Worse now, and likely to get a lot worse

Given that the current rate of sea level rise is currently around 2-3mm/year, I hardly expect anyone to be able to notice a rise of 8-12mm over a period of 4 years unless they specialize in measuring ocean levels.

 

Well, I read the article and didn't see anything new. I've been aware of Steve McIntyre for years and I give him and others credit for exposing the racketeering of so-called BIG CLIMATE SCIENCE. Climate Science has been corrupted by conflicts of interest driven by political forces. You don't read much outside your normal sphere, do you icarus? If you did you'd realize that the McIntyre's of the Internet are doing all of us an immense service.

 

Google shows many references for a 300-ppm goal. here's one:

300.org - return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm (300.org)

I think that the CO2 levels were about 280-ppm in 1800. This site shows 300-ppm levels existed in the late 1800's:

How Much of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Accumulation Is Anthropogenic?

I'm sure I saw the 1800 goal somewhere, but 1900 will do to illustrate the absurd goal of the Warmists.

The point was that wind farms weren't working for Denmark. The article claimed that Denmark's electricity rates are the highest in Europe, while their CO2 emissions are also higher due to the inefficient fossil fueled base load plants that are required when the wind doesn't blow.

Ah, name calling now? Here's a link to one of 2,570,000 google links on new-technology, low waste nuclear power:

New age nuclear | COSMOS magazine

I guess only the ignorant read stuff like this, huh?

Spoken like a true leftist, icarus. I'm aware of both sides of the issue, while you refuse to consider the skeptical viewpoint. You should take your own advice to heart.

I'm done arguing with you on this topic. You've heard the arguments of the skeptics, but you refuse to understand. As I've said before, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this political topic.

 

Whose calling names now?

"Spoken like a true leftist, icarus. I'm aware of both sides of the issue, while you refuse to consider the skeptical viewpoint."


I consider skeptical view points, and in fact your cosmos article is indeed interesting. The operative notion is "potential". I will withhold my opinion until I see real world changes in the technology that is available, safe, and sustainable.

As for your links to returning to ~1800 levels of emission. First, at one point you have suggested 1800, and yet later you suggest "the late 1800's. Clearly there was a significant difference in emissions between those two years.

Second, your link to 300.org is clearly a fringe group and doesn't (after an admittedly quick scan) represent any sort of consensus opinion as to where CO2 emissions would need to be.

Finally, You may think me strong in my opposition to Nukes,and I have explained my reasoning for being opposed. Can you please explain to me why you could possibly be opposed to some if not all of my suggestions,, like conservation, like RE, like public transit, like a carbon tax that would have a resultant reduction in C02 emissions, and which would also fund much of the conservation/RE/Transit issues.

Please give me some reason(s) beyond the nebulous "lack of freedom" or "redistribution of wealth socialism" or some such. Give me concrete response on why you think my agenda is somehow bad. IMHO, even if it proves to be that CO2 is not the culprit we think it is, can't some argument be made (and a good one to boot!) that the energy security/national security/cost of energy (going forward, long term) issues are benefited by some or all of my suggestions.

Even if Nukes can be made safe, the technology is very capital intensive, and very centralized, and therefore much more subjected to issues of centralization and capital markets. (See bank meltdown or grid failure) At the very least, conservation and decentralized RE has some significant advantages with just those tow thoughts.

 

Well, I said I was finished with this discussion, but I couldn't resist.

Are you suggesting that "leftist" is a pejorative term, icarus?

I wish that you'd withhold judgment about man-made global warming as you do with possible future technology. There's considerably more evidence for future development of safe nuclear power than for CO2-induced global warming.

Actually there doesn't seem to be. There are easily found graphs that show about 20-ppm increase from 1800 to 1900. I just couldn't find my reference that mentioned the year 1800.

Now that we've established that 300.org is a "fringe group", there is only a matter of degree to label the other AGW groups.

Let's try to boil it down. I'm sure that we can agree that humans need to ween themselves from fossil fuel usage, we're only differing on the method to reach that goal. I argue that a free market in cooperation with government is the best way home. You're arguing for a total big-government, and therefore coercive approach.

Isn't it more efficient and less invasive to directly address a problem? A problem such as fossil fuel usage? Not because these fuels are harmful, but because there's only a finite supply? If you dream up red-herrings like AGW and attack that problem, you miss the mark and cause society to suffer needlessly.

Decentralized RE, in it's present forms, just won't work. I said it before and I'm standing by it. Take Denmark (again): their misdirected attention to wind farms has increased their electricity costs and total carbon footprint. How can this be good in anyone's book?

 

"Are you suggesting that "leftist" is a pejorative term, icarus? "

It is the propensity to rely on labels that I find offensive.


" wish that you'd withhold judgment about man-made global warming as you do with possible future technology. There's considerably more evidence for future development of safe nuclear power than for CO2-induced global warming."

The reality is by waiting, the consequences of being wrong are such that they may not be able to be undone. If "we" are right, every day that goes by the costs and sacrifices that are required only get more expensive and more "draconian" If we act now, and we are wrong, the only "cost" is cheaper energy going forward, better energy security going forward, and better national security going forward. What's not to like? As I have shown before, every significant environmental regulation in the last couple of generations has come despite considerable opposition, and proved to have a much cheaper cost, with a much greater benefit than first expected. (Read up on the cost benefit of catalytic converters for example).

"You're arguing for a total big-government, and therefore coercive approach. "

I am arguing for a cogent, rational policy that by it's design encourages conservation, discourages waste, and gives a helping hand if you will to develop genuine alternatives and alternative technologies.

"Isn't it more efficient and less invasive to directly address a problem? A problem such as fossil fuel usage? Not because these fuels are harmful, but because there's only a finite supply"

I agree in principal. The reality is a bit harder nut to crack. Folks like you don't like the idea of subsidizing alternative energy, and certainly don't (I'm guessing here) giving grants and low interest loans or tax credits to encourage doing so, but you seem to have no problem with the hidden subsidies that go to big energy (Coal/gas/oil/Nuke). If the field was indeed level, and the market indeed free, then the price of energy would rise and fall in some way related to supply and demand, as well as it's environmental costs. As it is now, markets are not free, playing fields are not level, and indeed the markets are largely manipulated. (See Enron or the oil price bubble of 2007-08.)

"If you dream up red-herrings like AGW and attack that problem, you miss the mark and cause society to suffer needlessly"

The vast majority of climate scientists don't believe it is a red herring. As I have said many times before, with the net/net/ benefits I have described above and on other threads how will this cause society to suffer needlessly? (I do get it, you just don't want to pay for it,, see below)

"Decentralized RE, in it's present forms, just won't work. I said it before and I'm standing by it."

Just because you say/said it doesn't make it so! One of the biggest deterrents to most conservation, or PV installation at the homeowner level is up front capital cost. For example, a simple insulation upgrade in a house might cost ~$1000, and pay off in three years, but folks can't come up with the cash. Same with PV or solar hot water, or hi-ef appliances or HVAC. Right now, today, in many parts of the country PV solar can be put on houses and pays off in ~10 years, not including any increase in the price of electricity. So explain how decentralized power generation "won't work"? I myself, have noted on several threads that we use ~1/6 as much energy as the average household, with few "draconian" measures. In addition, 100% of our electricity is from renewable sources, by choice, and we pay an additional ~15% to do so. (cheaper for us, and a better "investment" than PV on our Pac NW house).

"Take Denmark (again): their misdirected attention to wind farms has increased their electricity costs "

This is the gist of the denialist arguments,,, they simply don't want to pay for it! Above you make the statement "because there's only a finite supply?" If you agree that the supply is finite, and you think the "free market" is the solution to all that ails us how can you reconcile the fact that with a diminishing supply prices will inevitably rise. The fact that wind power (or PV) is more expensive than coal or gas or nuke is not a surprise! The reality however is that ALL energy is going to get more expensive. By embracing conservation and alternatives now (at some minimal cost,, (see previous posts regarding $.15kwh wind power!))the costs for your children are likely to be much lower than they might other wise be. ( Understanding that energy prices are going to go up!).

At least we are having a mostly civil conversation.

 

References please.

Because everything I have read indicates that it's flaws in the EU's Cap & Trade system which has failed to reduce the number of carbon credits available on the market as renewables have been ramped up.

Countries like Denmark and Germany have ended up selling their carbon credits to coal-burning countries - and the cost of those carbon credits have fallen to basically nothing because of all the renewable power that is allowing those countries to sell their carbon credits.

 

So we should all put a gun to our head right now and end it all?

Maybe if we move toward the solution we might eventually arrive at it. That might not be in our lifetime but we need to make a start.
Where would you be if the builder of your home decided it wasn't worth making a start on construction because he/she couldn't get it finished in a day?

 

Now that would help the environment,
overpopulation is the problem.

 

Hey, what if we started building some generators for whatever it is the CO2 is destroying (I'm not sure if it's still considered "the ozone layer" or not) and start replenishing it? I think ozone is pretty easy to make.

 

So what does the carbon credit ponzi scheme have to do with the rising costs of energy in denmark in germany?

Oh I get it Its ok to have high prices as long as they sell carbon credits? Say hi to Bernie Madoff for me

 

here in the NL there is a study in the news where the next years we will see cooler winters then before
because of the global warming the northpole ice is melting and making the oceans around here a lot cooler.
this making the winters a lot lower in temp.
ofcourse there wil be a point where this will change from cold to warm when the cold oceans around here will warmup.

 

You don't suppose that this might be due to a change in the Gulf stream, (as well as other disruptions in global ocean currents) due to climate change?

What many folks don't get, is that climate change doesn't just mean global warming. Warming in some areas, cooling in other areas, all due to disruptions of natural cycles!

 

Do a google search on damage to the ozone layer, work out what was done to curb the problem, think about it for a little while and then get back to us. I'm sure once you are up to speed on the difference between ozone depletion and climate change you will be able to contribute better to the discussion.

A little kick start;
Ozone at ground level is actually toxic and harmful, high in the atmosphere it reflects some ultraviolet rays away from the earth. Ultraviolet is the part of light which accelerates skin damage. Ozone depletion is not caused by carbon dioxide.
Ozone depletion-Key text This is very simply written but it will help you get the idea.

 

OK, so basically we cannot make anything that will stop it, we can only make less of what is causing it, correct?

 

I would posit that that is essentially correct. That said, there have been technological ideas floated such as casting SO2 aloft through some sort of sub space elevator, the effect of which would chemically alter the CO2. There are several geo-political issues with such schemes, such as who would be in charge and authorized to do it, but more importantly, since we aren't very good at understanding the climate dynamics we now have, predicting the effect of such scheme(s) is pretty tough, and the results of miscalculation possibly worse than what we are trying to cure. I would frown upon such solutions.

Besides, if it just allows us to go about our profligate ways, it is pretty silly. The answer IS, put less of it into the atmosphere. Not so hard to do technically, perhaps not even too hard economically. Right now pretty difficult to do politically.

Can you cut your carbon foot print 20-40%? With fairly simple steps, we have cut ours ~50% from a fairly low foot print to begin with. We now use ~1/6 as much energy as the average American household.

 

Correct, but the point of my post was, climate change and ozone depletion are 2 different issues.

Ozone depletion is being tackled and we hardly noticed the impact of that on our lifestyle, now we need to tackle climate change. We have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for a lot longer than we were putting CFCs into the atmosphere, and at a higher rate. It might take a little longer to reverse.

 

My advice is don't buy any property in Florida or along the east coast. After the politics is taken out of Global Warming, property values will drop even more in ocean areas. If you live there and your mortgage is paid, the only thing you have to worry about in your lifetime is the insurance. Enjoy.

 

In Australia, they have to wear sunscreen because of the ozone hole near them. That doesn't get widely publicized here.

 

you're taking me out of context. i'm simply saying we should do everything possible, but there is no sense getting so worked up about it. you do what you can and let the chips fall where they may. sometimes i think arguing a point too passionately only makes the people you're trying to persuede dig their heels in further.