Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[freeski]

Urgent Climate Change Update:

Excelsior

A phrase often shouted after succesfully completing a mission.

A famous southpark episode depicts Al Gore shouting "Excelsior" after defeating Manbearpig.
Unfortunately, Al Gore is still searching for Manbearpig in real life.

[/from Urban Dictionary, so you know it's true.]

[Bubba]

EIA: Coal generation will top natural gas in 2018

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/eia-coa ... 18/448932/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

•Coal generation will exceed natural gas this year as well as next, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted in its most recent Short Term Energy Outlook. Rising exports of natural gas, along with consumption and prices, will help fuel the trend.

•The total share of gas-fired utility-scale generation this year will average 31%, down from more than a third last year, Coal's share of United States generation rises from 30% last year to almost 32% this year. Looking ahead to next year, those levels are expected to remain stable.

•The projected generation shares for natural gas and coal are nearly identical in 2018, averaging between 31% and 32%.

Coal isn't going away any time soon, and according to the EIA, will still be the United States' top generating fuel for at least a couple more years.

According to EIA data, total U.S. electricity generation from utility-scale power plants averaged 11,145 GWh/day in 2016. While that figure will decline a bit more than 1% this year, 2018 generation will rebound 1.8% next year, "largely on a forecast of colder temperatures during the first quarter ... and on the expectation of a growing economy."

A rise in natural gas exports will keep prices high, and allow coal generation to maintain its position. Dry natural gas production is forecast to average 73.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) this year — a 1.2 Bcf/d increase from the 2016 level. According to EIA, gas production next year will reach 3.9 Bcf/d above the 2017 level.

This month and next, EIA expects Henry Hub gas to average about $3/MMBtu, but "higher natural gas exports and growing domestic natural gas consumption in 2018 contribute to the forecast Henry Hub natural gas spot price rising." Those prices will rise from an annual average of $3.06/MMBtu in 2017 to $3.29/MMBtu in 2018.

Wind capacity at the end of 2016 was 81 GW, and EIA expects wind capacity additions in the forecast will bring total wind capacity to 88 GW by the end of 2017 and to 102 GW by the end of 2018. Total utility-scale solar capacity at the end of 2016 was 22 GW, and will rise to 29 GW by the end of 2017 and to 32 GW by the end of 2018.

As for greenhouse gases, following a 1.7% decline in CO2 emissions last year, they are projected to decrease 0.3% in 2017 and then to increase 2% in 2018, on factors including weather, economic growth and energy prices.

[Mister Moose]

It is more than apparent that Obama's concern with China was focused more on climate change accords than applying serious pressure and sanctions on the known Chinese banks and Chinese companies that do business with North Korea, and who are giving them materials and technology to build their nuclear program.

It is becoming increasingly short sighted to place so much foreign policy resources on climate change, vs nuclear weapon containment. If you think the earth's temperature going up a half degree Celsius is of grave concern, consider a 25 kiloton bomb going off. Or several.

[rogman]

It is more than apparent that Obama's concern with China was focused more on climate change accords than applying serious pressure and sanctions on the known Chinese banks and Chinese companies that do business with North Korea, and who are giving them materials and technology to build their nuclear program.

It is becoming increasingly short sighted to place so much foreign policy resources on climate change, vs nuclear weapon containment. If you think the earth's temperature going up a half degree Celsius is of grave concern, consider a 25 kiloton bomb going off. Or several.

Bit naive; it has never been an "either/or" thing. Way too many issues here:
1. North Korea probably is unwilling to give up their nuclear ambitions just because China exerts additional economic pressure.
2. Both Clinton and Bush tried making deals and concessions to NK, in all cases North Korea violated the agreements. Obama's position has been to not even negotiate until North Korea agrees to give up nuclear ambitions. Also flawed, because that wasn't and isn't happening.
3. China shares a large border with NK, instability (i.e. regime change in North Korea) probably isn't in China's best interest since it would ultimately create a refugee crisis. Why should China suddenly care that NK's missiles can hit the US when those same missiles have been able to hit China for years? China is not going to act in ways that destabilize North Korea, because that would hurt themselves.
4. Saber rattling by the US is counter productive: it allows Kim Jong-un to escalate the rhetoric. He (probably) won't attack Guam, but the threats play well with his people. Regardless, it doesn't make much sense for the US to threaten an enemy that has less to lose than the US does.

