Turk Plant. Status available here:
https://www.swepco.com/info/projects/TurkPlant/Default.aspx
They expect to start up late 2012.
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by Doug Badgero
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by DocMartyn
Chris, why should we respect your numbers here when you can’t defend for numbers in your paper?
Please do explain where the numbers for the Trenberth-style Energy Diagram come fro?
What bit of the atmosphere, height please, radiates 333 W/m2 downward and 199 W/m2 upward?
Just explain all influxes, effluxes and steady state temperature of your magic atmospheric band and state where we can find it.
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by manacker
Chris Colose
“Every little bit helps”.
Or does it?
Thanks for elaborating your personal belief on the impact of the announced EPA regulation.
You say that whatever EPA does, it will make mo difference to our planet’s climate. I fully agree.
Even if the USA completely shut down its carbon based economy, this would have an imperceptible impact on global temperature by 2100.
Let me explain.
IPCC estimate that from 1990 to 2100 we will have globally emitted between 3,600 and 8,000 Gt CO2.
All the remaining optimistically estimated fossil fuels on our planet (according to WEC) contain just enough carbon to generate 10,000 GtCO2, so the upper IPCC estimate appears grossly exaggerated (IPCC scenario and storyline A1F1). So let’s stick with a high BaU case (A1B) with 5,500 GtCO2 added between 1990 and 2100.
The CDIAC tells us that we have added around 500 GtCO2 from 1990 to 2010, so that leaves 5,000 GtCO2 from 2010 to 2100.
Emissions from the USA are estimated to represent around 10% of the added CO2 between now and 2100, or 500 GtCO2.
If EPA completely shuts down the US carbon-based economy today, this is how much CO2 would be averted.
On this basis, and using the actually observed CO2 temperature response from 1850 to 2010, the IPCC estimate of natural forcing plus the logarithmic relationship, we arrive at a net reduction of the warming by 2100 of 0.1°C by shutting down the USA completely today.
If we use the arguably exaggerated model-based IPCC 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C, we arrive at a net reduction of warming of 0.2°C.
So you’re right. No matter what the EPA does to US CO2 emissions, it will have no perceptible effect on our climate.
The rest of your premise is redundant.
Max
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by mike
lolwot,
Yr, “The problem is cwon didn’t get the memo.”
Oh yeah! cwon didn’t get the memo? You don’t say, lolwot. Well, then, make sure, lolwot, to give cwon a copy of “the memo” the next time you bump into him in the break-room. There’s a good comrade, lolwot.
And just in case, lolwot, you want to play dumb and pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about, please refer to my comment up-thread at March 28, 8:24 pm. O. K. guy?
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by Ross Cann
The link says the plant is now 80% complete. I am talking about plants with no construction started until 2013. There are a number of of existing coal fired plants converting to gas.
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
That is not a fair bet for you. The permitted plants that break ground in the next year are grandfathered into the existing category.
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Bart R
For more about a little bit of research on soil microbes and CO2 levels.
//www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021377
I love the tagline of this site: Accelerating publication of peer-reviewed science.
And while there is zero alarmism, threats of glaciers or floods, dire predictions about famines or economic disaster, the conclusion appropriately states, “Together, these results highlight the urgent need for considering the interactive impact of C and N availability on microbial activities and decomposition when projecting soil C balance in N-rich systems under future CO2 scenarios.”
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by Tom
Zorba the Geek? Mr. Chris Colose,…’I don’t have much insight into the politics,,,,’
“What’s the use of all your damn books? If they don’t tell you that, what the hell do they tell you?
They tell me… about the agony of men… who can’t answer questions
like yours.”
When will it stop?:o)
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by Doug Badgero
OOPS, my bad. You may be correct, but that is kinda the point of the proposed regulation isn’t it? You can’t roll the dice with a multi-billion dollar investment and environmental NGOs know that.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Jim Cripwell
Try again to get this at the bottom.
Let me put this at the bottom of the discussion, where I hope it will be noticed.
“Bart R | March 29, 2012 at 1:47 am |
Signal may be “hunch”, “indication”, “possibility”, or “suspicion”.”
What I am saying is much simpler than you are making it out to be. If there is a CO2 signal in the temperature/time graph, then it should be possible to calculate the climate sensitivity of CO2 directly from this signal. No such calculation has been made. There is no CO2 signal. It is as simple as that.
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by Bill
The sad thing is that this would have been a great illustration of the power of the market.
Coal would have gone down naturally due to its higher cost compared to natural gas. Some of those higher costs are directly related to some of its social costs. It’s more dangerous and involves more people to obtain coal than gas, the coal plants often need more pollution controls and might have more lawsuits due to pollution (scrag piles or whatever they are called), black lung, etc.
Now it will look like the EPA and congressman with great foresight saved us and possibly set a precedent for future mindless intervention. (Or should that be “mineless”)
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by hunter
Bart R,
Your obvious lack of experience is showing.
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by hunter
Bill,
You miss the point that the envirocrats are going to kill off gas and frakking next.
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by hunter
R. Gates,
The writing on the wall is that the consensus was wrong and that some of the consensus promoters were lying.
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
The evirocrats seem to think they can drag and drop any solution they wish.
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by Rob Starkey
It will be interesting to see what rationale the EPA uses to justify the specific CO2 emissions standards that are established. What will be the basis for whatever standard is ultimately established.
What would be the harm to Americans if the standard was higher?
What harms are being avoided due to the establishment of the standard?
Doesn’t the EPA have an obligation to ensure there is some rational basis for the specific standards established and how might they justify the ones in question.
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by Rob Starkey
R gates
I disagree with your comparison to teens smoking. In that case there are undisputed harms to the individuals.
In the case of emitting CO2, the are definate benefits that come about from the use of fossil fuels (concrete, fertilizers, electricity, personal mobility, etc); but the net harms are not proven at all. In fact, it is probably easier to argue that the idea that there are net harms are little more than wild speculation and a large percentage of the feared harms seem to be getting shown to be unfounded fears.
↧
↧
Comment on Pseudoscience (?) by blouis79
Dave,
Actually it is the majority of “climate scientists” arguing with words, failing to describe a real physical process, debunked by Gerlich and Tscheuschner and Kramm and D’Lugi, failing to demonstrate the “undescribed” effect by experiment, still arguing with words and analogies and models.
Let’s all “meet” in someone’s physics lab and settle the reality of the science in the time-honored manner.
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Bart R
Jim Cripwell | March 29, 2012 at 7:18 am |
More precisely, there are infinitely many climate sensitivity figures, varying with the time and the time scale selected. Do the calculation yourself. Extract the CO2 change over the time period (be it an hour or a millennium or more), put it in terms of doublings, and compare it to the change in global temperature. There you go, there’s your momentary (or millennial, or more) climate sensitivity.
To my way of looking at things, this isn’t unexpected; what would be astounding would be if climate sensivity remained fixed.
We know climate sensitivity must be subject to feedbacks, meaning it must change over time just due to its very nature. However..
To be very precise, you would seek to adjust the global temperature figure to remove for known effects: seasonal variation (which is fairly regular due North-South topology differences, but not perfectly so due influence of initial conditions in any season), solar variation (which is tiny on even the millennial scale, but still demonstrable), volcanoes, influence of ocean basin oscillations, albedo effects (ice and cloud), particulates, etc.
And you can’t remove for these other signals. They’re too noisy. There’s too many of them. They’re too little understood. Nowhere near enough data is gathered. All of these are practical physical limitations on our knowledge.
Failure to know enough to produce a simplification describing an effect — a calculation as you call it — is hardly proof the effect doesn’t exist. That’s one of the vainest arguments possible. When did we get so wise that anything we can’t calculate we must deny exists?
Utter reductionist vanity with no basis in reason.
You demand impossible perfection. Your argument is hubris.
↧
Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by RiHo08
I slept on it and awakened to my errors.
Beltway not Beltline
March 2, 2011 not Feb 3, 2011
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
