All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Randolph Kinney]

Five year payout for the cost is a very doable number.
Ironically California is dependent upon the oil and gas business for a large part of its income. 100% dependence upon non-fossil fuel is going to be an incredibly expensive proposition. Last. if we impose all the rules in the world and reduce oil and gas use by 90%, it will change the amount of CO2 very little and CO2 that is now being degassed from the oceans (the Ice ages sequestered billions of tons of CO2 at depth and in carbon on the ocean floor) is a product of a warming planet. That warming is the natural course of things since the end of the Ice Ages and the receding Ice sheets beginning about 15,000 years ago. This has happened at least 8 times in the past 250,000 years. It will happen again. And so warming is far better that cold. Cold probably forced the Neanderthals into close contact with Homo sapiens and resulted in their extinction by assimilation. The human population will have to move towards the equator. This would compress humanity into a far smaller space and require the available land to be plowed regardless the environmental consequence. It is a recipe for a mass extinction of mankind.

I like it when you make statements that are facts. Too many people are driven by fear and a lack of understanding. The earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling without humans or modern age fossil fuel burning.

If you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the 9 part series on climate change and natural disasters that was played on Showtime. A trailer for “Years of Living Dangerously” is terrifying, replete with images of melting glaciers, raging wildfires and rampaging floods. “I don’t think scary is the right word,” intones one voice. “Dangerous, definitely.” Efforts to raise public concern about climate change by linking it to natural disasters will and has backfired.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Natural Disasters that resulted from the melting glaciers, mega-events, and the encroaching glaciers.

A huge series of floods that created the scabland of W. Washington state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods

The Fire of 1988 will be nothing compared to Yellowstone when the super volcano blows...and it is overdue by some estimates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera

It is not just about the Ice Ages....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth

One important aspect is clearly the decline of CO2 in the atmosphere, possibly due to low volcanic activity​

It is hard to blame global warming on man for events that happened millions of years ago.

The rebound of earth after glacial receding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

The year without a summer. Who's ever heard of Tambora?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

When the Sahari was green
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Subpluvial

Glacial Lake Bonneville

 

[Carnivore]

The environmentalist are fighting the pipeline from Canada. Why? Well they don't want spills. OK, on face that makes sense. Who does? Obviously no one wants spills.

Here is my problem with the opponents of the pipeline. The crude is being transported by tanker trucks anyway. I understand but am not sure of this, but a major tanker transporter is a hard lefty supporter of the Democrats. Hmmmm!

This is interesting: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/

So this has to be raising a question in the objective minds. Why?

The devil is always in the details. I understand that a major Lefty contributor has a major stake in the tanker transport industry. I am trying to locate the source for that info of who that person is. I recall that it was the owner or CEO of Progressive Insurance. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/peterlewis.asp

I think its fair to say that this man is profiting on a major scale from tanker truck industry. I also think it is fair to say that he would lose those huge profits if the pipeline is completed.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Overview of greenhouse earth
A "greenhouse earth" or "hothouse earth" is a period in which there are no continental glaciers whatsoever on the planet, the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (such as water vapor and methane) are high, and sea surface temperatures (SSTs) range from 28 °C (82.4 °F) in the tropics to 0 °C (32 °F) in the polar regions.

Overview of icehouse earth
An "icehouse earth" is the earth as it experiences an ice age. Unlike a greenhouse earth, an icehouse earth has ice sheets present, and these sheets wax and wane throughout times known as glacial periods and interglacial periods. During an icehouse earth, greenhouse gases tend to be less abundant, and temperatures tend to be cooler globally. The Earth is currently in an icehouse stage; as ice sheets are present on both poles and glacial periods have occurred at regular intervals over the past million years.

Causes of icehouse earth
The causes of an Icehouse state are much debated, because not much is really known about the transition periods between greenhouse to icehouse climates and what could make the climate so different. One important aspect is clearly the decline of CO2 in the atmosphere, possibly due to low volcanic activity.

Other important issues are the movement of the tectonic plates and the opening and closing of oceanic gateways. These seem to play a crucial part in Icehouse Earths because they can bring forth cool waters from very deep water circulations that could assist in creating ice sheets or thermal isolation of areas.

For the icehouse climate, tectonic activity also creates mountains, which are produced by one continental plate colliding with another one and continuing forward. The revealed fresh soils act as scrubbers of carbon dioxide, which can significantly affect the amount of this greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. An example of this being the collision between the Indian subcontinent and the Asian continent, which created the Himalayan Mountains about 50 million years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth

The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

Because of all the press coverage it has received in recent years, you may think that carbon dioxide (CO2) is "the big one". Though CO2's role is important, water vapor is actually the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor generates more greenhouse effect on our planet than does any other single gas. Water, in gaseous form (as water vapor) and in liquid form (as tiny droplets in clouds), generates somewhere between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect.

