74
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 11:30 pm
-1 Reply report Sun 17 May, 2009 11:49 pm Here is another fascinating piece of evidence, Okie--I WAIT PATIENTLY TO SEE IF PARADOS IS SO COWARDLY OR STUPID( 0ne or the other) THAT HE CANNOT AT LEAST TRY TO REBUT THESE COMMENTS. If he does not, no matter--They W I L L S T A N D UNREBUTTED.



OPINION MAY 15, 2009 Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade
No honest person thinks this will make a dent in climate change.
By MITCH DANIELS -Governor- Indiana.
This week Congress is set to release the details of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill that purports to combat global warming by setting strict limits on carbon emissions. I'm not a candidate for any office -- now or ever again -- and I've approached the "climate change" debate with an open-mind. But it's clear to me that the nation, and in particular Indiana, my home state, will be terribly disserved by this cap-and-trade policy on the verge of passage in the House.

The largest scientific and economic questions are being addressed by others, so I will confine myself to reporting about how all this looks from the receiving end of the taxes, restrictions and mandates Congress is now proposing.

Quite simply, it looks like imperialism. This bill would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers -- California, Massachusetts and New York -- seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly.

The Waxman-Markey legislation would more than double electricity bills in Indiana. Years of reform in taxation, regulation and infrastructure-building would be largely erased at a stroke. In recent years, Indiana has led the nation in capturing international investment, repatriating dollars spent on foreign goods or oil and employing Americans with them. Waxman-Markey seems designed to reverse that flow. "Closed: Gone to China" signs would cover Indiana's stores and factories.

Our state's share of national income has been slipping for decades, but it is offset in part by living costs some 8% lower than the national average. Doubled utility bills for low-income Hoosiers would be an especially cruel consequence of the Waxman bill. Forgive us for not being impressed at danglings of welfare-like repayments to some of those still employed, with some fraction of the dollars extracted from our state.

And for what? No honest estimate pretends to suggest that a U.S. cap-and-trade regime will move the world's thermometer by so much as a tenth of a degree a half century from now. My fellow citizens are being ordered to accept impoverishment for a policy that won't save a single polar bear.

We are told that although China, India and others show no signs of joining in this dismal process, we will eventually induce their participation by "setting an example." Watching the impending indigence of the Midwest, and the flow of jobs from our shores to theirs, our friends in Asia and the Third World are far more likely to choose any other path but ours.

Politicians in Washington speak of a reawakened appreciation for manufacturing and American competitiveness. But under their policy, those who make real products will suffer. Already we observe the piranha swarm of green lobbyists wangling special exemptions, subsidies and side deals. The ordinary Hoosier was not invited to this party, and can expect at most only table scraps at the service entrance.

No one in Indiana is arguing for the status quo: Hoosiers have been eager to pursue a new energy future. We rocketed from nowhere to national leadership in biofuels production in the last four years. We were the No. 1 state in the growth of wind power in 2008. And we have embarked on an aggressive energy-conservation program, indubitably the most cost-effective means of limiting CO2.

Most importantly, we are out to be the world leader in making clean coal -- including the potential for carbon capture and sequestration. The world's first commercial-scale clean coal power plant is under construction in our state, and the first modern coal-to-natural gas plant is coming right behind it. We eagerly accept the responsibility to develop alternatives to the punitive, inequitable taxation of cap and trade.

Our president has commendably committed himself to "government that works." But his imperial climate-change policy is government that cannot work, and we humble colonials out here in the provinces have no choice but to petition for relief from the Crown's impositions.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 11:33 pm
Parados apparently does not know that there is great opposition to BO's radical moves to shut down American Industry; increase the cost of energy during an economic downturn and increase the already horrendous rate of Unemployment.


OPINION MAY 15, 2009 Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade
No honest person thinks this will make a dent in climate change.
By MITCH DANIELS -Governor- Indiana.
This week Congress is set to release the details of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill that purports to combat global warming by setting strict limits on carbon emissions. I'm not a candidate for any office -- now or ever again -- and I've approached the "climate change" debate with an open-mind. But it's clear to me that the nation, and in particular Indiana, my home state, will be terribly disserved by this cap-and-trade policy on the verge of passage in the House.

