Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

and still the alarmists do nothing to change their lifestyle.

It seems the alarmists aren't very alarmed. Wayne

Would you care to make a comment on the research Wayne? I can't see how a flippant nothing comment as per above adds anything to a discussion.

 

[wayneL]

Your cites were not research, they were newspaper articles.

I'm too busy burning fossil fuels and bending perfectly good bits of steel bar to chase down the actual research.

But let's say things are as bad as the Canberra Times represents.... Whatcha gonna do about it Bas?

 

[Ves]

....and still the alarmists do nothing to change their lifestyle.

It seems the alarmists aren't very alarmed.

What is this based on? Content?

 

[basilio]

Your cites were not research, they were newspaper articles.

I'm too busy burning fossil fuels and bending perfectly good bits of steel bar to chase down the actual research.

But let's say things are as bad as the Canberra Times represents.... Whatcha gonna do about it Bas?

You clearly can't/won't read Wayne. They were based on research papers published in Science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/11/science.aac7111

After 8 years of decay of its ice shelf, Zachariæ Isstrøm, a major glacier of northeast Greenland that holds a 0.5-meter sea-level rise equivalent, entered a phase of accelerated retreat in fall 2012. The acceleration rate of its ice velocity tripled, melting of its residual ice shelf and thinning of its grounded portion doubled, and calving is now occurring at its grounding line. Warmer air and ocean temperatures have caused the glacier to detach from a stabilizing sill and retreat rapidly along a downward-sloping, marine-based bed. Its equal-ice-volume neighbor, Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden, is also melting rapidly but retreating slowly along an upward-sloping bed. The destabilization of this marine-based sector will increase sea-level rise from the Greenland Ice Sheet for decades to come.

And otherwise? Whatever has to be done.

 

[wayneL]

What is this based on? Content?

Observation of alarmists. Let's examine the "carbon footprints" of the chief protagonists shall we?

 

[wayneL]

You clearly can't/won't read Wayne. They were based on research papers published in Science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/11/science.aac7111

Like I said don't really have time to analyse the papers right now so will take on face value until further notice.

And otherwise? Whatever has to be done.

Bullsh!t. Alarmists do not live low carbon lifestyles as a rule, actually the worst form of denial.

 

[Ves]

Observation of alarmists. Let's examine the "carbon footprints" of the chief protagonists shall we?

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. Are you asking my permission to start examining them?

So far you've given us nothing to "examine."

 

[wayneL]

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. Are you asking my permission to start examining them?

So far you've given us nothing to "examine."

Oh Lord! Another asinine squabbler of insignificancies.

Look, it's pretty simple. Your lot wants to promulgate doom and gloom, the latest iteration of the Apocalypse.

To what end?

What are the doomists proposing to personally do about it?

Buy a Toyota Pious?

Sell the mansion and live in a cave?

Cease procreating?

Sit around freezing, huddled around a single candle holding hands?

What?

Because as I've detailed already, constant doomsaying costs lives.

 

[Ves]

Oh Lord! Another asinine squabbler of insignificancies.

You made a statement:

"....and still the alarmists do nothing to change their lifestyle.

It seems the alarmists aren't very alarmed."


... and after three posts you have given absolutely zilch to back it up.

Now you are making assumptions about me and asking me to give you answers because you cannot come up with any for yourself.

Are you done avoiding the question yet?

 

[trainspotter]

I though this thread was about RESISTING climate hysteria. So far we are 25 metres under water after the ice melts and being fried like an egg because the globe is warming at an "ALARMING" rate.

I especially liked this bit ...

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology said this month that the El Nino was now on course to challenge the 1997-98 event as the strongest on record, and was not expected to peak until late this year.

This would suggest that, short of a major disruptive event such as a huge volcanic eruption, 2015 will easily eclipse heat records in previous years.

It doesn't say it HAS .. it said it is on course to challenge. SCAREMONGERING at it's finest

It is being "suggested" that it might eclipse the 97/98 years.

