Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Peter Lang

$
0
0

AK,

I agree. My gut feeling is that, globally, less than 5% of electricity is generated off-grid (in Australia it is 6%). But the fact it is such a small proportion is relevant, because it means that, applying the Pareto Principle, if we want to reduce the GHG emissions intensity of electricity, our focus should be on grid-connected generation, not on off-grid technologies. This chart spurred my question:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/a-way-to-get-power-to-the-worlds-poor-without-making-climate-change-worse/

Energy is responsible for 69% of global GHG emissions in 2010 according to IEA (Figure 1) http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CO2EmissionsFromFuelCombustionHighlights2014.pdf. Electricity and heat generation is responsible for 42% in 2012 (Figure 9). Transport (23%) and Industry (20%) combined are responsible for about the same as electricity

We have proven technologies available to replace fossil fuel electricity generation. The only real problem is the cost. However we do not have proven technologies available to replace fossil fuels from transport or the emissions from industry. Therefore, we can achieve the fastest emissions reductions by replacing fossil fuel technologies for electricity generation with low emissions technologies. (It’s worth noting that programs to improve end-use energy efficiency will have negligible lasting effect; therefore, the effort must be on fuel substitution, not on end-use energy efficiency improvements.)

Most existing fossil fuel electricity generation plants will be replaced over the next 50 years or so. The replacement will be with technologies that are fit for purpose, meet the requirements and are expected to supply electricity at lowest cost over the life of the plant.

Therefore, we don’t need UN sponsored top-down regulations nor any government imposed top-down regulations or mandates to drive the substitution of fossil fuel by low emissions technologies. We just need to reduce the cost of the low-emissions technologies that are proven, fit-for-purpose and meet the requirements. The competitive pressures will do the rest. Thereafter, fossil fuels technologies would be replaced, over time with cheaper fit for purpose technologies without any need for government or UN intervention.

Furthermore, as competitive pressures drive the cost of these technologies down, electricity will become cheaper compared with gas for heating and transport fuels. Therefore, electricity will substitute for some gas for heating and for some petroleum transport fuels. Electricity will be an increasing proportion of total energy consumption. Therefore, making electricity near zero emissions and cheaper could lead to a 40%-50% reduction of GHG emissions from energy in around 50 years.

We need to focus 80% to 90% of our efforts on reducing the cost of electricity from the already proven, fit-for-purpose electricity generation technology.


Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by russellseitz

$
0
0

Try:
Stormy Legal Weather Unmitigated by Cold Spring

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia has just ruled in Mann v. National Review:

“The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. As the Court stated in its previous Order, NR Defendants’ reference to Plaintiff as “the man behind the fraudulent climate change ‘hockey stick’ graph” was essentially an allegation of fraud by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a member of the scholarly academy and it is obvious that allegations of fraud could lead to the demise of his profession and tarnish his character and standing in the community. […]

Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of such words as “whitewashed,” “intellectually bogus,” “ringmaster of the tree-ring circus,” and “cover-up” amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. In addition, whether the NR Defendants induced the EPA to investigate Plaintiff is not critical to this analysis because it is not disputed that the NR Defendants knew that the EPA and several reputable bodies had investigated Plaintiff and concluded that his work was sound. The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that “actual malice” is present in the NR Defendants’ conduct.”

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by stevefitzpatrick

$
0
0

David, You are completely correct, it is a nonsense number. I already tried to explain that to Jim D, without success. Maybe he will listen to you.

Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Willard

$
0
0

> If you knew what the methodology of the poll was, why did you say you would not list Obama?

One reason may be because the question was about reliable sources of information about AGW, and that Jim D considers that “Obama” is not a source of information about AGW. That seems to be what Jim D’s saying here:

I would not have listed Obama for information on climate change. He gets his information from the scientists, so I would rather go to them directly.

Another reason would be that not checking a box could be interpreted a “is not a source of information about AGW.” Which means that the opposite of “is a reliable source” is underspecified. Which means the whole methodology is a bit moot.

Another way to reach that conclusion is to look at the other questions, e.g.:

Q: Pope Francis recently said protecting the environment is the responsibility of all Christians. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with this statement?

http://polls.saintleo.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SLU-Q-1-TABLE-Global-Climate-Change-National-Survey-Results_FINAL.pdf

While Fan may applaud this question, this tends to show that the poll was for local consumption.

***

Stay tuned. Auditors around the world will request all the data shortly.

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by kim

$
0
0

JD, you assume a CO2 control knob, but it’s fallen off in your hand.
===========

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by beththeserf

$
0
0

Junk in, junk out
‘n junketing seems
a justifiable generalization
for UNFCCC steered
state of climate play.

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by AK

$
0
0
<blockquote>Therefore, taking on action on AGW is rolling the dice, not intelligently preparing for risk.</blockquote>Action is already being taken. Very effective action. Just not the action <b>you</b> want.

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by AK

$
0
0
Actually, it was just a <b>picture</b> of a control know. Written in Fortran.

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by kim

$
0
0

They are whipsawed, gotta say it’s over two, but everyone knows it might be under two. And two can be easily shown to be net beneficial. Oh, what a mess they’ve gotten themselves into.
===============

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by AK

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by Willard

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by Jim D

$
0
0

The transient response, especially an effective one, is the relevant number for warming rates, not the equilibrium value. However, policy is usually based on an equilibrium limit, so you can take the transient sensitivity as just a lower limit of ECS, which is its relevance to this discussion.

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by kim

$
0
0

I’m pretty sure Nic will have something to say about the meeting. I believe he may say it with numbers.
==================

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by kim

$
0
0

Heh, Jim D would take for a policy number something never quite happening and far off at its never quite happening. Transient climate response is the relevant one for policy for us and foreseeable generations, who will be quite happening.
=====================

Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #175 | Watts Up With That?


Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #175 | Watts Up With That?

Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #175 | Watts Up With That?

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by stevefitzpatrick

$
0
0

Kim, I think that most have made a huge commitment (personal, professional, emotional) to climate sensitivity being high. Under these circumstances, lower sensitivity values will face stiff ‘Kuhnian’ opposition (after Thomas Kuhn). That is just the way science flows. If they are mistaken about high sensitivity, as I think the empirical evidence suggests, then time will prove them mistaken.

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by Wagathon

$
0
0

With all of the barefaced certainty about global warming amidst all of the demonstrated uncertainty about climate change… someone should tell Pharaoh there’s a new god in town.

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by David Appell (@davidappell)

$
0
0

“Action is already being taken.”

Not much of anything at all that reduces risk.

Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images