Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Worthy of consideration of course, but he's one guy. Let's hear from others too, maybe build a "consensus" around what the effects could be, shall we?

Did I mention this was a peer reviewed journal paper, and not an opinion piece?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm calling ******** on this. China has a vast internal requirement to meet, which means they won't have power to export for some time. Further, I don't see Europe getting so impoverished that they'd suddenly drop all their principles to buy Chinese energy from coal. And Russia needs to keep selling gas to Europe and we know there's a world glut on that.

Believe what you will. Me, I assume the reporting of this that has appeared in the Financial Times, the New York Times and just about every medium that covers global energy policy is correct. And, you may not understand the situation China is in. They have vast over capacity in energy production, as official Chinese news outlets will tell you. China Accelerates Efforts to Combat Overcapacity – China Business Review

Notwithstanding the over capacity acknowledged by government sources and hand waving over reducing that capacity they are adding to it. India, China planned coal plants could blow UN warming target | Climate Home - climate change news; More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show | Environment | The Guardian

To deliver this power, the Chinese are making significant investments in Ultra High Voltage power transmission that will allow them to sell energy throughout Asia and Europe. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/...wer-to-europe/

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That one coal-plant per week stat is a bit dated; now that China's exports aren't growing quite as fast, I don't think they will be sticking to that schedule.

Outdated to you, but not to many others as recently as 5 days ago. Why Is China Still Building New Coal Plants?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There are other benefits to reducing reliance on fossil-fuels besides reducing AGW.

No doubt. The question is whether, if the anthropogenic global warming is unaffected by carbon reduction targets as Lomborg demonstrates it is worth trillions upon trillions to achieve those "other benefits".

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Italicized line is also BS, sorry. All feasible energy alternatives, including nuclear, are on the table.

Oh really. And all this time I thought it was environmentalists who have successfully made nuclear power too expensive to be practical. Must have been someone else.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The US has all but stopped supporting ITER although other less rich countries continue to support it. The lack of US support will delay that project by years and if it fails the proximate cause could be a lack of supporting talent and technology. The money wasted on Solyndra and other green boondoggles (look up the story on the huge solar plant in the Mojave desert) could accelerate ITER by perhaps a decade. This is especially maddening given that we have known for decades how the physics of a fusion system would work. We now need to solve some extremely complex engineering and materials problems. The US spent more on the space shuttle than fusion would require to perfect and probably take less time. Much more money and lives were wasted on the Middle East wars which the UN catalyzed through endless resolutions.

Blaming the UN for Middle East wars is MILES off the truth. Let's not go there, ok? other than to agree that some countries have spent hella big money on inconclusive wars that could have gone towards fusion, or curing cancer or fighting famine, or ending child poverty, or any number of better uses.

Given that those same governments could unilaterally fund wars or bail out banks and other such big $$ unpopular decisions... I don't believe that the green movement by itself is responsible for halting nuclear development and construction. As described in this initiative, developing something like fusion or the next generation of nuclear generator is a huge undertaking requiring a decade or more of commitment and cooperation between government and industry; it's not something that either can or will undertake on their own.

Solyndra? Boohoo. (btw, you do know Solyndra was straight-up corporate fraud, not government ineptitude, right?) What about Tesla, where the government made their money back with interest? You can't be shouting for more involvement and investment in energy, then complain about the few investments that go south. The money required to develop fusion will make Solyndra look like a rounding error.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Instead they are all trying to find a way to "redistribute wealth" as a means of controlling GW. The idiocy boggles the mind.

You are right about idiocy. Only an idiot believes the "wealth distribution"conspiracy theory.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You are right about idiocy. Only an idiot believes the "wealth distribution"conspiracy theory.

Or perhaps the reverse.

“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” - Senator Tim Wirth at the Rio Climate Summit

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order" - Mikhail Gorbachev

"A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect" - Richard Benedick, Asst. U.S. Secretary of State.

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth" - Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

Yep. Plenty of idiots running around. Those that make statements like those above, and those who don't believe the statements mean what they say.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Did I mention this was a peer reviewed journal paper, and not an opinion piece?

Yes you did.

Believe what you will. Me, I assume the reporting of this that has appeared in the Financial Times, the New York Times and just about every medium that covers global energy policy is correct. And, you may not understand the situation China is in. They have vast over capacity in energy production, as official Chinese news outlets will tell you. China Accelerates Efforts to Combat Overcapacity – China Business Review

Sept 2010...

More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show | Environment | The Guardian

Nov 2012...

To deliver this power, the Chinese are making significant investments in Ultra High Voltage power transmission that will allow them to sell energy throughout Asia and Europe. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/...wer-to-europe/

Asia is a natural market for Chinese electricity, and the west is asleep at the switch when it comes to providing leadership and lower-polluting alternatives to developing countries. I don't believe that Europe will become a significant consumer of Chinese electricity.

