Month: April 2017

ELECTRIC CARS ARE NO THREAT TO OIL

ELECTRIC CARS ARE NO THREAT TO OIL

via Friends of Science Calgary
http://ift.tt/2on3Vep

Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2017

Robert Lyman will be one of our special guest speakers at the May 9th, 2017 “Climate Dogma Exposed” event at the Red and White Club, McMahon Stadium, Calgary.  Information and Tickets at http://ift.tt/1Rexnvq or EventBrite.

At a recent conference in Calgary, Steve Kronin, a former under secretary in the U.S. Department of Energy and a New York University professor, predicted that electric vehicles will make up 50 percent of the vehicles on the road by 2050 and that this will pose a threat to the oil industry because of its dampening effect on fuel demand.

 

Kronin’s remarks echo those of many advocates for electric vehicles who enjoy speculating about the future. Their objective, perhaps, is to reinforce the thesis that there will be an easy and inevitable transition to a “decarbonized” world economy.

 

Let us, instead, examine the facts and draw our conclusions from them.

 

There is no question that there has been a relatively rapid growth in the sales of electric vehicles (EV), including both electric hybrids (PHEVs) and all-electric cars (BEVs), since 2010. Annual global sales of plug-in models rose from 134,000 in 2012 to 774,000 in 2016. By the end of 2016, cumulative global sales of plug-in passenger cars and light utility vehicles passed the two million mark.

 

These sales were stimulated in large part by continuing large government subsidies in North America, Europe and China.  The geographic distribution of sales offers some insight into why sales have increased so fast. China, which has poured billions of dollars into consumer subsidies, had 645,000 cumulative sales of plug-ins by the end of 2016. In the United States, where federal subsidies of up to $7,500 per vehicle are available in addition to various state-level subsidies, the cumulative sales total was 570,000 vehicles. Japan accounted for 147,500 and Europe 637,000. Norway alone has the highest plug-in electric car segment. There, extremely rich subsidies have driven plug-ins to 29% of new car sales.

 

That, for EVs, is the good news. However, a little perspective is in order.

 

For all the growth from small beginnings, plug-in electric vehicles still represent less than 0.15 percent of the global light duty vehicle stock. In the United States alone, annual EV sales are far less than 1% of the total. Last year, there were 17 million new cars sold in the United States that run on oil fuels. There were 157,000 EV sales.

 

It is far from clear that governments will continue indefinitely the large subsidies that have underpinned EV sales. In the United States, it has always been a feature of the existing program that the subsidies to an EV producer would end when its sales reached the 200,000 vehicle level. The Trump Administration is now in the process of eliminating or reducing many of the subsidy and regulatory programs implemented by the former Obama Administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; one wonders how long the U.S. subsidy program can last. China has announced that it will eliminate EV subsidies by 2020. European taxpayers have begun to tire of endless subsidies to various “green” causes; even there, governments are starting to take a closer look at whether such subsidies are justified when most of them go to consumers who could afford to buy the vehicles without subsidies.

 

Nonetheless, many countries remain committed publicly to a vision of rapidly growing EV sales. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has developed a policy and planning process called Energy Technology Perspectives that seeks to chart technology paths towards the reduction of global GHG emissions from 33 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2013 to about 15 Gt in 2050. The IEA vision for transportation sees EVs constituting 150 million (10%) of the total light duty vehicle stock by 2030 and nearly 1 billion (40%) of the total light duty vehicle stock by 2050. The 2015 Paris Declaration on Electro-Mobility and Climate Change, announced at the time of the COP21 conference, set more modest targets of 400 million electric two-wheelers and 100 million EVs by 2030.

 

With these targets in mind, on which growth path are EVs? Continuation of the relatively fast rate of growth in sales plus some acceleration could yield a vehicle stock of 7.4 to 13 million EVs by 2020. In contrast, an annual growth in sales by 230,000 units per year, as has happened over the last three years, would produce a stock of less than 3 million units by 2020 and less than 7 million units by 2030. Either outcome would be still be tiny in comparison to a global vehicle population of 1.3 billion.

 

Further, the most optimistic projections of EV sales have very limited implications for global oil demand growth. Over the period since 2008, in spite of the most serious recession since the Great Depression, world oil demand has increased from 86 million barrels per day to 97 million barrels per day, or around 1 million barrels per day per year. If that trend continues, then even the most optimistic scenarios for growth in EV sales would only make a slight dent in oil demand growth. Oil would continue, as it is now, the most important energy source on the planet.

– 30 –

via Friends of Science Calgary http://ift.tt/2on3Vep

April 9, 2017 at 02:19PM

Bullying in Climate Science???!! AGU Policy. Enforceable?

