Study: $45 Trillion Investment Needed To Fight Global Warming

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Study: $45 Trillion Investment Needed To Fight Global Warming stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JOSEPH COLEMAN | June 6, 2008 07:06 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.

The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.

"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.

A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.

Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.

Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.

The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century.

The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.

Story continues below
advertisement

Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.

That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.

The second scenario also calls for an accelerated ramping up of development of so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground.

The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050.

In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity _ the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy _ in the transport sector.

Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand. Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said.

"This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.

Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment _ about $27 trillion _ would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector.

"If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, deep CO2 emission cuts, then these investments will be made by the private sector," Gielen said.

TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,...
TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,...
Filed by Katherine Thomson  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
657
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)
photo

There is a life-style shift coming. In the future we will be buying what we need, not the shite the consumer driven corporations want us to purchase endlessly. We can't keep making cheap crappy things and throwing them away.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 06/07/2008
- coyote4 I'm a Fan of coyote4 70 fans permalink
photo

Walmart and Home depot are obsolete

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:15 PM on 06/07/2008
- mouselion I'm a Fan of mouselion 123 fans permalink
photo

We actually got our Home Depot to close in our town! Not by protest. Just by a large number of residents in our county shunning it for local hardware and lumber stores.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:30 PM on 06/07/2008

STOP THE INSANITY!!
There is one obvious step Congress could take to relieve fuel cost & help gas emissions too. It could be done, legislated & put into effect very quickly & would have an almost instant effect on prices of nearly everything- bread, milk, gas- everything! We are being painted into a smaller & smaller corner, we HAVE to do something. The solution of which I speak?
Pass legislation that requires all big corporations (Wal-mart, Kmart, Sears, JC Penney, Dollar Stores, etc.) to transport via train instead of semi-trucks. This is more than a band-aide that would help for a while & fall off & be back where we were. It is a permanent help. It could be done quickly & would help immediately & long term.
Such legislation would help every family in this country & the world itself. The drop in emissions of these semis alone should be an incredible & immediate. It would crash the demand for crude oil in the USA. Which would crash the price of gas & diesel, greatly lowering the price of everything we buy. Part of the cost of everything we buy is affected by gas/diesel because it has to be transported to our given areas.
It's time to make Washington do whatever has to be done to stop this insanity. There is no shortage of oil, gas or diesel. There are rich oil/energy tycoons who want to be richer oil/energy tycoons. Then there is the rest of us. Who do

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 PM on 06/07/2008
photo

It cost 2 1/2 times more to build a highway that handles trucks than just cars alone. Trains are also 400 times more fuel efficient than trucks. Sorry Teamsters, your days are numbered..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 06/07/2008
photo

" Trains are also 400 times more fuel efficient than trucks"

Yes, but not everyone lives by the railroad tracks. Trucks are necessary to get goods from the rail yard.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 06/07/2008

We have not solved the nuclear waste problem, so more nuclear power plants will just cause more problems.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:29 PM on 06/07/2008

Here is an interesting question.

What is the intrinsic value of oil?

One barrel of oil has an energy content of 6.1GJ. That's about 1700kWh. If burned in the most modern power plant, approx. 1000kWh can be extracted (at 60% thermodynamic efficiency).

At the industrial price of electricity (8 cents) this amounts to $80 worth of energy. $120, if you assume residential pricing.

If you burn the same oil in form of gas in your car, you get 130MJ/gallon. That's 36kWh. The thermodynamic efficiency of a good car is on the order of 15-20%. So at best, you get maybe 7kWh of useful energy out of a gallon of gas. That is worth 84 cents at residential prices. Of course, an electric car would not be 100% efficient, either. Let's assume a conservative 60% efficiency, then the same energy we get out of 1 gallon of gas can be had electrically for $0.84/0.6=­$1.40.

Obviously, if you are paying $4/gallon, you are over-paying by a factor of over 2.8.

In other words: gasoline is about as expensive as residential solar without subsidy. Now... if you think about how much the world will spend on oil for transportation in the next 40 years, it should be clear that for $45 trillion one could as well just go solar and be done with that part. And then we can take on coal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 PM on 06/07/2008
photo

"Let's assume a conservative 60% efficiency"

Bad assumption.

