Fracking Has Reduced US C02 Emissions

[Anonymous]

As sleazy, disingenuous governments the world over hold yet another wasteful, unnecessary, carbon intensive get together(luxury party for 1 percenters), the US has been reducing it`s greenhouse gas emissions(if you think that is important). Who deserves the credit for the turnaround you ask? Why it is the energy industry and in particular the process called fracking which has made clean burning, abundant natural gas readily available. Natural gas is displacing coal for power generation.

Everyone is so excited about the global warming conference in Lima, Peru!



OK, not everybody. But the thousands of professional diplomats, bureaucrats and media stenographers that make up the bulk of the global warming industry are. They love these annual get-togethers. And they're almost always at an exotic, far-away location – dream vacation spots that they would never get to on their own budgets.



And almost all of them in tropical hot spots – Bali, Cancun, Rio. You'd almost think they loved global warming, especially each December.



But for the rest of us who merely pay for this global feast through our taxes, it's fair to ask: What for?



According to the United Nations itself, and their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no increase in global temperature in 18 years. Normal scientists make objective observations about the world, and discard theories that don't match. But global warming advocates are lobbyists, not scientists. They prefer to discard empirical data to protect their pet theory. That's called politics.



Not only is the globe not warming, but there seems to be no connection between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature. It is true that global emissions of carbon dioxide are rising, mainly because of the industrialization of Third World countries like India and China.



That is a good thing, by the way – they have as much right to build power plants as we do, and to do so in the most reliable, cost-effective ways they can. That's why China is the world's largest producer and consumer of coal, and is embarking on the world's largest nuclear program too. Their wind turbine and solar industries were a brief blip – designed to soak up government subsidies by guilty American and European governments.



Those subsidies are largely gone, and with them, any economic demand for showy, experimental technology.



China needs real power that works whether or not the wind blows and whether or not the sun shines. Which is why it told Barack Obama this fall that it will not even contemplate reducing its carbon dioxide emissions until at least the year 2030, when its massive wave of industrialization is expected to peak in any event.



Right now, China emits at least twice as much carbon dioxide as the United States; if it continues on its current course until 2030, it will triple itself again. By contrast, U.S. emissions have been trending down for the better part of 10 years, chiefly because of the advent of fracking. That technology has made natural gas so plentiful and cheap in the United States that it has replaced coal as the fuel of choice for many U.S. power plants. That – and not any expensive government-run plan – is why U.S. emissions are now the lowest they've been since the early 1990s.

[Anonymous]

I am in favour of renewables in the mix. That is provided that consumers decide and not heavy-handed governments. They are not really in competition with petroleum products per se. They will compete with natural gas, coal, hydro and nuclear, but they will not power vehicles or used in the production of plastics. I see more of a future for solar than wind. Wind uses a lot of land, produces little energy, is unreliable, an eyesore, noisy and are bird blenders.

The enviro crowd still doesn't understand basic economics.



Two sectors can do well at the same time. Leave it up to the consumer to assign value.



The NGO, Clean Energy Canada, has just come out with a report detailing growth in the green sector.



Here's one nugget from the report: "Clean energy jobs are growing incredibly fast. Thirty-seven percent more Canadians worked in the renewable energy industry in 2013 than in 2009."



That's great news. Not because they're so-called "clean energy jobs" in contrast to those scary evil "dirty jobs" but because they're jobs, period. We don't care what sector is growing. Just so long as there are more jobs for Canadians.



The marketplace decides what products and sectors it values and that's why some sectors grow and others decline.



You can't argue with public opinion.



Yet for some reason Clean Energy Canada thinks this is a conversation about public policy — not the free market.



That's why the takeaway from their report isn't to celebrate a growing economy — which is what we take from their stats — but to recommend various government policies designed to boost their favoured sector.



Here's the thing: green energy growth isn't about control. It's about freedom. Freedom for consumers to decide how they live.



