Originally Posted by The Rani

Ontario tilts against wind turbines as costs spiral: Cohn

...Over the past decade, the government rapidly signed contracts for 10,000 megawatts of wind and solar — exceeding the coal capacity it had targeted for elimination. Yet dirty coal and clean wind are not interchangeable... You can burn coal (or natural gas) when needed. But you can’t make the wind blow on demand.

-The US Navy used to use wind power all the time. There were called "sailing ships." There's a reason they stopped using them.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...Over the past decade, the government rapidly signed contracts for 10,000 megawatts of wind and solar — exceeding the coal capacity it had targeted for elimination. Yet dirty coal and clean wind are not interchangeable... You can burn coal (or natural gas) when needed. But you can’t make the wind blow on demand.

-The US Navy used to use wind power all the time. There were called "sailing ships." There's a reason they stopped using them.

That's also why that much wind generation capacity is needed. Not only does the wind not blow anywhere all the time, in never blows everywhere at the same time.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ontario tilts against wind turbines as costs spiral: Cohn

I'm sure you have an alternative solution. What is it?

It's pitiful that we still have denialists like Glick around; they ought to wise up, before our Earth "burns up" and we lose lots more living species we have no right to kill off, as well as strains on our food and water supply, more and more-severe storms, flooded cities, dead seas, plagues....

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm sure you have an alternative solution. What is it?

We all go vegan and use public transport.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm sure you have an alternative solution. What is it?

-Gee, Petroleum and coal do a pretty good job of providing 24/7 energy. I suspect they provided the fuel to get you to work and to power the computer you're sitting at right now.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...they ought to wise up, before our Earth "burns up"and we lose lots more living species we have no right to kill off, as well as strains on our food and water supply, more and more-severe storms, flooded cities, dead seas, plagues...

-HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

No bed-wetting panic there!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...and we lose lots more living species we have no right to kill off....

-You mean, like the millions of birds slaughtered by windmills every year?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Gee, Petroleum and coal do a pretty good job of providing 24/7 energy. I suspect they provided the fuel to get you to work and to power the computer you're sitting at right now.

And they're working hard to flood our coastal cities, not that you care. Top of the list of affected cities: Norflok, VA - home of the Atlantic Fleet and the largest coal export pier in the world. Let's see which is allowed to survive. I'm placing my bets on the fleet, though it may be too late to survive without major intervention.

Norfolk is also home to a neighborhood called The Hague. It floods all the time. The Dutch would not find that flattering in the least.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

And they're working hard to flood our coastal cities, not that you care...

-Yes, we're all going to die.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...Norfolk is also home to a neighborhood called The Hague. It floods all the time. The Dutch would not find that flattering in the least.

-How ironic that you would indirectly reference the name of a city which is the capital of a country which has been below sea level for CENTURIES but was able to adapt, survive, and thrive.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-How ironic that you would indirectly reference the name of a city which is the capital of a country which has been below sea level for CENTURIES but was able to adapt, survive, and thrive.

Yes, let's make bad even worse. BTW, even the Dutch admit that they will not be able to fully protect their nation much longer, if sea level continues to rise at the rate it's rising.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, let's make bad even worse. BTW, even the Dutch admit that they will not be able to fully protect their nation much longer, if sea level continues to rise at the rate it's rising.

-Yes. We're all going to die. Let's make Obama Economic Dictator. That will save us all.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Yes. We're all going to die. Let's make Obama Economic Dictator. That will save us all.

Just don't insist that the entire planet join you in your early demise.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Just don't insist that the entire planet join you in your early demise.

-Good news, Mr. Horn!