In rough order of importance and size of effect, the major ones are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3).

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

Water vapor and methane are many times more potent than carbon dioxide in producing the greenhouse effect. The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is more than carbon dioxide. The level of methane in the atmosphere is less than carbon dioxide. The climate models under represent water vapor's role, instead ascribing it as part of and to carbon dioxide. Also under represented is the sun and solar activity.

Because not much is known about the history of the earth's atmospheric composition and the causes that change the composition, climate scientists make up hypothesis of how those changes happened. I call it the Monty Python method of science. You have to watch Monty Python's "Holy Grail" about how the coconuts came to England to understand global warming thinking.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

The crude is being transported by tanker trucks anyway

Most is being transported by train tankers. Warren Buffet and Carl Icahn both have large investments in trains and tanker construction.

The Keystone Pipeline is complete from Steel City, KS south. It is complete in Canada. And the only road block is government. TODAY oil is transported from the Bakken (a thin light oil that it is...too light to make diesel fuel) to Canada and mixed with the thick tar sand oil of Canada. Then it is piped south where it must then go onto a tank car and be transported by rail all the way to Texas and other refineries where they are set up to run a heavier low gravity crude oil. Other Bakken oils (and all the unconventional shale oils are thin because thick oil cannot be produced this way efficiently) are sent south to Oklahoma to be mixed there with heavy crude oils that exist from place to place.

As you can see from the map, the Keystone is meant to service the Bakken. It is intended to move the thick oil and mix with the thin for easier transportation and refining.

One winter a company geologist came up after a drill stem test and he asked the on site (wellsite) geologist if there was a sample of the oil. It wasn't really that cold that day - maybe 40 degrees - but the wellsitter picked up a hatchet and off then went. He went to where there was a bucket of oil and dumped it upside down. It looked like a big black ice cube. He proceeded to hack off a chunk and handed to the company geo. That's how thick oil acts. It comes out of the ground because down hole, the temperature is greater and most drilling fluids come out of the ground at 100 degrees or more. Bottom hole temperatures can read 300 F. or more. On a cold day, you can pour butane out into a bucket at room temperature. In midsummer it would boil and evaporate in seconds.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

What is interesting to me is the controversy of whether CO2 leads temperature rise or lags temperature rise. Man-caused Global warming proponents insists that CO2 leads temperature increases.

However, research of ice cores substantiates CO2 lags temperature rise.

http://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-2012.pdf

 

[Randolph Kinney]

The scam of solar energy to save the planet

Tired of growing electricity bills, Miguel Espinoza decided to turn to the sun, rather than the grid, for power.

The Inglewood resident signed in March with solar leasing giant SolarCity to fix his electric bills at $130 a month — down from the $250 to $300 he had been paying.

Those savings, however, would eventually evaporate if state regulators approve proposals from California utilities to charge solar users more for their connection to the grid.

"This thing would be worthless to me," Espinoza said.

The utilities' net-metering proposals smack of a bait and switch, he said.

"They push customers to save energy," Espinoza said. "When we go the extra mile to get solar panels, then they want to add these fees. It's just not right."

Existing rooftop solar customers would receive some exemptions from the net-metering changes for 20 years after they installed their systems. But their costs still could rise because of separate regulatory changes, already enacted, that allow higher rates for users who buy small amounts of electricity from the grid.

For new purchases of rooftop solar, the utility proposals could wipe out the potential savings on power — the main incentive for buying the systems.

Lyndon Rive, chief executive of SolarCity, describes a "catastrophic" future for rooftop solar if the California Public Utilities Commission approves the proposals, which are set for hearings to start Oct. 5.

Utility proposals call for crediting solar users at about half the current rates. Utilities would also charge monthly fees, based on the size of a homeowner's solar system.

Other states look to California as an innovator on solar policy. The state by far leads the nation in deployment of rooftop and utility-scale solar technology, followed by Arizona, New Jersey, North Carolina and Nevada.

Utilities contend that rooftop solar owners — often wealthier homeowners, who can afford the high upfront installation costs — haven't been paying their fair share of the cost of maintaining power lines, transformers, substations and power plants. Solar users typically must stay connected to the grid, either because their systems don't generate enough power to cover their needs or as backup power after the sun sets.

The expansion of solar, utilities say, means that the costs of grid maintenance are being shifted to traditional customers, who tend to be poor or middle-class families.

A recent assessment by the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center found that 16 of the 44 states with net-metering policies were considering or enacting changes. Wisconsin and Arizona recently imposed significant increases in the amounts that utilities can charge solar users.

After the Arizona policy took effect, applications for rooftop solar installations dropped from hundreds a month to a handful, said Sean Gallagher, vice president of state affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Assn.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-net-metering-20150927-story.html

 

[Randolph Kinney]

The pledges that countries are making to battle climate change would still allow the world to heat up by more than 6 degrees Fahrenheit, a new analysis shows, a level that scientists say is likely to produce catastrophes ranging from food shortages to widespread extinctions of plant and animal life.

Yet, in the world of global climate politics, that counts as progress.

The new figures will be released Monday in New York as a week of events related toclimate change comes to an end. The highlight was an urgent moral appeal at the United Nations on Friday from Pope Francis, urging countries to reach “fundamental and effective agreements” when they meet in Paris in December to try to strike a new global climate deal.

For much of this year, countries have been issuing pledges about how much emissions they are willing to cut in coming decades. With a plan announced by Brazil on Sunday, every major country except for India has now made a commitment to take to the Paris conference.

An analysis by researchers at Climate Interactive, a group whose calculations are used by American negotiators and by numerous other governments, is expected to be released Monday and was provided in advance to The New York Times. It shows that the collective pledges would reduce the warming of the planet at century’s end to about 6.3 degrees, if the national commitments are fully honored, from an expected 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit, if emissions continue on their present course.

Yet the analysis also shows that the nations are still a far way from meeting their own shared target, set in 2010, of limiting global warming to about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That level of warming, while potentially producing dire effects on agriculture, sea level and the natural world, might at least be tolerable, some experts believe.

The planet has already warmed by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit above the temperature that prevailed before the Industrial Revolution, representing an enormous addition of heat. Virtually every piece of land ice on Earth is melting, the sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, droughts and other weather extremes are intensifying, and the global food system has shown signs of instability.

Bruising fights are still expected at the Paris conference, especially over money. Poor countries that have had little to do with causing global warming, but are likely to suffer the worst effects, are demanding billions from rich countries to help them manage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/28/w..._th_20150928&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=50329110


Money Is The Reason Global Climate-Change Deal May Fall Apart

The richest nations still haven’t convinced the rest of the world they’re willing to pay the tab to help curb climate change, diplomats warned at a United Nations conference Monday.

With five months to go before a critical conference that’s expected to result in a global emissions pact, developing nations say they’re still waiting for proof the richest countries will meet a $100 billion-a-year pledge to help them curb greenhouse gases and adapt to a warming world. The concerns threaten to undermine talks aimed at reaching an agreement in Paris in December.

To reach a deal this year, “credible climate financing is essential,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the conference.

In a joint statement on Sunday, China, India, South Africa and Brazil said the talks had made progress but they were disappointed over “the continued lack of any clear road map for developed countries” to meet the $100 billion pledge.

Wealthy economies, including the U.S. and Europe, first promised the funding in 2009, committing to mobilize both public and private financing. So far, the countries have pledged about $10 billion for one UN agency, the Green Climate Fund, but not all the money has actually been delivered.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...climate-talks-won-t-hit-mark-to-limit-warming

The $100 billion a year is a tax to transfer money to victim nations of climate change. Get use to it along with higher energy prices. Of course, the projected reduction in CO2 from commitments made by nations is good enough to warm the earth to more than catastrophic conditions.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Five year payout for the cost is a very doable number.
Ironically California is dependent upon the oil and gas business for a large part of its income. 100% dependence upon non-fossil fuel is going to be an incredibly expensive proposition. Last. if we impose all the rules in the world and reduce oil and gas use by 90%, it will change the amount of CO2 very little and CO2 that is now being degassed from the oceans (the Ice ages sequestered billions of tons of CO2 at depth and in carbon on the ocean floor) is a product of a warming planet. That warming is the natural course of things since the end of the Ice Ages and the receding Ice sheets beginning about 15,000 years ago. This has happened at least 8 times in the past 250,000 years. It will happen again. And so warming is far better that cold. Cold probably forced the Neanderthals into close contact with Homo sapiens and resulted in their extinction by assimilation. The human population will have to move towards the equator. This would compress humanity into a far smaller space and require the available land to be plowed regardless the environmental consequence. It is a recipe for a mass extinction of mankind.

During which of the prior eight times were there over one billion automobiles, millions of industrial plants, a population at current levels............? One would think, if one does think and not just spew ideological talking points, that such factors would have a significant impact.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

If CO2 is the product of warming, not the cause of it, then what is the impact of anthropogenic CO2?

It's a fact that (the volcano) Kilauea has been releasing more than twice the amount of noxious sulfur dioxide gas (SO2) as the single dirtiest power plant on the U.S. mainland...Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day...When one includes all the oceanic CO2 being degassed, volcanic CO2, etc. then our contribution while quite significant, is not the bulk of it. And a giant eruption - like Tambora - can double the amount of CO2 in 72 hours.

BTW - when calculating "greenhouse gases" from powerplants they often include water vapor, the byproduct of burning fossil fuels...which themselves "sequestered" carbon during the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian periods of "global warming"...known in Europe as the "Carboniferous" period.