China’s stated goal it to cap CO2 emissions by 2030 and coal emission by 2020. They need to do more but I wouldn’t call that purposefully trying to increase CO2 emissions. But you can join PA in fantasy land, if you want..
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Joseph
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Joseph
And what do you expect the UN to do about that? And if they can’t do anything about the governments, they should do nothing??
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by catweazle666
<i>YAWN...</i>
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Don Monfort
Try cutting back on the smoking and drinking and increase the bacon intake, Mark. That should help.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by catweazle666
nebakhet : “republicans are fundamentally anti-science.”
Totally ridiculous, malevolent nonsense.
You’re really getting desperate now, aren’t you?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Don Monfort
I believe the putz with no name is reform and partakes of the bacon free from the strictures of scriptures, tim. So there is that.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
I am disheartened at the degree to which the US is in the socialist tank. We have so many forces arrayed against us, it’s difficult to hold out hope anymore.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Mark. For some reason, I thought you were following this, but at any rate …
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Bacon would make even promiscuous sex better!
↧
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Jim D
PA, Exxon never had any research counter to the mainstream. In the 1980’s, they dropped their research like the hot potato that it was. Then they started working on the politicians via funded “think”tanks instead. The science itself was a lost cause from their perspective, but they could still have a chance to further their interests with politicians and money. It’s a very easy track to trace.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Wagathon
‘Obama rejects Keystone pipeline [link]’
Where’s the imagination these days? We could piggyback with pipelines of fresh arctic water to arid regions. Something for everybody; something worthy of the Romans.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by eli rabett (@EthonRaptor)
Cap Weinberger, Eliot Abrams
https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by sciguy54
timg56, its all circular, and Lewis Carroll would be proud.
The wind-farm is justified by comparing the projected cost/KWh with the cost/KWh of the existing diesel generators.
The projected cost/KWh is only low enough if they build the cable and force the mainland grid to buy the intermittent power left-overs at 5-6 times the cost of present reliable grid power plus use cheap grid power to supplement the wind power and allow BI Power to retire the diesel generators on the island.
Of course they do not mention the obvious third possibility: just install a cable to the island and retire the diesel generators. This would almost certainly be the most cost-effective alternative, and possibly the least CO2 intensive.
The extra costs of the wind-farm plus cable over the cable alone are simply additional costs of “renewable” power for which there will never be a proper accounting. But this is how the “New Energy Economy” works.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by sciguy54
timg56, its all circular, and Lewis Carroll would be proud.
The wind-farm is justified by comparing the projected cost/KWh with the cost/KWh of the existing diesel generators.
The projected cost/KWh is only low enough if they build the cable and force the mainland grid to buy the intermittent power left-overs at 5-6 times the cost of present reliable grid power plus use cheap grid power to supplement the wind power and allow BI Power to retire the diesel generators on the island.
Of course they do not mention the obvious third possibility: just install a cable to the island and retire the diesel generators. This would almost certainly be the most cost-effective alternative, and possibly the least CO2 intensive.
The extra costs of the wind-farm plus cable over the cable alone are simply additional costs of “renewable” power for which there will never be a proper accounting. But this is how the “New Energy Economy” works.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by sciguy54
My reply to timg56, above, landed in the wrong place. I have copied it to the proper location.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by PA
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2995622?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
700 PPM reduces stomatal conductance 21% to 51% over 350 PPM.
There are 200 molecules of water lost for each molecule of CO2 incorporated. More CO2 increases water conservation and increases the optimum photosynthesis temperature.
China’s underreported of 1 GT/Y of emissions which was disclosed this week, mean that environmental absorption has averaged 6.7 GT the last 5 years. With current emissions being 10,8 GT/Y that means 62% of CO2 emissions go into the ground or water. Global warmers act like there aren’t plants in the ocean or on land that eat the CO2. The high level of environmental absorption means that global warmers need to put down their bong, wait until their head clears, and look at the numbers realistically.
Our problem isn’t runaway CO2. The increasing population is going to consume arable land with asphalt. Agriculture is going to be squeezed between limited land and limited water.
This runaway CO2 fantasy isn’t funny any more. It is threatening the lives of people in the future. We need to produce more food with less land and less water. More CO2 is a vital element in assuring reliable future food supplies. Covering arable land with windmills or black glass is indefensible.
We need to discuss increasing the CO2 level so we can feed the people of the future. People can tolerate it 1-2°C warmer. Their tolerance for starvation has been tested and found wanting.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by opluso
Joseph:
Life must be so easy when you can only see in black and white.
Your numbers are meaningless without context. Spending to influence congress = climate corruption? I suspect you know better.
Even with pre-Citizens United restrictions, I also can’t believe that the largest company in the world gave less than $18M in political contributions since 1990?
↧
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Joseph
I didn’t say it proves there was corruption. But most of it is going to Republican who want to do nothing about climate change and dismiss the science. If Exxon is so concerned about climate change as you seem to think, why would they almost exclusively fund groups that deny most of current climate science? That is why I said that the donation was only to improve their public image. Companies do it all the time. It’s nothing new..
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Knute
Do I need a permit to harvest fowl from the windmill.
I’m trying to decide on a chicken coup or the windmill.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by dpy6629
Judith, You may have seen it, but our friend Ken Rice has a post up on this and there is the usual questioning of your motives and even a commenter reference to “Aunt …” which I thought everyone had agreed was a smear. It shows i think that you are right that this field has become perhaps hopelessly politicized.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
