http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle19911352/
"My analysis shows that if Mr. Harper had “competently” enacted in 2007 the regulations he promised, the effective price on carbon would have started around $15 per tonne of CO2 in 2008, reaching $100 in 2020. This would not have harmed the Canadian economy. It would have phased-out most coal plants, as Ontario has done. It would have shifted transportation toward natural gas, biofuels and electricity, as is occurring in California. It would have substantially slowed the growth of oil sands, and led to investments in carbon capture, as in Norway. Oil sands jobs would not have grown as rapidly, but would not have declined. And job creation in alternative energy would be substantial, as has occurred with renewables in B.C. and Ontario. There would be no Keystone XL, no Northern Gateway."
The Following User Says Thank You to smoothpops For This Useful Post:
"Slowly, a scientific expert started to become a dirty word in some halls on Capital Hill. Political and ideological groups became adroit at pretending to include science to push their agendas, resorting to pseudoscience when necessary. The new crop of Google Graduates are their present-day soldiers and are flooding society with so much science noise, it’s difficult to tell who’s a scientist and who’s not."
And to the above... Most carbon capture technologies I've seen peg the COST of carbon capture/sequestration/avoidance anywhere from $80-150/t. A price of $100/t certainly is not unrealistic given that information.
And to the above... Most carbon capture technologies I've seen peg the COST of carbon capture/sequestration/avoidance anywhere from $80-150/t. A price of $100/t certainly is not unrealistic given that information.
I've done a couple of engineering studies for carbon capture projects in Alberta using a variety of technologies and your cost range is ballpark correct. The cost estimates were staggering. A lot of the cost is in the fact that these are pretty unique projects still, if a few got built the cost would go down. It's also quite energy intensive, so to capture the CO2 from the generation of 100 MW of power you potentially could have to generate an additional 10-20 MW.
I've done a couple of engineering studies for carbon capture projects in Alberta using a variety of technologies and your cost range is ballpark correct. The cost estimates were staggering. A lot of the cost is in the fact that these are pretty unique projects still, if a few got built the cost would go down. It's also quite energy intensive, so to capture the CO2 from the generation of 100 MW of power you potentially could have to generate an additional 10-20 MW.
Could you share any of those studies? I would love to read them.
“This is the latest in a series of warm years, in a series of warm decades. While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long-term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.
it's currently -20*C (real feel -32*C) here in Ottawa.
Global Warming is a hoax... if it were true I'd be wearing shorts, sunglasses and drinking a fruity drink with an umbrella and ungodly amount of rum in it.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
A vast and ever-growing body of research shows that warming is tracking the rise of greenhouse gases exactly as their models predicted. The physical evidence becomes more dramatic every year: forests retreating, animals moving north, glaciers melting, wildfire seasons getting longer, higher rates of droughts, floods, and storms—five times as many in the 2000s as in the 1970s. In the blunt words of the 2014 National Climate Assessment, conducted by three hundred of America's most distinguished experts at the request of the U. S. government, human-induced climate change is real—U. S. temperatures have gone up between 1.3 and 1.9 degrees, mostly since 1970—and the change is already affecting "agriculture, water, human health, energy, transportation, forests, and ecosystems." But that's not the worst of it. Arctic air temperatures are increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the world—a study by the U. S. Navy says that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice by next year, eighty-four years ahead of the models—and evidence little more than a year old suggests the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is doomed, which will add between twenty and twenty-five feet to ocean levels. The one hundred million people in Bangladesh will need another place to live and coastal cities globally will be forced to relocate, a task complicated by economic crisis and famine—with continental interiors drying out, the chief scientist at the U. S. State Department in 2009 predicted a billion people will suffer famine within twenty or thirty years. And yet, despite some encouraging developments in renewable energy and some breakthroughs in international leadership, carbon emissions continue to rise at a steady rate, and for their pains the scientists themselves—the cruelest blow of all—have been the targets of an unrelenting and well-organized attack that includes death threats, summonses from a hostile Congress, attempts to get them fired, legal harassment, and intrusive discovery demands so severe they had to start their own legal-defense fund, all amplified by a relentless propaganda campaign nakedly financed by the fossil-fuel companies. Shortly before a pivotal climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, thousands of their e-mail streams were hacked in a sophisticated espionage operation that has never been solved—although the official police investigation revealed nothing, an analysis by forensics experts traced its path through servers in Turkey and two of the world's largest oil producers, Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Most of the dozens of scientists and activists I spoke to date the rise of the melancholy mood to the failure of the 2009 climate conference and the gradual shift from hope of prevention to plans for adaptation
In the comments section. Is this a real thing? Bot/Sock Puppets?