You're looking for a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem: blaming Obama, blaming global warming isn't the answer. We've learned to live with India and Pakistan having the bomb, I suspect we will have to learn with North Korea having it as well.

And for what it is worth, IMO both Mr. Moose's post as well as my own should be nuked.

[Mister Moose]

It is more than apparent that Obama's concern with China was focused more on climate change accords than applying serious pressure and sanctions on the known Chinese banks and Chinese companies that do business with North Korea, and who are giving them materials and technology to build their nuclear program.

It is becoming increasingly short sighted to place so much foreign policy resources on climate change, vs nuclear weapon containment. If you think the earth's temperature going up a half degree Celsius is of grave concern, consider a 25 kiloton bomb going off. Or several.

Bit naive; it has never been an "either/or" thing. Way too many issues here:
1. North Korea probably is unwilling to give up their nuclear ambitions just because China exerts additional economic pressure.
2. Both Clinton and Bush tried making deals and concessions to NK, in all cases North Korea violated the agreements. Obama's position has been to not even negotiate until North Korea agrees to give up nuclear ambitions. Also flawed, because that wasn't and isn't happening.
3. China shares a large border with NK, instability (i.e. regime change in North Korea) probably isn't in China's best interest since it would ultimately create a refugee crisis. Why should China suddenly care that NK's missiles can hit the US when those same missiles have been able to hit China for years? China is not going to act in ways that destabilize North Korea, because that would hurt themselves.
4. Saber rattling by the US is counter productive: it allows Kim Jong-un to escalate the rhetoric. He (probably) won't attack Guam, but the threats play well with his people. Regardless, it doesn't make much sense for the US to threaten an enemy that has less to lose than the US does.

You're looking for a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem: blaming Obama, blaming global warming isn't the answer. We've learned to live with India and Pakistan having the bomb, I suspect we will have to learn with North Korea having it as well.

And for what it is worth, IMO both Mr. Moose's post as well as my own should be nuked.

"No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change," said Obama

I never said either or. I said Obama was placing climate change above nuclear containment. That's true, and has nothing to do with naiveté. Sure earlier Presidents made their contribution, but the first nuclear test was on Obama's watch. Go back as far as you like.

1. Agree.
2. Yes. Learn from it.
3. Because they are now nuclear and that rewrites the whole equation. The world will hold China partially responsible. Even China will have limits on how much DPRK nonsense they will tolerate if it affects their economy too greatly.
4. Ultimately, DPRK will lose to a nuclear war. They have way more to lose than we do in that regard. A conventional war if again a proxy war with China would be a slow painful road to nowhere.

I didn't blame Obama (singularly, although he contributed) for our present dilemma. I do blame Obama for prioritizing climate change above world security. There are things more important than climate change.

[rogman]

It is more than apparent that Obama's concern with China was focused more on climate change accords than applying serious pressure and sanctions on the known Chinese banks and Chinese companies that do business with North Korea, and who are giving them materials and technology to build their nuclear program.

It is becoming increasingly short sighted to place so much foreign policy resources on climate change, vs nuclear weapon containment. If you think the earth's temperature going up a half degree Celsius is of grave concern, consider a 25 kiloton bomb going off. Or several.