The Polar bears will Live! The Polar bears will Live!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...olar-bears.php

From avaaz:

Dear friends,



The delicate balance of the planet's biosphere is tipping -- threatening all life on earth. Scientists are calling it our Holy Shit moment on climate change, and world leaders meet at the UN in just over 100 days -- we have until then for all of us, everywhere, to act, in the largest day of action on climate change in history, to call for action and fight for everything we love. Sign up to join in:

RSVP NOW
The last ice age happened in 6 months. 6 months for the planet to unleash an army of apartment-building-size ice blocks across Europe and the United States. It was a climate tipping point where the balance is knocked completely out of control and threatens the survival of everything -- and three more tipping points exactly like it are on the verge of happening.

It's our "holy shit" climate moment according to a leading NASA scientist, and only a holy shit massive coordinated day of action response, right now, can change the future we're facing.

One agreement with common sense steps to end dirty energy can save us. That's why the UN has called an urgent climate meeting in just over 100 days with all major world leaders — if we greet them on September 21st with the largest ever global climate mobilisation in history we can break through the walls of mega coal, oil, and business that prevent even the best politicians from doing what is right.

There's no way to get around how big a task this is. But together, each small action will add up into a millions-strong movement that literally drowns out the opposition and gives our leaders the best reason to break free and build a hopeful, clean and green future. Click below to join in:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/join_to_...eviCbb&v=41138

"Tipping points" are feedback loops, where climate change feeds back on itself and causes rapidly accelerating, catastrophic consequences. Right now, methane gas that is 25 times worse for global warming than CO2 is frozen in our ice. But as the ice melts, the gas leaks, causing more melting and each melt loses us another layer of reflective ice shield that we rely on to keep the planet cool, more methane and less ice means more warming still, and everything starts to spin out of control. And that's just one example… it's why scientists are yelling from the rooftops that we have to act now.

We actually have the tools and the plan we need to make sure we don't cross into a world where tipping points destroy us. And while it will take global cooperation on a bigger scale than ever before, our 36 million-strong movement already has the people power necessary to move leaders from every country to take the first steps. Just days ago, the United States and China announced serious new plans to curb their pollution — momentum is building ahead of next year's critical Paris climate summit where a deal could be inked, and in just over 100 days we can take it up a notch further.

Taking to the streets in a record setting show of power and coordination is one of the most effective ways to create change -- from the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa to civil rights in the US, it's sometimes been the only way. This is our chance to bring that power to the most important issue of our time: survival and a thriving future for our families, and their families and the generations of people to come. Click below to be a part of it all:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/join_to_...eviCbb&v=41138

We know we can do this… and do it big. When our community was just 3 million people we held 3,000 actions on the same day to protect our planet. We're now 36 million strong, ten times the size! Imagine what we can achieve together now...

With so much hope for our future,

Emma, Iain, Lisa, Ricken, Alice, Emily, Sayeeda, Uilleam and the rest of the Avaaz team

MORE INFORMATION

Global warming: it's a point of no return in West Antarctica. What happens next? (The Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...l-warming-nasa

A Call to Arms: An Invitation to Demand Action on Climate Change (Rolling Stone)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...hange-20140521

Mini ice age took hold of Europe in months (New Scientist)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...in-months.html

Report: Prepare for climate tipping points (Politico)
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...nt-100615.html

The inevitable demise of the fossil fuel empire
Rocketing production costs, proliferating write-downs, stranded assets pave the way for renewable renaissance


An onlooker takes a photo of a fallen gas station canopy hit by Hurricane Irene, at the Atlantic Food Mart in Surf City August, 27, 2011. Photograph: Randall Hill/Reuters

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...il-fuel-empire

The latest data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and other sources proves that the oil and gas majors are in deep trouble.

Over the last decade, rising oil prices have been driven primarily by rising production costs. After the release of the IEA's World Energy Outlook last November, Deutsche Bank's former head of energy research Mark Lewis noted that massive levels of investment have corresponded to an ever declining rate of oil supply increase:

"Over the past decade, the oil and gas industry's upstream investments have registered an astronomical increase, but these ever higher levels of capital expenditure have yielded ever smaller increases in the global oil supply. Even these have only been made possible by record high oil prices. This should be a reality check for those now hyping a new age of global oil abundance."

