convection at the boundary of both layers rises with the concentration.
As a consequence more thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. Similarly, with
increasing temperature also evaporation and precipitation are increasing with the ground temperature.
Both these effects contribute to negative feedback and are additionally included in the simulations.
A special situation is found for the influence of clouds on the radiation and energy budget. From
measurements of the global cloud cover over a period of 27 years it is deduced that the global mean
temperature is increasing with decreasing cloud cover [25]. However, it is not clear, if a lower cloud
cover is the consequence of the increasing temperature, or if the cloud cover is influenced and at least to
some degree controlled by some other mechanism, particularly solar activities. In the first case a strong
amplifying temperature induced cloud feedback had to be considered, this for the climate sensitivity as
well as for a respective solar sensitivity, whereas in the other case the temperature induced cloud effect
would disappear for both sensitivities and only a solar induced cloud feedback had to be included due to
the solar influence.
A deliberate approach which mechanism really controls the cloud cover with its dominant influence
on the climate and solar sensitivity can be derived from model simulations, which additionally include
the solar effect and compare this with the measured temperature increase over the last century. These
simulations, considering both effects, show that the observed global warming of 0.74 °C [51] can only
satisfactorily be explained, when a temperature feedback on the clouds is completely excluded or only has
a minor influence. Otherwise the calculated warming would be significantly larger than observed, or the
thermally induced cloud feedback would have been overestimated. With a combination of temperature and
solar induced cloud feedback we deduce a CO2 climate sensitivity of CS = 0.6 °C and a solar sensitivity,
related to 0.1 % change of the solar constant, of SS = 0.5 °C. An increase in the solar activity of only 0.1
% over 100 years then contributes to a warming of 0.54 °C, and the 100 ppm increase of CO2 over this
period causes additional 0.2 °C in excellent agreement with the measured warming and cloud cover.
From our investigations, which are based on actual spectroscopic data and which consider all relevant
feedback processes as well as the solar influence, we can conclude, that a CO2 climate sensitivity larger
1 °C seems quite improbable, whereas a value of 0.5 – 0.7 °C – depending on the considered solar anomaly
– fits well with all observations of a changing solar constant, the cloud cover and global temperature. A
climate sensitivity in agreement with the IPCC specifications (1.5 – 4.5 °C) would only be possible, when
any solar influence could completely be excluded, and only CO2 induced thermal cloud feedback would
be assumed, then yielding a value of 1.7 °C.
It should be noticed that different to global circulation models, which try to predict local climate
variations over some time period and, therefore, have to solve complex coupled nonlinear differential
equations with countless parameters, for tracing the climate sensitivity this is of no significance. We
calculate an equilibrium state and can average over larger local variations, for which a partitioning into
three climate zones is quite sufficient. In addition, a simple energy balance model, focussing on the main
physical processes, is much more transparent than any AOGCM and can help to better understand the
complex interrelations characterizing our climate system.
Full text, open access: http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/download/3001-846.pdf
are extensively discussed. While the albedo- and to some degree the lapse rate feedback are adopted from
literature, the water vapour feedback is derived from the sw and lw absorptivity calculations over the
different climate zones. With an amplification at clear sky conditions of 1:5 and at mean cloud cover of
1:2 these values are smaller than assumed in other climate models [27, 28].Since it is found that with increasing CO2 concentration the air temperature is less rapidly increasing
than the surface temperature, the convection at the boundary of both layers rises with the concentration.
As a consequence more thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. Similarly, with
increasing temperature also evaporation and precipitation are increasing with the ground temperature.
Both these effects contribute to negative feedback and are additionally included in the simulations.