Bit naive; it has never been an "either/or" thing. Way too many issues here:
1. North Korea probably is unwilling to give up their nuclear ambitions just because China exerts additional economic pressure.
2. Both Clinton and Bush tried making deals and concessions to NK, in all cases North Korea violated the agreements. Obama's position has been to not even negotiate until North Korea agrees to give up nuclear ambitions. Also flawed, because that wasn't and isn't happening.
3. China shares a large border with NK, instability (i.e. regime change in North Korea) probably isn't in China's best interest since it would ultimately create a refugee crisis. Why should China suddenly care that NK's missiles can hit the US when those same missiles have been able to hit China for years? China is not going to act in ways that destabilize North Korea, because that would hurt themselves.
4. Saber rattling by the US is counter productive: it allows Kim Jong-un to escalate the rhetoric. He (probably) won't attack Guam, but the threats play well with his people. Regardless, it doesn't make much sense for the US to threaten an enemy that has less to lose than the US does.

You're looking for a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem: blaming Obama, blaming global warming isn't the answer. We've learned to live with India and Pakistan having the bomb, I suspect we will have to learn with North Korea having it as well.

And for what it is worth, IMO both Mr. Moose's post as well as my own should be nuked.

"No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change," said Obama

I never said either or. I said Obama was placing climate change above nuclear containment. That's true, and has nothing to do with naiveté. Sure earlier Presidents made their contribution, but the first nuclear test was on Obama's watch. Go back as far as you like.

1. Agree.
2. Yes. Learn from it.
3. Because they are now nuclear and that rewrites the whole equation. The world will hold China partially responsible. Even China will have limits on how much DPRK nonsense they will tolerate if it affects their economy too greatly.
4. Ultimately, DPRK will lose to a nuclear war. They have way more to lose than we do in that regard. A conventional war if again a proxy war with China would be a slow painful road to nowhere.

I didn't blame Obama (singularly, although he contributed) for our present dilemma. I do blame Obama for prioritizing climate change above world security. There are things more important than climate change.

As you're someone who equates the issue of climate change as being little more than a butter versus margarine debate, it's about what I'd expect from you. Obama wasn't, and still isn't, wrong. North Korea does not pose a real threat, as long as cooler heads prevail in the White House, as opposed to the silly posturing for the sake of the Republican base that is occurring now. Regardless, I'll state it again, climate change or world security is not an either/or proposition.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

As you're someone who equates the issue of climate change as being little more than a butter versus margarine debate, it's about what I'd expect from you. Obama wasn't, and still isn't, wrong. North Korea does not pose a real threat, as long as cooler heads prevail in the White House, as opposed to the silly posturing for the sake of the Republican base that is occurring now. Regardless, I'll state it again, climate change or world security is not an either/or proposition.

Again it is your certainty that mocks you. The reason butter/margarine issue entered this thread was to point out that your go-to argument: "there is a strong scientific consensus..." which you use ad nauseum to justify the nonsense energy policies which could cripple our country... is simply unjustified. ANY scientific claim is only scientific if it can be challenged. The idea that the existence of a "scientific consensus" somehow insures its veracity is demolished by the demolition os the "butter/margarine" consensus which was larger and longer-lived.

As for your certainty that "North Korea does not pose a real threat"....wow! Obama assured us we would never get to the point we have gotten to with North Korea... so the predictive abilities of "your side" on this issue are about as impressive as your climate predictions. Not. The idea, stated explicitly, that climate change is more dangerous than terrorism formed the basis of policies which wasted untold amounts of our wealth and energies combating the evils of CO2 (a beneficial trace gas in our atmosphere) while our real dangers were ignored. So...no. You mislead. A nation only has certain resources at any point in history and we wasted ours on the wrong issues.

[Mister Moose]

North Korea does not pose a real threat, as long as cooler heads prevail in the White House

The reason butter/margarine issue entered this thread was to point out that your go-to argument: "there is a strong scientific consensus..." ...is simply unjustified.

As for your certainty that "North Korea does not pose a real threat"....wow!

"Cooler heads" prevailing has never successfully staved off an aggressor bent on his goal. North Korea has remained intact for 64 years without nuclear weapons. So why now does KJU feel the need to develop them? They already possess adequate first strike deterrence in their ability to demolish Seoul. They still live under the friendly umbrella of China. "Cooler heads" need to adequately answer that question before they declare there is no threat.