The largest scientific and economic questions are being addressed by others, so I will confine myself to reporting about how all this looks from the receiving end of the taxes, restrictions and mandates Congress is now proposing.

Quite simply, it looks like imperialism. This bill would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers -- California, Massachusetts and New York -- seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly.

The Waxman-Markey legislation would more than double electricity bills in Indiana. Years of reform in taxation, regulation and infrastructure-building would be largely erased at a stroke. In recent years, Indiana has led the nation in capturing international investment, repatriating dollars spent on foreign goods or oil and employing Americans with them. Waxman-Markey seems designed to reverse that flow. "Closed: Gone to China" signs would cover Indiana's stores and factories.

Our state's share of national income has been slipping for decades, but it is offset in part by living costs some 8% lower than the national average. Doubled utility bills for low-income Hoosiers would be an especially cruel consequence of the Waxman bill. Forgive us for not being impressed at danglings of welfare-like repayments to some of those still employed, with some fraction of the dollars extracted from our state.

And for what? No honest estimate pretends to suggest that a U.S. cap-and-trade regime will move the world's thermometer by so much as a tenth of a degree a half century from now. My fellow citizens are being ordered to accept impoverishment for a policy that won't save a single polar bear.

We are told that although China, India and others show no signs of joining in this dismal process, we will eventually induce their participation by "setting an example." Watching the impending indigence of the Midwest, and the flow of jobs from our shores to theirs, our friends in Asia and the Third World are far more likely to choose any other path but ours.

Politicians in Washington speak of a reawakened appreciation for manufacturing and American competitiveness. But under their policy, those who make real products will suffer. Already we observe the piranha swarm of green lobbyists wangling special exemptions, subsidies and side deals. The ordinary Hoosier was not invited to this party, and can expect at most only table scraps at the service entrance.

No one in Indiana is arguing for the status quo: Hoosiers have been eager to pursue a new energy future. We rocketed from nowhere to national leadership in biofuels production in the last four years. We were the No. 1 state in the growth of wind power in 2008. And we have embarked on an aggressive energy-conservation program, indubitably the most cost-effective means of limiting CO2.

Most importantly, we are out to be the world leader in making clean coal -- including the potential for carbon capture and sequestration. The world's first commercial-scale clean coal power plant is under construction in our state, and the first modern coal-to-natural gas plant is coming right behind it. We eagerly accept the responsibility to develop alternatives to the punitive, inequitable taxation of cap and trade.

Our president has commendably committed himself to "government that works." But his imperial climate-change policy is government that cannot work, and we humble colonials out here in the provinces have no choice but to petition for relief from the Crown's impositions.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 12:31 am
How many times do you plan to cut and paste that screed, genoves? Indiana has been polluting our air in the east with their coal-fired plants for decades and they have fiercely resisted cleaning the damned things up. I am not willing to accept lung disease so Indiana's citizens can save a few cents on their utility bills. Screw their governor and the horse he rode in on.

MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 01:02 am
How's your math, massagato?
104 reactors in the US licensed to produce 100,000 megawatts, which is slightly less than one gigawatt per reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States

newly installed wind generation capacity in 2008, 8.4 gigawatts
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/wind_energy_growth2008_27Jan09.html

25 GW total installed as of 2008. About 75 GWto go, at 8.4 GW per year is about 9 years, massagatto. sorry, I'm right. You're not.

And apparently you know nothing much, not surprisingly, about the state of American power generation and transmission. I suggest you reread the article you posted. Notice we've got 200,000 miles of transmission lines already. That's enought to reach from coast to coast 65 times. We're talking a few thousand more miles for wind generation sites,(which, given wind patterns, are likely to be in many cases near the coasts anyway, and that' where most of the population lives). That's not a whole hell of a lot. And we have to build more and bigger systems in any case, because the present system isn't set up for efficient transfer from one region of the country to another, which is why we're getting increasingly frequent brown outs and outages. The system is outmoded. It has to be upgraded whether or not we factor in wind or solar power. So factor them in, and do the upgrading that we have to do no matter what happens.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 06:38 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
a typical nuclear power plants output is one gigawatt. there are 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S.
they produce about 20% of U.S. electricity.


