Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Peter M Davies

0
0

Bias works in bizarre ways!


Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by video marketing strategy

0
0

Presently there are display caapture software program accessible like
Camtasia, Camsudio among others that allow you to file every part you see in your display disllay along with your
voice.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Stephen Segrest

0
0

Mr. Monfort is a perfect example of Dunning–Kruger effect. He never adds any technical discussion — just hot air (that always mean spirited).

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by COP 21–We Should Focus On What We Can Measure | The Lukewarmer's Way

0
0

[…] All this is explored at length at Judith Curry’s blog here. What I would like to focus on is how much easier it would be to focus on our fuel portfolio and to match it to projected increases in energy consumption. This leaves out other human contributions to climate change, such as deforestation and cement production, but it has the twin benefits of being a good proxy and already the subject of much measuring. […]

Comment on On Trial: Social Cost of Carbon by evanmjones

0
0

Fascinating graph. Puts a picture to that durn Stern Report (which I actually read, lord help me). Hideous cost, negligible return.

I am taking a further step. I am simply looking at net benefit from warming at the current rate with an expected modest top-out: In demographic terms, we may (conceivably) double CO2, but we will never, ever redouble. And I figure, we’ll walk away from FF long before we double current concentrations (for electricity generation, at least) — uncoerced by the UN or anyone else (and it very probably won’t be wind/solar).

So I think we’ll wind up with great benefits doing “nothing”, and any mitigation efforts will do nothing but cut into the economic component (which equals needless megadeaths, at the least, all on its own). If we just go about our wealth creation unimpeded and we top out at +1.5C, the world gets a max win.

If one is a flat-out alarmist and one wants to be semi-rational about all this at a high, but arguably affordable cost, then do a Hansen and go nuke. If one is convinced that AGW is an existential threat, it surely outstrips the limited danger of nukes.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Don Monfort

0
0

What is technical about lawsuits, little ss? You do a lot of talking in generalities about engineering economics and grid this and grid that, but you don’t shed any light.

We are ignorant, unless we have visited a large regional grid control center (that NASA would be proud of.) WTF is that all about?

What you don’t get is that renewables penetration in the power market ain’t about rational engineering economics. It’s greeny politics.

Try to pay attention. And stop the foolishness.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by beththeserf

Comment on On Trial: Social Cost of Carbon by beththeserf

0
0

If one did genu-inely believe that
AGWwas an existential threat, one
would go fer nuclear – if one did, but
most ones don’t, ’twas never about
the ‘science’ was it, one-tree-hockey-
stick-hot-model-projectionists-missin’
-hot-spot-explanationists-bucket-
theory-ocean-warmists and BOM-
temperature-record-add-justers?


Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by angech2014

0
0

“Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades. – Bjorn Lomborg”
Curious statement.
The impacts of the Current climate policy promises will have very detectable impacts in less than a decade and they will continue for many decades if left unchecked.
As he says, not on the climate, but on the lives and well being of both the rich and poor nations and their people.
In reality most of this is hand waving, Governments go by feel and the feeling at the moment is self indulgent concern for moral ideas,not people.
Paris will go ahead, restrictions will follow, then the consequences will hit and the mood will go nasty. Pity those scientists then, abandoned by their politicians.
We can only hope that the pendulum does not swing too far back by trying, thanks Judith, to slow the current swing and reduce the back swing.

Comment on On Trial: Social Cost of Carbon by Peter Lang

0
0

I mostly agree with you. I will happily support ‘no regrets’ policies and de-regulation – i.e. the opposite of command and control policies like carbon pricing and regulations and subsidies to incentivise renewable energy. That’s madness, as is wasting $1.5 trillion per year on the c”climate industry”.

Comment on On Trial: Social Cost of Carbon by Peter Lang

Comment on On Trial: Social Cost of Carbon by Peter Lang

0
0

Evan,

If one is a flat-out alarmist and one wants to be semi-rational about all this at a high, but arguably affordable cost, then do a Hansen and go nuke. If one is convinced that AGW is an existential threat, it surely outstrips the limited danger of nukes.

I agree. I’d also add, regarding “danger of nukes” the only danger is not having them or delaying them. If they replaced coal for electricity generation they’d avoid about 1.3 million early fatalities per year now. If their development hadn’t been delayed by 50 years of anti-nuke activism, which has caused their cost to increase by a factor of about 8 over what it would have been, global CO2 emissions from electricity would be 10% to 20% lower now than they are and tens of millions of avoidable fatalities would have been avoided. That’s what the irrational anti-nukes have caused.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by PA

0
0

Peter Davies | November 10, 2015 at 6:56 pm | Reply
Lomborg’s paper contains many flaws. The most glaring problem is that he completely ignores the following Chinese government INDC commitment

Well, yeah.

There are two issues:
1. Future Emissions
2. % of future emissions that will accumulate in the atmosphere.