Since 2000, the oil industry's investments have risen by 180% - a threefold increase - but this has translated into a global oil supply increase of just 14%. Two-thirds of this increase has been made-up by unconventional oil and gas. In other words, the primary driver of the cost explosion is the shift to expensive and difficult-to-extract unconventionals due to the peak and plateau in conventional oil production since 2005.

The increasingly dislocated economics of oil production

According to Lewis, who now heads up energy transition and climate change research at leading investment firm Kepler Cheuvreux:

"The most straightforward interpretation of this data is that the economics of oil have become completely dislocated from historic norms since 2000 (and especially since 2005), with the industry investing at exponentially higher rates for increasingly small incremental yields of energy."

The IEA's new World Energy Investment Outlook published last week revised the agency's estimates of future oil industry capital expenditures out to 2035 even higher, from $9.4 trillion to $11.3 trillion – an increase of 20%.

Oil prices could in turn increase by $15 per barrel in 2025 if investment does not pick up. Most of the investment increase required would be devoted not to new sources of production, but "to replace lost production from depleting fields," said Lewis.

In the IEA's own words:

"More than 80% of this spending [of between $700 and $850 billion annually by the 2030s] is required just to keep production at today's levels, that is, to compensate for the effects of decline at existing fields. The figure is higher in the case of oil (at close to 90% of total capital expenditure)."

But as Lewis pointed out, the "risk of insufficient investment" is not a hypothetical matter that might occur a decade from now, but is "already today a clear and present danger" as most of the oil and gas majors have revised down their plans for capital expenditure in recent months.

Stranded by post-peak oil price hikes

There is therefore "a medium to longer-term threat" to the oil industry's "business model from high and rising oil prices." We just don't get the same quality of energy from shale oil and gas as cheap crude - and what we do get comes at a higher cost.

Although oil prices are at record-high levels, production costs are rising so dramatically that they are fatally undermining oil company profits, forcing them to announce cut backs in expenditures this year.

ExxonMobil, Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell "are now signalling that they expect their capital expenditure (capex) to level off in the next few years," reported the Financial Times. "And they are likely to come under continued pressure to bring it down."

Mark Lewis thus concludes that "the upstream oil industry is already struggling to make the returns that shareholders require for the kind of upstream risks that are now being taken." Profits are being squeezed, and they'll only get slimmer with time.

Other factors likely to push oil prices higher over coming decades include the increasing reliance on shale gas "to fill the supply gap… in the face of stalling crude-oil production since 2005," which has "significantly lower energy density than crude oil"; "declining exports of crude oil globally since 2005 as OPEC consumes more and more of its own production"; and "the ever-present but recently heightened geopolitical risks in key oil-producing regions."

Lewis' verdict for the future of the global oil industry is devastating. In Kepler Cheuvreux's April report 'Stranded Assets, Fossilized Revenues', Lewis argued that a pending global climate treaty would seriously endanger the profitability of fossil fuel majors due to emissions restrictions enforcing 'stranded assets' (unexploited fossil fuel reserves that, having become obsolete, are recorded as a loss of profit).

Far from simply facing this risk due to a potential climate treaty, Lewis said, this risk arises even due to rising oil prices alone - prices driven primarily by the end of the age of easy crude.

The bubble is starting to burst

According to oil company director Bill Powers of Arsenal Energy Inc. based in Calgary, Canada, the demise of the fossil fuel industry is already in motion and will pave the way for the inexorable rise of renewable energy. In a presentation at the IEA in April, Powers told agency staffers that:

"Renewables, especially rooftop solar, will take a leading role in a distributed power revolution now underway. The utility industry is vigorously fighting distributed power's advancement."

The Republican right often admires "common sense" ...

Back when I was growing up in Wyoming, home of the origination of "common sense," it was said, "Never shit in your own nest."

