Discussion:
A nine-state coalition could aggressively cut carbon emissions
(too old to reply)
Unum
2017-07-22 21:04:12 UTC
Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/emissions-regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative_us_5972566fe4b09e5f6ccf3888

Eight years ago, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ― made up of
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Rhode Island and Vermont ― established an interstate cap-and-trade
system that puts a limit on carbon dioxide emissions from the utility sector
and allows power companies to buy and sell permits to pollute. The program has
proven to be a notable success, reducing average utility bills by 3.4 percent,
driving $2.7 billion in economic growth and creating at least 14,200 new jobs
through energy conservation projects funded by the revenue it generates.
AlleyCat
2017-07-22 22:43:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 16:04:12 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/emissions-regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative_us_5972566fe4b09e5f6ccf3888
Eight years ago, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ? made up of
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Rhode Island and Vermont ? established an interstate cap-and-trade
system that puts a limit on carbon dioxide emissions from the utility sector
and allows power companies to buy and sell permits to pollute. The program has
proven to be a notable success, reducing average utility bills by 3.4 percent,
driving $2.7 billion in economic growth and creating at least 14,200 new jobs
through energy conservation projects funded by the revenue it generates.
It has been proven time after time, that cutting carbon emissions will NOT
lower "so-called" warming... not even by the millionths of degrees that
his butt-buddy Kymberly HorseSmell champions.

====

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100

A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global
Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate
promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.

Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in
the build-up to the December's meeting. These promises are known as
"Intended Nationally Determined Contributions" (INDCs).

Dr. Lomborg's research reveals:
The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure
the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total
temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70
years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every
promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until
the end of the century, and there is no 'CO2 leakage' to non-committed
nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises
by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved
and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by
0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.

EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved
and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by
0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.

China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully
achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global
temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

The rest of the world's climate policies, in the most optimistic
circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will
reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.

=====

The Hot Air From Paris Won't Lower Temperatures
By Bjorn Lomborg -- 2:16PM GMT 02 Dec 2015

Unfortunately, the politicians' approach to climate change is based on
far-fetched assumptions and overly optimistic scenarios. [giggle]

When the Paris climate summit wraps up on Friday next week we are likely
to see world leaders patting themselves on the back for reining in global
warming. We will see activists applaud their efforts and urge them to go
even further. What we will not see acknowledged is the reality that the
Paris climate treaty will do nothing to stop global warming.

=====

Even Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Will Not Stop Global Warming
-- By Douglas Fischer

BOULDER - Drastic, economy-changing cuts to greenhouse gas emissions will
spare the planet half the trauma expected over the next century as the
Earth warms.

But that major effort to slash emissions, the scientists warn, won't stop
global warming. The question confronting politicians throughout the world,
in other words, is not whether they want the planet to warm: It is to what
degree.

"We can no longer avoid significant warming during this century," NCAR
scientist Warren Washington, the lead author, said in a statement. But "we
could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe."
Unum
2017-07-23 00:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 16:04:12 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/emissions-regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative_us_5972566fe4b09e5f6ccf3888
Eight years ago, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ? made up of
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Rhode Island and Vermont ? established an interstate cap-and-trade
system that puts a limit on carbon dioxide emissions from the utility sector
and allows power companies to buy and sell permits to pollute. The program has
proven to be a notable success, reducing average utility bills by 3.4 percent,
driving $2.7 billion in economic growth and creating at least 14,200 new jobs
through energy conservation projects funded by the revenue it generates.
It has been proven time after time, that cutting carbon emissions will NOT
lower "so-called" warming... not even by the millionths of degrees that
his butt-buddy Kymberly HorseSmell champions.
Spamming ratboy makes a fool of himself yet again on the internet.
Post by AlleyCat
Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100
A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global
Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate
promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.
ratboy cites a paper that shows cutting carbon emissions does in
fact reduce the rate of warming.

"the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total. To limit rises
to 2.7°C, about 3,000Gt CO₂ would need to be reduced – or about 100 times more
than the Paris commitments"

"Dr. Lomborg said: “Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that
no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so
cheap everybody will shift to it."
R Kym Horsell
2017-07-23 00:21:22 UTC
Permalink
[Trimmed to non-hillbilly groups as per AIOE rules]
...
Post by Unum
Spamming ratboy makes a fool of himself yet again on the internet.
Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05^0C in 2100
A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global
Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate
promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.
ratboy cites a paper that shows cutting carbon emissions does in
fact reduce the rate of warming.
"the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO? in total. To limit rises
to 2.7^0C, about 3,000Gt CO? would need to be reduced - or about 100 times more
than the Paris commitments"
"Dr. Lomborg said: "Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that
no one wants them - which will never work - we should make green energy so
cheap everybody will shift to it."
Do these drongos ever look at the things they try to cite as "proof"
for their hillbilly fairytales?

