Friday October 23, 2009, 4:56 am
Yeah, IF .....

Friday October 23, 2009, 1:41 pm
After my recent visit to Ireland -- I simply do not believe that it is possible. But thanks for the news, Cal.

Friday October 23, 2009, 3:25 pm
Encourage Obama to follow Europe's lead:

Take Action - Tell President Obama: YES HE CAN STOP GLOBAL WARMING

The White House released a report yesterday, June 16th 2009, proving what scientists have been saying for years: if we don't stop global warming NOW, we will experience drought, food shortages, flooding, and massive population displacement.

http://www.care2.com/news/member/918337647/1278177

Please note and sign the petition :)

Friday October 23, 2009, 3:35 pm
OMG....we are burning up....not!

The more it cools and the more information is revealed that the CO2 changes climate idea is a fraud produced by fiddling statitics and data, the more extreme the noise from the Big Green Machine gets.

Are you dying of fright yet?


"A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

Friday October 23, 2009, 3:37 pm
Whats wrong ms. foot we gettin under your skin....LOL

Big Gorilly Hugs

Friday October 23, 2009, 3:38 pm
dont think it will happen too optimistic. but the world is going to end in 2012 anyway, so there is nothing to worry about. everything is gonna be a.ok. and hunky dorey.

Friday October 23, 2009, 4:54 pm
Judy...your so funny ... right after you posted that last article (twenty times ago LMAO) YOU posted a second article (actually a denilist BLOG entry) that you said supported your dogma - and it was BASED ON TREE RING DATA - Miis doubble standard strikes yet again. You know how you can tell "good" tree ring data "from "bad" tree ring data in Judy's world? If it supports her daoma it is good data, if it counters her dogma it is bad data LMAO!!!! WHo can agrue with "Judy logic" like that LMAO!!!!

annyway, back to taking action - we need to continue to pressue Canada to follow Europe's leed too:

Please help to build momentum for a strong agreement to safeguard our future in the lead up the UN climate change summit by asking your friends and colleagues to send a message to the Prime Minister and opposition leaders in the House of Commons.

Please forward the message below to your friends

=============================

I’ve just joined David Suzuki Foundation supporters and millions of people all over the world who want world leaders—including Canada’s Prime Minister—to sign an ambitious, fair and binding agreement to safeguard our future at the crucial UN climate change summit in Copenhagen this December

Climate change is a serious threat to our prosperity and our future. But, the greatest threat is our own inaction.

Action on climate change is not only good for our environment. Global action on climate change will also open up tremendous job and business opportunities in the emerging clean energy economy – new opportunities that Canada can be a part of.

For the sake of the health of our economy, environment and future, I’m urging you to join us in taking action to safeguard our climate. Please take a minute to send a message to Canada’s Prime Minister and opposition leaders in the House of Commons.

Find out more at http://www.DavidSuzuki.org/Climate_Summit/

When you go to the site, be sure to hit the purple link on the right hand side of the page to send your message to Canada’s Prime Minister and leaders in Parliament. (you don't have to be Canidian to send a letter :) )

Friday October 23, 2009, 9:19 pm
It's funny how Judy and other denialists will discount the warming that has happened from the 1970s to 2005, and exaggerate the cooling we have had since then. Can we have a more balanced perspective, please?

Saturday October 24, 2009, 2:45 am
Making promises is the very easiest thing to do,
I've heard it many times before, how about You?

What are we waiting for?
Come on...here's my message: (since 1975)
Wind Energy! Solar Power! Geothermical Energy! Wave/Tidal Energy! NOW!
Electric Cars! High Speed Trains! Reduce/Reuse/Recycle! NOW!!!
ECO-Logical Agriculture! Biological diversity!
Sustainability! Plant more trees! Save our Rain Forests! Save our Oceans!
If not NOW - WHEN???

Saturday October 24, 2009, 4:10 am
Is the writing on the wall for change of policy, or are they going to stand in front of the train and get swept away by climate change...

Saturday October 24, 2009, 7:11 am
Absolutely Ben ... but we do not need to wait for the "leaders" to take action ... EACH OF US is empowered with the ability to take individual action ... and by continuing to work together we are making a difference -depite the efforts of the "Judy's" in this world trying to stop us :)

Chaz ... your comment reminded me of a climate change PSA from a while back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZQ6HZfWXEI

Saturday October 24, 2009, 9:27 am
Right;
I am NOT waiting for our "leaders" to take action. (or, should I say that I have been waiting for 35 years???)
-Leading by example - the very hardest thing to do;
and most of our present leaders don't have a clue!
Well, they are good at talking the talk,
now they just have to walk the walk...

Saturday October 24, 2009, 11:57 am
Do you relly serously beleive that any democratically elected government would be ever be reelected if it did what it would take to do what you are asking for ?
Would the US public accept taxing gas so the price will rise to $8 per gallon like it is in most of the rest of the developed world ?
Would the US public accept a ban on air conditioning in non essential areas such as private homes and offices ?
Would the US public accept having to pay the cost of electricity produced under the resttrictions you ask for.
Would the US public accept a ban on pets (I just saw a study from New Zeeland mentioned, wherin they computed the ecological footprint of a medium sized dog to be larger than that of an SUV)

I bet at most you will be willing to try fake it like they did in Califonia and export your pollution somewhere else - anybody from Califonia care to tell how "well" that went when the maximum allowed price of electricity went below production cost and earlier times cheap imports from other states ceased ?

Lets face it - energy consumption is curently a very good measure of wealth - and NOBODY deliberately wants to be poor.

How do you propose to feed the 9 billion people the worlds population is currently hoped to top out at ?
And how do you propose tho prevent the developing world to strive for sharing our wealth ?

Saturday October 24, 2009, 2:38 pm
Most of what you just said is not reality - or even proposals...so it is empty retoric at best ...

As to California - I DO live there and it worked out just fine ... and we hold high standards for our energy produced in state AND that imported from other states ... we DO NOT pass the pollution on to other states ... you really need to do some FACT CHECKING before making silly remarks :)

Sunday October 25, 2009, 2:58 am
So you deny there were severe problems with brownouts in California after enacting the deragulation laws in 1998 ? And do you deny that the majority of the power consumed in California is generated at fossil fueled or nuclear plants ?
While you can get rid of the nitrous and sulferous gasses, the flyash etc. from a coal fired plant, you can't get rid of the CO2.

And proposals like I wrote is what you will have to do if you really want to address the issue of reducing CO2 emmisions.

Out of the 307.000 Gigawatt hours used in Califonia in 2008, the net import was 98.000 GWh, 32.000 GWh came from nuclear plants in California and 127.000 GWh where produced by burning fossil fules in Califonia.
And since you can't tell how power is generated at the consuming end we have to assume 75 % of the imports are genereated witf fossil fuels (based on US statistics).
Consumption increased by about 10 % over the last decade.

I also think ist a safe bet that the fuel efficiency of the Califonian fossil plants is significantly lower than the 97-98% we achive over here.

Sunday October 25, 2009, 9:53 am
You left out out the clean energy standard we have - which eliminates the possible use of coal both instate and out of state (no flyash or sulpher dioxide - what are you doing about mercury and mountain top removal from coal???) ... yes, fossil fuel is still used - natural gas - which is one of the cleanest technologies (though it still produces CO2 wich is a problem) ... you also neglect the new renewable energy standards - the strongrest in the country ... you also ignore the explosive growth in solar, wind, geothermal in California ... it does seem you leave a lot out of the discussion :) Her are alternate proposals to your silly strawman ones listed above: plant trees, stop deforestation, energy efficinecy, clean renewable energy, moving away from coal and fossil fuels ... more that you left out :)

Sunday October 25, 2009, 3:47 pm
eliminates the use of coal ?
According to official Californian statistics about 4000 GWh was generated fron coal in-state and a further 20.000 - 30.000 GWh of coal generated power was imported every year so far this decade.

claenlyness ?
There is no reason why a coal powered plant should be much more polluting than a natural gas powered one - the technology to handle the sulferous and nitrous oxides plus the flyash exist and are commercially viable. As for mercury the technology to filter it from crematoria emmisions (contains about 50 % of the emmisions from the coal powerplants here) exist so if it was judged neccesary it could most likely be filtered from the powerplants as well - at present about 1/3 of the mercury in the coal is emitted while the rest ends up in the flyash, slags and sulfur filters. But why should we ignore that NATURAL GAS ALSO CONTAINS MERCURY ? (in the order of 1 mikrogram per cubic metre - coal has about 0.1 milligrams per ton - in the bot cases exact figures vary between sources) Also note that all that clean energy technology often relies on batteries - another significant source of mercury pollution.
As for mountain top removal mining, there are other methods of mining if you have problems with the method (most coal is mined differently) and after the coal has been removed the land can be reclaimed - to me it seems to be more of a cultural problem that people don't like what is going on than a real environmental problem, since nature doens't care about aeshtetics - that is entirely a human thing.

explosive growth in renewal energy ?
According to the official Californian statistics covering the last ten years hydroelectrics show a declining trend (might be caused by recent lack of water), geothermal, biomass and solar are constant and wind shows a moderately rising trend - in total they are constant.

If everything was that easy, then why is your govenrment so unlikely to be willing to go along with anything of any significance at COP 15 ?

Sunday October 25, 2009, 4:55 pm
Your "facts" need to be updatated - don't know your sources since you don't mention any...

"As for mountain top removal mining, there are other methods of mining if you have problems with the method (most coal is mined differently) and after the coal has been removed the land can be reclaimed - to me it seems to be more of a cultural problem that people don't like what is going on than a real environmental problem, since nature doens't care about aeshtetics - that is entirely a human thing..."

A completly uneducated "opinion" - you really need to do a little research on the subject....

Coal, Electricity, and Renewables
Natural gas-fired power plants typically account for more than one-half of State electricity generation. California is one of the largest hydroelectric power producers in the United States, and with adequate rainfall, hydroelectric power typically accounts for close to one-fifth of State electricity generation. California’s two nuclear power plants account for almost one-fifth of total generation. Due to strict emission laws, only a few small coal-fired power plants operate in California.

California leads the Nation in electricity generation from nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources. California generates electricity using wind, geothermal, solar, fuel wood, and municipal solid waste/landfill gas resources. A facility known as “The Geysers,” located in the Mayacamas Mountains north of San Francisco, is the largest complex of geothermal power plants in the world, with more than 750 megawatts of installed capacity. California has numerous wind farms in five major wind resource areas, and several new projects are currently under construction. The world’s largest solar power facility operates in California’s Mojave Desert. Two southern California utilities are planning to build new solar farms, a 500-megawatt facility in the Mojave Desert and a 300-megawatt plant in the Imperial Valley. These proposed plants would dwarf existing U.S. solar generation capacity. To further boost renewable energy use, California’s Energy Action Plan includes incentives that encourage Californians to install solar power systems on their rooftops.

Due to high electricity demand, California imports more electricity than any other State. States in the Pacific Northwest deliver power to California markets primarily from hydroelectric sources, while States in the Desert Southwest deliver power primarily from coal- and natural gas-fired sources. Hydroelectric power comes to California primarily through the Western USA interconnection, which runs from northern Oregon to southern California. The system, also known as the Pacific Intertie, is the largest single electricity transmission program in the United States. Although the Pacific Intertie was originally designed to transmit electricity south during California’s peak summer demand season, flow is sometimes reversed overnight and has occasionally been reversed during periods of reduced hydroelectric generation in the Northwest. California restricts the use of coal-fired generation within its boundaries; however, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) operates the coal-fired Intermountain power plant in Utah, which delivers three-fourths of its output to LADWP and other California municipal utilities. A recent California law forbids utilities from entering into long-term contracts with conventional coal-fired power producers. Intermountain’s existing contracts with southern California cities are set to expire in 2027.

In 2000 and 2001, California suffered an energy crisis characterized by electricity price instability and four major blackouts and caused by a supply and demand imbalance. Multiple factors contributed to this imbalance, including: a heavy dependence on out-of-State electricity providers, drought conditions in the northwest that reduced hydroelectric power generation, a rupture on a major natural gas pipeline supplying California power plants, strong economic growth leading to increased electricity demand in western States, an increase in unplanned power plant outages, and unusually high temperatures that increased electricity demand for air-conditioning and other cooling uses. Following the energy crisis, the California State government created an Energy Action Plan designed to eliminate outages and excessive price spikes. To achieve these goals, the plan calls for optimizing energy conservation, building sufficient new generation facilities, upgrading and expanding the electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure, and ensuring that generation facilities can quickly come online when needed.

source with more details
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_California,_United_States

compairing the ammount of mercury in natural gas compaired to coal is laughable ...

"explosive growth in renewal energy ?"

YES :)

California's Renewable Energy Programs

http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.html

"If everything was that easy, then why is your govenrment so unlikely to be willing to go along with anything of any significance at COP 15 ?"

That mostly boils down to fossil fuel special intrests in states other than California ...

,

Monday October 26, 2009, 2:48 am
I said the official statistics - from the state of Califonia of course.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/ the site you quote yourself.

As for the mercury content of natural gas, why don't you do the math and report back how much mercury is involved when generating the same amount of energy using natural gas (1 mikrogram per m3) and coal (1 milligram per ton).

Monday October 26, 2009, 6:47 am
"Emissions of sulfur dioxide and mercury compounds from burning natural gas are negligible." - US Environmental Protection Agency

from:

Air Emissions

http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html

Monday October 26, 2009, 9:07 am
But how much ?
How much mercury does the natural gas consumed in California contain - and where does it end up ?
If the figures are unknown, then how can they be judged as being insignificant ?