If one extrapolates that a bit, and defines the Earth as our "nest," one might conclude that it makes "common sense" to move with alacrity from dirty forms of energy to relatively more clean forms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ming-data.html
...in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ming-data.html
...in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data...

This has been addressed over and over and over again. These are standard statistical methods intended to normalize readings (sensor locations change with time) and smooth models for analysis. The same methods are widely applied to other messy data. When these occurred, they were small and balanced, neither raising nor lowering the readings overall. They didn't even remove the noise from the data.

Even more to the point, many of the supposed adjustments never actually occurred. But fell free to keep this zombie alive as long as you can.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ming-data.html
...in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data...

It is necessary for the fossil fuel industry propagandists to attack the main line science. In this case, the main line science is represented by NASA, NOAA and England's Hadley center, all of which use slightly different methods to calculate average temperature charts. It is good science to respect anything vaguely resembling valid criticism, and thus the main stream charts have been tweaked and recalibrated over the years. The denialists seem to want it both ways. They would barf propaganda if their criticism was ignored, and barf propaganda if their criticism was taken seriously, if corrections were made. Regardless of the barfing, the corrections didn't materially effect the end result. While some tweaking occurred, the over all shape of the curve remained clear.

Finally, as their propaganda wasn't really sticking, as their words from nowhere weren't being taken seriously against the scientific data they were trying to disparage, they encouraged Berkeley to produce a fourth data base, choosing a scientist who had leaned towards the skeptic side to head the project. They thought to throw away the old (presumably flawed) methodologies, start from scratch, and come up with something possibly definitive.

The Berkeley Earth results are shown above. For the most part the Berkeley results ended up bang up square on top of the other three estimates. One can see bits of red, green and blue behind the Berkeley black, but in general all four attempts to gather the data are in agreement.

When the Berkeley results were first published, the head of the project was vilified by the politically motivated propagandists that had funded him. The serious scientists were pleased to have their work verified.

Of course, most any denialist worth his salt has sufficient values lock to remain ignorant of the result.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This has been addressed over and over and over again...

-No. It hasn't.

Originally Posted by B Butler

...It is necessary for the fossil fuel industry propagandists to attack the main line science. In this case, the main line science is represented by NASA, NOAA and England's Hadley center...

-Uh, your screed doesn't answer the article's point.

The NOAA went back and replaced the actual collected data with what models say should have happened. That would be like going back and changing the results of the battle of Shiloh based on what a tactical analysis model posited should have happened.

That would be called "CRAP."

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-No. It hasn't.

-Uh, your screed doesn't answer the article's point.

The NOAA went back and replaced the actual collected data with what models say should have happened. That would be like going back and changing the results of the battle of Shiloh based on what a tactical analysis model posited should have happened.

That would be called "CRAP."

Yes, I know this is what the Telegraph reported, but it's simply a misunderstanding of the material (the generous explanation) or an outright fabrication (likely, since the paper has been a climate change denier from the beginning). And yes, this has been addressed many times.

Wouldn't it be just nice and dandy if we didn't have to worry about climate change and we could blithely go on our merry way?

It would also be nice if I didn't get older.

One day, if I live that long, I'll be old and infirm. And one day, if we don't do anything, our descendants will curse us for the havoc that we've wreaked on our planet.

Mr./Ms. Apollonian,

There's just the person on this discussion forum that you need to chat with. His forum handle is Katsung47. I think you'll find his perspective especially congenial. He's taken it a bit further, however. He thinks that the conspiracies have all been ginned up just for him alone.

Perhaps that's the case with you as well? Have "The Jews" secretly targeted just you, maybe? Are the "One World-ers" working behind the scenes to shut YOU up, and keep you from telling us the TRUTH?

Originally Posted by apollonian

Marx: it isn't surprising to see u going-along w. climate-change lies. Tell us, Marx: what actual evidence do u have for climate-change or global-warming?--u got none, do u?--zilch. U just want to go-along w. the hip-crowd, eh?

