Rusty’s Introduction
As a general rule here at RBN, we try to avoid hot button issues like environmental policy. We have good friends on all sides of these issues, so our practice has been to steer clear of debates where the relationship between facts and outcomes can be subject to so much interpretation. However, today we make an exception for a blog by Keith Bailey, a highly respected leader in our industry who serves on the boards of MarkWest Energy, Aegis Insurance Services, Cloud Peak Energy, Apco International Oil and Gas, and by the way, was CEO of The Williams Companies when I worked for that company more than a few years back. Today Keith contemplates the issue of climate change from the vantage point of someone who has been around the track in energy markets and thinks deeply about the big picture issues.
Bushy Eyebrows and Climate Change - by Keith Bailey
The first real sign of advancing age is when one's barber asks if you want the ears, nose and eyebrows trimmed. The second may be when two friends suggest that because of your "experience in the industry" that you might like to do a periodic blog on their internet energy website. Well it was a truly Andy Rooney moment for me to be asked to be part of this publication and, just as Andy obviously did, I continue to tell my barber to keep his hands off my eyebrows.
Assuming this first attempt doesn't hit the cutting room floor, my goal is to periodically choose a subject that strikes my fancy and which doesn't, at least in my judgment, appear to be getting either enough or balanced attention in the media. And occasionally, just like Andy, there are things I will just wonder about.
For example, one thing I’ve been thinking about is the weather this past year. If you look at the numbers, 2013 is going to turn out to be one of the coldest years in the U.S. in the last 20 years. [Among other publications, The Standard-Examiner had an article on this a couple of weeks back. Click here to see it.)
Let’s look at some of the numbers. The blue line on the graph below shows how cold it has been relative to 20 year average temperatures. What is particularly fascinating is that this cold weather comes just after 2012, which was one of the warmest years on record (red line on the graph). These temperature differences may look small on the graph, but just a few degrees in average temperature makes a big difference in how it feels when you walk outside, and also the impact of the weather on our environment. [Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/]
Source: NOAA
This year’s colder weather has been responsible for a number of interesting developments. One that I find particularly intriguing is that the arctic ice cap grew by 553,000 sq miles or 29% over the past year. (See: The Gazette: And now it is Global Cooling). Of course that’s what the ice cap does. It shrinks in warm years like 2012 and grows in cold years like 2013. It doesn’t seem like that should be a big surprise. But apparently it was for some forecasters who according to the Gazette article have been predicting the impending demise of the ice cap. Some ‘experts’ had the ice cap gone in 2013. Oops.
Comments
Carbon dioxide levels were once greater than 5000 ppm (today about 390 ppm) when life was flourishing. Indeed, highly elevated CO2 along with the sun’s energy fueled the rapid plant growth that put the hydrocarbon layers beneath us. The abundance of life during periods of significantly elevated CO2 is further evidence that CO2 is a very weak modulator of weather. In fact, the slight effect of CO2 on weather may already be saturated at modern levels.
Once you leave the politically infused “consensus” of IPCC “scientists” one discovers many rational arguments for cooler not warmer weather in our near and far future. CO2 has a tremendous effect on plant growth (and therefore fauna as well). Some additional elevation of CO2 may well be appreciated in the colder days ahead.
With regard to global warming, there is not much doubt it has been occurring. In fact, it has been occurring for the past 21,000 years. What has the vast majority of scientists who study this area concerned is that rate at which the warming has occurred in the recent past.
Without addressing the cause of the increase in the rate of global warming, it should be noted that if you are are looking at atmospheric temperatures as an indicator, you are looking at the wrong thing. The oceans have 1,000 times the heat capacity and, in fact, have 1,000 times as much retained heat.