So:
104 nuclear plants in the U.S. produce 104 gigawatts or 20% of U.S. Electricity.

Currently, wind power, you guys allege, produces about 25 gigawatts or about 4.8% of U.S. Electricity.

That's trivial and so is 100 gigawatts or 19%, compared to 80% of electricity produced in the US! That 80% is produced by oil, gas, coal and water. Only water power does not emit CO2.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 09:36 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

That's trivial and so is 100 gigawatts or 19%, compared to 80% of electricity produced in the US! That 80% is produced by oil, gas, coal and water. Only water power does not emit CO2.

Let's see what is trivial

Oil is trivial compared to the other 98% of electricity produced in the US.
Gas is trivial compared to the other 79% of electricity produced in the US
water is trivial compared to the other 94% of electricity produced in the US.


It seems you just undercut your argument with calling something trivial that would produce as much if not more than 3 of the 4 items you compared it to.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/images/charts/new-elect-fuel-source.gif
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 02:52 am
@MontereyJack,
Well, Monterey Jack, I would suggest that you help, in whatever way you can, the clear thinking progressives who want to breathe fresh clean pure air. You might want to join any organization which will work against the governor of Indiana.

But, I think you would be wasting your effort, Monterey Jack. You see, China and India are building coal fired plants very rapidly.

Note:

China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants
Doug Kanter for The New York Times
A poster announces a power plant to be built in Tianjin, China.

Sign in to Recommend
comments (44)
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy KEITH BRADSHER
Published: May 10, 2009
TIANJIN, China " China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.

Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Graphic
Power Surge
Enlarge This Image

Doug Kanter for The New York Times
The Tianjin plant will be constructed in what is now a muddy field.
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (44) »
But largely missing in the hand-wringing is this: China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

While the United States is still debating whether to build a more efficient kind of coal-fired power plant that uses extremely hot steam, China has begun building such plants at a rate of one a month.

Construction has stalled in the United States on a new generation of low-pollution power plants that turn coal into a gas before burning it, although Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday that the Obama administration might revive one power plant of this type. But China has already approved equipment purchases for just such a power plant, to be assembled soon in a muddy field here in Tianjin.

“The steps they’ve taken are probably as fast and as serious as anywhere in power-generation history,” said Hal Harvey, president of ClimateWorks, a group in San Francisco that helps finance projects to limit global warming.

Western countries continue to rely heavily on coal-fired power plants built decades ago with outdated, inefficient technology that burn a lot of coal and emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide. China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build.

Cao Peixi, the president of the China Huaneng Group, the country’s biggest state-owned electric utility and the majority partner in the joint venture building the Tianjin plant, said his company was committed to the project even though it would cost more than conventional plants.

“We shouldn’t look at this project from a purely financial perspective,” he said. “It represents the future.”

Without doubt, China’s coal-fired power sector still has many problems, and global warming gases from the country are expected to continue increasing. China’s aim is to use the newest technologies to limit the rate of increase.

Only half the country’s coal-fired power plants have the emissions control equipment to remove sulfur compounds that cause acid rain, and even power plants with that technology do not always use it. China has not begun regulating some of the emissions that lead to heavy smog in big cities.

Even among China’s newly built plants, not all are modern. Only about 60 percent of the new plants are being built using newer technology that is highly efficient, but more expensive.

With greater efficiency, a power plant burns less coal and emits less carbon dioxide for each unit of electricity it generates. Experts say the least efficient plants in China today convert 27 to 36 percent of the energy in coal into electricity. The most efficient plants achieve an efficiency as high as 44 percent, meaning they can cut global warming emissions by more than a third compared with the weakest plants.