A special situation is found for the influence of clouds on the radiation and energy budget. From
measurements of the global cloud cover over a period of 27 years it is deduced that the global mean
temperature is increasing with decreasing cloud cover [25]. However, it is not clear, if a lower cloud
cover is the consequence of the increasing temperature, or if the cloud cover is influenced and at least to
some degree controlled by some other mechanism, particularly solar activities. In the first case a strong
amplifying temperature induced cloud feedback had to be considered, this for the climate sensitivity as
well as for a respective solar sensitivity, whereas in the other case the temperature induced cloud effect
would disappear for both sensitivities and only a solar induced cloud feedback had to be included due to
the solar influence.
A deliberate approach which mechanism really controls the cloud cover with its dominant influence
on the climate and solar sensitivity can be derived from model simulations, which additionally include
the solar effect and compare this with the measured temperature increase over the last century. These
simulations, considering both effects, show that the observed global warming of 0.74 °C [51] can only
satisfactorily be explained, when a temperature feedback on the clouds is completely excluded or only has
a minor influence. Otherwise the calculated warming would be significantly larger than observed, or the
thermally induced cloud feedback would have been overestimated. With a combination of temperature and
solar induced cloud feedback we deduce a CO2 climate sensitivity of CS = 0.6 °C and a solar sensitivity,
related to 0.1 % change of the solar constant, of SS = 0.5 °C. An increase in the solar activity of only 0.1
% over 100 years then contributes to a warming of 0.54 °C, and the 100 ppm increase of CO2 over this
period causes additional 0.2 °C in excellent agreement with the measured warming and cloud cover.
From our investigations, which are based on actual spectroscopic data and which consider all relevant
feedback processes as well as the solar influence, we can conclude, that a CO2 climate sensitivity larger
1 °C seems quite improbable, whereas a value of 0.5 – 0.7 °C – depending on the considered solar anomaly
– fits well with all observations of a changing solar constant, the cloud cover and global temperature. A
climate sensitivity in agreement with the IPCC specifications (1.5 – 4.5 °C) would only be possible, when
any solar influence could completely be excluded, and only CO2 induced thermal cloud feedback would
be assumed, then yielding a value of 1.7 °C.
It should be noticed that different to global circulation models, which try to predict local climate
variations over some time period and, therefore, have to solve complex coupled nonlinear differential
equations with countless parameters, for tracing the climate sensitivity this is of no significance. We
calculate an equilibrium state and can average over larger local variations, for which a partitioning into
three climate zones is quite sufficient. In addition, a simple energy balance model, focussing on the main
physical processes, is much more transparent than any AOGCM and can help to better understand the
complex interrelations characterizing our climate system.
Full text, open access: http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/download/3001-846.pdf
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Data and Station Information for VANCOUVER
The tide gauge at Vancouver, Canada shows no change in sea level over the last 100 years. Experts there are terrified.
Sea level rise underestimated, say B.C. scientists
CBC News Posted: Feb 20, 2012 8:51 AM PT Last Updated: Feb 20, 2012 7:13 PM PT
Some scientists at an international symposium in Vancouver warn most estimates for a rise in the sea level are too conservative and several B.C. communities will be vulnerable to flooding unless drastic action is taken.
The gathering of the American Association for the Advancement of Science heard Sunday the sea level could rise by as little as 30 centimetres or as much as one metre in the next century.
But SFU geology professor John Clague, who studies the effect of the rising sea on the B.C. coast, says a rise
The tide gauge at Vancouver, Canada shows no change in sea level over the last 100 years. Experts there are terrified.
Sea level rise underestimated, say B.C. scientists
CBC News Posted: Feb 20, 2012 8:51 AM PT Last Updated: Feb 20, 2012 7:13 PM PT
Some scientists at an international symposium in Vancouver warn most estimates for a rise in the sea level are too conservative and several B.C. communities will be vulnerable to flooding unless drastic action is taken.
The gathering of the American Association for the Advancement of Science heard Sunday the sea level could rise by as little as 30 centimetres or as much as one metre in the next century.
But SFU geology professor John Clague, who studies the effect of the rising sea on the B.C. coast, says a rise
GLG
Well-Known Member
OBD you seem to use a shotgun approach to climate change.