Because of transmission losses, you have to put 3 watts into the grid, for every watt you take out.

So the cost of just delivering electricity results in 33% effiiciency. (and that's assuming the generators and the electric car are both 100% efficient).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 PM on 06/07/2008
- mouselion I'm a Fan of mouselion 123 fans permalink
photo

That's a matter electrical engineering and not oil. We known for decades our electrical infrastructure is inefficient and looses electricity in the process. We have the technology -- but what you're stating is not known by probably 85-90% of the population. It's on par to the auto industry not wanting to make changes in technology and mileage, ultimately, Big Oil is and has been Big Boss.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 PM on 06/07/2008

Timmy, you know nothing about electricity. Grid efficiency is 90+%. Generation efficiency can be as high as 60%. Look it up. We made a few advances since Edison. The price you pay at home is the price you pay at home. Generation cost is far below that price.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:50 PM on 06/07/2008

By the way... my 60% efficiency assumption was for the outlet-bat­tery-elect­ric motor-wheels part. It has nothing to do with the 60% thermal efficiency of a combined cycle power plant. You need to read my post AND try to understand it before you reply.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:55 PM on 06/07/2008
- Wiredwilly I'm a Fan of Wiredwilly 23 fans permalink

How to stop Global Warming for FREE : Change your behavior.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 PM on 06/07/2008
photo

Fair enough and I think everyone ought to do what they can.
However, what is the plan for nations such as India and China and most other third world nations (most of the planet) that have declined to play along with us on this issue?
It would seem to me, THAT, is the inconvenient truth.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 06/07/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

What about the pixie dust?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:20 AM on 06/09/2008
- Seattle34 I'm a Fan of Seattle34 7 fans permalink

The problem is that you will have to change your behavior so radically that it is probably impossible to achieve.

Scientist say we need to get back to 1975 levels of CO2 emissions. OK, that's easy. But wait, because over the next 30 years, the much of the third world will be advancing towards an increased Western style of living. This means that in actuality, we ALL must cut back quite a bit further.

In fact, if everyone in the world were allowed to produce CO2 equally, then we're allowed about 735 kg/person per year.

Today, a person living in Paris, NYC or London produces about 10,000kg/year.

To produce 735 kg/year, you can drive a Prius only 4600 miles/year and run one lightbult at your house. No airplane flights. Stores cannot have any lighting.

Do you see how difficult it is to actually meet the goals the scientists claim we must meet? Driving a hybrid and screwing in a few CFLs doesn't get your there.

The one technology that CAN get us there is nuclear energy. It has the scale the world needs.

If you hate nuclear energy, and you want to solve global warming, then you are simply crossing your fingers. Solar? Wind Power? Forget about it. Read up on "base load" and then get back to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 PM on 06/07/2008
photo

Bravo!

fan!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 PM on 06/07/2008
- coyote4 I'm a Fan of coyote4 70 fans permalink
photo

So, what is your point: that we are f** ked and cannot stop the inevitable destruction of our civilization? That we should eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we d i e?

Do you actually have anything to add, or are you entrenched in your fatal ism?

And what does this have to do with your points?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant

What I draw from your post is that current rates of consumption and environmental degradation are not sustainable , never mind adding third world growth in consumption. And on that we agree.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 06/07/2008
- Ajita I'm a Fan of Ajita 82 fans permalink
photo

I guess HuffPost thrives on headlines and controversy like any other news organization. The only contributor who actually has tips for those who actually want to make a difference, Olivia Zaleski, hasn't posted here. Meanwhile, we get all this eco-news modeled on the same formula that makes the MSM such garbage.
Are we that delusional to think that this page is actually going to convert the conservatives? If HuffPost really wants to do something for the environment, they should bring back Ms Zaleski's columns with eco-friendly tips and activities for everyday folks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 AM on 06/07/2008
- shockmagog I'm a Fan of shockmagog 137 fans permalink
photo

You have a good point that there should be "eco-friendly tips" wherever we may find them on this site. However, the conservatives who post on this site represent the eternally damned. They can never be educated, much less "converted­." Like inflatable clowns, some may consider them merely to be stood up and knocked down--used as a stage show--a source of idle amusement. To me though, sometimes, they do force me to back up with facts some subjects I already had some idea about, and to maybe learn something extra.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 AM on 06/07/2008
- Ajita I'm a Fan of Ajita 82 fans permalink
photo

Thats true about the conservatives. Funny, actually. BTW, I just had a thought. If you've been to any of these conservative sites, you'd be so bored, you couldn't stay for more than a minute. I think many of these idiots like hanging out here get-off on progressives. There isn't much fun they can have over at the right-wing hate-spewing blogs. They actually LIKE being in the presence of intelligent life here at HuffPost and secretly wish their party was as cool and that their friends were not all morons.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 AM on 06/07/2008
- SCG I'm a Fan of SCG 111 fans permalink
photo

I'd really like to help, but I'm alittle short. I do have one idea to save trees which absorb CO2 , that is introduce the 45 trillion dollar bill. You would just have to print one of those suckers...­..maybe put pic "W" in the oval. And instead of "In God we Trust" we could put "God Save Us"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 PM on 06/06/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 261 fans permalink

Solar and Wind, Just 1 trillion dollars. No Nukes, coal or oil.

See my profile for details.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:32 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

I did. No details. Just a made up number, with no citation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 PM on 06/06/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 261 fans permalink

Which number was wrong?

I did the math, I didn't just grab off someones site.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 PM on 06/06/2008
- Seattle34 I'm a Fan of Seattle34 7 fans permalink

I don't know where to start with all the errors in your math.

We'd need 2.7M acres of solar cells to meet our energy demands.

We'd need 1.2M acres of wind turbines to meet our energy demands.

You have taken the most simplistic analysis of output from each technology. Consider, for example, that the best large-scale wind farms today are creating about 324 kwh/m2/year.

Next, if you want to ensure that there is 99.9% energy availability, then take the area needed for wind power and multiply by 5X. And multiply solar by 2.5X.

Next, justs consider for a moment a single wind turbine has a mast that weighs 180,000 pounds. If we need nearly 2M wind turbines to meet our needs, then we'd need 162M tons of steel just to build the masts. That is the country's total steel output for an entire year. Next, consider the amount of concrete needed to anchor 2M masts to the ground. It takes significatnly more concrete to erect 2M wind generators than it would take to build the 200 reactors we'd need to meet our demand.

Do you understand how nasty it is to make large quantities of high efficiency solar cells? The chemicals involved are horrid, the amount of water involved is staggering. If you want the low efficiency solar sells, then that's fine, but multiply the acreage needed above by 8X.

You really are failing to grasp the scale and magnitude of the problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 PM on 06/07/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 261 fans permalink

Of course it's a giant project, you think a trillion dollars is a small matter?

All of the complication you have brought up are factored into the price for solar and wind AVERAGE cost per watt delivered.

Compared to war crimes for oil, coal pollution and environmental destruction and nuclear's 25 year limit, weapons potential and million year waste, Solar and wind are "simple".

By point: Nuclear and coal plants average about 500 acres per GW plus millions of acres for mining.

Solar on roof tops...as stated.

Wind farms off shore.

Availability by water power storage, flywheels, batteries, thermal storage and of course existing hydro and hydrocarbon power plants during the conversion.

I have made solar cells. The can be made very cleanly from silicon. Concentrator solar cell and optics reduce the total mass of solar cell by over 99%, thus eliminating even that concern.

There are no "Gotcha's". the technology is here. The will is what's needed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:18 PM on 06/07/2008
- dadw5boys I'm a Fan of dadw5boys 279 fans permalink
photo

Well your forgetting the millions of ac. of structural exterior walls where solar panels can be placed.

Hang solar panel on every exterior wall building that gets any sun even design new building so the cam max out the exterior of the building to produce electris power.

We have 20 times the ac. we need we just got to get every roof and every wall covered and connected to the grid.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 PM on 06/08/2008
- dgscol I'm a Fan of dgscol 4 fans permalink
photo

Now we see what the green movement is all about : rich rich rich power plant people, like pigs at a trough.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1579 fans permalink
photo

What a Genius! Is that what you see now? Wow! And I bet you also believe in the worldwide conspiracy by scientists to destroy the White Middle Class Whites in Kentucky. That is the only reason they do environmental research.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:21 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

Honestly man! Is this all the hell you do?! I have read two pages of your comments on this issue and every single comment is the same as the last. You contribute exactly 0% to the conversation, absolutely no information, no interesting links or scientific information. Just an ad hominem attack on anyone who presents an intelligent, articulate opinion. When they do respond to you with evidence, you jump to annoying someone else and ignore it.
Are you sure that it's global warming that is bothering you or is it that most of these people are debating intelligently and it makes you feel left out?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:47 PM on 06/06/2008

Rich power plant people? You obviously have no idea how the regulated energy industry works in the United States.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:55 PM on 06/06/2008
- rwe I'm a Fan of rwe 21 fans permalink

DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW SAVE MONEY....T­he Islamo terrorists are beside themselves as the Enviroterrorists have done more damage to the USA since 9/11 than they have.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1579 fans permalink
photo

Ooh! You are so smart. And don't forget that there are also those Marxists at Harvard and Berkeley conspiring to take over West Virginia coal mines for some reason. And Hugo Chavez is just about ready to invade Kentucky. There are threats all around us, but only the smart ones like you sees those threats.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

HumeSkeptic you've been doing a helluva job knocking these wingnuts around today.

There is SO MUCH MONEY being pumped out by the fossil fuel industry to spread confusion and doubt, I've come to believe that at least a few of these guys, especially TheHedonistic PleasureSeeker, are professionals that come here deliberately to try to further the confusion.

It's the only explanation as to how they could be so immune to facts and logic and common sense. And that is the Way of the Wingnut.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:43 PM on 06/06/2008

Huh? What was that noise? Did your starter motor just burst?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:57 PM on 06/06/2008
- FogBelter I'm a Fan of FogBelter 269 fans permalink
photo

Extinction's Cheaper.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:47 PM on 06/06/2008
- johnnyjust I'm a Fan of johnnyjust 6 fans permalink

You first.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 PM on 06/07/2008
- mouselion I'm a Fan of mouselion 123 fans permalink
photo

You keep pointing out your hatred for people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 PM on 06/07/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

Well, now that the mouth-breathers are swamping the thread it's time to do something more productive since facts and logic, let alone science, are beyond their comprehension. There's no point trying to teach a mule to think. It just wastes your time and pisses the mule off.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

Check out the unearthed news of the week: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-brendan-demelle/unearthed-news-of-the-wee_b_105693.html

These facts on the ground pretty much contradict what they've been saying all day.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:28 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

Hence, the Mule is a perfect mascot for the Democrat Party.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:46 PM on 06/06/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

Never mind that a mule is not a donkey, and NOT the mascot of the Democratic party.

Ouch! Bit on the 'ass' by another fact!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 PM on 06/06/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

Never mind that the mule is not a donkey, and not the mascot of the Democratic party.

Ouch! Bit by another pesky fact1

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:56 PM on 06/06/2008

The mule also does not procreate (well). So here you have one of "God's designs" that just does not work. Bummer...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1579 fans permalink
photo

That has always been my approach to address the issue that some states want their kids to be taught "Creationism". Let them. In fact, encourage it. That way our kids would be the only ones qualified for real jobs requiring real education.

Leave these deniers be dinosaurs. They will become extinct soon enough.

We should find more productive outlets for our time and energy than trying to convince flat earthers that it isn't flat.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:18 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

I'm not a Deinier, I'm an Agnostic (to quote Charles Krauthammer).

Considering that you scheme is going to cost at least 45 Trillion dollars of money you don't have; I think those of us are entitled to an explanation.

Don't blame us, if you haven't been able to formulate a convincing argument.

You're essentially telling us, that we have to buy an energy policy that we're too stupid to understand. And you wonder why we're angry? Maybe start by toning down the arrogance a little.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:19 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

What an interesting way to concede. Y'all asked for peer review and you got it. You also got documentation that this grand hoax was cooked up by the Club of Rome decades ago. Global warming debunking hit the tipping point last fall. Nice try though.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:17 PM on 06/06/2008
- speakeasy I'm a Fan of speakeasy 3 fans permalink