Seems Hillbilly Davis is developing into a latter day chumpsky modolo
more methyl alcohol.
--
[Contrarily defending some 5yo contrarian paper:]

Do you REALLY think barometers from just 20 years ago, stack up against
barometers and other instruments of today?

-- Alleycat <https://www.facebook.com/gerald.r.davis.9> Davis, 10/9/2016 5:48 PM
Spain
2017-07-23 16:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
Do these drongos ever look at the things they try to cite as "proof"
for their hillbilly fairytales?
Silence, dullard!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm


Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Kym Horsell
2017-07-23 18:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spain
Post by R Kym Horsell
Do these drongos ever look at the things they try to cite as "proof"
for their hillbilly fairytales?
Silence, dullard!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
....

Dear hillbilly,

Wow. 20 yo reference citing someone that did research and paid $67 mn by Exxon. Choice!

But the tired old argument is as clever as saying on a carosel with
a white horsey and a black horsey that the white horse leads the black horsey
but the black horsey doesn't follow the white horsey.

From the modern data we know the CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by fossil
burning because it has isotopes of carbon that come from oil and coal, not from
plants and animals.

And we can just plot out the CO2 and temp and see they tend to align reasonably well on an "instant feedback" basis:

CO2 vs Global Temperature (GISTEMP): R2=.90 (practically a straight line).
<Loading Image...>

CO2 vs glob temp:
<http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:61/from:1960/normalise/plot/
esrl-co2/mean:61/normalise>

Spain
2017-07-23 16:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unum
utting carbon emissions does in
fact reduce the rate of warming
The "rate of warming" will _always_ lead to an ice age, dumb fuck!

Learn:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Ted
2017-07-23 03:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 16:04:12 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/emissions-regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative_us_5972566fe4b09e5f6ccf3888
Eight years ago, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ? made up of
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Rhode Island and Vermont ? established an interstate cap-and-trade
system that puts a limit on carbon dioxide emissions from the utility sector
and allows power companies to buy and sell permits to pollute. The program has
proven to be a notable success, reducing average utility bills by 3.4 percent,
driving $2.7 billion in economic growth and creating at least 14,200 new jobs
through energy conservation projects funded by the revenue it generates.
It has been proven time after time, that cutting carbon emissions will NOT
lower "so-called" warming... not even by the millionths of degrees that
his butt-buddy Kymberly HorseSmell champions.
====
Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100
A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global
Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate
promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.
Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in
the build-up to the December's meeting. These promises are known as
"Intended Nationally Determined Contributions" (INDCs).
The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure
the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total
temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70
years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every
promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until
the end of the century, and there is no 'CO2 leakage' to non-committed
nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises
by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved
and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by
0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved
and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by
0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.
China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully
achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global
temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
The rest of the world's climate policies, in the most optimistic
circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will
reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.
=====
The Hot Air From Paris Won't Lower Temperatures
By Bjorn Lomborg -- 2:16PM GMT 02 Dec 2015
Unfortunately, the politicians' approach to climate change is based on
far-fetched assumptions and overly optimistic scenarios. [giggle]
When the Paris climate summit wraps up on Friday next week we are likely
to see world leaders patting themselves on the back for reining in global
warming. We will see activists applaud their efforts and urge them to go
even further. What we will not see acknowledged is the reality that the
Paris climate treaty will do nothing to stop global warming.
=====
Even Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Will Not Stop Global Warming
-- By Douglas Fischer
BOULDER - Drastic, economy-changing cuts to greenhouse gas emissions will
spare the planet half the trauma expected over the next century as the
Earth warms.
But that major effort to slash emissions, the scientists warn, won't stop
global warming. The question confronting politicians throughout the world,
in other words, is not whether they want the planet to warm: It is to what
degree.
"We can no longer avoid significant warming during this century," NCAR
scientist Warren Washington, the lead author, said in a statement. But "we
could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe."
Unum is both, stupid and dishonest.
Loading...