2014 was one of the 3% coldest years in the last 10,000

bad analogy, thanks. you have no idea the output in the upper atmosphere because you refuse to do an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does when added. So money is not logarithmic. CO2 is. Nice try, but just another lie.

Where is the heat at today that you all claim is there. There ought to be a hot spot yet satellites don't show one. Well?

 

the dude/dudette doesn't have any proof, he/she doesn't feel like doing experiments in science is necessary.

 

Because the last time CO2 levels were this high and stayed that way, sea levels were 100 feet higher than today. That's dangerous. Because every mass extinction in the geological record is associated with rapid climate change. That's dangerous. Because 90% of everything you eat evolved under a very different climate that the one we're heading toward. That's dangerous.

If we adopt my policy and I'm wrong, we get a cleaner planet. If we adopt your policy and you're wrong, it's the end of civilization. So which policy makes more sense to adopt?

Maybe there are unicorns and fairies in the garden! Maybe Jesus will come again in a UFO! Such statements can only be described as either complete fantasy or willful ignorance.


What about this is "returning to equilibrium"? What "equilibrium" are we "returning" to?

And this nonsense turns out to come from ... some blogger in Denierstan, sitting at his computer in his pajamas, unencumbered by any requirement for actual evidence or data. And somehow this takes precedence, in the mind of Natural Born, over peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Because ALL CRAP FROM DENIERSTAN is perfect and unimpeachable in the denier mind, no matter how utterly ridiculous it is, while ALL REAL SCIENCE is invariably wrong in the denier mind, no matter how well done it is.

Thanks for the lesson in denier psychology, NB. But we're still waiting for any actual data about volcanoes.

While we're waiting for that, you might try reading this.

Or you might try a little math, if you can follow it. We know from industrial records that human beings have dug up, or pumped up, and burned, some 374 billion tonnes of fossil carbon between 1751 and 2013. If you burn 374 billion tonnes of carbon, you get 1.44 trillion tonnes of CO2. Divide that by the total mass of the atmosphere, and you get 279 ppm by mass, which is 184 ppm by volume. That's what we know we've added to the air.

But when you look at ice core records, the atmospheric fraction of CO2 didn't rise by 184 ppmv between 1751 and 2013. It only rose by 119 ppmv. So what happened to the remaining 65 ppmv that we know we emitted? It was absorbed by the natural world, by the oceans and the soils. Which means that the natural world as a whole must be acting as a net sink on some of the CO2 we emit. Which means that the natural world cannot also be acting as a net source of CO2. Which means that us human beings are responsible for 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

Q.E.D.

 

wrong, we adopt your policy poor people die. That's a bad policy. Our policy, nothing happens, you live out your life and I live out mine. My kids nd my grand kids and theirs and so on. BTW, humans can't stop natural variability. Whoa more silliness in the old forum. WOW, simply WOW.

 

Who is "Dr. Tim Ball" and why do his musing deserve significant weight?

 

http://io9.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-five-ice-ages-of-471281603

So it looks like our current interglacial period will end whether we accelerate it or not. Gosh, you mean we cannot control the earth's climate cycle Who woulda' thunk it?

 

No, that's a kook right ring myth, unsupported by any evidence. Hence, you believe it absolutely, and it's now part of your religion.

Now, back in the real world, it's cheaper to put localized renewable energy into areas without a grid than it is to build and maintain a grid. Especially in any area with insurgent activity, as a grid is an easy target. The kooks tend to just say "Look how cheap coal is!", without factoring in the cost to build and maintain a long-distance grid.

 

How dare those kooks, building out coal fired generation and distribution across long distances in the US, who would have ever thought that in one of the most free markets in the world folks would all be kooks!!

Good things we subjugated the locals more than a century ago and they didn't grow to become insurgents!!

 

Renewables essentially didn't exist when our grid was built.

Hence, your argument fails hard in the common sense department.

 

Please explain how a revenue-neutral carbon tax causes anyone to die. In BC, the economy is booming.

