Energy ministers: Demand, pollution to skyrocket

Energy demand will skyrocket in the coming decades and much of it will be met with fossil fuels, increasing risks of pollution

About a month ago, just out of the blue, my ten year old son mentioned that this was going to happen. It takes a bunch of these over paid, college 'edumacated' guys to figure this out?

This is one reason why Nuclear is still not an option. It is a need.

Global warming will move the bread baskets North and South towards the poles. Nothing wrong with that. It is the coastal flooding of some Islands and on the cities we built on the coasts that will suffer the most.

While internationally this might or might not be true. For Japan, the energy demand has actually decreased over the past 5 year to a decade.

Population decreases and moving industrial production offshore are probably a part of that Squidbert

Population decreases and moving industrial production offshore are probably a part of that Squidbert

That, and more efficient use of resources one would hope.

It refused to sign the Kyoto agreement.

@zichi, maybe that's because the politicians knew global warming due to CO2 was never a real problem, just a manufactured one. The global warming industry is worth Trillions and the promotion won't be given up easily despite the fact that global temperatures have been on the decrease since around 1998. The decade long cooling trend is the reason for the name change to climate change and lately, climate disruption.

I agree with what you say about nuke power. It's interesting that the media has changed it's focus of scaremongering from peak oil/peak energy to pollution and demand (thank you internet). It seems the only real problem we face is that clean, safe, cheap and abundant alternative sources of energy have been kept hidden from the public - there is plenty of evidence for that. Control energy and you control people and profit.

weedkila Oct. 20, 2011 - 02:58PM JST

maybe that's because the politicians knew global warming due to CO2 was never a real problem, just a manufactured one. The global warming industry is worth Trillions and the promotion won't be given up easily despite the fact that global temperatures have been on the decrease since around 1998. The decade long cooling trend is the reason for the name change to climate change and lately, climate disruption.

And despite the decade long "cooling trend", 2000-2010 was the warmest decade on record. How can this be? Could it be that climate sceptics always start with 1998 because it had a very strong El Niño warming and so is higher than subsequent years?

I agree with what you say about nuke power. It's interesting that the media has changed it's focus of scaremongering from peak oil/peak energy to pollution and demand (thank you internet). It seems the only real problem we face is that clean, safe, cheap and abundant alternative sources of energy have been kept hidden from the public - there is plenty of evidence for that. Control energy and you control people and profit.

Indeed, governments don't want clean, safe, cheap and abundant sources of energy - in conspiracy theories. In real life they want to cut expenditures as much as they can.

Come on - whoever gave me the thumbs down, can you actually articulate why I am wrong?

2000-2010 was the warmest decade on record. How can this be? Could it be that climate sceptics always start with 1998 because it had a very strong El Nino warming and so is higher than subsequent years?

Well you're right that the temperature did spike in 1998 because of el nino. But setting aside that particular year global mean temperatures don't just drop or increase overnight. There is a time lag of years before the climate reflects the change and the ocean and satellite measurements have been showing this since around 1998 (or '99 if you prefer).

Most of the heat (energy) is stored and released in the oceans. You can do a search but there is system called Argo which consists of about 3000 buoys scattered around the world's oceans and they've been showing either a flattening or slight cooling trend. Same for the satellite based monitoring. Argo (and satellites) give a much more accurate indication of mean temperatures than land-based monitors since air and land hold heat for only a short period. (If you think about it there is twice as much stored energy in 2 litres of boiled water than 1 litre despite them both being the same temperature whereas air does not really show this.) You can check out ocean temps here (from 2003 onwards)

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

You mentioned that 2000-2010 was the warmest decade on record. Could it be that the pro-global warming people focus mainly on computer modelling as well as land-based temperature monitors? The computer models have mostly proven wrong in their predictions (junk in, junk out) and the scientists have been caught cherry picking or manipulating temperatures from ground based monitoring stations, tree ring data etc.

Indeed, governments don't want clean, safe, cheap and abundant sources of energy - in conspiracy theories. In real life they want to cut expenditures as much as they can.

Have you ever looked into alternative sources of energy rather than repeating what the MSM tells you? As for governments "wanting to cut expenditures as much as they can." - LOL. Let's start with the US, European, Chinese, Japanese etc. governments giving massive bail-outs to prop up privately owned banks.

@weedkila Oct. 21, 2011 - 01:23AM JST

"2000-2010 was the warmest decade on record. How can this be? Could it be that climate sceptics always start with 1998 because it had a very strong El Nino warming and so is higher than subsequent years?"

Well you're right that the temperature did spike in 1998 because of el nino. But setting aside that particular year global mean temperatures don't just drop or increase overnight. There is a time lag of years before the climate reflects the change and the ocean and satellite measurements have been showing this since around 1998 (or '99 if you prefer).

I agree that there's time lag, we even see this during the day, where the hottest temperatures are reached in the mid-afternoon, rather at noon - when the sun is directly overhead.

Most of the heat (energy) is stored and released in the oceans. You can do a search but there is system called Argo which consists of about 3000 buoys scattered around the world's oceans and they've been showing either a flattening or slight cooling trend. Same for the satellite based monitoring. Argo (and satellites) give a much more accurate indication of mean temperatures than land-based monitors since air and land hold heat for only a short period. (If you think about it there is twice as much stored energy in 2 litres of boiled water than 1 litre despite them both being the same temperature whereas air does not really show this.) You can check out ocean temps here (from 2003 onwards)

Yup, water does hold more heat than air - but even if Argo was showing a flat or cooling temperature trend, the atmospheric trend does directly concern us. As for the Argo trend - there are disputes over the accuracy of the data, but even with that the long-term trand is up (Ref: http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm). Apoligies for not referring to your link - but the apps don't work on the computer I'm using. As for the atmospheric trend, it's still going up.

You mentioned that 2000-2010 was the warmest decade on record. Could it be that the pro-global warming people focus mainly on computer modelling as well as land-based temperature monitors? The computer models have mostly proven wrong in their predictions (junk in, junk out) and the scientists have been caught cherry picking or manipulating temperatures from ground based monitoring stations, tree ring data etc.

Computer models are used by some people, station data, satellite data, and proxy data (tree rings, ice cores, etc.). All show warming - and are in close accord with each other and the basic science, i.e. greenhouse gasses trap heat. This strongly suggests that the models are working well, and the data is unmanipulated. In fact, today, a group part-funded by the Koch Brothers (Big Oil) have also concluded that the warming is happening, and that their data is in close agreement with the rest of the climatology community (Ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071).

"Indeed, governments don't want clean, safe, cheap and abundant sources of energy - in conspiracy theories. In real life they want to cut expenditures as much as they can."

Have you ever looked into alternative sources of energy rather than repeating what the MSM tells you? As for governments "wanting to cut expenditures as much as they can." - LOL. Let's start with the US, European, Chinese, Japanese etc. governments giving massive bail-outs to prop up privately owned banks.

Yes I have looked into alternative sources of energy - and they all have their drawbacks (as do conventional sources). Solar and wind take up too much space for Japan to afford, are intermittent - and need costly energy storage systems. Japan's hydro potential is low. Wave and tidal power is still in its infancy, and would face strong seas. Biomass really can only supplement power production to a small extent, and burning it emits greenhouse gasses.

A good book for analysing renewables is Sustainable Energy - without the hot air by David MacKay, a Physics Professor at Cambridge. Strongly recommended reading.