Sorry dude, this wasn't cooked up a few decades ago, it was just a bunch of dots back then that began to get connected in the 80's and then were double checked into the nineties and then the serious repercussions began in the 2000's. And guess what, the scientists will continue trying to prove the GW theory wrong, thats what they do and they do it better than you or Fox News or that one paper you read that fit into your tiny little narrow viewpoint. Its always easy to find non-fact based websites to support anything you have, but its really hard to read thru reams of reports and charts from various credited institutions (gov't, public and private). If you want the links that may spell it out better for you and you honestly will do some real research, let me know....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:42 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Come on people; this is why they don't call it Global Warming any more. They call it Climate Change. They want to TAX you for breathing. I'm old enough to remember the last "New Ice Age" panic, and wise enough not to fall for it this time 'round.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:16 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

If I remember, we were supposed to run out of oil by the year 2000 too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:45 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1579 fans permalink
photo

Huh?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:31 PM on 06/06/2008

The problem with you, Timmy, is that you don't know how to quote.

We were never supposed to run out of oil by 2000. The production curve of oil was supposed to peak AROUND the year 2000 after which we would have slowly run down the curve just as we slowly run up on it. Not taking into account the oil crisis of 1973 and the following slump in consumption, of course, which was not part of the original model prediction in 1956. Now, if you add that into the model, the peak prediction moves forward a bit... to 2005-1010.

And look here.. it's all over the news... production is peaking everywhere. World oil production is essentially flat for the last two or three years, prices are up four to five hundred percent...

Are we past peak, yet? No. The peak is broad and can be expected to last until 2010, maybe 2012, if our oil producers keep up the good drilling. And then, beyond 2012 (only four years from now!), there will be a steep, steep cliff. Better be prepared, Timmy. You can't even imagine where prices will go then. (I can... and I would say that $20/gallon for gas is in the works).

I would love to see you face next time you go an fill up your car, mumbling, "Peak oil is a sham! Peak oil is a sham!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:07 PM on 06/06/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

No, that was 2009. By the way, cite please and your cite is biased.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:17 AM on 06/09/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

OK, one more quick one before I head off for the weekend...­.

I'll see your Schwartz paper "Heat capacity, time constant and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system" with the discussion of the paper here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/langswitch_lang/im

and with this comment on the paper by Knutti, Krahenmann, Frame and Allen
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08jgr.pdf

"Here we show that (i) the autocorrelation timescale estimates from interannual variability is much smaller than the response timescale to climate change, (ii) the method of Schwartz [2007] when applied to climate models consistently underestimates their known there appears to be surprisingly little correlation between the autocorrelation timescale and climate sensitivity across a large set of models, for reasons that merit further investigation. We argue, therefore, that the analysis of Schwartz [2007] does not provide meaningful information about climate sensitivity, radiative forcing, and the response timescales relevant to climate change."

I wish I had a dollar for every 'nail in the global warming coffin' that turned out to be a bent tack.

Lesson: don't just refer to the paper, follow the cites to see how it pans out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1579 fans permalink
photo

LOL.

And I do admire your patience with these scientist wannabes who show up here. The problem is that the likes of THP don't even realize what you made him look like. For if he did, he would change his moniker, or just quit posting altogether. Forever.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:30 PM on 06/06/2008
- speakeasy I'm a Fan of speakeasy 3 fans permalink

The hedonistic (self) pleasureseeker just got punked by Exusian. BAM!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 PM on 06/06/2008
- dgscol I'm a Fan of dgscol 4 fans permalink
photo

Just give Bill Gates some visas and a loan and he will cover the cost with the sales of his hypergyrating operating system. Can you believe it?

What about the nuclear proliferation issue? This legislation is so silly. How do proposals like this even get written? By cocaine addicts?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:07 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1579 fans permalink
photo

Talking of cocain addicts, it seems that you missed an exit or something.

What the F are you talking about?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:34 PM on 06/06/2008
- Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Patrick Takahashi 25 fans permalink
photo

What was I thinking? In my two HuffPo blogs over the past week, I suggested a trivial trillion dollar program to combat Peak Oil and Global Warming. In one of them, I provide a clue to presidential candidate Obama to also end wars forever as a co-product legacy. Then I read where the International Energy Agency reported on a $45 trillion requirement. I fear that even $45 trillion, actually, will not be sufficient. But we are now talking real money.

Oh, oil hit a record high today of $138/barrel.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:59 PM on 06/06/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect