OK, we can connect the dots now. Heartland-big tobacco-Exxon-$money$ blah..blah..freaking …blah. Well done, yoey. We are all going to give up fossil fuels now. Your work is done here. Take little yimmy with you.
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Jeremy Poynton
I’m sure he’s right, but as the UN have made abundantly clear on more tha none occasion, this is not ABOUT climate change. Climate change is just a means to an end.
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by justinwonder
Tonyb,
“…as the steel industry has collapsed in the last month followed by a large tyre manufacturer all citing high energy costs as their main problem.”
What has been the reaction of the public to that data?
JW
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by gjw2
Question: Would the US, EU, etc. get more bang from their environment buck by helping developing countries build more efficient coal burning plants than trying to tweak already relatively efficient fuel use? (That is, relative to the fuel use in developing countries.) After all, countries in Asia are building 500 new coal fired power plants this year with many more to come in the future.
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by justinwonder
al_e,
“Trains and ship that transport food across the oceans”
International commodity trading is an effective risk-reduction strategy for coping with crop failures.
If CAGW is real and significant and if it causes local crop failures and if farmers are unable to adapt within a reasonable time period then international shipping will be vital. That will not be the time to throw away good diesel engines in the name of fist ™ mitigation of black carbon.
↧
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Peter Davies
Lomborg’s paper contains many flaws. The most glaring problem is that he completely ignores the following Chinese government INDC commitment
– To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early
This Chinese INDC commitment is the biggest single CO2 reduction commitment item anywhere. Read it yourself on page 5 of the English section of the Chinese INDC at http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/China/1/China's%20INDC%20-%20on%2030%20June%202015.pdf.
Peaking means reaching a high and then reducing, but Lomborg’s graph for China does not show a reduction in Chinese CO2 emissions after 2030. It shows a hefty increase.
Lomborg states he excludes modelling this commitment and justifies the omission by saying that the CO2 peak of 2030 means the action comes after 2030. This is a fatally flawed statement. To peak CO2 by 2030 the Chinese have to peak coal use by 2020 – it takes that long to turn around the Chinese economy – and outside the INDC they have indeed publicly committed to this 2020 target too.
Further, at the peak the growth rate has to be zero (or it would not be peak), and in the run up to 2030 you can measure whether China is peaking or not – particularly if they manage to beat the target. So Lomborg has no rational grounds for omitting this particular target from his paper.
If you include this single Chinese target it blows all of Lomborg’s miniscule numbers out of the water.
The current indications are that the Chinese may have peaked coal already in 2013, as 2014 is lower and what 2015 figures we have are down by about 8% on 2013. If this is the case then China is likely to peak total CO2 emissions around 2025, which comes well within the timescale that Lomborg should have been considering.
So Lomborg’s paper is fatally flawed and should be withdrawn because it leaves out the single biggest swinger in the whole temperature reduction equation.
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Don Monfort
Don’t ask him practical questions, Tony. He’s the Gruber of power generation engineering economics. In theory, renewables solve the alleged CO2 problem, everybody gets the power they need when they need it, and we are surely going to save money.
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by justinwonder
Construction and agriculture are actually more dangerous. Should we stop growing food?
Here are the actual numbers, by industry, from the USBLS, see chart #3:
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by justinwonder
Millions die?
↧
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by justinwonder
SS,
” I really don’t know much about the EU. I do feel knowledgeable about most of the U.S. (other than CA). ”
Really? You are a man of engineering but you aren’t familiar with the biggest chunk of data – EU and CA – from the renewables experiment?
I’m starting to feel dirty picking on you.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by stevepostrel
Classical Marxism can be blamed for many things, but not appreciating technology and industry is not one of them. Reread the Communist Manifesto for some pretty high-flown rhetoric about the wonders unleashed by bourgeois industrialism. It is true that generic anti-capitalism ideologues of all stripes, including latter-day Marxians, often reach for anti-industrial romanticism, but it is also true that a lot of wind/solar promoters purport to be pro-free-enterprise.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Mike Flynn
Vaughan Pratt,
You asked about a comment of mine, where I said –
“Heat induced warming, of course.”
You asked “What are you talking about? Heat from what? And how much?”
