Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditHow to rally a global climate movement? That's the question the heros at 350.org take up in this video highlighting the 4,641 global actions currently planned for tomorrow, Saturday, October 24.
A year ago, NASA's James Hansen and his team produced a landmark series of studies. They showed that if the amount of carbon in the atmosphere tops 350 parts per million, the planet "similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted" will be perhaps irreversibly harmed.
The bad news is we're already past that number--we're at 390 parts per million, which is why the Arctic is melting, why drought is spreading across the planet, why people are already dying from diseases like dengue fever and malaria occurring in places where they've never been seen before. The good news is that there's a growing global awareness of the urgency of the problem and groups like 350.org mobilizing an international movement.
Tomorrow's series of international actions promises to be the largest climate action the world has ever seen, as this interactive world map suggests.
They'll be school children planting 350 trees in Bangledesh, scientists hanging banners saying 350 on the statues on Easter Island, 350 scuba divers diving underwater at the Great Barrier Reef, and thousands of other creative actions.
"We encouraged lots of different groups to join," May Boeve, a 350.org partnerships director told The Guardian. "We've cast a very large net." Those groups will include churches, performance artists, extreme athletes, and a Chinese businessman holding a black-tie gala in Shanghai.
At each event, people will gather for a big group photo that somehow depicts 350--and upload that photo to the web 350.org. As actions take place around the world, all the pictures will be linked together electronically, offering what should be a powerful visual petition linking together the entire planet. A photo has even come from troops in Afghanistan.
These actions are focused on convincing the world's leaders to reach agreement on a new climate treaty when they meet in Copenhagen in December.
Find an event near you, help spread the word about 350.org and support the group's upcoming campaigns.
PS: If you have extra time on your hands and want to follow me on Twitter -- a micro-blog -- click here. You'll find (slightly) more personal posts, breaking news, basketball and lots of links.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
MARXIST TRASH FROM SAN FRAN AND NYC LED BY GREEDY MARXIST JEWS HAVE JUST STOLEN PROBABLY IN EXCESS OF 3 TRILION DOLLARS TO PAY OFF THE NIGGGA SCUM, MEXICANI INVADING SCUM, INTERNATIONALISTS SCUM, AND OF COURSE THE GREEDY ELITIST SCUM FROM THE EAST AND WEST COAST. THEY DO CONTROL THE MEDIA AND THEY WANT TO RAISE THE DEFICIT TO 20 TRILION.
RECALL THESE ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF THE FILTHY MARXIST JEWS WHO DESTROYED EUROPE AND CREATED COMMUNISM. NOW THEY ARE ALLIGNING THEMSELVES WITH FASCIST MUSLIMS. WE MUST KILL THESE BASTARD THEY WILL LOVE DYING IT WILL SAVE THE USA ALSO!!
Posted by marxistsrfascists at 10/23/2009 @ 11:56am
What is it with all the jew and marksist comments. So your just ranting about how you hate??
Posted by tdblacksheep33 at 10/23/2009 @ 12:09pm
"A year ago, NASA's James Hansen and his team produced a landmark series of studies. They showed that if the amount of carbon in the atmosphere tops 350 parts per million, the planet "similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted" will be perhaps irreversibly harmed."
A little reality check here, Peter...in the past, the atmosphere has seen CO2 in the thousands ppm - now it's much lower - so how does going about 350 ppm constitute a crisis.
I'm also wondering how the 'global warming' thing keeps going when the world has gotten cooler over the last ten years - and they're predicting that it will continue to get cooler over the next two decades.
One almost wonders if this global warming thing is nothing more than a scam to raise energy taxes.
Posted by pontificus at 10/23/2009 @ 12:14pm
from the study which pontificus (obviously) didn't read:
"The map of global temperature anomalies in 2008 (right panel of Fig. 1), shows that most of the world was either near normal or warmer than in the base period (1951-1980). Eurasia, the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average. The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña that existed in the first half of the year. La Niña and El Niño are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of tropical temperatures, La Niña being the cool phase"
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 12:22pm
"One almost wonders if this global warming thing is nothing more than a scam to raise energy taxes"
yeah, one wonders.
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 12:25pm
Real science shows that anthropogenic GW is nothing but a massive hoax.
Even the most basic facts escape so-called thinking people when you realize that the amount of CO2 change in the atmosphere amounts to going from 2.8 100 thousandths to 3.9 100 thousandths.
Now, read professor Tom V. Segalstad Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, The University of Oslo, Norway
<The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor. The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa. Correspondingly, Dr. Essenhigh concludes that the politically driven target of capture and sequestration of carbon from combustion sources would be a major and pointless waste of physical and financial resources...
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 12:53pm
Prof Segalstad continued
<Revelle & Suess (1957) calculated from data for the trace atmospheric molecule 14CO2, containing the radioactive isotope14C, that the amount of atmospheric "CO2 derived from industrial fuel combustion" would be only 1.2% for an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 5 years, and 1.73% for a CO2 lifetime of 7 years (Segalstad, 1998). Essenhigh (2009) reviews measurements of 14C from 1963 up to 1995, and finds that the RT of atmospheric 14CO2 is ~16 (16.3) years. He also uses the 14C data to find that the time value (exchange time) for variation of the concentration difference between the northern and southern hemispheres is ~2 (2.2) years for atmospheric 14CO2. This result compares well with the observed hemispheric transport of volcanic debris leading to "the year without a summer" in 1816 in the northern hemisphere after the 1815 Tambora volcano cataclysmic eruption in Indonesia in 1815.
Sundquist (1985) compiled a large number of measured RTs of CO2 found by different methods. The list, containing RTs for both 12CO2 and 14CO2, was expanded by Segalstad (1998), showing a total range for all reported RTs from 1 to 15 years, with most RT values ranging from 5 to 15 years. Essenhigh (2009) emphasizes that this list of measured values of RT compares well with his calculated RT of 5 years (atmospheric bulk 12CO2) and ~16 years (atmospheric trace 14CO2).
Essenhigh (2009) suggests that the difference in atmospheric CO2 residence times between the gaseous molecules 12CO2 and 14CO2 may be due to differences in the kinetic absorption and/or dissolution rates of the two different gas molecules.>
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 12:57pm
Prof Segalstad continued
<With such short residence times for atmospheric CO2, Essenhigh (2009) correctly points out that it is impossible for the anthropogenic combustion supply of CO2 to cause the given rise in atmospheric CO2. Consequently, a rising atmospheric CO2 concentration must be natural. This conclusion accords with measurements of 13C/12C carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2, which show a maximum of 4% anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (including any biogenic CO2), with 96% of the atmospheric CO2 being isotopically indistinguishable from "natural" inorganic CO2 exchanged with and degassed from the ocean, and degassed from volcanoes and the Earth's interior (Segalstad, 1992).
Essenhigh (2009) discusses alternative ways of expressing residence time, like fill time, decay time, e-fold time, turnover time, lifetime, and so on, and whether the Earth system carbon cycle is in dynamic equilibrium or non-equilibrium status. He concludes (like Segalstad, 1998) that the residence time is a robust parameter independent of the status of equilibrium, and that alternative expressions of the residence time give corresponding values. It is important to compare Essenhigh's (2009) results with a recently published paper in PNAS by Solomon et al. (2009), the first author of which (Susan Solomon) co-chairs the IPCC Working Group One, the part of the IPCC that deals with physical climate science. This paper was published after Essenhigh had submitted his manuscript to Energy & Fuels.
The message of Solomon et al. (2009) is that there is an irreversible climate change due to the assimilation of CO2 in the atmosphere, solely due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.>
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 12:59pm
Prof Segalstad continued
<The message of Solomon et al. (2009) is that there is an irreversible climate change due to the assimilation of CO2 in the atmosphere, solely due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. From quantified scenarios of anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2, their implication is that the CO2 level flattens out asymptotically towards infinity, giving a residence time of more than 1000 years (without offering a definition or discussion of residence time or isotopic differences):
Solomon et al. (2009) have obviously not seriously considered the paper by Segalstad (1998), who addresses the 50% "missing sink" error of the IPCC and shows that the Revelle evasion "buffer" factor is ideologically defined from an assumed model (atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 increase) and an assumed pre-industrial value for the CO2 level, in conflict with the chemical Henry's Law governing the fast ~1:50 equilibrium partitioning of CO2 between gas (air) and fluid (ocean) at the Earth's average surface temperature. This CO2 partitioning factor is strongly dependent on temperature because of the temperature-dependent retrograde aqueous solubility of CO2, which facilitates fast degassing of dissolved CO2 from a heated fluid phase (ocean), similar to what we experience from a heated carbonated drink.
Consequently, the IPCC's and Solomon et al.'s (2009) non-realistic carbon cycle modelling and misconception of the way the geochemistry of CO2 works simply defy reality, and would make it impossible for breweries to make the carbonated beer or soda "pop" that many of us enjoy (Segalstad, 1998).>
one more to go
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 1:00pm
Prof Segalstad conclusion
<So why is the correct estimate of the atmospheric residence time of CO2 so important? The IPCC has constructed an artificial model where they claim that the natural CO2 input/output is in static balance, and that all CO2 additions from anthropogenic carbon combustion being added to the atmospheric pool will stay there almost indefinitely. This means that with an anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 residence time of 50 - 200 years (Houghton, 1990) or near infinite (Solomon et al., 2009), there is still a 50% error (nicknamed the "missing sink") in the IPCC's model, because the measured rise in the atmospheric CO2 level is just half of that expected from the amount of anthropogenic CO2 supplied to the atmosphere; and carbon isotope measurements invalidate the IPCC's model.
The correct evaluation of the CO2 residence time -- giving values of about 5 years for the bulk of the atmospheric CO2 molecules, as per Essenhigh's (2009) reasoning and numerous measurements with different methods -- tells us that the real world's CO2 is part of a dynamic (i.e. non-static) system, where about one fifth of the atmospheric CO2 pool is exchanged every year between different sources and sinks, due to relatively fast equilibria and temperature-dependent CO2 partitioning governed by the chemical Henry's Law.
Knowledge of the correct timing of the whereabouts of CO2 in the air is essential to a correct understanding of the way nature works and the extent of anthropogenic modulation of, or impact upon, natural processes. Concerning the Earth's carbon cycle, the anthropogenic contribution and its influence are so small and negligible that our resources would be much better spent on other real challenges that are facing mankind.>
http://tinyurl.com/kw9l5m
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 1:04pm
Future History: "The 'consensus' around global warming (declared by a man with virtually no scientific training, Al Gore) started to evaporate in 2009 when, despite rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, global temperatures started to decline. Hurricanes also reached a multi-year low. Even after the 'hockey stick' had been discredited as nothing more than a cooked statistical artifact, the lack of global warming at a time when CO2 concentrations continued to rise brought about doubt, and eventually discreditation, of most climate models which predicted increasing temperatures along with increasing CO2 concentrations."
The only thing we're waiting for now is for Al Gore, who has no more scientific training than Darla, to declare an impending ice age (and offer carbon debits to fight it, presumably).
Posted by pontificus at 10/23/2009 @ 1:07pm
I'm also wondering how the 'global warming' thing keeps going when the world has gotten cooler over the last ten years - and they're predicting that it will continue to get cooler over the next two decades.
One almost wonders if this global warming thing is nothing more than a scam to raise energy taxes.
Posted by pontificus at 10/23/2009 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The leftist convienently ignore truth and facts by clinging to their alternative religions even as their "bulbs" slowly "dim". Myopia is a terrible thing to waste a mind on!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/23/2009 @ 1:27pm
We need to start a new movement were deadicated leftists repeatably hold their breath until they pass out in a day long marathon thus drastically reducing the release of CO2! They should pick one day each week for a year to do this in protest!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/23/2009 @ 1:31pm
Rio,
In some ways I feel sorry for these worshippers of this hoax. They jumped onboard because they saw this as perhaps the best route to transform govts into the totalitarian socialist regimes they so long to see implemented.
The problem has always been that the science could not back them up and that there were scientists who refused to sign on to this hoax. Even now, more scientists each month are finally leaving this canard and returning to genuine scientific methods.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 1:35pm
Yea, the biblical passages are innumerable reguarding these bizzare philosophies of man with eager willing followers. But just so they can relate in the worlds modern terminology I have to quote one of their cultural icons like Mr. T, "I pity the fool"!
(he is now a chistian and its intresting just how insightful his simple well know mantra from the 80's was)
Amazing how they never see the realationships between such pseudo-science alamist and false religious teachers like Jim Jones, both easily identifiable!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/23/2009 @ 1:54pm
Rev Happy says "time to buy real estate in the Maldives!"
Posted by winyahn at 10/23/2009 @ 1:56pm
Worlds collide! Ayn Rand can't have her heroic atheist capitalists bringing about the End Times!
Posted by winyahn at 10/23/2009 @ 1:59pm
antisocialist,
did you read the NASA study to which peter linked?
which of the study's specific conclusions do you question?
i want specifics. i don't want copy/paste from some guy in norway.
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 2:27pm
This whole debate saddens me. There are lots of left wing environmentalists who think that global warming is a crock. No one listens to them because of this false dichotomy that was introduced into the debate by all the talking heads. AGW always had the real money behind it. The nuclear industrial-weapons-academic-complex has been pushing AGW for 4 decades. They went into high gear after 3 mile island. If jou Limbaugh wannabes would just shut up, the left would probably start to see thru it for what it is.
Posted by lnh at 10/23/2009 @ 2:52pm
From the UK national weather service, Met Office.
"Trends over the past 10 years show a 0.07 °C increase in global average temperature."
So, while the temperature increase is not as great as it was the previous 30 years, it is still increasing.
The so called cooling trend is a misrepresentation of facts at best.
Posted by !immutable at 10/23/2009 @ 2:57pm
and conservatives conveniently forget that this isn't just about climate change: this is about LACK OF WATER, deforestation, species' extinction, overpopulation, etc
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 3:14pm
Greenhouse gases are at the highest levels in the past 800,000 years according to a study published in the journal Nature.
Posted by !immutable at 10/23/2009 @ 3:19pm
Actually found a newer study from the jornal Science.
Science: CO2 levels haven't been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher -- "We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm."
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science
Posted by !immutable at 10/23/2009 @ 3:28pm
Ooops, that should be journal Science and not jornal.
Posted by !immutable at 10/23/2009 @ 3:30pm
PETER: "The bad news is we're already past that number--we're at 390 parts per million, which is why the Arctic is melting, why drought is spreading across the planet, why people are already dying from diseases like dengue fever and malaria occurring in places where they've never been seen before."
I don't know why all that Doom and Gloom, Peter!
If CO2 has been increasing, and it's such a damned `pollutant' above all else, then I can't help but conclude that the fact we are all living longer, the globe is able to feed far more people than thought possible back when Springs were Silent (in some Libs' mind), why more arable lands are in use......must be due to increased CO2...
What I can't explain, is why the CO2 level in Anarctica has not played along with all this and its ice is, STILL THERE and at historical maximum.
Let's show up tomorrow and CELEBRATE the fact that CO2 increase has been, on balance, a wonderful addition to our lives.
Perhaps more, is better! Tree-huggers, this is your chance to stand up for more CO2 for the trees!
Posted by Happy at 10/23/2009 @ 4:34pm
One of the main features of this whole global warming hype is that any debate has been on political forums such as this or perhaps in some scientific forums.
But in the main media and for much of the public, the subject has been treated as a done deal and an absolute given.
In most newspapers and the mainstream media any mention of global warming almost always has been not in the context of questions about whether it is happening and caused by man-made emissions but in the context of that being a given fact and thus what should be done or is being done to stop it.
People who do not pay much attention to politics or who are not involved deeply in science thus see global warming treated publicly as though it definitely is happening....they have known no different for some time now....only occasionally may they see a skeptic being raked over the coals for daring to question the whole concept.
And those occasions were few and far enough between that the general public is not really aware that there are and have been a considerable number of scientists (in lib speak "deniers") who do not agree with the concepts promoted about global warming. (i.e. the degree to which it is happening or not and the causes behind it, etc.)
BUT, that is now beginning to change.
An article appeared on the BBC recently, and it may be one of the first chinks in the armor of the global warming proponents.
The BBC has always been left leaning, so if things that will let the public know the debate is not over (even though Algore declares it is) begin to appear in a place like that, then maybe this is the beginning of the end of the global warming hype.
What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson Climate correspondent, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/23/2009 @ 4:54pm
yeah, there's such "hype" around global warming, that even staunch liberals are still driving cars....
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 5:41pm
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 2:27pm
"some guy in Norway"? Weren't you the one bragging about the superiority of Scandanavians?
<Tom V. Segalstad (born 1949) is a Norwegian geologist at the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo. He has taught in geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and the Pennsylvania State University, United States. He was also formerly head of the Natural History Museum and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo.
He currently holds a position as Associate Professor of the largest university of Norway, UiO, University of Oslo, in Resource- and Environmental Geology.>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Segalstad
You first Darla. Why don't you tell me where professor Segalstad is wrong?
BTW, Professor Segalstad is a scientific member of the IPCC.
<"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."
Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.
Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims."
http://tinyurl.com/yz3ster
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 6:52pm
"How to rally a global climate movement?"
posted by Peter Rothberg on 10/23/2009 @ 11:41am
WASHINGTON -- "Americans seem to be cooling toward global warming.
Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says."
Rally is a really good description.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/23/2009 @ 7:10pm
Salvage may be a better one.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/23/2009 @ 7:12pm
Any question about agenda of the hoax of anthropogenic GW is found in statement this summer from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (who demonstrated that his name is apt)
<We must seal the deal in Copenhagen for the future of humanity.
We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.
Developed countries must provide sufficient, measurable, reportable and verifiable financial and technological support to developing countries.
This will allow developing countries to pursue their mitigation efforts as part of their sustainable green growth strategies and to adapt to accelerating climate impacts.
Significant resources will be needed from both public and private sources.
Developing countries, especially the most vulnerable, will collectively need billions of dollars in public financing for adaptation.
I am talking here about new money – not re-packaged Official Development Assistance.>
http://tinyurl.com/ndmp88
That's right boys and girls. Good old redistribution of wealth-Marx would be so proud.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 7:21pm
Czech President speaks out on the European agenda behind the hoax of GW.
<My second visit here was in August 2006. The title of my presentation was "What is Europeism?" [2] Europeism is – for me – an inconsistent, evidently heterogeneous, but in principle neosocialist doctrine, which characterizes the current thinking in Europe. It believes neither in freedom, nor in spontaneous evolution of human society. It is a "conglomerate of ideas" that includes
economic (or social) views based on the concept of the so called social market economy (which is the opposite of the market economy); views on freedom, democracy and society based on collectivism, social partnership and corporatism, not on classical parliamentary democracy; views on European integration, which favor unification and supranationalism; views on foreign policy and international relations based on internationalism, cosmopolitism, abstract universalism, multiculturalism and on denationalization.
To my great regret, I am afraid the same speech should be repeated today. Europe is more and more dominated by this way of thinking despite the fact that it is an extremely naïve, unpractical and romantic utopism, not shared by European silent majority, but predominantly by European elites.
The current Global Warming Debate is not about temperature or CO2 levels. It is also not part of a scientific dispute inside climatology. It is an ideological clash between those who want to change us (rather than the climate) and those who believe in freedom, markets, human ingenuity, and technical progress. It is a dispute about us, about people, about human society, about our values, about our habits, about our way of life.>
http://tinyurl.com/yhwwdj6
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 7:35pm
<WASHINGTON – A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming – labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.
In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.>
http://tinyurl.com/yj2uf4h
Let Darla chew on that one. There are more scientists signing a report debunking anthropogenic GW, then there were scientists on the 2007 IPCC report.
For Darla, CCC, and others who state that the scientific consensus agrees with anthropogenic GW, that simply is a lie of the leftwing GW groups and their media cohorts.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 7:39pm
if the majority of climate scientists are making certain conclusions, then how can it be a "hoax"?
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 7:47pm
if the majority of climate scientists are making certain conclusions, then how can it be a "hoax"?
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 7:47pm
You have it backwards. the majority of scientists are calling it a hoax.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 8:35pm
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 3:14pm
Darla, perhaps you, Peter Rothberg, Al Gore, and other scientific minds could clear up some confusion here. I thought you folks were saying we needed to worry about global warming. Now you say it's 'climate change'? What do you mean by climate change? And hasn't the climate been changing ever since the Earth was formed? Why did you change the name of the current crisis from 'global warming' to 'climate change' if the problem is the planet is getting hotter? And if it IS getting hotter, how come the BBC says it isn't, at least over the last 10 years?
Posted by pontificus at 10/23/2009 @ 8:53pm
oil is poison.
the sun is free.
the u.s. has no oil.
wake up.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2009 @ 10:35pm
THE COMMIES WANT TO STOP ME FROM KILLING MY KIDS FOR CHEAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The Environmental Protection Agency will put controls on the emissions of hazardous pollutants such as mercury from coal-fired power plants for the first time by November 2011, according to an agreement announced Friday to settle a lawsuit against the agency."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2009 @ 10:37pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 7:35pm |
So the relevant info fromyour source is that he believes our lovely blue sphere is fine as long as we stay within 135GT of CO2.
Let's accept this lunacy as an axiom for the moment.
In the past ~70 years, we've gone from 1GT of CO2 emissions...to 8GT. Here's the graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ c/cb/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png
Those with enough neurons will note that if this continues on a linear trend (unlikely, its probably exponential) we'll hit Tom's limit in ~1000 years.
If it is exponential and increasing 8-fold every 70 years then we'll exceed his limit in less than 100 years.
Thanks for playing, Anti.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/23/2009 @ 11:41pm
oil is poison. the sun is free. the u.s. has no oil. wake up. Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2009 @ 10:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Socialism is poison
the Sun causes cancer,cannot currently generate enough electricity efficiently and certainly is not free... Except to socialists and non producers, who are poison to the rest of us
The US has plenty of oil but the socialists tree huggers will not let us get at it for now, so we always have Canada
keep Frosty in his usual sleep mode.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/23/2009 @ 11:47pm
The US has plenty of oil but the socialists tree huggers will not let us get at it for now
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/23/2009 @ 11:47pm
"In 1981, Congress voted to stop the sale of leases off the coast of Northern California. The moratorium was included in the Interior Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1982. The provision was supported by almost every member of the California delegation from both political parties. It was approved by the House and by the Republican-majority Senate, and signed it into law by President Reagan."
tree huggers unite!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2009 @ 11:53pm
the Sun causes cancer
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/23/2009 @ 11:47pm
and apples, too!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 12:00am
"Climate Change" may be a fable designed to make us feel properly guilty for high living standards, but energy taxes through cap and trade legislation will be all-too-real. And every statist from Obama to Oprah is right on board for that!
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 12:15am
but energy taxes through cap and trade legislation will be all-too-real. And every statist from Obama to Oprah is right on board for that!
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 12:15am
STATISTS UNITE!
" Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is using the idea of global togetherness to promote "a cap-and-trade system" to battle climate change. He said "Americans and Europeans need to get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand over a much-diminished world to our grandchildren."
According to the Arizona senator, whose opinion column appeared in the March 19 Financial Times, the United States needs to work with Europe to create a replacement for the Kyoto treaty.
"We need a successor to Kyoto, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner." He said America needs to be willing to be "persuaded" by our European allies. McCain's column was headlined "America must be a good role model."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 12:55am
Now you say it's 'climate change'? Posted by pontificus at 10/23/2009 @ 8:53pm
No Ponti, now we are calling it "Atmospheric Deterioration". But it really doesn't change what it is and always has been. Destruction of the planet through human ignorance and greed.
But since you place such a high value on semantics, let's just call it "Atmospheric Deterioration".
Posted by chaoszen at 10/24/2009 @ 05:51am
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.09/warnning.html
This is what climate change, global warming/cooling/ or whatever it is now and we have a new winner... Atmospheric Deteriation..
The bottom line is, this is nothing short of.. " transfer of wealth"..... Copenhagen will accomplish nothing more than transfering wealth from American taxpayers to other places more "deserving" .
And the climate?.. it will continue on as always.
This is a fraud and as more and more people begin to think about it that way, the more people will back away from Copenhagen despite a NPP designed to force the Weak One into their mold.....the sooner Copenhagen will return to it's original state....
Placed under the lower lip until one gets the shits, then spit it out.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/24/2009 @ 06:35am
"You have it backwards. the majority of scientists are calling it a hoax"
(quote of the year)
here is the joint science academies statement on climate change. this is the largest conglomerate of science organizations on the planet.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf
what antisocialist et al are posting is random non- credible sources (non credible = scientists who are either bought by exxon mobile, or who don't belong to an accreditted scientific organization), trolled from the web after googling 'climate change skeptics'
it's simple stuff actually. exxon basically will give any scientist a minimum of $5000 to question CC.
Posted by darladoon at 10/24/2009 @ 10:31am
jomamma, you're not a very thoughtful person, clearly not well-educated, and also very angry.
why don't you leave the computer and go do something nice for your wife, ok?
we don't need you stomping on our discussion.
get a life, go to china and sell some plastic garbage.
Posted by darladoon at 10/24/2009 @ 10:33am
the reason why more americans are skeptical of climate change is because the oil companies are winning the debate, and get A LOT of help from faux news.
same thing goes for healthcare debate. it's all about money, and the "socialists" certainly don't have money.
Posted by darladoon at 10/24/2009 @ 10:44am
Posted by darladoon at 10/24/2009 @ 10:44am
"same thing goes for healthcare debate. it's all about money, and the "socialists" certainly don't have money."
Nonsense, Darla. The socialists have TONS of money - look at the UN - mostly funded by the US and they can't WAIT to get their hands on more through the international wealth re-distribution they are arranging via the Global Warming scam. And let's not forget the quite substantial scientific cottage industry funded by taxpayer dollars in this country, all funded for the purpose of drumming up support for cap-and-trade energy taxes - which will go to more buying of votes for the Obamanation. Nice little scam you got going there..
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 11:03am
Posted by darladoon at 10/24/2009 @ 10:31am
"it's simple stuff actually. exxon basically will give any scientist a minimum of $5000 to question CC."
How much do scientists pushing AGW get in grant money from the government?
How much does Al Gore, a man with less scientific training than you, make for declaring, unilaterally, a phony scientific consensus, while selling imaginary carbon credits?
Why do you only see the greed on the OTHER side, Darla?
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 11:07am
Posted by chaoszen at 10/24/2009 @ 05:51am
"No Ponti, now we are calling it "Atmospheric Deterioration" But since you place such a high value on semantics, let's just call it "Atmospheric Deterioration.
Really? You changed it again? Can I get on the email list for the next name change for the issue that threatens the world? And actually, I don't place any value at all on your semantics...I think it's a freaking joke. But it's funny, so keep me posted.
"But it really doesn't change what it is and always has been. Destruction of the planet through human ignorance and greed."
Now that statement is really funny. You know, in some previous generation I think people like you would have been some sort of Elmer Gantry, inveighing against the evil you see all about you. And you, representative of the superior moral sensibilities of what you hope to be the ruling elite, are going to solve it all by making rules for all of us poor benighted proles. Get a life dude.
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 11:20am
"The socialists have TONS of money "
(quote of the century)
Posted by darladoon at 10/24/2009 @ 11:23am
"jomamma, you're not a very thoughtful person, clearly not well-educated, and also very angry."
well, I guess it depends on perspective ...I have more degrees than you in areas of science, I have been a chemist, I speak two languages, I have actualy visited and spent time in the European countrys you seem to admire and are an "expert" on their health care system, I do visit China and do sell them techical items made in America, and I create jobs... More than Obama ever will (8).
You are corrrect on one issue tho......socialists don't have money and don't make any. They require OTHER people to make it so they can steal it. Socialism that Daraloon worships only lasts as LING as other peoples money lasts.
The girl scouts selling cookies are a better and more valueable cog in the world of life cycle than you Darlaloon, and our other dreamer, Frosty combined. The girl scouts in the final analysis keep people employed and create tax payers. You create....nothing but products the city water department has to treat.
Dope kills
Oil is good for my suv and keeping Canadians employed
Sun burns.
See, anyone can play. Well, back to the beach, south Florida is great.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/24/2009 @ 11:52am
Posted by darladoon at 10/24/2009 @ 11:23am
"The socialists have TONS of money " (quote of the century)
They've managed to steal quite a bit from the capitalists, Darla, and that's no joke.
"The trouble with socialism is that you evenatually run out of other peoples' money" - Winston Churchill
But you can keep it going for awhile longer if you can fool the rubes with scams like global warming - oh, I mean climate change...oh I mean 'atmosphere deterioration'...oh I mean - what is it today?
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 11:57am
Ponti, comrade Chao mught be right here...
"But it really doesn't change what it is and always has been. Destruction of the planet through human ignorance and greed."
He should do us all a favor, as a true socialist groupie and total camp follwer... And park his diesel exhaust spewing truck he drives for that bastion, that model of efficiency, that example of what we need in the health care field.... The Post Office!!!!!!!!... Unionized up the ass, of course for efficency.
By following his beliefs and avoid being a bigger fraud than ALGORE, Comrade Chao could save the planet, leave more gas product for my BMW so I can drive at 90mph through Iowa,and save us just alityle efficiency from the Post Office.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/24/2009 @ 12:02pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/24/2009 @ 12:02pm
Well, you know, it's exhausting work, correcting the greed and ignorance of his fellow humans, somehow I think Comrade Chao will be riding in style, like Al Gore in his private jet on the way to a Global Warming pow-wow. I think, like Prince Charles, Comrade Chao would feel much better if you were in a horse drawn cart by the road side, out of the way of the ruling elite.
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 12:18pm
ponti and jomamma, round and round they go, with each other, hey ponti, nothing wrong with jomammas spelling, sort of you mantra for life no? Hypocrite.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/24/2009 @ 12:38pm
Oh excuse me, "your mantra for life".
Posted by Denise29 at 10/24/2009 @ 12:41pm
Posted by snowball777 at 10/23/2009 @ 11:41pm
You ignore Prof. Segalstad's conclusion;
Contrary to the CONTRIVED OUT OF THIN AIR model of the AGW folks, actual measurements show the CO2 has a short residence life. Let's repeat
<Revelle & Suess (1957) calculated from data for the trace atmospheric molecule 14CO2, containing the radioactive isotope14C, that the amount of atmospheric "CO2 derived from industrial fuel combustion" would be only 1.2% for an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 5 years, and 1.73% for a CO2 lifetime of 7 years (Segalstad, 1998). Essenhigh (2009) reviews measurements of 14C from 1963 up to 1995, and finds that the RT of atmospheric 14CO2 is ~16 (16.3) years. He also uses the 14C data to find that the time value (exchange time) for variation of the concentration difference between the northern and southern hemispheres is ~2 (2.2) years for atmospheric 14CO2. This result compares well with the observed hemispheric transport of volcanic debris leading to "the year without a summer" in 1816 in the northern hemisphere after the 1815 Tambora volcano cataclysmic eruption in Indonesia in 1815.
Sundquist (1985) compiled a large number of measured RTs of CO2 found by different methods. The list, containing RTs for both 12CO2 and 14CO2, was expanded by Segalstad (1998), showing a total range for all reported RTs from 1 to 15 years, with most RT values ranging from 5 to 15 years. Essenhigh (2009) emphasizes that this list of measured values of RT compares well with his calculated RT of 5 years (atmospheric bulk 12CO2) and ~16 years (atmospheric trace 14CO2). Furthermore he points out that the annual oscillations in the measured atmospheric CO2 levels would be impossible without a short atmospheric residence time for the CO2 molecules.>
Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 1:44pm
Posted by Denise29 at 10/24/2009 @ 12:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You interrupt and chime in with a spelling slam ?
And then YOU leave off an r ?
Perfect.
Twit.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/24/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 1:44pm |
The 'RT' of the gas is almost irrelevant if there is an ever-increasing supply of it.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 4:52pm
They've managed to steal quite a bit from the capitalists, Darla, and that's no joke. Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 11:57am
Here is a reference to how "Socialists Steal"
From a BBC article "Rich Germans Demand Higher Taxes"
A group of rich Germans has launched a petition calling for the government to make wealthy people pay higher taxes.
The group say they have more money than they need, and the extra revenue could fund economic and social programmes to aid Germany's economic recovery.
Germany could raise 100bn euros (£91bn) if the richest people paid a 5% wealth tax for two years, they say.
The petition has 44 signatories so far, and will be presented to newly re-elected Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The group say the financial crisis is leading to an increase in unemployment, poverty and social inequality.
Simply donating money to deal with the problems is not enough, they want a change in the whole approach.
"The path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education and social justice," they say in the petition.
Those who had "made a fortune through inheritance, hard work, hard-working, successful entrepreneurship, or investment" should contribute by paying more to alleviate the crisis.
The man behind the petition, Dieter Lehmkuhl, told Berlin's Tagesspiegel that there were 2.2 million people in Germany with a fortune of more than 500,000 euros.
If they all paid the tax for two years, Germany could raise 100bn euros to fund ecological programmes, education and social projects, said the retired doctor and heir to a brewery.
Signatory Peter Vollmer told AFP news agency he was supporting the proposal because he had inherited "a lot of money I do not need".
Posted by chaoszen at 10/24/2009 @ 5:14pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/23/2009 @ 11:47pm |
"Socialism is poison"
So are cancer meds; guess who's the cancer.
"the Sun causes cancer"
Treatable, easily avoided cancer...unlike nukes.
"cannot currently generate enough electricity efficiently"
I'm curious about your definition of 'enough' energy...the current world consumption of energy is around 15 Tw....projected to reach 24 Tw within decades.
1000w of flux bathe each m^2 each day, of which we can harvest 200w. Even accounting for weather, we get 250 8-hour days worth of sun on average or 2,000 * 200w == 400Kwh / m^2.
So we can generate 15Tw with ~500 km^2.
The Saharan desert is 9M km^2.
If we built solar panels as fast as we destroy forests, we could have that area covered before Obama leaves office.
"and certainly is not free..."
No form of energy is free, but this one isn't due to run out for 4.5B years....as opposed to fossil fuels which will be extremely lucky to last a few more decades at current extraction expenses and no more than a hundred years before consumption exceeds available resources by a huge margin.
"Except to socialists and non producers, who are poison to the rest of us"
People who make solar panels aren't 'producers'? I'll let Germany know.
"The US has plenty of oil but the socialists tree huggers will not let us get at it for now,"
Define 'plenty' of oil, YJM.
ANWR is what? 16B barrels at the high-end of the USGS estimates (though I'm sure you could get a petro company to pay someone to lie higher)?
This would last the US less than 3 years at current rates of consumption.
"so we always have Canada keep Frosty in his usual sleep mode."
Mmm...tar sands...3x the energy to get at the useful parts...this is better than solar because why?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 5:15pm
And park his diesel exhaust spewing truck he drives Posted by YourJomamma at 10/24/2009 @ 12:02pm
I will gladly stop driving my diesel truck just as soon as hydrogen or electric powered trucks become available. Maybe you shouls ask our Corporate Masters why those things are not yet available.
In the meantime, if all of us truck drivers stop driving our diesel spewing trucks your local supermarket or Walmart would have empty shelves. Trucks transport close to 80% of all merchandise.
You should be thanking us everytime you leave the store..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/24/2009 @ 5:32pm
"ANWR is what? 16B barrels at the high-end of the USGS estimates (though I'm sure you could get a petro company to pay someone to lie higher)? This would last the US less than 3 years at current rates of consumption. "
That's actually quite a bit when you consider it as an complement, rather than a complete replacement of other sources. Plus, every barrel we produce here in America means one less barrel less in our trade deficit and one more barrel of national wealth, and $80 less of our own money we send to other countries. And when you add in offshore production and new finds, including the recently vastly expanded natural gas wealth, we would have vastly reduced worries if the liberals would stop us from producing our own oil.
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 5:34pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/24/2009 @ 5:32pm
"I will gladly stop driving my diesel truck just as soon as hydrogen or electric powered trucks become available. Maybe you shouls ask our Corporate Masters why those things are not yet available."
I'm not a Corporate Master, but I used to produce energy analyses for the USDOE, and I will tell you that you couldn't afford to drive them, and that's why they're not available.
I recently told my Obama-voting liberal sister that most people would need a $60,000 solar panel system to power their house at peak (forget about night-time), and the payback was about, well...never - she asked me why the government didn't subsidize it then. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, because this is about the average understanding of energy and economics of the average Obama voter. If you really do work for the zero-sum-game unionized USPS, it would explain a lot as well.
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 5:40pm
she asked me why the government didn't subsidize it then. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, because this is about the average understanding of energy and economics of the average Obama voter. Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 5:40pm
In Germany they have subsidies for citizens where consumers get low interest credits to finance solar installations on their roofs. The Renewable Energy Heating Law aims at reducing the country's carbon emissions by 40% by 2020.
When will we start doing the same?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/24/2009 @ 6:07pm
Snowball,
We are at historic lows in CO2 levels going back 500 million years.
We have had much higher carbon levels during cycles of much greater warming and during ice ages.
The following paper is published in the National Academy of Sciences
Rothman, D.H. 2002. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full
Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 6:32pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 5:34pm |
"That's actually quite a bit when you consider it as an complement, rather than a complete replacement of other sources."
But complete replacement of other sources (and the commensurate dismissal of the petro-states' international clout) is the goal, for me.
"Plus, every barrel we produce here in America means one less barrel less in our trade deficit and one more barrel of national wealth, and $80 less of our own money we send to other countries."
And the same is true for solar, only with fewer consequences beyond cell and thin-film manufacturing pollution.
Save the oil for fertilizers and plastics.
"And when you add in offshore production and new finds, including the recently vastly expanded natural gas wealth, we would have vastly reduced worries if the liberals would stop us from producing our own oil."
We'd have 'reduced worries' for less than a decade...and then?
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 5:34pm |
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 5:40pm |
Germany is doing fantastically well with their tairiff-feed-in program. Expensive at the 30% premium they are paying, sure, but they're generating 4Gw this year (16B euro worth), set to double their installations despite the recession, and have plans to phase out the subsidy.
The only real limiting factor is the price of silicon for manufacturing.
And there's a lot to be said for local generation which bypasses the 2/3rds of energy wasted on thermal, plant, and line losses too.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 6:45pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 6:32pm |
An interesting leap from one isotope to another, but completely irrelevant since solar output 400My ago was 5% less than now and there were no humans wandering around Gondwanaland to asphyxiate on the 4000ppm CO2 levels.
Is "we might die anyway" your best argument?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 7:11pm
Is "we might die anyway" your best argument?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 7:11pm
Nope, and I never made that statement.
Despite the facts you continue to swallow the contrived models of the AGW hoaxers.
The geological history makes it clear we have had exponentially higher CO2 levels in the earth's history with both ice ages and warm cycles. And we are still at the bottom range of CO2 historic levels. Not some contrived short range cycle that is meaningless.
I'm glad to see more and more scientists determine they can longer sign onto this hoax.
Science will prevail against the purely socialist grab for power (as evidenced by both the EU and the UN demanding that the US redistribute it's wealth as penalty for our success.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 7:19pm
Didn't notice anyone mention coal. This resource at current power generation usage is estimated to last hundreds of years. This is the poor man's friend to lift him out of poverty (given we can remove some of the nasties from exhaust products fairly cheaply). Anyway China and India and that champion of modernity in energy production, Germany, also must think so as the following table indicates:
Coal in Electricity Generation
South Africa 94%
Poland 93%
PR China 81%
Australia 76%
Israel 71%
Kazakhstan 70%
India 68%
Czech Rep 62%
Morocco 57%
Greece 55%
USA 49%
Germany 49%
Source: IEA 2009
"The importance of coal to electricity generation worldwide is set to continue, with coal fuelling 44% of global electricity in 2030."
So as you can see the Jerries aren't doing any better than your mob when it comes to the use of the highest GHG emitter of all the main fuels.
Want some cheap Aussie dirty Brown Coal? We've got 400 years supply so can spare a bit.
Forget about oil for power generation, though there might be a lot more of it around than "peak" oil scaremongers allow, and forget about solar, unless you want to go to bed before dark or run out of electricity when the sun doesn't shine and get into coal.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/24/2009 @ 7:37pm
And so the great delusion continues. Now we hear that pets are causing excessive GHGs. You AGW whackos need to take a step back from the mirror because you are truly insane.
The climate is always changing and you nitwits think there is an optimal climate that we should maintain, which of course, we do not have the power to do even if you could define one. Get a little perspective of global geological and ancient history. Read Dr. Ian Plimer's book if you have the nerve. Unfortunately, the global warming religion/ political movement occurs in a science free zone.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/24/2009 @ 8:36pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/24/2009 @ 7:37pm |
No thanks, LR. You can keep your hydrocarbons; even the Chinese won't want them before long.
I prefer the plan outlined in the lastest Scientific American for 100% of energy from wind, water, and solar by 2030.
Some important facts:
- Current power demand is 12.5 - 15 Tw / year
- It will exceed 17Tw by 2040 and 24Tw by 2050
- Using only sustainable generation reduces that demand load to only 11.5 Tw due to energy savings from not using inefficient powerplants like combustion engines (20% efficiency) instead of purely electrical systems (75-85% efficiency)
- Wind power available, globally: 1,700Tw
- Solar power available, globally: 6,500 Tw
- Even if we only develop 'high efficiency' wind and solar sites, we have 40-85Tw for wind and 580 Tw for solar
Leave that nasty crap in the ground, please.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 8:59pm
Here's a little more about the poor man's energy friend. And its pathetic competitors as of2006.
Total World Electricity Generation by Fuel (2006)
1. Coal 41%
2.Gas 20%
3. Hydro 16%
4. Nuclear 15%
5. Oil 6%
6 Others 2%
Total World Electricity Generation by Fuel (2006)
Source: IEA 2008
*Other includes solar, wind, combustible renewables, geothermal & waste
Coal plays a vital role in electricity generation worldwide. Coal-fired power plants currently fuel 41% of global electricity.
Source: IEA 2008
*Other includes solar, wind, combustible renewables, geothermal & waste
Just a reminder: "The importance of coal to electricity generation worldwide is set to continue, with coal fueling 44% of global electricity in 2030."
Source: IEA 2008
So using sophisticated maths, that even true ACC believers can understand, viz44 minus 41 means that coal usage in power generation is predicted to increase by 3% in the next 20 years.
OK then.
1. Coal. Predicted -44%.
2. Gas percentage going down? Nope. China and India will make that prediction certain. Say 20%.
3. Hydro percentage going down. Maybe marginally because the bloody greenies wont let governments build dams anywhere, anymore. Say 13%
4. Nuclear percentage usage going down? Nope. China & India. Say 16%
5. Oil percentage going down. Possibly by 2030. guess 3% reduction. Say 3%.
6. Others aka boutique power generation. Say?
Using the same sort of powerful maths that leaves 4% for others. viz solar, wind etc.
Here is a parable for the savvy would be investor.
A couple of years ago the "biggest solar farm in the world" was to be built in Victoria. Millions of government money was promised and a lot of preparatory work was done. It fell over a month or two ago. No investment money forthcoming.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/24/2009 @ 9:47pm
we have 40-85Tw for wind and 580 Tw for solar
Leave that nasty crap in the ground, please.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 8:59pm |
Ha Ha 21. Nice one. Dream on.
Who knows you may be the genius our energy hungry world has been waiting for.
How far is it from your place to the UN headquarters? If you can jog or cycle down ie without using any of those dirty hydrocarbons "they" dig up, get down there as fast as you can. Who knows? A Peace Prize too?
p.s. Don't get discouraged if they say druwry.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/24/2009 @ 9:58pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/24/2009 @ 9:58pm |
I'll drive a Tesla Roadster...faster than a 911, more efficient than a Prius, and a convertible.
http://eec1.ucdavis.edu/publications/ PathtoSustainableEnergy-Nov2009.pdf
But do keep digging, shipping, burning, and choking...if that's the only tech you can muster.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 11:07pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 5:34pm
the u.s. already exports oil!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 11:29pm
The problem is not actually green house gas emissions. The problem is the relentless growth in humans. Only China is trying to reduce that growth and all the liberals who cry and moan about CO2 tell each other how bad China's policy is while they pump out children. It is easy to visualize, get a box, it doesn't matter how big it is, put in two mice, one female, one male. How long will it be before the box is full of mice? It is the same with the earth. How long before we cannot feed each other, cannot find a drop of water to drink and a place to call home? Current estimates from a number of scientists types are that the earth is already beyond carrying capacity for a western style of life and will within fifty years be beyond a peasant's style of life. Of course a very few will always be rich but it certainly is not going to be America if we continue to pretend everything is okay.
Posted by mfellion at 10/25/2009 @ 12:51am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 11:29pm
"the u.s. already exports oil!"
Geez, FROSTY, you understand some things, like what a scam ethanol-from-food is, but you completely fail to understand others. I guess the problem is, you never had a job where you had to crunch energy numbers.
Yes, we export oil - when geography indicates we should do so - but we import more. That's what 'the US is a net oil importer' means. It's really not that difficult to understand.
If we produced more oil from ANWR and offshore drilling (both of which have been set off-limits by Democrats), we might ship ALL of it to Japan, simply because it makes economic sense to do so. But if we did that, our net imports would still go down, as would our trade deficit. Try to understand this, it's really not that difficult.
Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 01:18am
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 11:07pm
Hey snowball, my friend I have bad news for you - you can go ahead and buy that Tesla roadster, but you're not doing anybody or the environment any favors. Just because you don't see any gases coming out of the tailpipe, it doesn't mean you're not producing greenhouse gases from the processes which produce and transmit the electricity you're consuming. I used to do these types of life-cycle energy studies for DOE, and the per-mile GHG production difference between electric and gasoline vehicles is far less than you seem to think. Do some research and do tell us what you find.
Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 01:50am
But do keep digging, shipping, burning, and choking...if that's the only tech you can muster.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 11:07pm
Look young Einstein I'm not worried about the tech. In my game we are at home with both. I, with the greatest possible number of fellow earthlings, just want to keep on enjoying this lovely lifestyle that only dirty coal gives me and them.
Your stuff's OK as far as it goes. But four percent by 2030?
Incidentally those come lately capitalist heirs of Mao are not content with buying up our coal and metal ores but are even buying up as many of those polluting companies as our government regulator allows:
Chinese Firms Eye Australian Resources
8/09/2009 5:42:02 PM
Chinese state-owned firms have showered the Western Australian iron ore and uranium sectors with deals worth $123.4 million in a further sign that interest in Australian resources remains strong.
Three separate transactions were announced on Tuesday adding to a steady stream of deals involving Chinese entities over the past few months.
WA iron ore producer Atlas Iron Ltd, which on Tuesday inked an unrelated takeover deal with fellow miner Warwick Resources Ltd, said Chinese firms had been regular callers at the company's Perth office.
Managing director David Flanagan said he had stopped counting the number of visits by Chinese investment delegations after reaching 150.
"If you are an iron ore company, have iron in your name, or mention iron in any one of your announcements, you can guarantee that a Chinese group has been in the door and talked about investment,"
http://money.ninemsn.com.au /article.aspx?id=859540
&: http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2008/05/19-2213-8127.html
&: http://tinyurl.com/yk83jkh
Aussie iron ore needs Aussie coal. One stop shop. OK?
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/25/2009 @ 02:00am
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/25/2009 @ 02:00am |
Hmmm...$134M huh...kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the $30B solar stimulus the central planners announced in March.
Here's a translation...I don't read Mandarin, yet.
http://tinyurl.com/d9c578
Aren't you going to feel silly when those resources are floating off of your coast pointing the (now refined) uranium ore at you?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 05:33am
Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 01:50am |
In a world where the plan I posted above (snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 11:07pm) is a reality, it would no longer be an issue, but I get the idea that my neighbor's Prius isn't as green as he thinks once battery manufacturing and the like are taken into consideration.
Besides, can't I just like the idea of 0-60 in 3.9 with no stops at the petrol station?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 05:49am
An interesting leap from one isotope to another, but completely irrelevant since solar output 400My ago was 5% less than now and there were no humans wandering around Gondwanaland to asphyxiate on the 4000ppm CO2 levels.
Is "we might die anyway" your best argument?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 7:11p
Hey 21. I noticed once before you asked me why I mentioned that humans could tolerate up 30,000 ppm CO2 air concentrations over a short period (10 minutes) or that 10,000 ppm or 1% in air is tolerable by humans.
To show you CO2 is no more a pollutant in that sense than O2 which is at about 21% concentration in the air we breathe but can damage our body's functioning if it is continuously exposed to very high concentrations.
(The real point of contention is what quantitative effect anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the troposphere have already had and will have in the future on average global temperatures and what if any will be the consequent impact on the earth's climate).
I notice you are suggesting 4000ppm (0.4%) would bump us humans off.
Here is an Australian Workplace Standard with which I'm familiar, (AWSS 2005): "In industry the maximum safe working level recommended for an 8 hour working day is 0.5%". (i.e. 5000ppm)
Or:
The W.E. Kuriger Associates web page titled "Carbon Dioxide Fact Book," states that,
"Several studies have indicated that CO2 does not seriously impact human health until levels reach approximately 15,000 ppm [7.5 mm Hg]. … At extremely high levels, i.e., 30,000 ppm [15 mm Hg] (these concentrations are usually never reached in a standard home), the symptoms can include nausea, dizziness, mental depression, shaking, visual disturbances and vomiting."
We need to think clearly about each component lest we swallow pure bullshit.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/25/2009 @ 05:56am
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 05:33am
Those small ticket weekly purchase items (China has purchased $30 billion of Aussie natural gas) are highly significant in that some of those companies are almost in the penny dreadful category (the big Aussie companies that China continuously spends the billions with are BHP Billiton, Market Cap $135 billion, also in top one or two resources companies in the world and RioTinto, Market Cap $41 billion) and yet the money from China is chasing them. That is an indication just how intent China is on locking up all the minerals it can and is indicative of the continuity of its race to catch up with the industrialised West.
Not sure if you looked at this one but that deal, for a small to mid level miner (Market Cap $3.3 billion) was, finalised after both governments signed off on it, this week.
SYDNEY, Aug 13 (Reuters) - China's Yanzhou Coal Mining Co agreed to buy Australian coal miner Felix Resources Ltd for $2.9 billion, both firms said on Thursday, further underscoring China's growing appetite for resources assets.
"Aren't you going to feel silly when those resources are floating off of your coast pointing the (now refined) uranium ore at you?"
Nah. Not Likely. We are not paranoid left wing Yanks mate. Genuine free traders that's us. Anyway our PM speaks Mandarin and is almost as good an AL as your big O, so she'll be sweet.
All we are thankful for is that you Americans have been making all this possible. I think China pays us in greenbacks. So keep on buying all that stuff from China. And next time you buy a car have a look at one of those flash models from China and as you do think, I will be helping our best war ally.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/25/2009 @ 06:47am
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/25/2009 @ 05:56am |
Please don't confuse hyperbole meant to jerk Anti's chain with a scientific claim, LR.
The "we might die" comment wasn't related to CO2 as a direct threat, but rather the implications of 4000ppm worth of greenhouse effect.
I'm going to go get some 'fresh air'...it's getting 'stuffy' in here. ;)
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 06:48am
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/25/2009 @ 06:47am |
"All we are thankful for is that you Americans have been making all this possible. I think China pays us in greenbacks."
Yeah, they're spending those dollar reserves like they're going out of style...speaking of which....$1.50 to the Euro.
"So keep on buying all that stuff from China."
Outside of the electronics for/on which I write software, there isn't much I buy from China, but there are millions of people like Anti who *love* shopping at Wal-Mart (the central planner's best friend).
"And next time you buy a car have a look at one of those flash models from China and as you do think, I will be helping our best war ally."
Hmmm...bought a Nissan Altima Hybrid for the wife earlier this year, but it was made (well, assembled anyway) here in the USA.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 07:19am
We are at historic lows in CO2 levels going back 500 million years. Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 6:32pm
What a completely dumbass statement. I find it hard to believe that even you would or could make such a statement with a straight face.
500 Million Years? That is half a Billion. The planet and the Solar System are 4.5 Billion years old. Primitive life only just started 500 Million Years ago. The very early mammals only just evolved about 200 Million Years ago. The atmosphere of Earth would never have supported the ancestors of mammals alive today until 45 Million years ago.
So you have the gaul to take a sample of CO2 levels for a period of 500 Million years and then claim that CO2 levels are at historic lows?
That is exactly the kind of Bullshit that Atmospheric Deterioration deniers that you quote like to spin facts and hope nobody notices.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/25/2009 @ 10:59am
Get a little perspective of global geological and ancient history. Read Dr. Ian Plimer's book if you have the nerve. Posted by pyeatte at 10/24/2009 @ 8:36pm
Well, apparently your hero Plimer doesn't have the "nerve" to debate a journalist George Monbiot of the Guardian. Monbiot has attampted to pin down Plimer on his "ridiculous compendium of non-science". But Plimer refuses to explain or provide sources for his bizarre claims. In other words he is an environmental "chicken hawk".
He listed a series of questions to Monbiot as a "Homework Assignment", when these questions were scrutinized, they were described as, "These questions have as much to do with a debate on human caused climate change as tribbles have to do with astrobiology".