One fairly recent study examined oceans' temperatures over a recent 20 year period. The author of that study described the additional head retained by the oceans over that period as the equivalent of every man, woman, and child on earth running five 1,400 watt hair dryers continuously over that 20 year period. Considering arctic ice cover, it is pretty meaningless to look at one year. There are, however, reliable monthly measurements of the extent of arctic ice that have been taken since 1979. The trend is disturbing: In the 34 years of measurements the average monthly amount of arctic ice has declined somewhere around 25%. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/18/arctic-sea-ice-has-not-recovered-in-7-visuals/
I have worked in the O&G industry and invest in the industry. In my experience, the O&G industry does a far better job on environmental issues than it gets credit for.
There is currently no realistic alternative to the use of hydrocarbons. Ethanol is an energy policy joke -- a hamster wheet that gets nowhere at the expense of huge adverse enviromental effects and opportunity costs. With electricty largely generated by coal, plug in EVs are of limited to no utility. Solar contributes basically nothing and even wind is hugely problematic as a source of electricity. More combined cycle natural gas generation, however, offers meaningful advantages in emissions.
I think it would behoove the O&G industry to embrace the concept of limiting emissions to the extent possible. For one thing the acidification of the oceans from CO2 emissions is a separate issue that is having horrible impacts and is worthy of addressing in its own right. Also, when is being frugal with resources ever a bad idea?
Agree with what you've said here re: the uncertainty of cause and effect in global weather. But there's surely no denying that increased hydrocarbon use is principal (or only) cause for the dramatic spike in CO2 levels. And even if we're not 100% sure that increased CO2 will ipso facto mean a warmer climate, you gotta at least admit its pretty likely that it will.
Very disappointed in the above "op-ed" piece as it is clear that Keith is merely talking his book. I am very sorry to inform him but the science is settled beyond any shadow of a doubt, though some details remained to be hashed out, such as when exactly Miami will have to be abandoned and parts of Texas become all but uninhabitable...
His statements regarding Arctic Sea Ice is disingenuous at best; while sea ice extent in 2013 is greater than the record lows on 2012, the amount of ice currently not there as of December (compared to the 1979-2008 avearage) is ~650,000 sq km, i.e. the size of Texas...
Analysis of the isotopic fractions of carbon in the atmosphere, the clear anti-correlation of carbon dioxide levels with oxygen levels all point to combustion of hydrocarbons driving up C02 levels...
Please keep your blog pieces to your fantastic coverage of the North American energy infrastructure and leave climate science to the climate scientists...
Just like in all policy debates, nothing is more useless than each side of the climate change discussion marching out an anecdotal fact or two in support of their position. Yes it is complex science, and no we do not understand many of those complexities. And anyone claiming to have all the answers on either side is a fool or worse. But given the magnitude of the implications, doesn't it seem like this is an important area to study? And perhaps hedging our bets might be prudent, as in if one side is right we temporarily sacrifice a bit of economic upside, and if the other side is right we create environmental damage that has potentially larger social as well as economic impacts?
As the author touched on, we have moved from human and animals to wind and hydro to wood to coal to whale oil and finally to petroleum (and nuclear) as the sources of power to advance our civilization. The change was never easy for the technology that gets left behind, and the disruptions are painful. And in today's world the pace of change is accelerating making disruptions even more problematic. But I would have to say to the author, as he serves on the board of a coal company, a centuries old technology that has many environmental issues beyond climate change, that the march of technology is probably against you. We are witnessing the potential decentralization of the elctric utility model as the role of distributed generation and microgrids expands, not to mention the potential for electric storage. Fuel cells, electric vehicles, smart grid application - there are a whole lot of really smart people focusing on radically reshaping the status quo. The comment on solar as contrbuting nothing is simply wrong, just ask the owners of electric peaking plants. And while the environmental aspects are currently part of the equation, the fact of the matter is that as these technologies evolve they can offer economic benefits that eventually may overtake the continued use of variable cost fuels.
These are exciting times here in the US as we are witnessing both the rebirth of the E&P sector as well as the birth and development of the technologies that might eventually lead to its demise. Both industries do a lot of good, and we are definitely a stronger country because of both of them. Almost sounds like a Greek tragedy that will play out over the coming decades.
•The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F).
•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date (January–November) was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.2°F), tying with 2002 as the fourth warmest such period on record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11/