Very good Michael, this is rapid progress for you.
Michael | May 19, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Reply
“ignorance is bliss.”
Now you only need to think for yourself, like Edison used to do.
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Tom
↧
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by David L. Hagen
Peter Lang
On economic risk, <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lloyds%20energy%20crunch%20360&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lloyds.com%2F~%2Fmedia%2FLloyds%2FReports%2F360%2520Energy%2520Security%2F7238_Lloyds_360_Energy_Pages.pdf&ei=Gka6T9HROueKsgKX8NmKDA&usg=AFQjCNGqywmn0M3BIya7hylBBvsoLhwz2g&cad=rja" rel="nofollow">Lloyds warns of fuel supply risks in 2012-2015</a> (more critical than mild warming by 2100). Note also: <a href="http://www.ogj.com/articles/2012/05/former-ambassadors-cite-foreign-policy-impacts-from-oil-imports.html?cmpid=EnlDailyMay182012" rel="nofollow">Former ambassadors cite foreign policy impacts from oil imports</a>
<blockquote>“Progressively higher oil prices have, in fact, increased the total cost of the net US oil import burden in recent years, even as import volumes have declined,” Bagley said. “As a result, the United States has run an aggregate deficit in petroleum of more than $1.5 trillion since 2007.” . . .
C. Boyden Gray, 2005-06 ambassador to the European Union, . . .“Europe’s energy security problem is Russia,” he said. “Ours is [the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries].” . . .
Gray said one major US energy policymaking problem is a failure to differentiate between electricity and transportation alternatives. “The wind turbines and solar collectors . . .have absolutely no impact on transportation, which is where the real problem with imported oil lies,” he observed.
“America’s economic security is at stake,” maintained Christopher Burnham, 2005-06 United Nations under secretary general.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Michael
I’ll remember to put the ‘end sarcasm’ in for you nex time.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Tom
Now you are really moving along?:o)
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Bob Ludwick
“Global warming is real, it is caused by man-made CO2 emissions, and we need to do something about it.”
“How can we best reduce suffering from global warming?”
The two axioms of ‘Climate Science’ exemplified.
A. Climate change is driven by anthropogenic CO2 produced as a byproduct of the energy production required to maintain our technological civilization.
B. The effects of climate change are uniformly detrimental and will vary from unpleasant to catastrophic.
Climate Science is the ONLY science based on unquestionable axioms.
ALL data collection and analysis of climate data, all theories of climate, all climate models, all climate research, and all scientific papers produced by ‘legitimate’ climate scientists are in support of A.
ALL ‘legitimate’ political responses to climate change accept B as axiomatic.
ANY data which which casts doubt on A or B is dismissed. ANY scientist or politician who questions A or B is branded a skeptic, incompetent, or a shill of ‘big energy’.
↧
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by manacker
Excellent summary, Bob.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by manacker
Bart R
So I’m not surprised by many otherwise bright people having trouble with the simple concept of paying for what doesn’t belong to them. After all, a lot of you have been exposed to politicians all your lives, so might not be as familiar with the idea as you ought.
Hmm…
How about “having trouble with the concept of being charged for something by someone (politicians) to whom it doesn’t belong”?
That’s the REAL “Tragedy of the Commons” here, Bart.
Max
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Kent Draper
You sound silly Bart, you are afraid of something that has not happened and looks like the outcome will be just the opposite to your fears. Yet you want me to pay to not have it happen. How did you get to a point where you are willing to pay some one money even though it won’t fix a problem that isn’t there. Sounds a lot like Allce and Wonderland 
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by gbaikie
“I’d also make the point that nuclear fuel resources are effectively unlimited in the Earth’s crust. ”
Minable nuclear fuel in earth crust is not unlimited, it’s vast, but not unlimited.
“Current usage is about 68,000 tU/yr. Thus the world’s present measured resources of uranium (5.4 Mt) in the cost category slightly above present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 80 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.”
….
It is clear from this Figure that known uranium resources have increased almost threefold since 1975, in line with expenditure on uranium exploration.
….
Widespread use of the fast breeder reactor could increase the utilisation of uranium 50-fold or more.
….
The thorium fuel cycle has some attractive features, though it is not yet in commercial use. Thorium is reported to be about three times as abundant in the earth’s crust as uranium. The 2009 IAEA-NEA “Red Book” lists 3.6 million tonnes of known and estimated resources as reported, but points out that this excludes data from much of the world, and estimates about 6 million tonnes overall. See also companion paper on Thorium. ”
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
There lots uranium, economically minable uranium is a more finite supply,
one could get more if the price paid was higher, and the fuel cost is minor cost of operation, so it’s quite possible for the fuel to increase significant and not have much effect on cost electricity made from nuclear energy.
With increased use [double, triple, etc] one could have a relatively cheap supply of nuclear power for centuries to perhaps thousands of years.
But if we down the road of getting *everything* we could in terms of nuclear fuel for thousands of years, and getting to point analogous to $200 per barrel crude oil, then globally background radiations levels could actually lower on earth- as strange as that may seem.
Such as mining granite and sea water, and being very advanced in terms of reprocessing nuclear fuel, etc.