In the United States, the most efficient plants achieve around 40 percent efficiency, because they do not use the highest steam temperatures being adopted in China. The average efficiency of American coal-fired plants is still higher than the average efficiency of Chinese power plants, because China built so many inefficient plants over the past decade. But China is rapidly closing the gap by using some of the world’s most advanced designs.

After relying until recently on older technology, “China has since become the major world market for advanced coal-fired power plants with high-specification emission control systems,” the International Energy Agency said in a report on April 20.

China’s improvements are starting to have an effect on climate models. In its latest annual report last November, the I.E.A. cut its forecast of the annual increase in Chinese emissions of global warming gases, to 3 percent from 3.2 percent, in response to technological gains, particularly in the coal sector, even as the agency raised slightly its forecast for Chinese economic growth. “It’s definitely changing the baseline, and that’s being taken into account,” said Jonathan Sinton, a China specialist at the energy agency.

But by continuing to rely heavily on coal, which supplies 80 percent of its electricity, China ensures that it will keep emitting a lot of carbon dioxide; even an efficient coal-fired power plant emits twice the carbon dioxide of a natural gas-fired plant.

Perhaps the biggest question now is how much further China can go beyond the recent steps. In particular, how fast will it move toward power plants that capture their emissions and store them underground or under the seafloor?

That technology could, in theory, create power plants that contribute virtually nothing to global warming. Many countries hope to develop such plants, though progress has been halting; Energy Secretary Chu has promised steps to speed up the technology in the United States.

China has just built a small, experimental facility near Beijing to remove carbon dioxide from power station emissions and use it to provide carbonation for beverages, and the government has a short list of possible locations for a large experiment to capture and store carbon dioxide. But so far, it has no plans to make this a national policy.

China is making other efforts to reduce its global warming emissions. It has doubled its total wind energy capacity in each of the past four years, and is poised to pass the United States as soon as this year as the world’s largest market for wind power equipment. China is building considerably more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined, and these do not emit carbon dioxide after they are built.

But coal remains the cheapest energy source in China by a wide margin. China has the world’s third-largest coal reserves, after the United States and Russia.

“No matter how much renewable or nuclear is in the mix, coal will remain the dominant power source,” said Ashok Bhargava, a China energy expert at the Asian Development Bank in Manila.

Another problem is that China has finally developed the ability to build high-technology power plants only at the end of a national binge of building lower-tech coal-fired plants. Construction is now slowing because of the economic slump.

By adopting “ultra-supercritical” technology, which uses extremely hot steam to achieve the highest efficiency, and by building many identical power plants at the same time, China has cut costs dramatically through economies of scale. It now can cost a third less to build an ultra-supercritical power plant in China than to build a less efficient coal-fired plant in the United States.

*********************************************************

If you read the article carefully, Monterey Jack, you would have found that the Chinese are ONLY increasing their YEARLY OUTPUT of Global Warmin Gases by 3% a year( down from 3.2% a year).

Maybe you should forget about Indiana and concentrate on China and India.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 03:02 am
Monterey Jack-- I do not think you read the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE WELL ENOUGH.

Key Section--


“The windiest sites have not been built, because there is no way to move that electricity from there to the load centers,” he said.

The basic problem is that many transmission lines, and the connections between them, are simply too small for the amount of power companies would like to squeeze through them. The difficulty is most acute for long-distance transmission, but shows up at times even over distances of a few hundred miles.

Transmission lines carrying power away from the Maple Ridge farm, near Lowville, N.Y., have sometimes become so congested that the company’s only choice is to shut down " or pay fees for the privilege of continuing to pump power into the lines.

Politicians in Washington have long known about the grid’s limitations but have made scant headway in solving them. They are reluctant to trample the prerogatives of state governments, which have traditionally exercised authority over the grid and have little incentive to push improvements that would benefit neighboring states.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 03:06 am
UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND PROCEDURES--

Obama energy options may be long wait
Technology costly, scarce
By Amanda DeBard | Wednesday, May 13, 2009

President Obama's plan to move quickly to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources relies on technology that analysts agree is neither affordable nor available on a commercial scale and won't be for many years to come.