Nothing to see here ... more ALARMIST clap trap

Quite a few posts ago I wrote how the media is manipulating what you think. India trebling it's Co2 output was written up as a reduction? REALLY ??? I especially liked this quote from Obama ...

And that means taking serious steps to address climate change once and for all. Now, we've made a lot of progress to cut carbon pollution here at home, and we're leading the world to take action as well.

DERP !! ... not quite Barack !

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States increased by about 7% between 1990 and 2013.

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

 

[basilio]

So what are we to personally do to reduce the effects of CC?

For a start make it clear to our governments that the science is well and truly in on this topic and that we must move ASAP to clean renewable energy sources.

For a second bite at the cherry assist India and other developing countries countries to develop through clean renewable energy resources rather than fossil fuels.

Finally make it simple for businesses to make the move to renewables by putting a price on carbon and switching state subsidies to renewable energy sources.

Of course we could ignore all the evidence of CC so that people don't become worried about it.

But how does that help us as the consequences of CC make themselves felt across the world? Taking the accelerated collapse of the Greenland glacier as a first example.

How long should we studiously ignore what scientists are discovering and wait for sea level rises to drive us out of our coastal cities before making alternative plans ?

 

[trainspotter]

Well bugger me ....

In a Silicon Valley research lab, scientists are working on what might be considered the option of last resort for global warming.

“It’s an insurance policy,” said researcher Sudhanshu Jain.

It’s called the Marine Cloud Brightening Project, and it’s designed to fight global warming by making clouds over the ocean thicker and brighter so they reflect more sunlight and cool the planet.

The Sunnyvale team has reached a milestone with this high-pressure nozzle that uses salt water and looks like a normal water spray. But it took scientists a year to come up with the exact rate, flow and pressure so that the water droplets come out to the perfect size.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...-brightening-clouds-to-combat-climate-change/

And bugger me again ...

By modifying the reflectivity of clouds, the albedo of Earth would be altered. The intention is that this technique, in combination with greenhouse gas emissions reduction (and possibly other climate engineering techniques) will be sufficient to control global warming. The effect is expected to be fully reversible, as the cloud condensation nuclei particles precipitate naturally. However, like any planetary-scale project dealing with the complex climate system, there is a non-trivial risk of unintended consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_reflectivity_modification

Well now I am buggered as this has been on youtube since 7th April 2007

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg7J8P-uXqM

 

[basilio]

Interesting to see the direction of Indias energy future.

Looks very renewably based.

India’s fast-moving energy transition
By Tim Buckley on 13 November 2015
Print Friendly

IEEFA

Investments worth more than $100 billion over the past eight months are driving an unprecedented shift to renewable energy in India.

The trend is detailed in a report we just posted””India’s Electricity Sector Transformation””that charts the accelerating influx of global capital into India as the country moves toward its goal of installing 175 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2022.

Just a few months ago, global financial markets reflected investor skepticism around whether good intentions and big promises could be turned into concrete actions. The figures we see today speak for themselves, and the $100 billion in firm commitments signed and sealed include deals with state-owned enterprises, leading Indian power companies, a number of Indian billionaires new to the power sector and major global renewable-energy firms and utilities.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/indias-fast-moving-energy-transition-90757

 

[trainspotter]

What a crock basilio ... I thought I would leave this alone but my conscience has got the better of me.

THE MEDIA HAS MANIPULATED YOU AGAIN !!

India’s population and economy are growing rapidly, yet hundreds of millions still live in poverty without access to electricity. So India has been fiercely protective of its right to prioritise economic development.

As a result, its INDC in framed in terms of emissions intensity — the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of GDP. While India’s pledge promises to cut its emissions intensity in 2030 to a third below 2005 levels, its growing economy means actual emissions will still increase.

What's that? COAL is still the dominate future generation source !!!!!!

On the other hand, India’s INDC notes that coal “will continue to dominate power generation in future”. Indeed, it has ambitious plans to expand domestic coal mining, implying rapid growth in CO2 emissions.