Can you do me a favor and just let us know where you stand.
Is it.....
1 - no such thing as global warming
2 - Global warming is a hoax
3 - yes there is global warming but it's natural
4 - yes there is man-made global warming but it's not that bad
I'm having a hard time pinning you down as to what you think.
Hard to discuss such an important topic when I don't know where you stand.
Can you do me a favor and just let us know where you stand.
Is it.....
1 - no such thing as global warming
2 - Global warming is a hoax
3 - yes there is global warming but it's natural
4 - yes there is man-made global warming but it's not that bad
I'm having a hard time pinning you down as to what you think.
Hard to discuss such an important topic when I don't know where you stand.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
5 - Man at this time is unable and uncapable of projecting the future.
Man is still starting to learn about the oceans and what effect they have.
Still learning about the sun, clouds etc.etc.
He does know about money and this is all about money.
Man is still starting to learn about the oceans and what effect they have.
Still learning about the sun, clouds etc.etc.
He does know about money and this is all about money.
"He does know about money and this is all about money." - On this we agree. Money from the oil companies is hard at work to win minds and influence people. It's done it's magic on a few like you.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Nice mangle of the 2012 news item.....
Here it is so all can see...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...e-underestimated-say-b-c-scientists-1.1275818
Sea level rise underestimated, say B.C. scientists
Some scientists at an international symposium in Vancouver warn most estimates for a rise in the sea level are too conservative and several B.C. communities will be vulnerable to flooding unless drastic action is taken.
The gathering of the American Association for the Advancement of Science heard Sunday the sea level could rise by as little as 30 centimetres or as much as one metre in the next century.
But SFU geology professor John Clague, who studies the effect of the rising sea on the B.C. coast, says a rise of about one metre is more likely.
He said that's serious enough to threaten the communities of Richmond and Delta, including homes, Vancouver's international airport, Deltaport and theTsawwassen ferry terminal.
"We're going to see people either defending property, spending tremendous amounts of money trying to defend coastal properties, or we need to relocate the peripheries of our cities to higher elevations," said Clague.
While the sea level has remained relatively constant during the past 5,000 years, it has been rising over the past 100 to 200 years, and Clague says melting glaciers and a warmer ocean that occupies more space are to blame.
"One of the most famous atmospheric scientists, James Hansen, is arguing we could be facing five-metre higher sea levels by the end of the century, and he's not a flake, he's a very renowned scientist," said Clague
[h=3]Higher dikes, houses on stilts[/h]That's a drastic scenario that most scientists feel is unlikely, but if true, would force the abandonment of Richmond, says Clague.
Clague says building defences like protective dikes are costly, but retreat may not be an option in major cities like Vancouver or Seattle.
UBC researcher David Flanders says people living in low-lying communities have several options when it comes to protecting their properties from a rising sea, including building barrier islands in inter-tidal zones to reduce the impact of winds and waves during storms.
Residents of communities like Delta could also build higher dikes or implement unique architectural solutions, like building homes on stilts or even moving entire communities, says Flanders.
Margaret Davidson of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the problem could impact as many as 500 million people worldwide.
A 2011 report from the B.C. government warned builders and developers to plan for a one-metre rise in the sea level within the next 90 years.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Lets see if the data for Vancouver tide show a trend.
Yup there is a trend and it's not what OBD claims...
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/175.php
Yup there is a trend and it's not what OBD claims...
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/175.php
GLG
Well-Known Member
I see you are holding all 4 ideas all at the same time.
Yea sure man can't predict the future... LOL
You tell me with these two graphs that "man" can't predict the future...
You know this is simple stuff here... raise CO2 and temp will follow.
Ice core records go back 800,000 years and we never see any CO2 above 300 ppm.
That includes 6 ice age events with warming in between.
We are at 400 ppm now and on track for 600 ppm... that's not going to turn out well.
And your advice is.... wait and see so we can learn more?
- Status
Similar threads
