10:10

[Huguenot]

Well I only skim read it, but I appear to share the same argument as his own?

He cites non-renewable energy sources (fossil fuels and nuclear) as dumping heat into the climate faster than it can be dissipated through thermal radiation.

Recognising that thermal dissipation increases when there's a higher temperature gradient between the atmosphere and 'space', he calculates that with current use of non-renewables the temperature at which the earth reaches another equilibrium is 1.8 degrees hotter - along with the unacceptable social consequences that would create.

He makes no calculation about the impact of additional insulation of greehouse gasses, apart from an airy observation that there may be more cloud which would reflect more heat - his assumption is thus that the greenhouse effect is negligible, which seems more than a little flippant. In that sense he doesn't address the key issue of the climate change debate.

His main point is that net heat generation must be addressed in addition to CO2 deposits - that CO2 will be insufficient on its own.

His final sentence says it all - "With renewable energy sources it is not even possible to alter the energy balance of the earth" .

Hence I don't think he could be assumed to be arguing that renewable energy sources will vent as much heat as the fossil sources they replace.

I should add that he makes no argument against climate change - he accepts that the additional energy will be stored in oceans, ice fields and the atmosphere, with all the climatic effects that others have already predicted.

[HAL9000]

I'm with you on the analysis. However, the Thermal Pollution theory casts new light on some so-called 'clean/green' power sources such as coal with CO2 sequestration and nuclear, which some political parties / scientists have proposed: for example Nuclear power plants get go-ahead (opposed by the LibDems) and Carbon store 'could free UK coal', respectively.

I'm looking forward to Mr Barber's views.

[Huguenot]

Yep agreed.

I think politicians are in a very difficult hole, especially from a local council perspective.

Nationally and globally populations and opinions don't move quickly. If you make grand statements and commitments the most likely conclusion is that you won't get elected. If you were purely altruistic you could argue that taking a 'dramatic' position on climate change will shift the centre ground, but it's not much use being a politician if you don't get elected.

I guess I'd favour small but noticeable changes at first, that are easier to communicate to the electorate. This can be followed up with grander gestures when we've got a bit of momentum. (This is why I like plastic bag campaigns and sequestration, they might be of minor impact technically, but they pave the way for bigger things).

I'd probably prefer to see climate change decisions taking place in an environment less subject to lobbyists both corporate and unionised - a situation more likely to be delivered by transferable voting systems and centralised funding.

Thus there's a very fine line between the demands of climate change & economic insecurity, and the request for 'great modern political thinkers' on another thread.

Maybe this really is the time for new thinking, and a new political system?

[louisiana]

I think the IEA annual report on oil reserves is due out tomorrow (?)

Some whistleblowers from inside the IEA have been at work in the press this week. Interesting...

[Huguenot]

Yep, I saw that as well - what was it all about?

There's the 'supply line' graph that shows where supplies will come from over the next few years, but it's really disturbing that the 'oil we know about' is kind of over in the next 10-20 years.

This article yes?

The entire energy policy seems to be based on oil that we might have found that hasn't actually been developed, so no-one's sure, and oil that hasn't been found yet.

Talk about 'I'm mortgaging the house to buy a Porsche because I might have a good job one day'.