I assume you are genuinely interested in learning about heat, energy, temperature, and so on. This is a large and complicated field, plagued with multiple definitions, and even now poorly understood. This is particularly so where Warmists, such as yourself, are concerned.
Initially, I might refer you to Tyndall’s most recent publications, as you seem to be a bit out of date. Follow this by reading Feynman’s small book – “QED, the strange theory of light and matter”, from memory.
The concept of “warmth” is not easily defined, but is generally accepted to be a “temperature” comfortable to the observer, taking other environmental factors into account.
In most cases, “warmth” comes about as the result of the interaction between “light” and “matter”. This is generally termed “heat”. Many people are still locked into 19th and early 20th century concepts of “heat”, “warming”, and so on.
Even now, some Warmists believe that a reduction in the rate of “cooling”, is “warming”, which of course is complete nonsense. Redefining “cooling” at a reduced rate as “warming” is just silly.
Tyndall’s experiments demonstrate absorption of invisible energy by invisible matter. Solids, liquids, gases, are all forms of matter. Feynman explains the theoretical considerations, and as far as I am aware, his theories have been confirmed by experiment – so far.
So – heat from what? Any source of light (EMR if you wish).
And how much? This is a completely pointless question. You have defined no parameters. You are apparently still unaware of the physics involved. Steven Mosher’s clue is still missing. You obviously haven’t found one.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Jim D
It was from 2030-2100, like I said, and -0.5 GtCO2 per year versus +0.5 GtCO2 per year, like I said, and yes it is 2450 GtCO2. And it is 3200 GtCO2 if starting in 2020.
↧
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Don Monfort
I will try to help him out, justin.
CAISO is the grid operator in CA:
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/FlexibleResourcesHelpRenewables_FastFacts.pdf
CAISO says “In California, energy and environmental policy initiatives are driving electric grid changes.” Politics rule, not market forces and engineering economics. Pass the cost on to the consumer.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by stevepostrel
These aren’t just scientists. They are also bureaucrats involved in making regulations and providing evidence for their political superiors to further their aims. Our current regulations on allegedly carcinogenic chemicals, for example, are the result of highly politicized and scientifically problematic judgments (dubbed “regulatory science” by Edith Efron in her classic The Apocalyptics). Ditto most of our government’s nutritional pronouncements and regulations. Ditto the California air pollution regulations. To pretend that employees of regulatory agencies or those government employees participating in regulatory-relevant research are the institutional equivalent of Robert Boyle or Charles Darwin is absurd.
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Curious George
China “To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early.” This blows all of Lomborg’s miniscule numbers out of the water. Your math is refreshing.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Don Monfort
Little yimmy doesn’t like your charts, CMS. He is sulking.
↧
↧
Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by Jim D
If someone wants to write a rosy picture of a +4 C world, it would be a very interesting read. No one has offered one, even on blogs or in WSJ op-eds, and I wonder why. Instead they are intent on denial that +4 C is even possible, which may be taken as a clue to what they think about its effects. We just crossed, according to today’s news, 1 C at 400 ppm, which is 2 C per doubling if you are keeping track and that is just the transient effective rate, a lower limit on the actual equilibrium.
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by PA
Well, it isn’t that wind is stable. After all Texas actually had a calm caused outage. But you can integrate renewables into the grid. Someone with an engineering degree and only one hard constraint can make a system work.
In the 60/70s we had little or no demand side throttling, generation had to meet demand. Smart Grid/renewables are turning the paradigm upside where the generators run uncontrolled and the user’s power is throttled. If 20% of the grid is renewable and you can throttle 20% of user demand the system will work.
We used to think that users were important and provided dispatchable generation. The renewable advocates impose dispatchability on the consumer because they can’t control their high cost renewable generation, and impose greater cost in the rest of the grid, then act like they have done something clever.
Smart people who care about the public build nuclear/coal/gas/oil/hydro – dispatchable generation.
People who want feel good about themselves because they are just sooooooooo green, where style points are the most important consideration, public be damned, go renewable.
↧
Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Barnes
Logic – one flaw in your logic is that renewables, that being wind and solar, are not possible without fossil fuels, from cradle to grave. Fossil fuels are needed to power the machinery used to mine the raw materials for their manufacture, transport, assembly, maintenance, decomissioning, and for backup for those times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