Expensive, small-scale pilot projects are under way that convert vegetation into fuel for cars and capture carbon dioxide before it is released into the air from coal-burning power plants. But these prototypes have not been proved at levels that would make even a dent in the U.S. appetite for fossil fuels, casting doubt on the viability of the president's plans.

Still, the administration continues to promote policies that assume that these pilot programs will soon become large-scale projects and is seeking funds to bring that day closer.

"It's promoting a vision that no one knows what the true cost will be and [whether] these technologies will succeed on a large scale," said Bryan K. Mignone, a climate and energy analyst at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

**********************************************************

note --the liberal leaning Brookings Institute
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 08:37 am
GeorgeOb1 was kind enough to post the following on the Conservatism thread during a discussion related to energy policy:

Quote:
Interestingly the capital cost for nuclear plants - per unit of energy actually produced - is lower than that for wind power by a factor of more than two. Most of the data published by advocates of wind power cite the cost & benefit in terms of the peak capacity of the installed wind turbines. Unfortunately none come even close to that in terms of the power they actually produce. Whereas U.S. nuclear plants have averaged an actual output (24/7/365) greater than 91% of their rated capacity for the past six years.

There are good theoretical reasons that limit the "capacity factor" of wind farms (average real power output as a % of theoretical maximum output) at about 35%. In fact most plants do a good deal less than that. The current world average is about 20%, with offshore plants and new onshore ones in particularly favorable areas (coastal Denmark, the high plains of the U. S. getting about 27%, but inland areas in Germany doing much worse at about 18%.

Finally, because the wind doesn't blow all the time, and the most favorable locations are generally very far from the points of consumption, we must both retain our existing coal & gas plants to supplement the relatively unreliable wind (& solar) sources and create a much more extensive (and costly) ttransmission system to deliver the power so produced to its users.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 10:44 am
I haven't quite figured out yet how reducing dealerships, doubling the power of the unions, and making cars smaller and much more expensive to buy and maintain will help the auto industry out of its current mess. And will increasing the miles per gallon on cars really reduce consumption all that much or will cars just be driven more? And what if in the next few years science decides that anthropomorphic greenhouse gas emissions aren't the problem after all?

I wish our government would leave these things to the free market.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0521cd20090520111544.jpg
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 10:49 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
And will increasing the miles per gallon on cars really reduce consumption all that much or will cars just be driven more?

I know I would love to spend 30% more time in my car Fox. How about you?

But maybe if you spent that much more time in your car Fox, you might figure out how reducing the number of dealers helps the auto industry.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 10:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I haven't quite figured out yet how reducing dealerships, doubling the power of the unions, and making cars smaller and much more expensive to buy and maintain will help the auto industry out of its current mess. And will increasing the miles per gallon on cars really reduce consumption all that much or will cars just be driven more? And what if in the next few years science decides that anthropomorphic greenhouse gas emissions aren't the problem after all?

I wish our government would leave these things to the free market.


I doubt seriously that scientists will stop worrying about AGW and greenhouse gases for some time. They are indeed a concern: the issue before us is whether the benefits of the remedies being proposed are at all worth the cost and effort .

We have another important reason to wish to see a significant reduction in our consumption of petroleum, in addition to its contribution to GHG emissions. That is the economic cost of all the imported oil - our domestic production covers only the consumption in our chemical industries: in effect all the petroleum consumed in vehicles is imported.

I think the government does have a role in inducing us to import less and make the required substitutions. However, I think the worst way to do this is to allow brueaucrats and politicians to design vehicles. Far better for the government to simply slap a (say) one dollar/gallon tax on gasoline at the pump as a means of inducing manufacturers to produce, and consumers to buy, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The restructuring of the automobile companies would occur in a bankrupcy, more or less as it is occurring now. The main difference is that our bankrupcy law would not provide the Labor Unions the favorable deal they are now getting in the process. Clearly serving this constituency, with its continuing lavish political contributions (most unreported) is a main goal of the administration's policy with respect to both the automobile industry and our public educations system. This is unfortunate because in both cases it is the Unions that are the chief agent behind the failures of both the U.S. automobile industry and our public schools.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 10:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
And what if in the next few years science decides that anthropomorphic greenhouse gas emissions aren't the problem after all?