Outdated to you, but not to many others as recently as 5 days ago. Why Is China Still Building New Coal Plants?

heh. Did you actually read the article? Here are some quotes:

The country’s carbon emissions may be declining more than a decade earlier than anticipated, thanks in part to reductions in coal power.

...

“In short, Chinese provinces are promoting construction of unneeded coal plants for precisely the same reason they are promoting every other kind of construction as well,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, Senior Global Campaigner at Greenpeace, “to boost economic activity in the short term, often with little regard for longer-term profitability or debt problems. There is generally no oversight or due diligence for obtaining finance for projects like this.”


China is ramping up capacity from wind and solar, which are rapidly displacing coal. Myllyvirta says existing coal plants are now operating at below 50 percent of capacity, with consequences for the mining sector. Facing an oversupply of cheap coal, Beijing aims to close 1,000 mines this year. As the national government draws down coal production, the response for coal-producing provinces has been to build more power plants.


...


Beijing is trying to keep the problem in check. China’s National Energy Administration has ordered 13 provincial governments to stop approving new coal-fired power plants and ordered 15 provinces to halt construction of coal-fired power plants that have already been approved.


...


For Mylyvirta, it’s not all bad news. “A key reason why China is developing overcapacity in coal mining and coal power is the rapid and successful deployment of clean energy, which is making new coal plants redundant,” he explained. Provincial governments are vying to keep to jobs threatened by growth wind and solar.

The shift to renewable power promises new jobs, breathable air and a vibrant clean energy sector, but the move is not without its challenges. China’s transition to a clean energy economy could prove instructive to other nations aiming to move away from fossil fuels.

So... great link. Thanks!

No doubt. The question is whether, if the anthropogenic global warming is unaffected by carbon reduction targets as Lomborg demonstrates it is worth trillions upon trillions to achieve those "other benefits".

Haven't we talked about this "alarmist" thing already?

And all this time I thought it was environmentalists who have successfully made nuclear power too expensive to be practical. Must have been someone else.

There's other reasons besides "environmentalists" for why nuclear power hasn't received more attention. Absurdly cheap fossil fuel won't make that better any time soon.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Or perhaps the reverse.



Yep. Plenty of idiots running around. Those that make statements like those above, and those who don't believe the statements mean what they say.

Only an idiot uncritically copies the quote mined, out of context, material from c3headlines.

[transmitterdan]

The money to make fusion viable is less than Middle East wars, less than the space shuttle, less than the investment to make solar and wind 50% of our energy usage. In reality fusion would cost less than just about any other "green" idea that's been floated. But fusion research does not line the pockets of corrupt uninvolved governments nor their corporate cronies. At least so far they haven't found a way. The money for fusion research goes to so-called "rich" countries like France/EU, India, South Korea, China and the like. Little or no money flows to poor countries except maybe for raw materials.

And for sure global warming is a cause that attracts numerous advocates of wealth redistribution. If you don't believe that then you are in denial. The scientists may not see that as a solution but there are hordes of politicians that do.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The money to make fusion viable is less than Middle East wars, less than the space shuttle, less than the investment to make solar and wind 50% of our energy usage. In reality fusion would cost less than just about any other "green" idea that's been floated.

I hate to tell you this, but you and James Hansen agree on nuclear energy.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Only an idiot uncritically copies the quote mined, out of context, material from c3headlines.

Yeah, just like the idiot that calls graphs from a skeptic's website fake, and those from an alarmist's accurate even though they plot the same data.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

And for sure global warming is a cause that attracts numerous advocates of wealth redistribution. If you don't believe that then you are in denial. The scientists may not see that as a solution but there are hordes of politicians that do.

I deny the "wealth distribution" meme as pure unadulterated conspiracy theory.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yeah, just like the idiot that calls graphs from a skeptic's website fake, and those from an alarmist's accurate even though they plot the same data.

I did admit the the graph was cherry picked. While not entirely fake, it was sure misrepresented.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I did admit the the graph was cherry picked. While not entirely fake, it was sure misrepresented.

No it wasn't. You just like to make things up to suit your argument.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

No it wasn't. You just like to make things up to suit your argument.

It does not include that whole data set which shows long term warming. That meets the classic definition of cherry pick.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I deny the "wealth distribution" meme as pure unadulterated conspiracy theory.

Yes but are you now...or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

Isn't it fun to see that nothing ever really changes...just different lyrics to the same tune....

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I deny the "wealth distribution" meme as pure unadulterated conspiracy theory.

The facts that have been presented on the " wealth distribution" meme has been shown on paper to be fact. Therefore you are correct its not a conspiracy theory.