Bullying in Climate Science???!! AGU Policy. Enforceable?

via Friends of Science Calgary
http://ift.tt/2on3Vep

by Judith Curry Updated AGU Ethics Policy available for member comment. Proposed new language identifies harassment and bullying as scientific misconduct.

via Bullying as scientific misconduct — Climate Etc.

via Friends of Science Calgary http://ift.tt/2on3Vep

April 9, 2017 at 02:05PM

Bullying as scientific misconduct

Bullying as scientific misconduct

via Climate Etc.
https://judithcurry.com

by Judith Curry

Updated AGU Ethics Policy available for member comment.  Proposed new language identifies harassment and bullying as scientific misconduct.

From AGU News:  Updated AGU Ethics Policy Available for Member Comment.  Excerpts:

The current policy is silent on the important issue of harassment and other types of negative behavior such as discrimination and bullying. With the updates, AGU would extend the ethics policy to members in general, rather than only to volunteers and to participants during meetings, as it currently applies.

Recommendations from the task force, which is chaired by past AGU President Michael McPhaden, include language in AGU’s code of conduct to explicitly define and address harassment. The new language defines harassment as a scientific misconduct issue.

The update expands the ethics policy’s coverage to include code-of-conduct implications for all AGU programs, including Honors and Awards as well as Governance. In addition, it identifies conditions under which the policy’s provisions may apply to actions that occur outside of AGU programs. It also outlines clear procedures for reporting and follow-up on ethics issues. In proposing revisions, the task force considered both the leading practices of other professional and scholarly societies and the needs of AGU members.

The complete document is AGU Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics.  It says on the document ‘not for public dissemination’, but the News Release (which is being tweeted by AGU) includes a hyperlink to the full document.  So apparently it is fair game for public dissemination.

The document is long and thorough; the section of particular interest to me is:

  1. III. CODE OF CONDUCT TOWARDS OTHERS

AGU members work to maintain an environment that allows science and scientific careers  to flourish through respectful, inclusive, and equitable treatment of others. As a statement of principle, AGU rejects discrimination and harassment based on factors such as ethnic or national origin, race, religion, citizenship, language, political or other opinion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, appearance, age, or economic class. In addition, AGU opposes all forms of bullying including threatening, humiliating, coercive, or intimidating conduct that causes harm to, interferes with, or sabotages scientific activity and careers.

Discrimination, harassment (in any form), and bullying create a hostile environment that reduces the quality, integrity, and pace of the advancement of science by marginalizing individuals and communities. It also damages productivity and career advancement, and prevents the healthy exchange of ideas.

We affirm that discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, or bullying in any scientific or learning environment is unacceptable, and constitutes scientific misconduct under the AGU Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics policy. Such behavior should be reported and addressed with consequences for the offender, including but not limited to AGU sanctions or expulsion as outlined in this policy. In addition, as part of AGU’s commitment to providing a safe, positive, professional environment, the SafeAGU Program has been created to provide trained staff and volunteers to meeting attendees if they need to report harassment, discrimination, bullying or other safety/security issues during an AGU meeting, or to request confidential support when dealing with harassment-related issues that may not rise to the level of a formal ethics complaint.

Each major AGU program—including Meetings, Publications, Honors, and Recognition, and AGU Governance—has or will have additional statements to address specific code of conduct expectations unique to their activities and consistent with this AGU Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics policy. If no such policy yet exists, the principles and processes for reporting, investigating and addressing potential code of conduct violations  as outlined in this policy will prevail. AGU leaders are held to additional standards as outlined further in the AGU Volunteer Leaders Section of this policy.

Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse,intimidate, or aggressively dominate others in the professional environment that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. These actions can include abusive criticism, humiliation, the spreading of rumors, physical and verbal attacks, and professional exclusion and isolation of someone.

The policy seems to have some ‘teeth’:

If a finding of scientific misconduct has been made, the Board of Directors will decide the action to be taken. These may include appropriate sanctions, the period over which the sanction will be in effect, correction of the publication record, and/or recommendations for education or training. Sanctions, in increasing severity, may include but are not limited to the following:

  • Written reprimand or warning.
  • Removal from AGU volunteer position.
  • Publication of “errata” notices.
  • Withdrawal/retraction of presentations, publication, or posters.
  • Placement of an author or reviewer on an AGU Editor’s watch list.
  • Notification to other journals
  • Suspension from publishing in AGU journal(s) for a specific period, including permanently.
  • Suspension from making presentations at AGU sponsored meeting(s) for a specific period, including permanently.
  • Suspension of membership.
  • Permanent expulsion from AGU.
  • Revocation of honors and awards.
  • Notification to respondent’s home institution.
  • Publication/notification to members of incident in Eos or other AGU publication.
  • Public statement regarding the scientific misconduct.