Interesting that you advocate for cooler heads in the Korean predicament, but no mention from you on cooler heads prevailing in climate change.

[madhatter]

North Korea does not pose a real threat, as long as cooler heads prevail in the White House

The reason butter/margarine issue entered this thread was to point out that your go-to argument: "there is a strong scientific consensus..." ...is simply unjustified.

As for your certainty that "North Korea does not pose a real threat"....wow!

"Cooler heads" prevailing has never successfully staved off an aggressor bent on his goal. North Korea has remained intact for 64 years without nuclear weapons. So why now does KJU feel the need to develop them? They already possess adequate first strike deterrence in their ability to demolish Seoul. They still live under the friendly umbrella of China. "Cooler heads" need to adequately answer that question before they declare there is no threat.

Interesting that you advocate for cooler heads in the Korean predicament, but no mention from you on cooler heads prevailing in climate change.

well duh it's getting warmer not colder...do you even science? the consensus is overwhelming, it's getting warmer...everyone agrees...

[rogman]

Paul Krugman said it better than I could, recognize yourselves?

“It’s Not Your Imagination: Summers Are Getting Hotter.” So read a recent headline in The Times, highlighting a decade-by-decade statistical analysis by climate expert James Hansen. “Most summers,” the analysis concluded, “are now either hot or extremely hot compared with the mid-20th century.”

So what else is new? At this point the evidence for human-caused global warming just keeps getting more overwhelming, and the plausible scenarios for the future — extreme weather events, rising sea levels, drought, and more — just keep getting scarier.

In a rational world urgent action to limit climate change would be the overwhelming policy priority for governments everywhere.

But the U.S. government is, of course, now controlled by a party within which climate denial — rejecting not just scientific evidence but also obvious lived experience, and fiercely opposing any effort to slow the trend — has become a defining marker of tribal identity.

Put it this way: Republicans can’t seem to repeal Obamacare, and recriminations between Senate leaders and the tweeter in chief are making headlines. But the G.O.P. is completely united behind its project of destroying civilization, and it’s making good progress toward that goal.

So where does climate denial come from?

Just to be clear, experts aren’t always right; even an overwhelming scientific consensus sometimes turns out to have been wrong. And if someone offers a good-faith critique of conventional views, a serious effort to get at the truth, he or she deserves a hearing.

What becomes clear to anyone following the climate debate, however, is that hardly any climate skeptics are in fact trying to get at the truth. I’m not a climate scientist, but I do know what bogus arguments look like — and I can’t think of a single prominent climate skeptic who isn’t obviously arguing in bad faith.

Take, for example, all the people who seized on the fact that 1998 was an unusually warm year to claim that global warming stopped 20 years ago — as if one unseasonably hot day in May proves that summer is a myth. Or all the people who cited out-of-context quotes from climate researchers as evidence of a vast scientific conspiracy.

Or for that matter, think of anyone who cites “uncertainty” as a reason to do nothing — when it should be obvious that the risks of faster-than-expected climate change if we do too little dwarf the risks of doing too much if change is slower than expected.

But what’s driving this epidemic of bad faith? The answer, I’d argue, is that there are actually three groups involved — a sort of axis of climate evil.

First, and most obvious, there’s the fossil fuel industry — think the Koch brothers — which has an obvious financial stake in continuing to sell dirty energy. And the industry — following the same well-worn path industry groups used to create doubt about the dangers of tobacco, acid r*in, the ozone hole, and more — has systematically showered money on think tanks and scientists willing to express skepticism about climate change. Many — perhaps even most — authors purporting to cast doubt on global warming turn out, on investigation, to have received financial support from the fossil fuel sector.

Still, the mercenary interests of fossil fuel companies aren’t the whole story here. There’s also ideology.

An influential part of the U.S. political spectrum — think the Wall Street Journal editorial page — is opposed to any and all forms of government economic regulation; it’s committed to Reagan’s doctrine that government is always the problem, never the solution.