It seems likely both will be lower than are commonly predicted.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/china-s-carbon-emissions-drop-for-the-first-time-since-2001

Although China was lying about their emissions by about 1 GT/Y of CO2 (0.27GT of carbon) in 2014 the emissions they were lying about were about 2% lower.

Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by Stanton Brown

0
0

Vaughn, way to miss the point! I’d say you went off on a tangent, but I can’t find any intersection of what you wrote to what I wrote.

Politicians control an extortion racket in the USA. Not corporations.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by logiclogiclogic

0
0

I believe we will get green energy but NOT because of environmentalism. The technology change is inevitable. If you read the literature there is leaps made all the time and the rate of progress in all science is exponential. It is inevitable we will discover other sources of energy that are more sustainable and cheaper and safer to produce regardless of all these scare tactics. I think inevitably the environmentalists will cry that they saved the world when in the end it just comes down to economics. We will only use these “renewable” technologies in quantity when they are economic and that won’t have anything to do with “sacrifice” but good old capitalistic greed and desire to make money. If it were the other way around and somehow we discover a really inexpensive super high density but dirty energy source I am sure we would use it (or someone will) to gain competitive advantage.

Nobody can expect really for nations and peoples to sacrifice their well being for some lofty dreams about a non-existent problem that they have been scared into believing. Maybe this seems overly cycnical but when you are talking about something so crucial to life and prosperity as energy you can’t afford to do anything else. Sure there will be exceptional cases like there are exceptional dictators who cause exceptional pain, some nations will be led down a path to self-destruction or at least partial self-destruction.

The environmentalists claim credit for things that all people would consider rational. Do we want to preserve animals and land? To me it is not “environmental” or “socialist” to save yourself from terrible air pollution that kills. Nobody wants to die from air pollution. Nobody wants to breathe crappy air. Nobody wants food that is dangerous or to kill off the animals.

Anybody who likes to live in pollution, to cause extinction of animals, to eat food tainted with cancer producing or dangerous elements is simply mentally sick. That’s not capitalism or right wing. That’s simply stupid and evil people who care nothing about themselves or anyone else and in my honest opinion it describes mentally disturbed people.

However, the left and environmentalists want to paint themselves with a brush of being the “good” guys when what they suggest is frequently just as crazy as people who don’t care about having a clean environment.

I worry that environmentalists will once again try to claim that they made solar or prevented global warming when these things would have happened or not happened anyway. So, even if we still put up massive CO2 for decades and temperatures go nowhere or go up miniscule amount they will claim success anyway by saying that the small increase in temperature was because of their pushing us to solar or they invented solar when in fact they were completely wrong about the timing of solar or the amount of global warming we would get. It will take some long tooth old guys to remember that they said temps would go up 3 degrees by 2100 not 1 degreee. They will forget that solar didn’t become mainstream until it was economic to do so. They will take the credit when the simply natural thing that happened from sheer common sense had nothing to do with their crazed claims or agendas.


Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by kim

0
0

Hilary, I’ve long wondered if Maurice Strong is in China rightly advising them or being advised of his rights.
===================

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by kim

0
0

logiclogiclanglogiclogic.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by kim

0
0

OK, now I’m gonna be permanently confused because both PDs make a lot of sense. So is it Peter M’original Davies and the notable newbie Peter Davies?
============

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by dennisa

0
0

Lomborg says, “The 2.7°C comes from the International Energy Agency…..”

Wrong, it comes from The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) which claims to be “an independent scientific analysis that measures government climate action against the globally agreed aim of holding warming below 2°C of warming. It is produced by four research organisations: Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.”

http://climateanalytics.org/what-we-do/climate-action-tracker

The idea that these are four independent research institutes is as much a deception as the VW affair. The CAT operates from the same Berlin address as Hare’s Climate Analytics and they even use the same telephone number.

Climate Analytics was started with funding from the German government by former Greenpeace International political director, Australian Bill Hare, at Potsdam in 2008. He is a named author of the UN GAP report. He has been embedded at Potsdam since 2002 and was still speaking for Greenpeace as late as 2008, if not later and was, probably still is, active in the Climate Action Network. He was a co-author of the AR4 Synthesis Report. His PhD is an honorary one from Murdoch University in Australia.

He was originally an activist with the Australian Conservation Foundation and he was pushing for 1.5 degrees and a carbon budget, talking of unburnable fuels etc as far back as 1997. He has been a Lead Author for IPCC, even whilst still officially working for Greenpeace. He has used basic computer models for years to produce MAGICC scary scenarios.

He is still involved with Potsdam, and took some Potsdam staff with him to Climate Analytics, so already two “independent” institutes are part and parcel of the same set up, although CA now has offices in Berlin.