When an AGU member is sanctioned by another organization for scientific misconduct or convicted of criminal activity, the AGU Board may consider its own sanctions related to membership, attendance at AGU programs, and publishing with AGU.

Test cases

Well this is certainly an interesting development, I would be very interested in hearing more about how AGU came to the decision to include this in its ethics statement.

Presumably any code violations made prior to formal adoption of the policy will not be influenced or eligible for sanctions.

Let’s take a look at three previous incidents that may be an ethics violation, and speculate how these transgressions might fare under the new guideline.

You may recall the ‘Gleick affair‘ whereby Peter Gleick created an elaborate web of deception to obtain proprietary Heartland Institute documents, in an attempt to discredit Heartland.

Ironically, Gleick was Chair of the AGU Committee on Ethics.

As a result of this incident, he was asked to resign his Chairmanship of this Committee.  But apparently there were no other sanctions from AGU, and I seem to recall that Gleick gave a big invited AGU Union lecture within the next year.

Does ‘others’ in the AGU guidelines include Heartland? It is my understanding that some scientists are involved with Heartland, but I don’t know if any of them are AGU members.

The second case is Michael Mann’s recent congressional testimony that included the following statements:

Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry

That includes the study28 led by Zeke Hausfather of the “Berkeley Earth” project—a project funded in part by the Koch Brothers and including29 as one of its original team members, climate change contrarian Judith Curry. (JC note:  footnote 29 is the source watch slime job on me )

So does being called a ‘denier’ in the Congressional Record count as bullying?  How about attempting to discredit me via a tortuous link to the ‘evil’ Koch brothers (who I have never had any interactions with and I never received a nickel from Berkeley Earth?)  Not to mention linking to the slime job source watch article on me.

Consider Michael Mann’s lawsuit against Tim Ball because of  an interview with Ball that was posted on the Frontier Center website. In the interview, according to court documents, Ball responds to an anonymous questioner regarding the “Climategate” scandal by saying “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the State Pen, not Penn State.”

It’s interesting to compare the nature of Tim Ball’s statement about Mann, with Mann’s statement about me, and different venues in which the statements were made.

I’m sure there are many other cases to discuss, but these three were the first that came to my mind.

JC reflections

So, should the AGU be providing sanctions against scientists for their behavior towards other scientists?  It is easy to argue that this is the case at AGU meetings, for AGU officers, and others in appointed positions at AGU (this would clearly put Gleick in the AGU cross hairs).  But what about Mann’s behavior (who is an AGU fellow) and Tim Ball’s (assume for the sake of argument that Ball is an AGU member; I simply don’t know).

At the time of ClimateGate, I recall the argument (I think from Gavin) that Sir Isaac Newton was a SOB, and that did not make his science incorrect.  Well, in the 21st century, the whole system of peer review for publications and grant proposals, not to mention promotion and awards committees, and research assessment committees (e.g. NAS, IPCC) rely on ethical conduct towards others.

I suspect that this code of conduct towards others emerged from social justice concerns related to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and national origin.  I have to say that other than some very subtle discrimination, I don’t think that bullying is a big issue in this context.  The bullying that I have seen relates scientific disagreements, with the majority (consensus) opinion being used a rationale for bullying, plus politics and policy preferences regarding the social consequences of the research topic.

Defining bullying when an issue such as race and gender is involved seems fairly straightforward, it is less straightforward when the bullying is related to scientific and/or policy-political disagreements.  Where do you draw the line?  I would say the line should be drawn when the actions of the bully causes harm to, interferes with, or sabotages scientific activity and careers.  Lets take a look at some examples and ponder where this line might be in terms of the bullying behavior of scientist A towards scientist B:

  1. Bullying tweets
  2. Bullying blog posts
  3. Op-eds published in the mainstream media
  4. Statements to journalists in the mainstream media
  5. Direct communications to a scientist’s employer
  6. FOIA requests (I don’t know of an examples of scientist A making FOIA requests of scientist B?)
  7. Statements made in Congressional testimony

Based on my own experience, I would say that #1, #2 doesn’t matter, it’s just noise.  Tweets, in particular, are fairly ephemeral and typically spur of the moment.

Bullying op-eds and statements to journalists do matter, these are read by my employer and have shown in up in Georgia Tech’s daily news roundup that is circulated to the entire population of administrators, faculty members and students.

Direct communications to my employer (e.g. the Grijalva inquisition) definitely matter, but to my knowledge  the communications from bullying scientists  have been fed to my employer via several sympathetic faculty members at Georgia Tech.  These definitely matter(ed).

