Guest taunting post by David Middleton
- Win: President Trump announced US withdrawal from Paris climate
treatyagreementjoke. - Win: US will use its remaining 3 years as a party to the joke as a vehicle to promote fossil fuels.
Over the next two weeks, negotiators hope to clarify the rulebook of the Paris climate agreement.
It is the first major meeting since President Trump announced plans to take the US out of the Paris pact last June.
Many delegates are unhappy with White House plans to promote fossil fuels here as a “solution” to climate change.
[…]
According to reports, members of the Trump administration will lend their support to an event to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power as solutions to climate change.
Speakers from coal giant Peabody Energy, among others, will make a presentation to highlight the role that coal and other fuels can play in curbing the impacts of rising temperatures.
A White House spokesman said in a statement that the discussion aimed to build on the administration’s efforts to promote fossil fuels at the G20 meeting this year.
“It is undeniable that fossil fuels will be used for the foreseeable future, and it is in everyone’s interest that they be efficient and clean,” the spokesman said.
‘Beyond absurd’
The prospect of fossil fuel industries making their case at this meeting has angered some who will be attending.
“Fossil fuels having any role in tackling climate change is beyond absurd. It is dangerous,” said Andrew Norton, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development.
“These talks are no place for pushing the fossil fuel agenda. The US needs to come back to the table and help with the rapid cuts in emissions that the situation demands.”
Long-time talks participant Alden Meyer from the Union of Concerned Scientists added: “It’s not a credible solution, but that doesn’t seem to bother them.
“They might even welcome some of the reaction to show to their base that they are fighting for America’s interest and not this globalist malarkey.”
[…]
‘Beyond absurd’
It is “beyond absurd” to deny that coal will be a major source of energy well-beyond the middle of the 21st century.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/391492_5_.png
FEBRUARY 8, 2017
U.S. coal production and coal-fired electricity generation expected to rise in near term
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2017.02.08/main.png
Coal production in the United States totaled 739 million short tons (MMst) in 2016, an 18% decline from 2015 and the lowest level of coal production since 1978. Because nearly all coal produced in the United States is used to generate electricity, coal production and coal-fired electricity generation are closely connected. In 2017 and 2018, as natural gas prices are expected to increase, coal is expected to regain some share of the electricity generation mix, and coal production is expected to increase slightly.
[…]
Chapter 4. Coal
Overview
In the IEO2016 Reference case, coal remains the second-largest energy source worldwide—behind petroleum and other liquids—until 2030. From 2030 through 2040, it is the third-largest energy source, behind both liquid fuels and natural gas. World coal consumption increases from 2012 to 2040 at an average rate of 0.6%/year, from 153 quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 169 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 180 quadrillion Btu in 2040.
[…]
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/figure_4-1.png
Figuring out ways to generate electricity from coal in a manner less impactful on the environment is a far more productive exercise than pretending that it will be replaced with solar panels, wind turbines, fairy dust and unicorn farts.
It is “beyond absurd” to claim that fossil fuels don’t have a role in “tackling climate change”… “The rapid cuts in emissions that the situation [supposedly] demands” can’t be achieved without at least one fossil fuel… Assuming there actually was an urgent need to tackle climate change (which there isn’t) or that climate change could actually be tackled (which it can’t).
If there actually was an urgent need to tackle climate change, the only player on the field large enough to do the tackling is N2N – natural gas to nuclear.
The next three to seven years will truly test whether or not it’s actually possible to “get tired of winning.”
In scanning the comments, CO2 is mentioned in most of them, but the CERN CLOUD experiment results are never mentioned. Radiative forcing is mentioned throughout the CLOUD experiment reports and CO2 is not mentioned once. What am I missing? Is the 2017 understanding of climate science reflected by this discussion or not? My impression is the Arrhenius climate change model is passe. This discussion is going nowhere for me. Same ol same ol. A fresh perspective without so many W/m2 would help. My apology for the vent. A long day.
One reference that might be of interest is the CERN Courier, Nov 11, 2016, “CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions.”
CLOUD and It’s predecessor SKY both successfully demonstrated that the GCR flux can influence cloud cover, particularly low cloud cover, clearly demonstrating that subtle variations in solar activity (which modulates the GCR flux) could explain much of the observed temperature changes.
Not really relevant to this thread.
Aren’t unicorn farts ghg’s?
I am a lukewarmer too, along the lines of David M. although I wish we were actually getting the warming they were predicting we would get. It is obvious the climate models are not going to be even close to their linear predictive warming based upon CO2 going up. So why is their a subset of skeptics with their mind already made up that CO2 has no radiative delay in cooling, therefore slightly warming the planet? That is even a departure from the sceptical science definition of ‘Skeptic’. In my view, these sceptical deni@es are the most dangerous of all, because it sends the message that all skeptics are off their rocker, and so lets ban all fossil fuels because they are all nuts. Don’t speak for me, since how are we to be taken seriously by mainstream science if radiative physics is just straight up dismissed by some here, tarring us all with the same ignorant brush.
Kinda sad to to see David M sort of have to tip toe around on egg shells to defend his position from the ‘mind made up’ skeptic view that CO2 has no small effect on temperature. These are the true deni@rs that the alarmists paint all of us with the same brush. If they don’t like it, they should go start their own blog, preferably in Russia where this mindset comes from. To sow division and discontent within.
I don’t think I was tiptoeing.
Maybe you are just a nice guy David, the type of person you would enjoy having a beer with and not having to get into the weeds on every small point. While I think your reply was polite to some of the statements such as: “Our greatest threat are the Luke warmers who try to be rational and reasonable.” it would be nice to know where WUWT policy is in regards to people who flat out deny radiative physics. After all, it is sort of the key tenet why we are even here on this blog, although I believe there is some small amount of warming by humankind, thank God, and it is beneficial. Very beneficial. How could there not be any warming with 7.5 billion people on the planet, and we can quantify some of the human caused warming such as land use change, UHI heating etc, so how could all the warming just be related to CO2 anyway. But to hear some people, especially educated people completely refute the science should not be promoted or debated here. We don’t debate flat earth, astrology, young earth or lots of other stuff, so why do we have debate on radiative physics or that most of us real skeptics are really luke warmers of some degree. I recall your article a few months ago about this very subject, and in the end, most every comment was that they were a luke warmer too, but at the start, it felt like everyone was coming out of a closet.
When I am out and about chatting with friends and acquaintances trying to make a case for a skeptical position on CAGW and subsequent public policy, I am always confronted with the absolute D word that there are people who just flat up refute radiative physics that there is “no warming, period, prove it” and then I am on my hind foot having to explain there are nut bars in every crowd. It is sad to see them get a voice here. The basic science should not be up for debate, since it destroys our position to be taken seriously. That’s what I heard here from several of the comments today, and while everyone was fairly polite, I think it puts all the work that WUWT has done the last 10-11 years in jeopardy, to have a credible position that the mainstream will finally see and adopt as well.
You do realize that (1) there is no such thing as *a* beer and (2) you can’t discuss any subject while drinking beer(s) or other adult beverages without going hip-deep in the weeds… right?
I can’t speak for Anthony/WUWT, nor would I presume to do so… but… personally, I don’t like to see any particular viewpoint shut out of the conversation, if it is presented in a rational, collegial manner.
I also sometimes think the debate here is not improved or is diluted by including all points of view on warming, even though some of them are mutually contradictory…
The ‘we are entering a new ice age’
and
‘the physics of the greenhouse effect’
viewpoints flatly contradict
‘its warming but not at the rate predicted’ and similar
a range of viewpoints by all means – but if some completely preclude others?
https://youtu.be/wxrbOVeRonQ
There is only room in griff’s tiny mind for griff’s fantasy veiwpoints.
Just one lonely synapse firing…. at random !!
“The basic science should not be up for debate”
And there is your problem straight up.
You don’t understand that the so-called basic physics of the AGW agenda is wrong from the very bottom up.
And I think that people like you insisting their own ignorant point of view is the only one to be put forward are damaging any chance of destroying the AGW farce.
You are welcome to come up with some empirical proof that CO2 causes warming in our convectively controlled atmosphere.
Or not.!
All I see so far is a whole prattle of self-important mindless yapping.
“All I see so far is a whole prattle of self-important mindless yapping.”
Said the Russian Troll.
No matter which side of the debate you are on, even the IPCC admit that no matter how much C02 we pump into the atmosphere from now on, it can now only contribute another 13% to the total warming. Due to the logarithmic nature of the forcing 87% was reached at 400ppm.
Why oh why then, isn’t this mentioned by all sides – over and over again – because it would considerably reduce the heat in the AGW debate!
On these points I agree that C02 is a GHG and that the effect is logarithmic and the relationship to temperature in the real atmosphere has not been quantifiably established (Climate Sensitivity*). Does this make me a Lukewarmer, “Tepidist” or Denier or all of the above?
*I expect it will be very low. The history of life on Earth depends on Carbon Dioxide – in concentrations far higher than today – including a life ending lower limit. Therefore, I can not except that C02 could lead to runaway warming because it would have happened already!