Kornelis Blok is Managing Partner at Ecofys. He is not a climate scientist and neither are his team at Ecofys. He has been a Lead Author for IPCC. In 2009, Ecofys was part of a parent company called Econcern, which went bust along with 27 associated eco companies under the company banner, including Ecofys International BV.

Then we have the New Climate Institute, set up by Niklas Hoehne about a year ago. He was Director of Energy and Climate Policy at Ecofys for 13 years and prior to that worked for UNFCCC. Six of his founding partners also were at Ecofys with him. Neither Hoehne nor his partners are climate scientists, even though Hoehne has been a Lead Author for IPCC. They are policy advocates.

So we see that the “four european research groups” turn out to be essentially one body with four heads and they are pushing policy upon the rest of us, based on a flawed paradigm.

The 2 degree figure is meaningless and has no scientific basis. It was first floated by economist William Nordhaus in 1977 and was picked up by Potsdam’s John Schellnhuber in 1995 and adopted by the EU in 1996. Encouraged by support from Angela Merkel, it has become a mantra with no meaning.

The aim of Paris is to get Son of Kyoto, with global energy taxation, administered on behalf of the UN, by the global corporatist financiers pushing The New Climate Economy, with Stern, Edenhofer, Soros and major financial institutions such as Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, KPMG, JP Morgan et al in the vanguard. With global stagnation and low general investment, they see this as the new wealth generator. AGW is the false rationale. Who wouldn’t want to save the planet?

https://www.db.com/cr/en/concrete-caio-koch-weser-presents-new-climate-economy-report-findings-in-israel.htm

Caio Koch-Weser, who was on Ban Ki Moon’s “High Level Climate Finance Panel” after Copenhagen, along with George Soros, Lord Stern, Christine Lagarde, (now IMF chief), says:

“Over the next 15 years, USD 90 trillion will be invested globally in energy systems, cities and land use sectors. The nature of these investments will affect the strength of economic growth and society’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change. …….. “sustainability and innovation are essential ingredients for future prosperity and the wellbeing of society”.

Much of the money washing around goes to “consultants”, as in this description of the risks of emissions trading:

http://www.aon.com/risk-services/environmental-articles/article_carbon-credit-ins-part1.jsp

“Emissions Trading Up Close”

“……..it takes a lot of money to validate, register, monitor, verify, and certify a carbon offset project on both compliance and voluntary markets. A small-scale project faces anywhere between $40,000 and $200,000 in total transaction costs, which in turn, can represent over 40 percent of the total value of a certified reduction.

This high cost is another major point of contention, and also why to date most offset projects have been coordinated with large corporations, which in places like India and China receive the vast majority of carbon offset finance.

One of the central difficulties involved in the commodification process of carbon offsets is the fact that for every offset project, consultants have to create a unique storyline describing a hypothetical world without the project, and then assign a number to the greenhouse gas emissions associated with that imagined world.”

This is from AON, who are offering offset insurance in case claimed offsets are rejected for failing to comply with the rules and money has to be handed back.

The poor will not benefit from controls on fossil energy, the climate will hardly notice, but those already rich will become much richer.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by brentns1

0
0

Wind and solar growth means more back up electricity needed, warns IEA
The world will produce electricity less efficiently in the future, thanks to the rapid growth of intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.
The International Energy Agency warns in its World Energy Outlook 2015 that the world will have to add more generation capacity “than is globally installed today, while average utilisation rates … go down because of the need to integrate variable renewable technologies”.
Lower capacity utilisation rates are associated with lower efficiency. In a world electricity market in which renewables such as wind and solar energy provide more than half the increase in generation capacity between now and 2040, back up capacity – in the form of coal, gas, hydro or nuclear baseload capacity, or batteries – will be required to switch on when intermittent renewables don’t work.
The IEA says in the World Energy Outlook – which also gives a more subdued outlook for coal than in last year’s report – that countries may have to pay baseload suppliers to maintain standby capacity for these occasions.
It says such countries will have to consider “appropriate market mechanisms that can generate the necessary investment in generation and grids”.
Britain’s electricity market already has a so-called “capacity market” which provides payments to baseload generators for this purpose. Germany, with a higher share of intermittent renewables in its electricity mix than Australia, is warily considering similar market mechanisms.
Such payments are unpopular in Britain because more often than not they go to a coal or other fossil fuel generator.
Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) chief executive Matt Zema​ warned last month that recent price volatility in South Australia, which has the highest share of renewable energy of any state, would have caused blackouts if not for his agency’s intervention in the SA electricity market.
Mr Zema said the problem could get worse as other states followed SA’s example and increased their renewable energy generation as a share of the total.
Ensuring stable electricity supply to societies and industries that depend on energy as never before is an emerging challenge for electricity markets because of the rapid growth of non-hydro renewable energy.
http://www.afr.com/business/mining/coal/wind-and-solar-growth-means-more-back-up-electricity-needed-warns-iea-20151110-gkvfi4

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images