 

huh? Arent you the ones proposing carbon credits? What is factually wrong with that? when you do that, you will force energy hikes which the poor will be unable to afford and thus freeze to death in winter months. I know I have my facts. Now for you, you have zero facts, you've been told by me and others here and other boards you have no facts. So, show the lab work or stand as a silly person constantly posting silliness.

 

well friend, as I just wrote in my previous post, energy costs will go up because the energy companies will recoupe their money by increasing the price per KH and poor folks will be unable to afford the increase price and will die in winter months without heat.

 

No they won't. Only fossil energy prices will go up. Non-fossil energy prices remain the same. The upshot is that people switch to cheaper non-fossil sources, to keep their energy bills constant.

And somehow, nobody in BC is dying in the winter because of high heating bills, in spite of their carbon tax. Looks like your pie-in-the-sky scenario didn't really happen. That's because all the revenue from the carbon tax is returned to the people on a per-capita basis. So nobody loses.

 

Why is Germany back buying coal?

 

Because they're shutting down their nuclear plants (which is stupid). And because they don't have a carbon tax, which is also stupid.

 

from The Energy Collective

http://theenergycollective.com/jared-anderson/382141/german-lesson-renewable-power-policies

 

Well, that might be because some things are easier and cheaper to do than others. And putting up a coal fired 1 GW power plant along the banks of the Ohio River and dumping that electricity into what once were the mill and manufacturing towns of the American Midwest and along the Great Lakes certainly might be one of them.

Oh, you meant your previously comment SERIOUSLY? I just thought you were doing some mind experiment where you say stupid things to see how people will react, sort of like a troll. Because then my answer would have been who CARES what you THINK, the instant you can demonstrate how discounted the supply curve for intermittent power has to be to balance off against non-intermittent forms of power, THEN you can make claims about what is, or is not, viable in America, with or without the advantage of sunk capital.

 

As opposed to mentioning, that when they switch to renewables, their bills remain constant but their supply becomes intermittent? That might be a tough sell to even Kanucks, let alone the tourists in Vancouver who might be a wee bit surprised when they switch on their light switches after dark and nothing happens. Someone will sure notice that little issue!

 

Another site for you to go visit. From Government and Taxes --- http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2014/11/energy-econ-29-uks-renewable-problems.html

 

Green chip Stock web page----- http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/british-columbia-power-costs-increase/758

So dude, I've now supplied you with three links that prove my point. Got any for yours? Like an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to climate? just one now.

 

Be clear. Is it your claim that building coal plants and a long-distance grid to electrify every isolated village in Africa is the cheapest option right now, as compared to local renewable power sources?

Oh, you thought I was talking about replacing the USA grid with renewables? Wow, you really pooched that. The part about insurgent activity probably should have cued you that the USA wasn't being discussed.

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to be actually be smart. I can pull it off. You can't. Evading only works if people let you evade.

 

Nice strawman.

Could you point to anyone calling for 100% renewables for the entire USA right this instant?

No?

Then why did you manufacture that strawman? Why couldn't you just address what people say, instead of making up the wild story?

 

I think every isolated village in Africa should do whatever they wish to do. Windmills, PVs, coal fired plants, modular reactors, natural gas, burn wood. I don't think that "cheapest" is the prime criteria, but it might be.

The statistics related to what a single light bulb in a house does, in terms of standard of living, is amazing. I recommend seeing Han Rosling present if you ever have the chance.

http://www.gapminder.org

Depends on the exact level of delusion we are discussing. Zealots can wander pretty far afield, so who knows what brand of insurgents you were talking about.

 

A rather bold claim, considering that you never made a point to begin with. And considering that all your various sources say a dozen different things about a dozen different things. Let me know when you've actually developed a cogent argument, won't you?

As shown to you before, and still unrefuted by you, here are the experimental results, which you keep asking for, which I keep showing, and which you then keep ignoring:



Experiment: Take 1 planet, add 1400 gigatons of CO2.
Result: It gets warmer.

 

There are a lot of ways to generate electricity without using fossil fuels. Some of them are intermittant and some aren't. Such obvious truths are lost, however, in Denierstan.

Considering that BC's electricity supply is less than 10% fossil, I doubt anyone would notice it was missing.