Though if want to go the earth mantle, one has a lot more nuclear fuel one could mine- but it’s fairly wild in terms the technology you would need.
↧
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by kakatoa
Retail Rate and Cost Issues with Renewable Development
May 22, 2012– 10:00 a.m. At The CEC in Sacramento.
Agenda-
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012_energypolicy/documents/2012-05-22_workshop/2012-05-22_agenda.pdf
A couple of presentations SMUD and SDGE:
From Panel 3- Cost Consideration in Rate Design and Policies to Improve Rate Design-
“Questions to consider
12. What impact do you expect the costs of reaching renewables goals to have under current rate structures?
13. What are the potential rate impacts from funding renewables programs?
a. What is the expected timing of rate impacts?
b. How do rate design elements, such as fixed rate components or tiered rates, impact how renewables program costs are recovered?
c. Do renewables programs affect groups of customers differently than overall rate design?
14. How have, and how can, cost containment mechanisms mitigate rate impacts?…………
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Peter Lang
Error in my post @ May 21, 2012 at 7:39 pm: 25% should read 250% in this sentence:
“there would be a 250% cost penalty if only half the emissions are included”
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by David Wojick
Peter, I can look at mindmap. But we are talking about a significant issue analysis and mapping effort. Do you have a possible source of initial funding?
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Stephen Rasey
These questions are hopeless as a useful, objective preamble to a conference. How can you possibly make sense of different qualitative answers from each participant in the time allowed?
If they required Quantitative answers, even with ranges, you’d have a hope of determining how important or urgent an issue is.
As it is, the goal of the set of questions is obfuscation and ultimate dominance of the Hidden Agenda.
↧
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Stephen Rasey
<i>Since when have atomic bombs saved one life?</i>
Since 1945. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall" rel="nofollow">(Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet) = Operation Downfall</a>
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Stephen Rasey
Since when has fire insurance save one life
Fire Insurance is responsible for the creation of building codes.
Insurance companies won’t insure unsafe buildings.
(…or were you just asking a rhetorical question 
)
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by gbaikie
http://s11.zetaboards.com/Sky_dragon/index/
It’s Chris Ho-Stuart’s board.
It seems to me, he likes that kind of thing.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Wagathon
You can’t simply ignore the fact that Bjorn Lomborg himself is saying in the preceding post that, “The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance…” At least not without explaining why he was wrong then and now and taking into account we are into a decade of global cooling and the EU is finally crumbling and all the BRIC countries outside the insanity of Western liberal Utopianism are getting a good chuckle at the nihilism of global warming alarmists.
↧
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by David L. Hagen
Michael
I understand the Copenhagen Consensus to be trying to allocate scarce humanitarian resources on a benefit/cost basis. The R&D items examined on climate change appear to have far lower benefit/cost than most of the humanitarian issues – though see RIchard Toll’s comments that they need to be addressed on a different scale.
↧
Comment on CMIP5 decadal hindcasts by Harold Pierce Jr
BREAKER! BREAKER!
How many times do I have to post this comment here and elsewhere before you guys finally wake up and pay attention to this seminal monograph.
RE: Climate Change, What the Russians Say.
The English translation of “Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity by L.B. Klyashtorin and A.A. Lyubushin can be downloaded for free thru this link:
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes__and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?
NB: This mongraph is 224 pages and is not about climate science. The Russian edition was published in 2005. The English translation was published in 2007 and was edited by Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study.
By analyzing numerous time series of empircal data (e.g., temperature records, sediment cores, fish catches, etc), they found that the earth has several global climate cycles with periodicities of 50-70 years and that the average of these cycles is about 60 years which has a cool and warm phase of 30 years each.
The last warm phase began in ca 1970-75 and ended in ca 2000. The global warming from ca 1975 was due in part to this warm phase. A cool phase started in 2000 and their stocastic model predicts that it will last until 2030.
Several others studies have found this 60 year cycle. See ,for example, Alan Cheetam’s “Global Warming Science” at:
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming.
NB: You should bookmark this page. This is _the_ one-stop-shop-until drop store for global warming and climate change info.
The monograph was preceded by: “Climate change and long-term fluctions of commercial catches: the possibilities of forecasting.” by L.B Klyashtorin, FOA Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 410, Rome, FOA, 2001, 86p.
Note the date of publication. Was this report and the mongraph forwarded to the IPCC and cited in AR4. I don’t know but I’m going to find out.
Also check out:
“On the Coherence between Dymanics of World Fuel Consumption and Global Temperature Anomaly” by L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin, Energy & Enviroment, Volume 14 No.6 2003.
Briefly, they found no correlation between rising world fuel consumption and the global temperature anomaly over the interval 1961-2000.
The Russian have demolished the IPCC years ago. When their works become more well-known, the People will storm the UN and univerities, capture the bureaucrats (i.e, con men) at the IPPC and climate scientists (i.e, the white coated wiseguys) at the universities, douse’em with sweet Diesel and burn them all at the stake!.
When the People learn the true objecctives of the UN as set forth in the B.C. Climate Action Plan, the New Communist Manifesto, they shall go after the politicians and slaughter them all.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by willard
I wish to express my gratitude to Rob Starkey, who made me think about the same question a while ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