Spin and more spin basilio ... try objectivity

Now this is FRIGHTENING ...

Assuming it meets its INDC, the EU’s per capita emissions would have fallen from 8.8tCO2e today to 6.2tCO2e by 2030. The US and China would nearly converge, with per capita emissions of 12.4 and 11.1tCO2e in 2030, respectively.

By way of context, it’s worth noting that per capita emissions globally need to converge towards around 2GtCO2e in 2050, in order to retain a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change.

What does this all mean, when we take away the smoke and the mirrors. The following points stand out:

• No actual CO2 target has been set.

• Although the talk is of “increase the share of clean energy in its total energy mix by as much as 40%”, when you get down to the small print, as we will shortly, the commitment is only to 40% of capacity, and not generation. As we know, renewables give very poor utilisation, so the amount generated will be much, much less than 40%.

• Also, this 40% is not of its total energy mix, as reported, but only of electricity mix.

• Commitment is given about reducing carbon intensity of GDP, but nearly half of this has already been achieved since 2005. As we have seen with China, maturing economies tend to grow away from energy intensive industries.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/...1-climate-plan-will-triple-emissions-by-2030/

Go read a book basilio ...

In November 2009 it emerged that thousands of documents and emails had been stolen from one of the top climate science centres in the world. The emails appeared to reveal that scientists had twisted research in order to strengthen the case for global warming. With the UN's climate summit in Copenhagen just days away, the hack could not have happened at a worse time for climate researchers or at a better time for climate sceptics.

Yet although the scandal caused a media frenzy, the fact is that just about everything you may have heard and read about the University of East Anglia emails is wrong. They are not, as some have claimed, the smoking gun for some great global warming hoax. They do not reveal a sinister conspiracy by scientists to fabricate global warming data. They do, however, raise deeply disturbing questions about the way climate science is conducted, about researchers' preparedness to block access to climate data and downplay flaws in their data, about the siege mentality and scientific tribalism at the heart of the most important international issue of our age.

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files...F8&tag=wattsupwithth-20&qid=1287078203&sr=1-1

 

[trainspotter]

Here is the link http://www.carbonbrief.org/indias-indc ... go check it out for some FACTS !

 

[basilio]

Here is the link http://www.carbonbrief.org/indias-indc ... go check it out for some FACTS !

Great article TS. Excellent summary of where India is and where it wants to go.

It's quite true that India will be rapidly increasing it's energy use in the next decades. It's almost certainly inevitable that a fair bit will be fossil fuel based.

That doesn't mean however that it cannot make renewable energy sources a rapidly increasing part of their mix. In fact it will be essential if we are to somehow keep inside a world wide carbon budget that doesn't cook us. My point has been that it is in our interest to help India develop it's essential energy infrastructure through renewable energy rather than fossil fuel sources.

India's energy use per head in 2012 is 624kg of oil equivalent. By way of comparison Australia's usage in 2012 was 5644 and the US 6815. China was 2143. Big difference isn't it ?

Can India go renewable directly and skip most of the fossil fuel steps? The facts are that in 2015 the options to realistically develop renewable technology are becoming more and more competitive. For example the Australian company Dyesol has now developed a third generation of solar cells that are cost competitive with coal power and can be directly incorporated into building envelopes like glass and steel. Tata Steel (India) is one of Dyesols partners.

At the same time battery technology to store solar power is also rapidly becoming cost effective.

Full commercial production of this technology is targeted for 2017-8.

http://www.dyesol.com/media/wysiwyg...lopment_Bank_of_Turkey_-_Letter_of_Intent.pdf

http://www.dyesol.com/media/wysiwyg...udy_Generates_LCOEs_of_A_0.096_A_0.12_KWh.pdf

 

[trainspotter]

India's energy use per head in 2012 is 624kg of oil equivalent. By way of comparison Australia's usage in 2012 was 5644 and the US 6815. China was 2143. Big difference isn't it ?

You read the article right?

You cannot compare oil equivalent to Co2 biomass as an example?? Have a look at the demographics for a start ...

Population of India ... 1,288,948,781 http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ or 17.5% of the worlds population. India ranks number 2 in the list of countries by population. The population density in India is 386 people per Km². 32% of the population is urban (410,404,773 people in 2014). The median age in India is 26.6 years.

Population of Australia ... 23,630,169 or 0.33% of the worlds population. The population density of Australia is 3 people per Km².

C'mon basilio

 

[orr]

THE MEDIA HAS MANIPULATED YOU AGAIN !!



What's that? COAL is still the dominate future generation source !!!!!!

Where do you place Xexon's use of the scientific research of their own in house studies and the forward projections of the consequences of those studies... Or have you choosen to ignore the Medias reportage on this story? in the fear of being manipulated.

Coal is dominent, whether it's future resembles Peabody's Share price as future generation is....?; well, I've read my fair share of anylists future projections.

But a couple of facts;
Chinese Coal Company Fires 100,000... Shenhua Group last september. Total direct employees in the US coal industry as a comparison, as at the same date is circa 76,000 a 7% drop over the preceeding 12 months.
Lithium demand on the other hand..........
SolarCity in the US and their zero up front installs ..... I suppose we just see different futures.

 

[trainspotter]

Can I have what you are having please orr

Coal is still to be the dominant electricity generator in India as per article I referenced. The media claimed that India's Co2 output will reduce with the introduction of solar blah blah blah but when you look closely at the ACTUAL figures their Co2 output will TREBLE by 2030 and not reduce.

 

[basilio]

Regarding the sharing of cuts in CO2 emissions

Ever since the conversation about cutting CO2 use started it was always accepted that developing countries which have a very low energy use and desperately needed to actually have an energy system to develop would be allowed to increase their use of fossil fuels. But it was also understood that these countries would run parallel paths of renewable energy development and over time (hopefully quickly) retire their fossil fuel use to go to total renewables.

Western countries on the other hand have already fully developed energy systems which are largely fossil fuel based. There target was two fold
1) Become far more efficient in energy use and reduce the impact of fossil fuels. ie better fuel consumption, more efficient industry and homes

2) Move as rapidly as possible to replacing the fossil fuel systems with clean, renewable energy sources. If they have been successful at introducing good efficiency measures then they might get away with having less energy supplies.

Overriding this picture is the consideration of the total carbon budget for the planet. At this stage climate scientists believe that unless we limit the total CO2 from fossil fuels to around 1000 billion tonnes we will march past 2 degree C warming - and keep going.

By 2011 we had emitted roughly 515 billion tonnes. At our present rate of fossil fuel use we would reach the 1000 Billion tonnes mark in 30 years.

When Will Our Carbon Budget Run Out?

The international community has adopted a goal for global warming not to rise above 2 °C compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Scientists have devoted considerable effort to understanding what magnitude of emissions reductions are necessary to limit warming to this level, as the world faces increasingly dangerous climate change impacts with every degree of warming (see Box 1).

IPCC AR5 summarizes the scientific literature and estimates that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions related to human activities need to be limited to 1 trillion tonnes C (1000 PgC) since the beginning of the industrial revolution if we are to have a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 °C. This is “our carbon budget” – the same concept as a checking account. When we’ve spent it all, there’s no more money (and the planet’s overdraft fees will be much more significant than a bank’s small charges for bounced checks).1
The report also states that as of 2011, we have emitted roughly 515 PgC since the industrial revolution, meaning we have already burned through about 52 percent of that carbon budget.

Do the math, and the world only has 485 PgC left in the budget. This balance puts us on track to exhaust our remaining carbon budget before the end of 2045 under a carbon intensive trajectory.2

For context, consider Earth’s increasing pace of emissions: While the first half of the entire global carbon budget was used up over 250 years, the second half of the budget would be used up in only about three decades if emissions continue unabated.

http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/09/world’s-carbon-budget-be-spent-three-decades