Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper

[Brian Ellis]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.

The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.

It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.

Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.
Continue reading the main story

"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science," he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.

"Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.

"Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published..."

[UtwigMU]

I'm wondering to what extent climate change is euphemism for peak oil. Production of oil is stagnating and is projected to decline, same for gas, we have coal for about 2 centuries.

If you tell people we're making you buy more efficient cars and build better houses to save polar bears it's much better PR-wise than saying: Look oil will go up, we're in for century of economic stagnation, regression of society, instability and wars.

I'm not saying there is no climate change, but as human emissions go, the problem will solve itself within a century.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm wondering to what extent climate change is euphemism for peak oil. Production of oil is stagnating and is projected to decline, same for gas, we have coal for about 2 centuries.

If you tell people we're making you buy more efficient cars and build better houses to save polar bears it's much better PR-wise than saying: Look oil will go up, we're in for century of economic stagnation, regression of society, instability and wars.

I'm not saying there is no climate change, but as human emissions go, the problem will solve itself within a century.

Production is stagnating because a) OPEC has reduced output and b) the global economy is in recession. There is still plenty of oil until at least mid-century in known reserves and even more gas. I used to be a "peak-oil-ist" when known reserves were sufficient only until 2008-2012 but I dropped this notion with some massive new discoveries, such as the Leviathan field, in the Arctic, Angola, etc. Exploratory drilling has started in the E. Med. with the belief that there will be sufficient oil and gas to supply the whole of the EU for 50 years.

I'm against emotional arguments like "polar bears" (although that would be tragic), and would prefer the consensual science - the forthcoming 5th IPCC Report will be the clincher which will take the wind out of the sails out of the contrarians and sceptics. It will narrow down the uncertainties.

The problem will most certainly not "solve itself within a century" or several centuries. Apart from the 300-year CO2 lifetime, many of the worst fluorocarbon greenhouse gases we emit today have lifetimes of 1,000 years, even 10,000 years and longer, with global warming potentials of 300 to thousands of times worse than CO2. http://weather.cypenv.eu/notes/greenhouse_gases.html Put 20 "great-"s in front of "grandchildren" and they will still feel some of the effects of our 21st century profligacy. We are playing a centuries-long sorcerer's apprentice, because our modelling does not (cannot) go much beyond the end of this century, even with a choice of as many scenarii as you like.

[Evildead666]

afaik Siberian Tundra (was permafrost) Methane and Alaskan Tundra (was permafrost) Methane are some of the biggest problems we have to face, but that we know almost nothing about.
A few big burps of the Methane from these two places as the climate warms even a little, will bring an unchangeable climate acceleration.
We have probably gone too far already, time and history will be the only ones that can document it.

Instead of building bullets we should be building manned space exploration vehicles.
We'll run out of resources and time, and then we'll be f*ked.

[Brian Ellis]

Not just permafrost methane. The Gulf of Mexico has enough methane on the bottom in the form of clathrates that, if it could be harvested, would supply the USA's total energy needs for many decades. The problem is that clathrates are so unstable that the "big burp" is believed by some as a real possibility. If the shock wave propagated over all the beds, that would probably be the end of life on earth, as we know it. Even more methane clathrate is found under the Arctic Ocean but the lower ocean temperatures there render it less likely to burp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

The burp is not even hypothesis, so much as speculation. I don't lose any sleep thinking about it!

[dZeus]

Production is stagnating because a) OPEC has reduced output and b) the global economy is in recession. There is still plenty of oil until at least mid-century in known reserves and even more gas. I used to be a "peak-oil-ist" when known reserves were sufficient only until 2008-2012 but I dropped this notion with some massive new discoveries, such as the Leviathan field, in the Arctic, Angola, etc. Exploratory drilling has started in the E. Med. with the belief that there will be sufficient oil and gas to supply the whole of the EU for 50 years.

I'm against emotional arguments like "polar bears" (although that would be tragic), and would prefer the consensual science - the forthcoming 5th IPCC Report will be the clincher which will take the wind out of the sails out of the contrarians and sceptics. It will narrow down the uncertainties.

The problem will most certainly not "solve itself within a century" or several centuries. Apart from the 300-year CO2 lifetime, many of the worst fluorocarbon greenhouse gases we emit today have lifetimes of 1,000 years, even 10,000 years and longer, with global warming potentials of 300 to thousands of times worse than CO2. http://weather.cypenv.eu/notes/greenhouse_gases.html Put 20 "great-"s in front of "grandchildren" and they will still feel some of the effects of our 21st century profligacy. We are playing a centuries-long sorcerer's apprentice, because our modelling does not (cannot) go much beyond the end of this century, even with a choice of as many scenarii as you like.

What do you base your oil supply figures on? I've read that the IEA has greatly overstated oil reserves (as in putting a huge amount of 'yet to be discovered reserves'), not taking into account that most of the cheap and easy to get oil supplies have already been explored. The problem is not as much peak capacity of oil exploration, but the price necessary to pump it up. My understanding is that we won't be running out of oil (probably ever), but that the oil will gradually be more and more expensive up to the point where the current economy and society needs to drastically change as it greatly depends on this cheap form of energy.

I've also read claims that the shale gas/oil reserves in the US have been greatly overstated as a ploy by speculators that buy up land/drilling rights and try to resell it for a profit, and at the same time pushing it as a 'national energy independence/security issue' to get around any environmental regulations/concerns. The cost for extracting this shale gas and oil apparently is much higher than what is publicly claimed and many wells are already drying up (after 3-6 years).

While 'global warming' is indeed a way to window dress a push for higher energy efficiency, it also creates a risk of introducing a global carbon emission rights system where banks/investors have another way of skimming of money of the productive part of the economy. This was narrowly avoided with the blowing up of the København climate conference.