Regarding statements made in Congressional testimony.  Well the dynamics have changed in the last year, with my retirement and Trump’s election.  I may actually benefit from that in some circles, whereas in other circles it will harm me.  Remains to be seen.

I don’t know if the AGU is prepared to confront the bullying/tyranny of the bullies from ‘majority’ perspective versus scientist with minority perspectives.  Not to in any way dismiss the problems of racial, gender, etc. discrimination, I mainly see bullying as being associated with minority scientific and policy perspectives.

In any event, I regard this as a welcome development.

via Climate Etc. https://judithcurry.com

April 9, 2017 at 11:09AM

Fossil Fuels ≠ Global Warming

Fossil Fuels ≠ Global Warming

via Science Matters
http://ift.tt/2oqIky9

Previous posts addressed the claim that fossil fuels are driving global warming. This post updates that analysis with the latest numbers from BP Statistics and compares World Fossil Fuel Consumption (WFFC) with three estimates of Global Mean Temperature (GMT). More on both these variables below.

WFFC

2015 statistics are now available from BP for international consumption of Primary Energy sources. Statistical Review of World Energy.  H/T  Euan Mearns

The reporting categories are:
Oil
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Hydro
Renewables (other than hydro)

This analysis combines the first three, Oil, Gas, and Coal for total fossil fuel consumption world wide. The chart below shows the patterns for WFFC compared to world consumption of Primary Energy from 1965 through 2015.

The graph shows that Primary Energy consumption has grown continuously for 5 decades. Over that period oil, gas and coal (sometimes termed “Thermal”) averaged 90% of PE consumed, ranging from 94% in 1965 to 86% in 2015.  MToe is millions of tons of oil equivalents.

Global Mean Temperatures

Everyone acknowledges that GMT is a fiction since temperature is an intrinsic property of objects, and varies dramatically over time and over the surface of the earth. No place on earth determine “average” temperature. Yet for the purpose of detecting change in temperature, major climate data sets estimate GMT and report anomalies from it.

UAH record consists of satellite era global temperature estimates for the lower troposphere, a layer of air from 0 to 4km above the surface. HadSST estimates sea surface temperatures from oceans covering 71% of the planet. HADCRUT4 combines HadSST estimates with records from land stations whose elevations range up to 6km above sea level.

Both GISS LOTI (land and ocean) and HADCRUT4 (land and ocean) use 14.0 Celsius as the climate normal, so I will add that number back into the anomalies. This is done not claiming any validity other than to achieve a reasonable measure of magnitude regarding the observed fluctuations.

No doubt global sea surface temperatures are typically higher than 14C, more like 17 or 18C, and of course warmer in the tropics and colder at higher latitudes. Likewise, the lapse rate in the atmosphere means that air temperatures both from satellites and elevated land stations will range colder than 14C. Still, that climate normal is a generally accepted indicator of GMT.

Correlations of GMT and WFFC

The first graph compares to GMT estimates over the five decades from 1965 to 2015 from HADCRUT4, which includes HadSST3.

Over the last five decades the increase in fossil fuel consumption is dramatic and monotonic, steadily increasing by 220% from 3.5B to 11.3 B oil equivalent tons.  Meanwhile the GMT record from Hadcrut shows multiple ups and downs with an accumulated rise of 0.9C over 50 years, 6% of the starting value.

The second graph compares to GMT estimates from UAH6, and HadSST3 for the satellite era from 1979 to 2015, a period of 36 years.

In the satellite era WFFC has increased at a compounded rate of nearly 2% per year, for a total increase of 80% since 1979. At the same time, SSTs and  lower troposphere warming amounted to 0.5C, or 3.4% of the starting value.  The temperature rate of change is 0.1% per year, an order of magnitude less.  Even more obvious is the 1998 El Nino peak and flat GMT since.

Summary

The climate alarmist/activist claim is straight forward: Burning fossil fuels makes measured temperatures warmer. The Paris Accord further asserts that by reducing human use of fossil fuels, further warming can be prevented.  Those claims do not bear up under scrutiny.

 

It is enough for simple minds to see that two time series are both rising and to think that one must be causing the other. But both scientific and legal methods assert causation only when the two variables are both strongly and consistently aligned. The above shows a weak and inconsistent linkage between WFFC and GMT.

In legal terms, as long as there is another equally or more likely explanation for the set of facts, the claimed causation is unproven. The more likely explanation is that global temperatures vary due to oceanic and solar cycles. The proof is clearly and thoroughly set forward in the post Quantifying Natural Climate Change.

Background context for today’s post is at Claim: Fossil Fuels Cause Global Warming.

via Science Matters http://ift.tt/2oqIky9

April 9, 2017 at 06:43AM