I have 15 correlated data sets, including one totally divorced from the earth: NASA's radiation-re-radiation measurements. Those, btw, are uncontested by any of the deniers, because hey are nearly impossible to fake.

What do you have to the contrary?

Originally Posted by apollonian

TnT: get a clue, buddy--quit being stupid, ok? Did u know it's now jury verdict MLK was murdered by gov. consp.?--just google for it, genius. 90% of folks, according to some polls, say JFK was killed by conspiracy. It's admitted Gulf of Tonkin "incident" was conspiratorial lie by US gov. It's fact Bush lied about Iraqi WMDs.

Ever hrd of US Federal Reserve Bank?--do u understand it's literally just (legalized) COUNTERFEITING?

Jews follow Talmud--did u know that? And Jews of race are loyal to religious Jews. Do u begin to understand what Talmud instructs Jews?--that it's okay to lie to and murder gentiles? So I'd say u folks here ought to lose ur smug satisfaction in being sooooooooooo abysmally ignorant, don't u think?

No, no, you've misinterpreted me ... what truly interests me is epistemology. I'm fascinated by the methodology of how people come to "know" what they think they know, that they know.

You are a most fascinating entry! One can only speculate about the "sources" of information that have convinced you of your perspective on the world.

Even more interesting is the state of mind, the mind-set you might say, of someone like yourself, who has clearly spent many, many hours, perhaps years, accumulating all the detail that you exhibit.

I would imagine that there is likely not a single thing that anyone might say to you that you couldn't rebut almost immediately with a detailed listing of "facts and figures," of bible passages, of philosophical constructions? Isn't that true?

Apollo, I'm captivated! I truly am.

On a related topic, I agree with whoever mentioned this before ... your use of juvenile high-school texting stuff is distracting, and it takes away from your otherwise lofty appearing prose.

Originally Posted by apollonian

I don't think u fool many people. See, ur problem is the premise for ur absurd, self-righteous conclusions--name a single fact that indicates "climate-change." U can't; ur buddy, "Marx," can't--none of u liars can--all u want to do is to suck-along w. powers-that-be who want to use "climate-change" lies as excuse for dictatorship.

And for sure, descendents WILL curse u, un-questionably, if such as u are allowed to bring in the dictatorship u're willing to have at behest of this idiotic "climate-change" fiction, prop. and lies.

I was thinking of calculating your ignorance-to-relevance and arrogance-to-credibility ratios until I recalled that division by zero is impossible.

Wonkette intends to fool nobody. She goes with the preponderance of knowledge, and that is that global warming is real.

Science is done well only in humility -- with respect for rigid rules of formulation of hypotheses, measurement, double-blind testing, and cautious reporting. Most scientists are in fact glorified lab technicians, because science requires that. One person cannot get a conclusion by himself. Such makes physical science highly reliable. One contradicts the great body of scientific research at the risk of making a fool of oneself - as with creationists.

If the climate-change hazard were in the opposite direction -- that snow sheets were forming in northern Quebec and the highlands of Scotland and Norway, and glaciers were expanding in the Rockies and Alps, then we would so say, and we would have real concerns. Nobody wants to see glaciers obliterating Edinburgh and Glasgow. If such were to be the prospect, then we would consider it wise to scrap subcompact cars to replace them with 1970s-style gas guzzlers, turn up the heat in winter, and belch more world-saving coal fires -- right?

We have the opposite concern, with the inundation of lowlands (including some of the world's greatest cities) and the expansion of deserts. I have no illusion of the willingness of people to sacrifice their lives to save those of people in distant and different lands; I have no cause to believe that people will not turn to brutal regimes to protect themselves from refugees from inundated and desiccated lands. Global warming implies horrific wars just to allow the survival of peoples -- and there could hardly be a more congenial environment for dictatorships as murderous as Nazi Germany.