[Brian Ellis]

The "yet to be discovered reserves" are badly named. "Yet to be explored" may be better. The difference? Well, there are many places where there are at least 99% chance of hydrocarbons which are known but exploratory wells have yet to be dug. Israel has just explored with a number of wells the Leviathan field which is now proven at 4.3 bbl + large amounts of gas and this is only one sector of several. Cyprus is starting one exploration on 1 October out of 12 areas, believed by geologists at up to 30 bbl +gas. (This is in the same basin as Leviathan and Noble state that it is quasi-certain that vast quantities of hydrocarbons are there but they don't forecast the oil/gas ratio.). Then you can see http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/20/big...lds_slide.html.

The big problem with shale oil/gas is fracking (see the thread on this)

As for any form of international carbon trading, I'm agin it. It is corruption personified, for sure. Countries should reduce carbon emissions under a scheme similar to the phase out of CFCs with the Montreal Protocol. It worked!

[degrub]

CFCs were relatively easy. Viable, similar cost, substitutes were around. No economically viable replacements yet for replacing carbon based energy sources. i expect that nuclear is probably the closest, but politically difficult at the moment.

[Evildead666]

CFCs were relatively easy. Viable, similar cost, substitutes were around. No economically viable replacements yet for replacing carbon based energy sources. i expect that nuclear is probably the closest, but politically difficult at the moment.

That doesn't mean the problem should be ignored.
The longer we put this problem aside, the more we rely on future generations to clean up and sort out the mess we created.
Bury Nuclear waste for 1000's of years. Who's to say we 'forget' about where we buried it in 100 years ?

We have no right to burden the many future generations with our garbage.

[Umfriend]

I think degrub commented on the feasibility, not the neccessity. It worked for CFCs indeed but under far different circumstances.

With respect to burying it, what if we just dug a big hole in the Sahara and dumped it all in there. In what radius would it be dangerous to be?

[UtwigMU]

The problem with nuclear waste is that it will be dangerous for millenniums and by that time sites will be forgotten, containers will have leaked and the language in which the warning is written will be forgotten.

Also if you look at that incident in Brazil, where some group found radiotherapy source and took it home to show it to friend and for kids to play with it, who knows who will be poking around nuclear sites 1000s of years from now.

[Umfriend]

The problem with nuclear waste is that it will be dangerous for millenniums and by that time sites will be forgotten, containers will have leaked and the language in which the warning is written will be forgotten.

Also if you look at that incident in Brazil, where some group found radiotherapy source and took it home to show it to friend and for kids to play with it, who knows who will be poking around nuclear sites 1000s of years from now.

I can see that with nations each chosing their own dumpsite, well hidden deep down somewhere. Less so with one global rather open dumpsite. I assume we'll still have geigertellers in 10k years.

[Brian Ellis]

CFCs were relatively easy. Viable, similar cost, substitutes were around. No economically viable replacements yet for replacing carbon based energy sources. i expect that nuclear is probably the closest, but politically difficult at the moment.

I can assure you that CFCs were very difficult and still are. It is simply not true that there were substitutes: they were all developed after the Montreal Protocol was signed, with one minor exception. There are still ozone-depleting substances being manufactured and used and will continue, even in developed nations, because there are no substitutes. Most of the substitutes are very powerful greenhouse gases, with the exception of LPG used in domestic fridges in Europe. In many cases, we had to resort to old pre-CFC technology because of the lack of substitutes (e.g., highly toxic sulfur dioxide in chillers) or to use not-in-kind technologies, such as powder inhalers for asthmatics instead of metered-dose inhalers etc. I worked for well over 20 years on just this problem and am still occasionally informally consulted.

I agree that nuclear energy, mixed with RES, including waste-to-energy, is the only viable option. Interestingly, Switzerland has just found some weaselling. Their knee-jerk and foolish reaction to Fukushima was to decree to shut down all nuclear plants by (I think) 2025. However, parliament just gave the green light which will allow NEW nuke plants to come into service after 2025! The way the original ordinance was worded allowed this wriggle-room. The anti-nukes are furious!

Nuclear waste is more a political than a technical problem. The technology is well-known but governments/parliaments take a NIMBY attitude (re-election issues on a charged emotive subject).

[degrub]

not to really argue the point, since my comment was based on that compared to reducing/eliminating carbon based energy sources, reducing CFCs was easier because there were commercially available alternatives - Ammonia, propylene, propane,etc - for large industrial applications. i think the smaller user devices were more an issue of trying to minimize impact on redesign - seals and other components, exchanger sizing - making it more difficult to find the replacements. For most of the replacements, the molecules and their properties were known, but not commercially available. So there was plenty of discussion on what to produce.

[Brian Ellis]

The "yet to be discovered reserves" are badly named. "Yet to be explored" may be better. The difference? Well, there are many places where there are at least 99% chance of hydrocarbons which are known but exploratory wells have yet to be dug. Israel has just explored with a number of wells the Leviathan field which is now proven at 4.3 bbl + large amounts of gas and this is only one sector of several. Cyprus is starting one exploration on 1 October out of 12 areas, believed by geologists at up to 30 bbl +gas. (This is in the same basin as Leviathan and Noble state that it is quasi-certain that vast quantities of hydrocarbons are there but they don't forecast the oil/gas ratio.). Then you can see http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/20/big...lds_slide.html.

The big problem with shale oil/gas is fracking (see the thread on this)

As for any form of international carbon trading, I'm agin it. It is corruption personified, for sure. Countries should reduce carbon emissions under a scheme similar to the phase out of CFCs with the Montreal Protocol. It worked!

Map of Cyprus' geologically probable HC fields



The exploratory well will be in sector 12, adjacent to Israel's Leviathan field. We'll know the answer before the end of the year.