A lot of them are fake profiles of people paid to comment on any story about climate. The lack of anything in the profile is a tip off.
Last edited by troutman; 07-10-2015 at 09:59 AM.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Bumblebees can't move north to cope with warmer temperatures, and climate change is wiping them out in many areas where they lived several decades ago, a Canadian-led study suggests.
The study looked at where 67 bumblebee species were found in North America and Europe from 1901 to 2010. Since 1975, bee species have been squeezed north by about nine kilometres a year, and are now locally extinct in the southern 300 kilometres of their ranges, said Jeremy Kerr, lead author of a new paper describing the findings.
"The rates of loss are very rapid and are nearly the same across continents," he said at a news conference organized by Science where the paper is being published today.
A vast and ever-growing body of research shows that warming is tracking the rise of greenhouse gases exactly as their models predicted. The physical evidence becomes more dramatic every year: forests retreating, animals moving north, glaciers melting, wildfire seasons getting longer, higher rates of droughts, floods, and storms—five times as many in the 2000s as in the 1970s. In the blunt words of the 2014 National Climate Assessment, conducted by three hundred of America's most distinguished experts at the request of the U. S. government, human-induced climate change is real—U. S. temperatures have gone up between 1.3 and 1.9 degrees, mostly since 1970—and the change is already affecting "agriculture, water, human health, energy, transportation, forests, and ecosystems." But that's not the worst of it. Arctic air temperatures are increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the world—a study by the U. S. Navy says that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice by next year, eighty-four years ahead of the models—and evidence little more than a year old suggests the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is doomed, which will add between twenty and twenty-five feet to ocean levels. The one hundred million people in Bangladesh will need another place to live and coastal cities globally will be forced to relocate, a task complicated by economic crisis and famine—with continental interiors drying out, the chief scientist at the U. S. State Department in 2009 predicted a billion people will suffer famine within twenty or thirty years. And yet, despite some encouraging developments in renewable energy and some breakthroughs in international leadership, carbon emissions continue to rise at a steady rate, and for their pains the scientists themselves—the cruelest blow of all—have been the targets of an unrelenting and well-organized attack that includes death threats, summonses from a hostile Congress, attempts to get them fired, legal harassment, and intrusive discovery demands so severe they had to start their own legal-defense fund, all amplified by a relentless propaganda campaign nakedly financed by the fossil-fuel companies. Shortly before a pivotal climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, thousands of their e-mail streams were hacked in a sophisticated espionage operation that has never been solved—although the official police investigation revealed nothing, an analysis by forensics experts traced its path through servers in Turkey and two of the world's largest oil producers, Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Most of the dozens of scientists and activists I spoke to date the rise of the melancholy mood to the failure of the 2009 climate conference and the gradual shift from hope of prevention to plans for adaptation
In the comments section. Is this a real thing? Bot/Sock Puppets?
A lot of them are fake profiles of people paid to comment on any story about climate. The lack of anything in the profile is a tip off.
Was that supposed to scare me?
Cause it did.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
There might be some off years but looking at the historical average it seems to be going up a little year by year, but so far this year it is off the charts.
Looking way back into the 80's what really stands out to me is the long term cold snaps seem to be gone, you could count on 2 or 3 a year back then and the chilly summer nights are a thing of the past as well, seems like the fire pit days where you needed sweaters are mostly gone.
