eyeball Posted October 11, 2009 Report Posted October 11, 2009 here is one piece of info on the virtue of wind power, make note of their use of coal. Has anyone else noted yet that my source talks about their use of ENERGY. Not coal, not elecricity but ENERGY. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Riverwind Posted October 11, 2009 Report Posted October 11, 2009 (edited) The Globe and Mail story my figures come from said energy not just electricity. Moreover the story also notes...Where is the data supporting the claim? It would take a rather large drop in the use of gasoline and other heating fuels to make up for the 55% increase in electricity consumption?The CO2 reductions in Denmark are largely fiction because all they did was move production of the CO2 to their neighbors - the total amount of CO2 produced to maintain the Danish lifestyle has likely increased as production is moved to less efficent economies like China. That is why it is a waste of time to even discuss anti-CO2 policies until all countries agree to the same limits. Any agreement that tries to give developing countries a free pass will simply cause total CO2 emissions to increase as production moves to the countries with the most leneiant rules. Edited October 11, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Slim MacSquinty Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 are there other countries who can boast that their economies grew faster because they stuck to conventional energy sources? And please don't forget to subtract the environmental costs if they did. The question I have is in terms of electricity what have we done so wrong, while energy consumption was so low this summer spot overnight prices were actually negative, hydro electric producers were actually paying to dump electricity into the market, yes the most environmentally friendly method of generating electricity was paying to get rid of it. All the while the provincial government is willing to pay people huge premiums to implement less efficient questionable technology. Right now there are a bunch of Europeans over here doing the George Smitherman abreviated EA to secure approvals over huge swaths of land for wind generation, while providing no information whatsoever about technology, specific location or human/ environmental effects. They have no intention of actually building a thing, they are going to secure approvals and sell leases to (in all likelyhood) large American conglomerates who will take advantage of the huge subsidies that you and I will fund. The EA meetings are a farce and the locals appear to have no power to stop huge wind turbines turning up within 500 meters of their homes, 1/3 of the regulatory setback required in most european countries. Wind turbines are not going to solve our peak demand issues, yet we will still be paying huge premiums for the electricity they generate. OPG/ Ontario Hydro studied wind resources in detail in the late 90's - earlier this decade and concluded it wouldn't pay. Anyway I know I digress. Here in Canada, it is very difficult to compare our energy consumption to Europe since we have large distances between settlements and in general a cooler climate. In additon making huge gains will be difficult since we tend to be more efficient to start with than many other nations The fact we are producing resources to supply many other parts of the world puts us at a further disadvantage since large energy inputs are required to produce these materials yet they don't get counted in the destination countries who actually use the product. Finally I am very leary about not treating all nations equally as it concerns carbon emissions. Third world countries like China and India already have a huge labour advantage (right or wrong) their industry is in many cases using western capital to build factories and and production, why should they be burning coal to supply them when they could more easily go straight to cleaner technology? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 ....Here in Canada, it is very difficult to compare our energy consumption to Europe since we have large distances between settlements and in general a cooler climate. In additon making huge gains will be difficult since we tend to be more efficient to start with than many other nations The fact we are producing resources to supply many other parts of the world puts us at a further disadvantage since large energy inputs are required to produce these materials yet they don't get counted in the destination countries who actually use the product..... The comparisons are very straightforward, as are the choices Canada has made. In this largely political game, there is no free pass for geography. Other places in the world are "cooler" too. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Slim MacSquinty Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 In this largely political game, there is no free pass for geography. The US would be best not to play that game, or you will be entangled in more than Arabia for a very long time, remember your oil industry will be drooling over the oil sands sooner rather than later. And it seems there is indeed a free pass for geography, especially if you live nearer to the equator in a third world dicatorship. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 The US would be best not to play that game, or you will be entangled in more than Arabia for a very long time, remember your oil industry will be drooling over the oil sands sooner rather than later. The hydrocarbon economy involves far more than just the United States; Canada's oil industry is/was very dependent on American investment capital and access to pipeline transport, refining, distribution, and markets. Welcome to the "entangled" club. And it seems there is indeed a free pass for geography, especially if you live nearer to the equator in a third world dicatorship. Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia are not on the equator. Canada has one of the largest per capita energy consumption on the planet. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jbg Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 A previous topic was moved to another section but, really, this plot affects Canada - and its "Climate Change Policy". It's infuriating......these Leftists are trying to remake the world under the guise of Climate Change. Now their agenda is out in the open for all to see - it's not about the Global Warming farce, it's not about Climate Change adaptation, and it's not about CO2. It's about Wealth Transfer......Harper was right years ago....it's unfortunate that it's politically unpalatable to say it anymore. The entire article is informative and well worth reading....it provides a sober look at the Big Picture.http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...al-economy.aspx Link: Fortunately in that form it will never clear the U.S. Senate, no matter what Bo Bo says. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 Fortunately in that form it will never clear the U.S. Senate, no matter what Bo Bo says. Excellent reminder....even before Bush there was that 98-0 Senate vote against Kyoto. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonlight Graham Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) Interesting editorial. If true, i think that's mostly crap ie: "repaying environmental damages". There is truth to the damage, drought, floods etc. that climate change will cause, but i'd rather any such "retribution" payment be seperate from a climate treaty. I don't even like the term "retribution". Should just be called "aid". I would like to read the draft of the plan for the myself. I encourage everyone to give it a glance before you make judgments based on an editorial. Edited October 12, 2009 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Riverwind Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 There is truth to the damage, drought, floods etc. that climate change will causeActually there is no "truth" in that statement. First, the link between natural disasters and climate change is tenuous to non-existent. Second, specific disasters such as drought and floods can be brought on by land use changes (i.e. chop down all of the forests - bring on drought). This means that any such events are just as likely to be the fault of the third world governments as it is the fault of CO2. Lastly, the social and economic toll of disasters is directly correlated with over population and bad government - neither of which are the fault of taxpayers in developed countries.IOW - the entire idea of "compensation" for climate change is nothing but extortion by various activists groups and apologists for third world dictators. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Argus Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 Interesting editorial. If true, i think that's mostly crap ie: "repaying environmental damages". There is truth to the damage, drought, floods etc. that climate change will cause, but i'd rather any such "retribution" payment be seperate from a climate treaty. I don't even like the term "retribution". Should just be called "aid". Has everyone forgotten the BBC report which stated that there had not been any warming the past 11 years, and that, in all likelihood, there would be none for another 30 due to ocean currents? The BBC is hardly a bastien of support for the anti-Global-Warming crowd, after all. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia are not on the equator. Canada has one of the largest per capita energy consumption on the planet. The Nordic countries are, geographically, quite small, and Russia is not required to cut back emissions. Canada faces the twin challenges of an enormous geographic area with low population (very high carbon output for transportation per person) and one of the coldest winters on earth (very high heating costs). Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jbg Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 Actually there is no "truth" in that statement. First, the link between natural disasters and climate change is tenuous to non-existent.The Bible, which to my non-religious mind is a pretty good oral history, references plenty of floods and droughts. Other epics such as Gilgamesh and the Norse sagas do likewise.Second, specific disasters such as drought and floods can be brought on by land use changes (i.e. chop down all of the forests - bring on drought). This means that any such events are just as likely to be the fault of the third world governments as it is the fault of CO2. Lastly, the social and economic toll of disasters is directly correlated with over population and bad government - neither of which are the fault of taxpayers in developed countries.IOW - the entire idea of "compensation" for climate change is nothing but extortion by various activists groups and apologists for third world dictators. That's the same story as most multilateral transfer programs. They're all the result of tin-cup shaking and/or shakedowns by dictators. Their people benefit only to the extent of the dictator's use of the money to pacify specific potential enemies. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 Of course, the focus on reducing CO2 emissions had to have come at a brutal cost to the economy. At least, that is what's supposed to happen, isn't it? Somehow it didn't here. Denmark has one of the strongest economies in the European Union. Unemployment is 3.7 per cent. You read that right. Okay so putting the inability of anyone to address the energy consumption vs electricity consumption angle, this story I posted from the G&M still remains just as devastating to the OP no matter how you look at it. Why isn't the unemployment rate 37%? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Riverwind Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) Okay so putting the inability of anyone to address the energy consumption vs electricity consumption angle, this story I posted from the G&M still remains just as devastating to the OP no matter how you look at it. Why isn't the unemployment rate 37%?I am still waiting for you to produce the source of the data for the G&M article. I have already given you stats from the Danish government that show electricity consumption has gone up 55% and I think it is extremely unlikely that other types of energy consumption have gone down 48% to compensate.Until you produce those figures the G&M claim is not interesting. Edited October 12, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
eyeball Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 I am still waiting for you to produce the source of the data for the G&M article. I've emailed Gary Mason to ask him for his sources so I guess we'll see what happens. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Posted October 12, 2009 The Nordic countries are, geographically, quite small, and Russia is not required to cut back emissions. Not relevant to absolute per capita energy consumption, the coarse scale that tree huggers want to use. Canada faces the twin challenges of an enormous geographic area with low population (very high carbon output for transportation per person) and one of the coldest winters on earth (very high heating costs). No doubt, but that's just tough. Cooking bitumen for fun and profit takes a lot of energy. Do you really think Canada deserves a pass because of "geographic hardship" compared to other nations? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted October 13, 2009 Report Posted October 13, 2009 Not relevant to absolute per capita energy consumption, the coarse scale that tree huggers want to use.No doubt, but that's just tough. Cooking bitumen for fun and profit takes a lot of energy. Do you really think Canada deserves a pass because of "geographic hardship" compared to other nations? I don't know what you mean by "a pass', but I do think that geographical conditions ought to be taken into consideration, yes, as well as population growth. However, since I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to prove that CO2 emissions is causing any substantial portion of global warming (which apparently has been postponed for 40 years or so) the question is moot. I was against Kyoto and I'm against this idiot thing. Mind you, even if I did believe CO2 emissions were dangerous I'd still be against them because the cost vs benefits of these treaties, even assuming they wre followed through on by all members, does not even come close to making sense. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Riverwind Posted October 13, 2009 Report Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) No doubt, but that's just tough. Cooking bitumen for fun and profit takes a lot of energy. Do you really think Canada deserves a pass because of "geographic hardship" compared to other nations?The entire system of accounting for CO2 emissions is bogus to start with because it is based on a country's historical emissions rates. What this means is that relatively efficient producers that happen to be in developed countries are slapped with huge penalties while the inefficient producers in third world countries get a license to emit for free. What this means is any attempt to tax oil sands production will simply force those investment dollars to locales with no limits and the net result will be higher global CO2 emissions because the efficient Canadian processes are replaced with the less efficient processes.If CO2 is a problem then there must be a global price for CO2 with no freebies for developing countries. This is how it works with the price of oil or food (i.e. China does not get to buy oil at less the market rate because it is a 'poor' country). Anyone who claims that the are 'using free market' principals but wants to give permits awya for free needs a remedial course in 'free markets'. I realize that such an approach is a political non-starter but it does mean Canada has no obligation to sign onto a system of allocating credits which is grossly unfair to Canada. Edited October 13, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Posted October 13, 2009 ....I realize that such an approach is a political non-starter but it does mean Canada has no obligation to sign onto a system of allocating credits which is grossly unfair to Canada. Agreed...such an approach is DOA....even PM Chretien knew that! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
noahbody Posted October 13, 2009 Report Posted October 13, 2009 Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool." The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land. But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years. http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scie...0571/story.html I would like to see one politician point to this and say, "WTF are we doing here?" Quote
eyeball Posted October 13, 2009 Report Posted October 13, 2009 But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years. Ever wonder why people put ice-cubes into drinks? 10 - 20 years? That's like forever almost. Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans, but it will resume Hey, my ice cube melted and my drink is getting warm...again. Go figure. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
noahbody Posted October 13, 2009 Report Posted October 13, 2009 Ever wonder why people put ice-cubes into drinks?10 - 20 years? That's like forever almost. Hey, my ice cube melted and my drink is getting warm...again. Go figure. Here's an experiment for you: Throw an ice cube in an olympic size pool and see if how much it changes the temperature. Quote
Riverwind Posted October 13, 2009 Report Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Here's an experiment for you: Throw an ice cube in an olympic size pool and see if how much it changes the temperature.Actually it has to be more than that - he would have to subtract the effect of the summer melt which has been happening every summer for the last 10,000 years and calculate the effect of the small increase in melt rate that we has seen in the last 5 years. The effect would be incredibly tiny. Edited October 13, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Moonlight Graham Posted October 13, 2009 Report Posted October 13, 2009 Actually there is no "truth" in that statement. First, the link between natural disasters and climate change is tenuous to non-existent. Ok, enough with the hearsay. Can you provide peer-reviewed scholarly sources for your claims? I can. I did a quick search on a local University online database portal of peer-reviewed scholarly journals. I entered keywords "global warming", "climate change", "droughts", "floods", "hurricanes", and here's 4 journal articles i quickly found. I will cite each work, followed by a copy of the entire abstract of the article (i'm obviously not going to copy & post the entire articles). Feel free to look them up yourself. Qiang Zhang, Marco Gemmer, and Jiaqi Chen Climate changes and flood/drought risk in the Yangtze Delta, China, during the past millennium (in Quaternary studies in Korea) Quaternary International (January 2008), 176-177 62-69 ABSTRACT: Climate changes and flood/drought risk in the Yangtze Delta, China, during the past millennium (in ) Qiang Zhang, Marco Gemmer, and Jiaqi Chen Elsevier, United Kingdom, Oxford - Reconstructed historical temperature and flood/drought variations based on historical records for the Yangtze Delta are analyzed with the help of power spectral and continuous wavelet analyses. Three distinct climate periods can be identified in the Yangtze Delta: Warm Medieval Period (AD 1000-1400), Little Ice Age (AD 1400-1920), and the ongoing well-established Global Warming Period (AD 1920-present). The variability of temperature is of great magnitude, and periods dominated by warm/cold temperature are usually interrupted by cold/warm periods. A comparison of flood/drought variations and temperature variations indicates that there are obviously no fixed modes of climate changes such as warm-wet, cold-wet, warm-dry or cold-dry. However, the results demonstrate that large-magnitude temperature variations usually lead to a higher frequency of flood/drought hazards in the Yangtze Delta. Furthermore, the frequency of flood/drought events usually increased in the transition periods from one climate state to another. The ongoing period of climate change is another transition from cold temperatures during the Little Ice Age to increasing temperatures and variability. This might increase the probability and reoccurrence of flood/drought events and other extreme climate events in the Yangtze Delta. Jacques Merle South Pacific climate variability and its impact on low-lying islands (in Variations climatiques et ressources en eau en Amerique du sud; importance et consequences des evenement El Nino Climate change and water resources in South America; importance and consequences of El Nino events) Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d'Etudes Andines = Boletin del Instituto Frances de Estudios Andinos (1998), 27(3):461-473 ABSTRACT: South Pacific climate variability and its impact on low-lying islands (in ) Jacques Merle Institut Francais d'Etudes Andines, Peru, Lima The climatic environment of the South Pacific region is characterised by the intense ocean atmosphere interaction which impacts the life and other environmental parameters of the region. Two main phenomenon are conditioning the climate variability of the region: El Nino and the Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the global warming. These two components of the climate changes are affecting the sea level rise, the life in the ocean, the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, the occurrence of droughts and floods, the agricultural potentiality, the health of coastal regions including lagoons and reefs. James C. Knox Sensitivity of large upper Mississippi River floods to climate change (in Geological Society of America, 2002 annual meeting, Anonymous,) Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America (October 2002), 34(6):514 ABSTRACT: Sensitivity of large upper Mississippi River floods to climate change (in , Anonymous,) James C. Knox Geological Society of America (GSA), United States, Boulder, CO - Long, century-scale, instrument records for the upper Mississippi River (UMR) support the idea that extreme floods tend to be more sensitive to climatic change than are high-frequency low-magnitude floods, and a similar relationship is indicated in the geologic record of floods during approximately the last 7000 years. The high sensitivity between large floods and climate change naturally raises concerns about possible related hydrologic consequences of global warming. Model results and instrument records both support the idea that global warming magnifies hydrologic variability and enhances the hydrologic cycle of the UMR basin. A relatively high-resolution sedimentary record of UMR floods is present along the river reach on Wisconsin's western border because both the channel and floodplain have been progressively aggrading throughout the Holocene. Centimeter scale vertical analyses of sediment properties indicate that large floods on the UMR have commonly accompanied the beginning of warm and dry climate episodes in the region, but long-term persistence of warming and drought eventually result in smaller floods of high short-term variability. Thus, a general tendency for moderate to relatively large floods between about 7000 and 5500 years ago, followed by an episode of smaller floods between about 5500 and 3300 years ago, then returning to generally larger floods after about 3000 years ago is broadly coincident with modest shifts in local climate conditions from cool/moist to warm/dry and back to cool/moist during the same times. Short-term occurrences of large floods were common about 4700, 2500-2200, 1800-1500, 1280, 1000-750, and 550-400 calendar years B.P., all times that approximate rapid warming and drought in the upper Midwest identified by others. The recent high frequency of large floods on the UMR since the early 1990s may be a modern analogue because these floods have accompanied major hemispheric warming during the same period. Research was supported by the National Science Foundation (ATM-0112614). M. Beuhler Potential impacts of global warming on water resources in Southern California (in ) Water Science and Technology (2003), 47(7-8):165-168 ABSTRACT: Potential impacts of global warming on water resources in Southern California M. Beuhler Pergamon, International, Oxford-New York - Global warming will have a significant impact on water resources within the 20 to 30-year planning period of many water projects. Arid and semi-arid regions such as Southern California are especially vulnerable to anticipated negative impacts of global warming or water resources. Long-range water facility planning must consider global climate change in the recommended mix of new facilities needed to meet future water requirements. The generally accepted impacts of global warming include increased temperature, rising sea levels, more frequent and severe floods and droughts, and a shift from snowfall to rain. Precipitation changes are more difficult to predict. For Southern California, these impacts will be especially severe on surface water supplies. Additionally, rising sea levels will exacerbate salt-water intrusion into freshwater and impact the quality of surface water supplies. Integrated water resources planning is emerging as a tool to develop water supplies and demand management strategies that are less vulnerable to the impacts of global warning. These tools include water conservation, reclamation, conjunctive use of surface and groundwater and desalination of brackish water and possibly seawater. Additionally, planning for future water needs should include explicit consideration of the potential range of global warming impacts through techniques such as scenario planning. There's my evidence of the "link between natural disasters and climate change". I'm sure i could probably find 500 similar articles easily. It really doesn't take journals though to see how warm temperatures affect the severity of weather. Go to any lake during the summer. If it is a relatively sunny & warm day (say 25 degrees C or higher) there will likely be some kind of breeze, and there will almost certainly be waves on the lake water. At around near dusk or dawn on that same day & through the night, unless there is a storm system that comes through, you will see the waves dramatically drop in size, sometimes even stopping completely & the water looks like glass. The only difference in variables here is 1) temperature and 2) sunlight. This is very observable, i see it all the time at my cottage. Anyways, I invite you to post some scholarly evidence for your claims. Second, specific disasters such as drought and floods can be brought on by land use changes (i.e. chop down all of the forests - bring on drought). This means that any such events are just as likely to be the fault of the third world governments as it is the fault of CO2. Your claim on land use seems logical. I'm sure this affects flood & droughts. I would appreciate some sources on these claims though if you have them. Lastly, the social and economic toll of disasters is directly correlated with over population and bad government - neither of which are the fault of taxpayers in developed countries.IOW - the entire idea of "compensation" for climate change is nothing but extortion by various activists groups and apologists for third world dictators. The vast consensus among development theorists, political scientists, and historians agree that European colonialism of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (ie: developing countries) was by far the #1 factor in the underdevelopment (economic, social, and political) and political instability of third world countries. So Europeans of particular countries are greatly at fault, though whether their currently living descendants spread across the globe should be held responsible in any way for this is obviously debatable. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.