So much for your phoney "go to guy".
Posted by chaoszen at 10/25/2009 @ 11:19am
A bunch of Neo-Fascists write books, or for the most part those books are ghostwritten for them. Like Caribou Barbies "Going Rogue". Ann (Adams Apple) Coulter and Billo'(The Clown) O'Reilly for example.
The Corporatocracy immediately places huge orders for these books in order to insure that they are "#1 on Amazon". In order to give the false impression that these so called "books" have some relevance.
Anybody who bothers to check, knows this shit. But there are ton's of koolaid chugging "Faux News" viewers that line up to buy this drivel. The same crap goes on with climate change deniers. They are just a tiny paid off minority of half assed sold out bastards who have sold their soul to the devil. But some would think they were mainstream.
The evil of the neo-fascist corporatocracy has tons of money to spend and no ethics or qualms about taking the ignorant for a ride.
The problem for them is that many of us are rubbing the crust from our eyes and waking up. And will soon turn our previous apathy to anger. And when we finally do, this Rome will Burn anew...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/25/2009 @ 11:51am
Vive la R`evolution!
Posted by chaoszen at 10/25/2009 @ 11:56am
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009:
While I like the concept of electric cars and trucks much more work needs to be done before they are practical - the Tesla is a good start only. Before we can make the switch, we will need to just about double the current generating capacity of this country and wind and solar will never do it. You can only depend on a base line generating capacity, ie. one you can control. Nuclear will be the only way to do this if you do not use coal, gas and oil. I used to read Scientific American on a regular basis many years ago, before they became political. They should change their name to Political Scientific American.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 7:03pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/25/2009 @ 11:19am:
Plimer's book is well foot-noted thank-you, and he can and does defend himself quite well. You think us deniers spin facts? Talk about BS. No, we do not believe in AGW for the simple fact there is no credible proof. Explain the ice ages for starters. Don't bring up the phony "hockey stick", the one that leaves out the Medieval Warming, which when included, turns the hockey stick into a sinusoidal waveform. All we hear from the left is the mindless mantra, CO2 - what garbage. Much below 300ppm and plant life starts to strain. Currently it is less than 400ppm which is less than half of .1% concentration. We can see it better if referenced to a 100 yd football field. Our atmosphere contains 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% everything else. So the last yard is everything else. .1% of that is 3.6 inches and .4 of that is less that 1.5 inches, out of 100 yards for CO2. Prove that is a problem. The evidence does not show it.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 10:06pm
Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 7:03pm |
I disagree on the potential for solar and wind...it's a distribution and infrastructure problem, to be sure, but solvable. Think distributed networks of carbon-composite flywheels hooked up to whatever local generation makes sense or a grid in the worst case.
The Tesla is a cool toy, but the 240 mile range doesn't work out well for anyone who really drives a bunch. I drive < 1000 miles per year and generally within the SF Bay Area.
Nuclear contributes 25x the GHGs to the environment that even coal does, when you consider the effects of building the plants etc, but I'm not your typical lib when it comes to nukes. You'll never catch me protesting a plutonium power source for a satellite and I believe that even the massive problems with nuclear are solvable too, but why?
I really want to see working tokamaks before I die, but I think that'll be for my little boy, not me.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 10:17pm
If anything I am astounded at the amount and degree of elitist secular humanistic arrogance and pride it requires to presume that humans can to any degree control the global climate!
If ever there was a "fools errand" this is the greatest gigantic hoax ever unleased on the denizens of planet earth concieved by man to assume global political power!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 12:38am
Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 10:06pm
Not sure if you picked up these Ian Plimer interviews on youtube. There are plenty more there. This is Ian Plimer pot stirring at his best. He loves a scrap.
Ian is the leading geologist in Australia. And is really a world class geologist. Environmental science is just finding its feet as a new discipline and that is probably why Plimer sees some aspects of it as bordering on religious faith if not witchcraft. He is an old school scientist like John Christy who is saying to the ACC crowd show me the numbers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBT2QUY2UgE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrK33zze3Ws&feature=related
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/26/2009 @ 04:19am
Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 12:38am |
"If anything I am astounded at the amount and degree of elitist secular humanistic arrogance and pride it requires to presume that humans can to any degree control the global climate!"
Who said control, neandertal? Influence...and not in a good way.
280ppm to 387ppm...27.6% of that 387 is quite likely to be from us (since you deniers can't seem to offer a better explanation of where it came from).
"If ever there was a 'fools errand' this is the greatest gigantic hoax ever unleased on the denizens of planet earth concieved by man to assume global political power!"
That's your story and your sticking to it...just like the Millerites who failed to see Jesus return in 1843.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 09:11am
I can make three observations about the current GW Bruhaha.
1. It is a measure of man's arrogance that we think we could actually destroy this planet, or not find a way to adapt.
2. It is mystifying that otherwise intelligent men believe that nature does not have something to do with the crisis.
3.The current generation has a penchant for self flagellation and need for control, which in the first case partially explains the "the world is in trouble and its all our fault" mentality and in the second give those in power their excuse for that control.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/26/2009 @ 09:20am
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/26/2009 @ 04:19am |
If that's one of your leading scientists you yobbos are deep in the sheep dip.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 09:37am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/26/2009 @ 09:20am |
3 points. 3 strawman arguments...bravo.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 09:43am
Beats the Tin Man. :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/26/2009 @ 09:50am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/26/2009 @ 09:50am |
I 'represent' the Lollypop Guild (EFCA! EFCA!).
Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 09:54am
EFCA? Employee Free Choice Act? I don't understand!??, SNOW
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/26/2009 @ 10:11am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/26/2009 @ 10:11am |
Guilds...unions...who do you think was protecting "the little people" in Oz?
It sure wasn't the flying monkeys from China (who built our railroads). Wicked witch of the west indeed.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 10:13am
Ohhh.......
NOWWW I get it.
Time fer Lunch Sahib. :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/26/2009 @ 10:48am
And every statist from Obama to Oprah is right on board for that!
Posted by pontificus at 10/24/2009 @ 12:15am
What is it with these right wingers? If we hand billions of taxpayer's dollars over to the military industrial complex, it's "national defense," and if we want to use taxpayer money to improve our quality of life and insure the healthy future of our planet, it's "statism" or "socialism."
Even if Earth's natural feedback systems can cope with the amount of carbon, in the form of CO2, we dump into the atmosphere, which I doubt, then it is doing so by stashing it in that giant soda bottle called the ocean. The increasing level of dissolved CO2 in the oceans is acidifying seawater and killing off sea life. This along with over fishing and pollution has brought us to our current situation where a frighteningly small portion of the world's oceans can be considered healthy.
See what famed oceanographer, Sylvia Earle, has to say about the state of our environment.
http://www.tedprize.org/videos/
Posted by raaustin at 10/26/2009 @ 11:55am
If that's one of your leading scientists you yobbos are deep in the sheep dip.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 09:37am
Glad you liked him.
Attended his lectures in geology when he was at Melbourne Uni. He was a laugh a minute.
He's loves confronting "dogmatic religionists".
When at Melbourne his main sporting activity was to attend "Creation Science" seminars to heckle from the floor. He wasn't silver haired then. But as is said of the old diggers on Anzac Day, "Age has not wearied them".
The new "creationists" in his sights are your mob aka paid up members the AGW "religion". It seems he was in the lion's den for this one. Typical Plimer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idYdVQ6nwfA&feature=fvw
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/26/2009 @ 1:10pm
Posted by raaustin at 10/26/2009 @ 11:55am
Here's a lot of information on ocean acidification and a contrary view. It may be a little out of date (2007) but it provides pointers to direct one through an emerging science:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/26/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/26/2009 @ 1:10pm |
Hey, if you can't win on the science, resort to ad hominem homilies about religion...it worked for Marx.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 07:39am