Such people have always had a problem with pollution: When unregulated individual actions impose costs on others, it’s hard to see how you avoid supporting some form of government intervention. And climate change is the mother of all pollution issues.

Some conservatives are willing to face this reality and support market-friendly intervention to limit greenhouse gas emissions. But all too many prefer simply to deny the existence of the issue — if facts conflict with their ideology, they deny the facts.

Finally, there are a few public intellectuals — less important than the plutocrats and ideologues, but if you ask me even more shameful — who adopt a pose of climate skepticism out of sheer ego. In effect, they say: “Look at me! I’m smart! I’m contrarian! I’ll show you how clever I am by denying the scientific consensus!” And for the sake of this posturing, they’re willing to nudge us further down the road to catastrophe.

Which brings me back to the current political situation. Right now progressives are feeling better than they expected to a few months ago: Donald Trump and his frenemies in Congress are accomplishing a lot less than they hoped, and their opponents feared. But that doesn’t change the reality that the axis of climate evil is now firmly in control of U.S. policy, and the world may never recover.

[madhatter]

Paul Krugman said it better than I could, recognize yourselves?

“It’s Not Your Imagination: Summers Are Getting Hotter.” So read a recent headline in The Times, highlighting a decade-by-decade statistical analysis by climate expert James Hansen. “Most summers,” the analysis concluded, “are now either hot or extremely hot compared with the mid-20th century.”

So what else is new? At this point the evidence for human-caused global warming just keeps getting more overwhelming, and the plausible scenarios for the future — extreme weather events, rising sea levels, drought, and more — just keep getting scarier.

In a rational world urgent action to limit climate change would be the overwhelming policy priority for governments everywhere.

But the U.S. government is, of course, now controlled by a party within which climate denial — rejecting not just scientific evidence but also obvious lived experience, and fiercely opposing any effort to slow the trend — has become a defining marker of tribal identity.

Put it this way: Republicans can’t seem to repeal Obamacare, and recriminations between Senate leaders and the tweeter in chief are making headlines. But the G.O.P. is completely united behind its project of destroying civilization, and it’s making good progress toward that goal.

So where does climate denial come from?

Just to be clear, experts aren’t always right; even an overwhelming scientific consensus sometimes turns out to have been wrong. And if someone offers a good-faith critique of conventional views, a serious effort to get at the truth, he or she deserves a hearing.

What becomes clear to anyone following the climate debate, however, is that hardly any climate skeptics are in fact trying to get at the truth. I’m not a climate scientist, but I do know what bogus arguments look like — and I can’t think of a single prominent climate skeptic who isn’t obviously arguing in bad faith.

Take, for example, all the people who seized on the fact that 1998 was an unusually warm year to claim that global warming stopped 20 years ago — as if one unseasonably hot day in May proves that summer is a myth. Or all the people who cited out-of-context quotes from climate researchers as evidence of a vast scientific conspiracy.

Or for that matter, think of anyone who cites “uncertainty” as a reason to do nothing — when it should be obvious that the risks of faster-than-expected climate change if we do too little dwarf the risks of doing too much if change is slower than expected.

But what’s driving this epidemic of bad faith? The answer, I’d argue, is that there are actually three groups involved — a sort of axis of climate evil.

First, and most obvious, there’s the fossil fuel industry — think the Koch brothers — which has an obvious financial stake in continuing to sell dirty energy. And the industry — following the same well-worn path industry groups used to create doubt about the dangers of tobacco, acid r*in, the ozone hole, and more — has systematically showered money on think tanks and scientists willing to express skepticism about climate change. Many — perhaps even most — authors purporting to cast doubt on global warming turn out, on investigation, to have received financial support from the fossil fuel sector.

Still, the mercenary interests of fossil fuel companies aren’t the whole story here. There’s also ideology.

An influential part of the U.S. political spectrum — think the Wall Street Journal editorial page — is opposed to any and all forms of government economic regulation; it’s committed to Reagan’s doctrine that government is always the problem, never the solution.

