Climate Change

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by VictordeHolland

You are both correct, it depends on the context.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by VictordeHolland

You are both correct, it depends on the context.

China as a country emits more CO2 than the USA and the EU combined (in 2014)
China 10,540,000 kt
USA 5,334,000 kt
EU 3,415,000 kt

But in terms of CO2 per capita they are 'greener' than USA citizens:
China 7.6 t
USA 16.5 t
EU 6.7 t

wikipedia - List CO2 by countries

I see, among the non-air-conditioning-addicted Persian Gulf states, the Aussies again top the list, with a per-capita number slightly higher than the (much more populous) U.S.

The prospect of China and India ever "catching up" to the U.S. in this metric is frightening to contemplate. The economics profession has much to answer for in this regard, because mainstream economists inevitably tout GDP as the key metric for economic development, and there is a truism to the effect that 'behind every unit of GDP is a unit of energy'. When in fact such 'development' is useless (or even harmful) if it not strongly correlated with (or is inversely correlated with) 'gross domestic happiness', which is also readily measurable via various societal quality-of-life metrics. There is a reader discussion on this topic in today's NC Links along these lines, which contrasts Japan (near-0 GDP growth for many years now, but overall high quality of life) and Chine (rampant GDP growth accompanied by environmental devastation and little or no quality-of-life gains for the average citizen, woeful social safety nets, etc).

[kladner]

http://www.volcanocafe.org/ice-age/
The author's views on the progression and regression of ice ages.
Spoiler: He does not lay these long-term cycles on flood basalt eruptions, or firecrackers like Toba or Santorini.

Also, I don't think this can be taken as some sort of climate change denier. The cycles he is discussing are much longer term, and don't immediately relate to the much more rapid human effect on global temperatures. (My view.)

[LaurV]

Quite interesting, but with many holes (of history, science and logic). I am not a "global warning" guy either, but the motivation with the missing two days of February is totally idiotic. That Albert who wrote the article never heard about February actually being the end of the year (and March first being the new year day) in Roman times... (and earlier)...

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by LaurV

That Albert who wrote the article never heard about February actually being the end of the year (and March first being the new year day) in Roman times... (and earlier)...

And also continuing into modern times. See, e.g. the current piece about Nowruz, or "Persian New Year." The day of the vernal equinox has been viewed as the beginning of the year for at least 3000 years.

[ewmayer]

Several days ago I forwarded the following link with the accompanying comment to Naked Capitalism for possible inclusion in their daily Links page:

Two Ohio coal-fired plants to close, deepening industry decline | Reuters

"I am skeptical of the 'a victory for environmental activists' claim, since swapping coal for natgas may prove a dubious proposition, global-warming wise, methane being a far more potent - albeit shorter-lived - greenhouse gas than CO2. Sure, natgas-fired plants burn nearly 100% of the fuel, but I'm thinking of the upstream methane leaks associated with natgas fields."

Today NC carried the following story in Links:

Natural gas leaks from power plants, refineries, 100 times greater than thought - The Ecologist

Natural gas is meant to be a far lower carbon fuel than coal, writes Steve Horn. But a new study shows that methane leaks from gas power plants and oil refineries are 20-120 times higher than thought. And with methane a greenhouse gas almost 100 times stronger than CO2 over 20 years, the leaks are equivalent to about a tenth of the US's CO2 emissions.

[kladner]

The whole gas fracking frenzy has been propped up by bad numbers. It is ironic that system lets so much escape. That is supposed to be their product, but they are only a step above the oil drillers who just flare off that inconvenient gas. I guess the long term impact is actually reduced by flaring.

Sigh. Here were are: back in another "lesser of 2 weevils" situation.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

The whole gas fracking frenzy has been propped up by bad numbers. It is ironic that system lets so much escape. That is supposed to be their product, but they are only a step above the oil drillers who just flare off that inconvenient gas. I guess the long term impact is actually reduced by flaring.

It's also ironic that even the (now) EPA head Scott Pruitt acknowledged in testimony reported here that fracking, not "Obama's war on coal," is chiefly responsible for the recent decline of the coal industry.

Yet when Pruitt appeared before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Environment Subcommittee, he contradicted the narrative promoted by coal industry allies in Congress, one that chiefly blames EPA regulations and President Barack Obama’s energy policies for coal’s decline.

The shift away from coal, he testified, was not the result “of the heavy hand of the EPA,” but of market forces in Oklahoma and other states that have unleashed an abundance of cheaper natural gas.

“As natural gas becomes increasingly affordable,” Pruitt said in May, “it becomes an increasingly attractive alternative to coal.”

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

It's also ironic that even the (now) EPA head Scott Pruitt acknowledged in testimony reported here that fracking, not "Obama's war on coal," is chiefly responsible for the recent decline of the coal industry.

Don't confuse us with facts. Facts are just a distraction from What is Really Important^®; which is whatever the Cheeto in Chief, or his Minders, are peddling at any given moment. Facts are stupid things.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

It's also ironic that even the (now) EPA head Scott Pruitt acknowledged in testimony reported that fracking, not "Obama's war on coal," is chiefly responsible for the recent decline of the coal industry.

I also find it a bit ironic that the different factions of the carbon fuel industry are blaming each other for earthquakes where they have rarely been seen before in recent times.

"It's not the fracking, it's the waste water injections!" "But you do it also!" "But you do it more!"

Two quick links: https://earthquakes.ok.gov/faqs/ and http://gizmodo.com/this-is-how-frack...kes-1789096500. These took about sixty seconds to find, and about 120 seconds to read.

Oh well... At least the earthquakes help the construction industry, and the climate change helps the air conditioning industry, and the air conditioning industry helps the energy industry, and they all help the finance industry...

Does anyone else see a pattern here?...

[Till]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Oh well... At least the earthquakes help the construction industry, and the climate change helps the air conditioning industry, and the air conditioning industry helps the energy industry, and they all help the finance industry...

But then who helps the insurance companies ? (typically closely related to the financial sector)