Alice!! You shouldn't go down that rabbit hole!!!!

Since science doesn't at present think anthropomorphic greenhouse gases are a problem, I see no reason to think they wouldn't think the same in the future.


Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 01:23 pm
@parados,
Well if they aren't a problem, then why in the hell are we trying to eliminate them with all these extreme ideas?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 02:53 pm
@Foxfyre,
You might want to look up the meaning of the word "anthropomorphic" Fox.

Like I said, I science hasn't said we have to worry about anthropomorphic green house gases. Wink

I would think the Prime Directive would say we shouldn't try to eliminate anthropomorphic gases. We should instead try to communicate.

0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 01:20 am
George OB l wrote:

I doubt seriously that scientists will stop worrying about AGW and greenhouse gases for some time. They are indeed a concern: the issue before us is whether the benefits of the remedies being proposed are at all worth the cost and effort .
end of quote

Indeed--The IPCC( the motherlode for left wingers---Gore's friends in research-
the hysterics) predicted that DESPITE fears that the world will soon end, the rise in the sea level by 2100, after sixscenarios have been developed by the IPCC's models, will be a little short of one foot. Given that one foot of sea level rise is what we have had since 1860 with no real problem, the hysterics certainly do not fulfill a real cost benefit plan.

Note:

I am sure that I do not have to interpret the following findings for George Ob1



Temperature and sea level rise for each SRES scenario family
There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises (excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow[5])for each scenario family.

Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches

*******************************************************

The mid point of the SIX scenarios presented by the IPCC(Source-Wikipedia-IPCC) shows that the rise in sea level will be about 13 inches by 2100
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 01:33 am
Another problem which the left wing hysterics on Global Warming do not acknowledge is the problem of China and India--both consider themselves developing nations.

When the conference on climate convenes in December, the US will find that if they continue to cripple American Industry with Obama's Socialistic and "Green" absurdities, the US will soon fall behind China and will become the second ranking Industrial Power in the world. ANY initiatives that purport to attack Global Warming will do nothing except cripple our country SINCE China and India will emit so much pollution that, IF co2 really causes global warming, the Chinese and India will be the prime polluters.

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
Coal has given parts of China a Dickensian feel, with miners coated with black soot and air that is thick with pollution.

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
Coal-burning factories like the Gu Dian steel plant have given Shanxi Province in China a Dickensian feel.
In early April, a dense cloud of pollutants over Northern China sailed to nearby Seoul, sweeping along dust and desert sand before wafting across the Pacific. An American satellite spotted the cloud as it crossed the West Coast.

Researchers in California, Oregon and Washington noticed specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts of coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountaintop detectors. These microscopic particles can work their way deep into the lungs, contributing to respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer.

Filters near Lake Tahoe in the mountains of eastern California "are the darkest that we've seen" outside smoggy urban areas, said Steven S. Cliff, an atmospheric scientist at the University of California at Davis.

Unless China finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar both at home and abroad. The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks.

The sulfur dioxide produced in coal combustion poses an immediate threat to the health of China's citizens, contributing to about 400,000 premature deaths a year. It also causes acid rain that poisons lakes, rivers, forests and crops.

The sulfur pollution is so pervasive as to have an extraordinary side effect that is helping the rest of the world, but only temporarily: It actually slows global warming. The tiny, airborne particles deflect the sun's hot rays back into space.

But the cooling effect from sulfur is short-lived. By contrast, the carbon dioxide emanating from Chinese coal plants will last for decades, with a cumulative warming effect that will eventually overwhelm the cooling from sulfur and deliver another large kick to global warming, climate scientists say. A warmer climate could lead to rising sea levels, the spread of tropical diseases in previously temperate climes, crop failures in some regions and the extinction of many plant and animal species, especially those in polar or alpine areas.