Such people have always had a problem with pollution: When unregulated individual actions impose costs on others, it’s hard to see how you avoid supporting some form of government intervention. And climate change is the mother of all pollution issues.

Some conservatives are willing to face this reality and support market-friendly intervention to limit greenhouse gas emissions. But all too many prefer simply to deny the existence of the issue — if facts conflict with their ideology, they deny the facts.

Finally, there are a few public intellectuals — less important than the plutocrats and ideologues, but if you ask me even more shameful — who adopt a pose of climate skepticism out of sheer ego. In effect, they say: “Look at me! I’m smart! I’m contrarian! I’ll show you how clever I am by denying the scientific consensus!” And for the sake of this posturing, they’re willing to nudge us further down the road to catastrophe.

Which brings me back to the current political situation. Right now progressives are feeling better than they expected to a few months ago: Donald Trump and his frenemies in Congress are accomplishing a lot less than they hoped, and their opponents feared. But that doesn’t change the reality that the axis of climate evil is now firmly in control of U.S. policy, and the world may never recover.

krugman? HAHAHAHA holey fvcking hahahahaha.... hard to imagine anyone more out of touch w reality than krugman....

[Coydog]

krugman? HAHAHAHA holey fvcking hahahahaha.... hard to imagine anyone more out of touch w reality than krugman....

Not hard at all, just imagine our current president.

[madhatter]

krugman? HAHAHAHA holey fvcking hahahahaha.... hard to imagine anyone more out of touch w reality than krugman....

Not hard at all, just imagine our current president.

yer only argument vs trump, same w the rest of the left...let us know when ya got something tangible...your emotional argument doesn't pass even the simplest 5th graders analysis...it's quite obvious that trump was able to accurately gauge the political climate and the electorate far better than say a bunch of MIT number crunchers...or every pollster and over confident left winger...so if he's " out of touch w reality where's that leave all you lefties?

[Coydog]

krugman? HAHAHAHA holey fvcking hahahahaha.... hard to imagine anyone more out of touch w reality than krugman....

Not hard at all, just imagine our current president.

yer only argument vs trump, same w the rest of the left...let us know when ya got something tangible...your emotional argument doesn't pass even the simplest 5th graders analysis...it's quite obvious that trump was able to accurately gauge the political climate and the electorate with the help of his Russian comrads far better than say a bunch of MIT number crunchers...or every pollster and over confident left winger...so if he's " out of touch w reality where's that leave all you lefties?

Us "lefties" are a humorously curious if Gump and his "alternative facts" will make it through a full term without Ruskie support. But as long as he remains completely inept and somehow manages not to set the world on fire, we're all good, thank you.

Meanwhile, 2016 is the hottest year on record - including UAH data, so maybe the "Apprentice President" is setting the world on fire after all, 'cause it sure can't be the CO2.

[madhatter]

krugman? HAHAHAHA holey fvcking hahahahaha.... hard to imagine anyone more out of touch w reality than krugman....

Not hard at all, just imagine our current president.

yer only argument vs trump, same w the rest of the left...let us know when ya got something tangible...your emotional argument doesn't pass even the simplest 5th graders analysis...it's quite obvious that trump was able to accurately gauge the political climate and the electorate with the help of his Russian comrads far better than say a bunch of MIT number crunchers...or every pollster and over confident left winger...so if he's " out of touch w reality where's that leave all you lefties?

Us "lefties" are a humorously curious if Gump and his "alternative facts" will make it through a full term without Ruskie support. But as long as he remains completely inept and somehow manages not to set the world on fire, we're all good, thank you. oh yeah how's that russia thing going? yeah nowhere, fast...

Meanwhile, 2016 is the hottest year on record - including UAH data, so maybe the "Apprentice President" is setting the world on fire after all, 'cause it sure can't be the CO2.

haven't had a day over 90 here...vt must not be global...maybe if we raise taxes...