Change doesn't happen overnight. And it shouldn't. If a sector in your economy is radically changing fast, it probably means it's being fast-tracked by a heavy-handed regime.



Here's another interesting tidbit from the report: "Solar-power equipment prices have plunged 60% in Canada since 2009."



Another great news item. That means more consumers and businesses will be able to afford solar-power should they so choose.



We don't need the government to force these products upon us through regulations. We just need to let the innovative forces of the market make these products more feasible for mass consumption.



If the green way is truly the better mousetrap, as many zealots argue, then the public will simply buy the better mousetrap. It really is that simple.



Who would pay more for non-renewable energy when they can get renewable energy for cheaper? So work on bringing the costs down!



Government edict isn't the enviro answer. Better choice is!

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/12/03/green-energy-should-compete">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/12/03/g ... ld-compete">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/12/03/green-energy-should-compete

[Anonymous]

I'm still waiting for Romero to chime in with that misguided and purely speculative study by McJeon that says fracking will increase carbon emissions because it squeeze out subsidies for renewables. It assumes no efficiencies. ac_rollseyes

[Romero]

I'm still waiting for you to use sources from actual experts instead of opinions from tabloids.



The globe isn't warming? Some tabloid is claiming the scientific consensus on greenhouse gases is wrong?

The year 2014 is on track to be one of the hottest, if not the hottest, on record, according to preliminary estimates by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This is largely due to record high global sea surface temperatures, which will very likely remain above normal until the end of the year. High sea temperatures, together with other factors, contributed to exceptionally heavy rainfall and floods in many countries and extreme drought in others.



If November and December maintain the same tendency, then 2014 will likely be the hottest on record, ahead of 2010, 2005 and 1998. This confirms the underlying long-term warming trend.



"The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. "There is no standstill in global warming," he said.



"What we saw in 2014 is consistent with what we expect from a changing climate. Record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods destroyed livelihoods and ruined lives. What is particularly unusual and alarming this year are the high temperatures of vast areas of the ocean surface, including in the northern hemisphere," he said.



"Record-high greenhouse gas emissions and associated atmospheric concentrations are committing the planet to a much more uncertain and inhospitable future. WMO and its Members will continue to improve forecasts and services to help people cope with more frequent and damaging extreme weather and climate conditions," said Mr Jarraud.



http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_1009_en.html">//http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_1009_en.html

Hmm, who to believe? Some tabloid or the World Meteorological Organization?

[Romero]

Is NASA part of some crazy conspiracy? Maybe the Moon landing was a hoax!



http://climate.nasa.gov/">//http://climate.nasa.gov/

[Anonymous]

I'm still waiting for you to use sources from actual experts instead of opinions from tabloids.

You mean like the TYEE, motherjones, commondreams or HPo? The problem with the one you you quoted is that it relies on unreliable thermometers and not satellite data.

The globe isn't warming? Some tabloid is claiming the scientific consensus on greenhouse gases is wrong?

We now have the RSS satellite temperature data out for November, and, as with UAH(University of Alabama Huntsville, they show that this year will be nowhere a record, as is being touted for the surface datasets. Indeed, this year is running in only a modest 7th place.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/image_thumb8.png?w=780&h=465">

"Our satellite estimates of global temperature, which have much more complete geographic coverage than thermometers, reveal that 2014 won't be even close to a record warm year," writes Dr. Roy Spencer, climate scientist at UAH.



BTW, the so-called consensus that the earth is warming up at a dangerous level and man is 100% responsible is and always was pure BS despite how many times Obongo repeats it. Unlike you, I actually have an earth sciences background, so I knew that was bogus.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims



As is the case with other 'surveys' alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action



Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook's asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.



Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the 'consensus' position on global warming "without minimizing" the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... us-claims/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

No consensus, no reason to worry. The people that tell us it is an emergency don't walk the talk. Ya see, nobody really believes in impending man-made climate doom and you don't either.