Coal is indeed China's double-edged sword " the new economy's black gold and the fragile environment's dark cloud.

Already, China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined. And it has increased coal consumption 14 percent in each of the past two years in the broadest industrialization ever. Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego.

To make matters worse, India is right behind China in stepping up its construction of coal-fired power plants " and has a population expected to outstrip China's by 2030.

Aware of the country's growing reliance on coal and of the dangers from burning so much of it, China's leaders have vowed to improve the nation's energy efficiency. No one thinks that effort will be enough. To make a big improvement in emissions of global-warming gases and other pollutants, the country must install the most modern equipment " equipment that for the time being must come from other nations.

Industrialized countries could help by providing loans or grants, as the Japanese government and the World Bank have done, or by sharing technology. But Chinese utilities have in the past preferred to buy cheap but often-antiquated equipment from well connected domestic suppliers instead of importing costlier gear from the West.

The Chinese government has been reluctant to approve the extra spending. Asking customers to shoulder the bill would set back the government's efforts to protect consumers from inflation and to create jobs and social stability.

But each year China defers buying advanced technology, older equipment goes into scores of new coal-fired plants with a lifespan of up to 75 years.

"This is the great challenge they have to face," said David Moskovitz, an energy consultant who advises the Chinese government. "How can they continue their rapid growth without plunging the environment into the abyss.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 10:50 am
I wonder if the reason why more industry isn't lobbying for more emphasis on nuclear is because cap and trade will be so lucrative for so many? I'm thinking that the whole AGW issue may be driven by and traced to corporate opportunism and this will be obvious if we just follow the money.

Excerpt:
Quote:
Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations. The term used by economists for their behavior is "rent-seeking."

The world's largest wind-turbine manufacturer, Copenhagen Climate Council member Vestas, urges governments to invest heavily in the wind market. It sponsors CNN's "Climate in Peril" segment, increasing support for policies that would increase Vestas's earnings. A fellow council member, Mr. Gore's green investment firm Generation Investment Management, warns of a significant risk to the U.S. economy unless a price is quickly placed on carbon.

Even companies that are not heavily engaged in green business stand to gain. European energy companies made tens of billions of euros in the first years of the European Trading System when they received free carbon emission allocations.

American electricity utility Duke Energy, a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, has long promoted a U.S. cap-and-trade scheme. Yet the company bitterly opposed the Warner-Lieberman bill in the U.S. Senate that would have created such a scheme because it did not include European-style handouts to coal companies. The Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives promises to bring back the free lunch.

U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities -- including Duke -- spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months.

The massive transfer of wealth that many businesses seek is not necessarily good for the rest of the economy. Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created.

The cozy corporate-climate relationship was pioneered by Enron, which bought up renewable energy companies and credit-trading outfits while boasting of its relationship with green interest groups. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed, an internal memo was sent within Enron that stated, "If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory business."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 01:14 pm
@Foxfyre,
Boy, you would hate for those 50 electric companies to spend more than the top 10 oil companies
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/19/news/economy/oil_money/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories

Top oil lobbyists
Company spending so far in 2008
Company Amount in millions
1. Exxon Mobil $8.1
2. Chevron $6.1
3. BP $5.2
4. ConocoPhillips $4.4
5. Koch $3.8
6. Marathon $3.6
7. API $2.2
8. Occidental $1.4
9. Williams $1.2
10. Shell $1.2

Top industries
Spending on lobbying so far in 2008
Industry Amount in millions
1. Drugs $113
2. Insurance $76
3. Electric utilities $65
4. Computers $60
5. Oil and gas $55
6. Education $51
7. Air transport $50
8. Health Care $48
9. Manufacturing $48
10. Entertainment $48

I wonder where that oil and gas money leads you Fox? Does it lead to the same decisions about their opportunism as you reach when it comes to the electric companies?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 12:45:40