[Romero]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?

Changes in the earth's climate are increasing at a steady rate, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warned Thursday in a new report.



Greenhouse gas emissions, sea levels, global temperatures and super storms all are trending upward, NOAA said.



"These findings reinforce what scientists for decades have observed: that our planet is becoming a warmer place," NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan said in a statement Thursday. "This report provides the foundational information we need to develop tools and services for communities, business, and nations to prepare for, and build resilience to, the impacts of climate change."



The report provides detailed updates on global climate change indicators, which 425 scientists from 57 countries helped to compile.



The NOAA found that greenhouse gas concentrations in the globe's atmosphere continued to rise and reached historically high levels.



http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/212577-noaa-climate-change-is-getting-worse">//http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/212577-noaa-climate-change-is-getting-worse

[Romero]

You mean like the TYEE, motherjones, commondreams or HPo?

Nope! The World Meteorological Organization, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, National Geographic, the The Union of Concerned Scientists...

We now have the RSS satellite temperature data out for November, and, as with UAH(University of Alabama Huntsville, they show that this year will be nowhere a record, as is being touted for the surface datasets. Indeed, this year is running in only a modest 7th place.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/image_thumb8.png?w=780&h=465">

Those are temperature anomalies, not temperatures.

[Anonymous]

One of the Coldest Winters in 20 Years Shatters Snow Records

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/record-breaking-cold-winter-we/24831365">http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-n ... e/24831365">http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/record-breaking-cold-winter-we/24831365



Record-Breaking November Arctic Cold

http://www.weather.com/storms/winter/news/arctic-cold-outbreak-november-locked-20141110">http://www.weather.com/storms/winter/ne ... d-20141110">http://www.weather.com/storms/winter/news/arctic-cold-outbreak-november-locked-20141110



A Review of the Record Cold Winter of 2013-2014

• Temperatures were examined primarily at the following locations:

 * Houghton ------------------------------------------------- records begin in 1887

 * Iron Mountain ------------------------------------------- records begin in 1889

 * Ironwood ------------------------------------------------- records begin in 1901

 * Manistique ----------------------------------------------- records begin in 1896

 * Marquette NWS office (Negaunee Township)---- records begin in 1961

 * Marquette City ------------------------------------------ records begin in 1871

 * Munising -------------------------------------------------- records begin in 1911

 * Newberry ------------------------------------------------- records begin in 1896



From wiki

The 2013–14 North American cold wave was an extreme weather event extending from December 2013 to April 2014, and was also part of an unusually cold winter affecting parts of Canada and the Eastern United States.



Harsh Cold to Freeze Northeast, Set Records in South

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/harsh-cold-to-freeze-northeast/37451243">http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-n ... t/37451243">http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/harsh-cold-to-freeze-northeast/37451243



The always reliable IPCC predicted in 2014

Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms," IPCC stated quite plainly in its 2001 Third Assessment Report. IPCC's prediction has two components: (1) global warming will cause milder winters and (2) global warming will cause a decline in heavy snowstorm events. These two predictions are clear and unequivocal.

I guess they forgot to tell the perople of Buffalo or us as we had a massive dump of snow less than 2 weeks ago that shut-in like half the city.

[RW]

Are we seriously still debating whether climate change is real or not?

[Anonymous]

Are we seriously still debating whether climate change is real or not?

Still debating?? The debate has never even begun.

[RW]

Shen darling, what planet are you living on?

[Anonymous]

Shen darling, what planet are you living on?

The one where the man-made global warming menace has been on pause for more than a decade and a half now.



I will let you in on a little secret; nobody really believes the earth is warming up at a dangerous level, man is responsible for it and only drastic action will reverse it. Especially the people jetting around the world telling us the sky is falling.

[RW]

Allow me to correct you in a humourous yet accurate way:

[Anonymous]

Allow me to correct you in a humourous yet accurate way: