Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Next
Comments 2201 to 2250:
-
Bart Vreeken at 02:41 AM on 10 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Hi Bob @534
I don't see a clear rebound effect in my figure.
And of course the mass gain of last year shall be exceptional. But at least it's an interesting thing to notice. And maybe the increasing precipitation can offset the increasing discharge in the coming years as we can read in the article below. As you say, the average mass loss is now something like 114 Gt per year. That's much less then the 151 Gt we read about on the website of NASA (Vital Signs).
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:42 AM on 10 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
One other thing to note in Bart Vreeken's graph in comment 533.
Bart's graph has a dotted line in it, and an equation in the upper right corner, which I presume is the regression equation for the line.
Note that the indicated slope is -0.0672 (so, almost zero), and the intercept is -113.83. This indicates an average mass loss of 113.83 Gt per year. A bit lower than the 149 Gt per year in the web page I linked to in comment 534 - but the page I linked to does not include the 2021 and 2022 data, which pull the average up.
-
MA Rodger at 01:05 AM on 10 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Bart Vreeken @533,
You appear to be plotting out the GRACE/GRACE-FO data as per this NASA web page (which shows data to Oct 2022). This gravity data does not measure Sea Ice which is floating. And for clarity, it is not Surface Mass Balance which you correctly say had an exceptional year last year (as per this NSIDC post of January 2023, snowfall being high enough to "completely offset recent net ice losses from faster ice flow off the ice sheet for this assessment period. Most of the past decade has seen annual net losses of 50 to 150 billion tons."
So a record year for the 2023 Antarctic Sea Ice Extent minimum as well as a record year for the 2022 Antarctic Surface Mass Balance.
Antarctica doesn't get a lot of attention, compared to the Arctic cryosphere. Certainly for Antarctic Sea Ice, the mechanisms driving the variations is a lot less straightforward in the Antarctic.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:33 AM on 10 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Bart Vreeken @533:
What exactly is your point? The links between sea ice area and land ice mass are not simple, and have been discussed in the detailed sections of the blog post and earlier comments.
In your graphic, it is obvious that the two major years of land ice gain (2016, 2022) follow several years of strong mass ice loss. This is easily explained as a rebound effect.
This web page on Grace data has an embedded video with data to 2020. Rather than portraying the annual changes it shows the overall trend in the absolute value from year to year. Clearly, Antarctic land ice is losing mass in the long term - with short terms ups and downs.
Are you perhaps over-analyzing the significance of short-term changes, as is often done with temperature changes? (As seen in The Escalator).
-
Bart Vreeken at 23:07 PM on 9 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
It looks like the Antartican Ice Sheet had a very good year, as far as we can see. At least, the mass balance over the period november 2021 - november 2022 was far positive. This can be due to the very low extend of the sea ice. The Surface Mass Balance over the melting period of last year turned out very positive. I don't read much about this, the focus in de media is on the low extent of the sea ice. Any thoughts about this?
I did expect a new update of de GRACE data of December 2022, but it comes late again.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:49 PM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
Eddie:
SkS did a series on the ocean acidification issue a number of years back.
Part 0 provides an index to the series.
After it was complete, it was turned into a downloadable booklet.
-
EddieEvans at 19:57 PM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
MARoger@
"The net carbon sink into the oceans is far more predictable than the carbon interchange in/out of the biosphere."
Using the global ocean as a carbon sink has consequences for biodiversity, increasing acidification. There's no free lunch, and no eternal waste disposal for the Anthropocene, I gather. I'm not up to date on the latest research; I left the ocean as a sink with Roger Revelle. I will update my understanding for sure. There are no positives in any of these GHG matters.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:25 PM on 9 March 2023Which state is winning at renewable energy production?
David @9... "The shift of the demand curve effectively raises the market price of the product."
Not necessarily. Specifically, with RE systems, what the tax credits are doing is making up for externalities. RE is operating in the energy marketplace and is therefore in competition with legacy energy generation from FF sources. Those FF sources have an effective advantage in that the byproducts of their uses have quantifiable, but uncaptured, harms to the global environment.
Regardless of whether a tax credit is making the energy product cheaper or making the RE provider more profitable doesn't matter. What matters is the overall benefit to the RE energy companies in lieu of direct taxes on carbon emissions.
Same applies to EV makers. They are operating in the automobile market with, initially, products that cost more to manufacture. Tax credits level the playing field between EV's and ICEV's for a time period while economies of scale can be achieved by EV makers. Remember, all the auto tax credits have sunsets based on the numbers of vehicles sold.
In the case of EV's, clearly the tax credits are benefiting the buyer because the cost of EV's is just now (or within a year or two) achieving parity with the cost of manufacturing an ICEV. Thus, up until now those tax credits have served to bring the cost of EV's in line with ICEV's.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:42 AM on 9 March 2023“It’s almost like a cult.” Activists shout down rural renewable energy projects
David-acct:
Wind turbines may be spread over a large area, but not all the land in that area is removed from other functional uses. Farmers can easily use most of the land in that 750 acres, since the only place that can't be farmed is the actual base of the towers and any road infrastructure needed for maintenance.
A picture from the North Sea area in Germany:
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:29 AM on 9 March 2023Which state is winning at renewable energy production?
David-acct:
The change in price in response to shifting supply or demand depends a great deal on the "elasticity" - basically, the slope of the supply or demand curve. Some products are very inelastic - prices are barely affected by large changes in supply or demand - while others are very elastic - small changes in supply or demand can lead to large price changes.
Some products are essentials, and people will continue to pay for them even if prices go up a lot. Luxuries are often more elastic - people will readily reduce purchases if they think it's too expensive.
As for who benefits from a credit - surely the individual buyer pays less in the end (the initial payment, less the tax rebate), even if the producer pockets more? Electricity is not a particularly elastic demand - people need it, and changing the amount they use is not easy. What happens if tax credits are given for renewable generation is that there is (hopefully) a shift from non-renewable to renewable. It's not a function of the elasticity of electricity overall - it is a shifting of the demand from one source to another. Some purchases get a benefit, while others (still using non-renewable resources) do not.
Do you have specific references to support your closing claim that 70-90% of the benefit goes to the seller?
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:12 AM on 9 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
My favourite non-igniting explosion is probably the water heater that the Myth Busters blew up.
Heat and pressure, That's all it takes.
-
David-acct at 11:10 AM on 9 March 2023“It’s almost like a cult.” Activists shout down rural renewable energy projects
NIMBY does create some issues for worthwhile projects. A 375 Mw wind farm will require approx 3000 acres (assuming 80 acres per megawatt) or 35-40 square miles (assuming 10 mw per square mile. A typical gas generating plant generating 250-300MW will have a foot print of approx 15-20 acres. Approx 2 acres of land used for the actual turbine, & roads means the foot print for the 375mw is 750 acres, not including lower farm production.
So while it is regrettable, it remains understandable.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:06 AM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
PM (may I call you PM?):
There is a classic line at the end of the movie Casablanca, where the police captain (Renault) says to Rick (the main character played by Humphrey Bogart), "round up the usual suspects". The connotation is that the police have a list of people they know are usually associated with many crimes, and they'll take the blame.
I'm basically pointing out that there are certain players in the climate change "debates" who will most certainly take the least charitable interpretation of that quote. We've seen them do similar, many times before.
-
David-acct at 10:55 AM on 9 March 2023Which state is winning at renewable energy production?
to bob & Nigelj at 6 & 7
There is a lot of misunderstanding on tax credits and who benefits from those tax credits, Those misunderstandings persist simply because the general public has a poor grasp of the basics of micro economics and the supply and demand curves. Tax credits which buyer obtains a reduction of their income tax artificially shift the demand curve. The size of the shift is a function of both the size of the credit and the natural demand for the product without the tax credit. The shift of the demand curve effectively raises the market price of the product. The buyer is still paying at or near the natural market price ( which is the gross price less the tax credit or some portion thereof depending on the elasticity of the product). As such, most of the benefit of the buyers tax credit goes to the seller in the form of higher sales price. A reasonable estimate in the case of EV's and home renewable products is 70-90% of the benefit effectively goes to the seller.
-
PollutionMonster at 10:49 AM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
Bob Loblaw @21
I am unsure who "The Usual Suspects" are. I am pretty good at debunking obvert denial, but I still have a knowledge gap when it comes to the subtler aspects of climate change.
-
scaddenp at 09:36 AM on 9 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
There is all those lovely videos of SpaceX experiments failing cryo tests. eg www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYeVnGL7fgw I think most people would call them explosions, despite liquid nitrogen not being ignited.
-
John Hartz at 09:01 AM on 9 March 2023“It’s almost like a cult.” Activists shout down rural renewable energy projects
And on the other side of the "pond"...
Three non-violent Insulate Britain activists have been jailed for telling juries why they were protesting.
Court restrictions on climate protesters ‘deeply concerning’, say leading lawyers by Sandra Laville, Environment, The Guardian, Mar 8, 2023
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:36 AM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
I"m with Rob. The writing of that specific sentence could be clearer. The "50% chance" part is definitely associated with the "staying below 1.5 degrees", but the comma that follows that separates the "50% chance" probability from the "risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions".
Two possible re-writes that would make the writer's intentions clearer:
- "The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius]." It also brings a "risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control."
- "The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of" avoiding two outcomes: "staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control."
Expect "The Usual Suspects" to insist that the only possible interpretation is the one that fits their preconceived notions of Greta Thunberg.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:14 AM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
Hm... Yeah, those are quotes from 2019 and I think she's probably conflating two issues. One being the likelihood of staying below 1.5°C or 2°C, and the other being the likelihood of setting off irreversible feedbacks. To my understanding, they're two different issues with very different confidence levels.
-
PollutionMonster at 07:38 AM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
Most of the quote is here in this NPR article. Risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions NPR.
I would have to reread the book to get the exact quotes, I read in local bookstore.
""The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control." Thunberg
-
wilddouglascounty at 07:25 AM on 9 March 2023The little-known physical and mental health benefits of urban trees
Little known? Ask any kid on a playground with one large tree on it where they want to play. Actually, you don't even have to ask: use your eyes!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:22 AM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
PM @17... Would you have the precise quote from Thunberg's book related to "50% chance of runaway greenhouse effects beyond human control at 2°C"?
My suspicion is that's not an entirely correct assessment, though I'm confident Thunberg's book went through a thorough review by researchers prior to publication. My understanding is, past 2°C we move into a realm of much greater uncertainties. Also, even at 2°C significant feedbacks (say, from methane releases) remain long tail uncertainties. But I could be wrong.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:14 AM on 9 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
Dennis... Getting things wrong is part of learning. We all get things wrong from time to time. The only true error is when we fail to learn from our mistakes.
-
PollutionMonster at 07:11 AM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
I read all the responses, and I want to thank all of you. :) Climate justice is a major part of climate change. That rich nations including the United States, France, and United Kingdom need to reach zero emissions by 2030 so that poorer nations have time to develop and have some emissions until 2050.
Thunberg in her book referenced some specific page of the IPCC page 100 or so stating that there is a 50% chance of runaway greenhouse effects beyond human control at 2C and only 34% chance at 1.5C. Is this true? That there really is that high a chance that climate change will be the end of everything? Did I misread? I haven't read the source material, navigating the IPCC report is difficult.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:32 AM on 9 March 2023“It’s almost like a cult.” Activists shout down rural renewable energy projects
Cult-like expressions of angry opposition to helpful developments are being driven by passionate belief in harmful misunderstanding.
That is a common tactic of people who likely know what is harmful and helpful but want to benefit from the ability to harmfully mislead "common people". And it is happening on many issues, not just climate change.
Too many people are too easily misled because there is no effective penalty mechanism. Commercial product marketers can be penalized for being misleading. But there is no comparable penalty for being politically misleading.
It is important to remember that even a "renewable energy development" can have harmful aspects hidden by 'a focus on the positives'. The important requirement is full understanding of the negatives with the set of 'least negative' alternatives being considered to be the only viable development alteratives.
That requires the development of regional populations that will be governed by learning to be less harmful and more helpful to people who need assistance.
Everyone does not have to learn to be less harmful and more helpful. There just have to be enough helpful people to effectivey limit the harm done by attempts to benefit from harmful misunderstandings.
-
DennisHorne at 05:37 AM on 9 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
Moderators
Sorry, please remove anything not right or the comments in their entirety. Thanks.
Moderator Response:[BL] If we wanted to, we would have. Usually we start with nudging users to remind them of proper posting etiquette. The initial goal is to make sure that users do not wander too far off, before things reach the point where we have to start editing or deleting posts.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:36 AM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
MA Rogers has correctly clarified that the total harmful warming impact is what matters. Limiting the impact to 1.5 C needs to continue to be the focus. And the reality that the peak impact will almost certainly exceed 1.5 C needs to be understood to mean that wealthy people today need to be paying for safe/harmless technological extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. That extraction will be expensive and never be profitable. And the spending of tax money on it rather than other things will never be "most" popular.
That is the challenge. Leadership has to do something unpopular and unprofitable to benefit future generations. The diversity of developed socioeconomic-political systems is tragically lacking in the development of that type of leadership. And it is now undeniable that humanity only has a future if it develops governing of all significant human activity in ways that understandably limit and correct harm done.
A related point is that it is harmful to cause increased CO2 to be absorbed in the oceans. The fact that CO2 will continue to be absorbed in the oceans is not a positive.
Also, a lack of significant methane release from massive thawing of permafrost (a miss named item) is not a helpful positive.
It is essential to remain focused on the need to end harmful activity regardless of its developed popularity or profitability abnd related popular 'perceived to be positive' misunderstandings (and that applies to authoritarian as well as democratic governing).
-
gerontocrat at 05:26 AM on 9 March 2023At a glance - Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
The CO2 615ppm limit for the East Antarctic ice sheet remaining stable seems to me somewhat optimistic.
One of the 25 drainage basins used to measure ice sheet mass loss in East Antarctica (Wilkes land) has lost 400 Gigatons (i.e. 400 Cubic Kilometres) of ice in the last 20 years, the fourth highest of all the basins, and comprising about 15% of the total ice mass loss of 2,500GT. The highest three are in West Antarctica.
Every time a new field survey is undertaken, it generally seems to come up with more bad news about the vulnerability of this apparently solid ice sheet.
-
John Hartz at 02:26 AM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
According to the following article, we are on the precipe of multiple climate tipping points. As they say, "Hold onto your hat, we're in for a wild ride."
Risky feedback loops are accelerating climate change, scientists warn by Emma Newburger, Climate, CNBC, Mar 6, 2023
-
MA Rodger at 00:37 AM on 9 March 2023It's not urgent
EddieEvans @13,
The net carbon sink into the oceans is far more predictable than the carbon interchange in/out of the biosphere. There is still some uncertainty and re-assessment (eg Watson et al 2020) in the matter but generally the only big variable is the ocean surface temperatures. So as long as we prevent massive SST rises, I would think it is safe to say "the global ocean will continue to act as a viable carbon sink." The actual size of that sink over the coming millennium will thus depend on how well we do preventing AGW but otherwise it's size is fairly predictable. What is far less predictable under AGW is the biosphere as a source/sink.You also raise the threat of methane, this usually focusing on natural feedbacks and the melting permafrost. In the past I was rather worried by the poor coverage of this subject in the scientific literature but having dug into the subject I now feel more comfortable about it. Additionally the absence of significant methane fluxes resulting from the significant permafrost melt in recent decades is a reassuring sign.
-
EddieEvans at 23:24 PM on 8 March 2023It's not urgent
"These extractions from the atmosphere are additional to the natural draw-down of CO2 into the oceans.)"
And we have no idea if, at all, the global ocean will continue to act as a viable carbon sink, not to mention methane. Then there's the political will and economic resources to make the abrupt ideological and technological changes needed, assuming that critical tipping points were not breached long ago. I'm assuming that we don't know everything to know about the neew climate change and our test-tube earth mentality.
-
MA Rodger at 22:43 PM on 8 March 2023It's not urgent
PollutionMonster @10,
You ask about the timing for reaching net zero carbon. That single timing doesn't properly capture the task in hand.
The science strongly suggests that increasing global temperatures by more than +1.5ºC risks potential dramatic climate change. To prevent such rise, there is just one scenario presented within the IPCC AR6 that fits the bill - SSP1-1.9.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22837805/Screen_Shot_2021_09_09_at_2.18.26_PM.png)
This SSP1-1.9 scenario does include a timing of 2050 for net zero carbon but it also requires a halving of global net carbon emissions by 2030 and large net negative carbon emissions post-2050. These net negative emissions amount to roughly extracting atmospheric CO2 equal to all the emissions post-2007 and storing them away safely. (There are many saline aquifers around the world which this CO2 could be desolved into after its extraction from the atmosphere. These extractions from the atmosphere are additional to the natural draw-down of CO2 into the oceans.)
But it seems it is only the 'net zero' message that is being heard by politicians. So calling for an earlier 'net zero' is probably a useful message.
-
EddieEvans at 20:46 PM on 8 March 2023It's not urgent
"PollutionMonster at 14:13 PM on 8 March 2023"
"How urgent is it?" is a value question. Another value question is "How much threat to diversity does humanity's anthropocentrism" cause to the long-term survival of species-populations in the wild (10,000 years)? And I agree, how do we quantify "How much threat"?In an anthropocentric (human-centered) context, judging from what I'm witnessing, we were out of time long ago.
I need only point to the proliferation of nuclear warheads and greenhouse gases to bolster my case. I don't see much genuine effort by governments and corporations to do the real work, and make long-term decisions for the benefit of humanity and biodiversity's long-term existence; we continue to pass the buck to future generations.
-
EddieEvans at 20:17 PM on 8 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
Ah, I might add to "burst," rather than "explosion," a synonym for grazing cattle's flatulence, "bursting" gut gas.
-
EddieEvans at 20:15 PM on 8 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
Maybe "burst" is a better word for the release of pressure from the methane's underground vault?
-
scaddenp at 18:45 PM on 8 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
Again, Explosion does not equal ignition. Think about what an explosion really is. Your "ignition" type is when have a rapid chemical reaction generating large local gas pressures which then expand when any containment broken. Chemical reaction (needing ignition) isnt the only way to generate large gas pressures though. This paper goes into the process much more deeply than news articles. Clearly no ignition.
-
PollutionMonster at 14:13 PM on 8 March 2023It's not urgent
Hi, I just read the book No One Is Too Small to Make a Difference by Greta Thunberg. Wow, what an emotional rollercoaster. I've played the Cranky Uncle game for hours, taken the edx101 course, surfed the skeptical science website, and argued with deniers.
Book no one is too small Greta Thunberg
Yet, only in 2022 have I heard about net zero emissions. Even then, I thought it was by the year 2050. Greta Thunberg makes the case that global climate change is an existential urgent crisis. That we need net zero by 2030. Is this really true?
As a millennial I feel a lot of the same emotions that the older generations are out of touch when I say I cannot get a job or having trouble with the basics like a roof over my head, running water, heat in winter. I find I get scolded by the older generations and they offer out of touch simplistic solutions blaming the victim or even calling me a liar.
Did I get distracted by the pandemic, George Floyd's murder, and possible nuclear war between Russia and Ukraine? With all my climate activist since 2016 did I really miss that we only have a 50% chance to avoid a climate catastrophe of runaway greenhouse effect if we go for a 2 degree Celsius increase by 2050 or whatever Thungberg said in her book?
How urgent is climate change? Thank you in advance. :)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:50 AM on 8 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
Dennis... Reading the article you link to, I believe they're using the term "explosion" the same way you would say a balloon "explodes" if you blow too much air into it. There is no "source of ignition." The pressure is merely reaching a point to where the ground above the methane build up catastrophically fails to hold it in.
Note that the before and after photos shown at the end of the article don't indicate any fire or charring around the crater, suggesting there was no actual "ignition" event related to the formation of the crater.
-
DennisHorne at 11:26 AM on 8 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
@scaddenp
I'm asking a question. When the methane explodes, as it clearly can, what is the source of the ignition?
Moderator Response:[RH] It's appreciated when you utilize the link tool to activate your references.
-
scaddenp at 09:07 AM on 8 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
I cant see anything in these that suggest the methane is igniting (explosion != ignition). In fact several of your sources explicitly discuss the gas blowout mechanism which I believe is what causes these. It is just build up a huge pressure from methane release until ground-strength is exceeded.
Pretty much same mechanism that causes gingerbeer or sauerkraut explosions, especially in days before plastic bottles and screw-tops.
-
DennisHorne at 08:11 AM on 8 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
@scaddenp
https://uaf.edu/news/nova-episode-explores-arctic-methane-explosions.php
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201130-climate-change-the-mystery-of-siberias-explosive-craters
Moderator Response:[BL] As noted by moderator RH in comment #5, please turn your text into proper links. The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.
In addition, please note that the comments policy discourages link-only comments. Specifically:
No link or picture only. Any link or picture should be accompanied by text summarizing both the content of the link or picture, and showing how it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Failure to do both of these things will result in the comment being considered off topic.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:54 AM on 8 March 2023Which state is winning at renewable energy production?
Peppers @5... Yes, there is a link there to the CA PUC but it's not clear how this supports anything you're saying.
Right now, any home owner in CA can order solar without actually even owning the solar panels. You can merely lease them and pay lower, fixed energy rates over the lifetime of the panels. No installation cost. Just lower bills. For non-home owners, in CA you can select the sources of your electricity on your energy bill.
I think you should consider taking a careful look at the graph I posted. If CA residents are using half the electricity per capita, even if paying higher rates than the rest of the nation, they end up (on average) paying less than people who live in low per-kwh rates.
-
nigelj at 06:50 AM on 8 March 2023Which state is winning at renewable energy production?
Peppers appears to be saying solar panels are subsidised, but even with subsidies only high income people can afford solar panels, and the cost of the the subsidies falls on the avergage tax payer and this is unfair. The poor are allegedly subsididing the rich. I hear this same reasoning with electric car subsidies. I acknowledge what people are getting at and we have to be careful that the costs of the transition to renewables don't disproportionately fall on low income people .
But doesn't America have a progessive tax system, so the rich do ultimately contribute more to the subsidies for the solar panels than low income people? And the subsidies promote the deployment of solar panels, so their price eventually drops, making them more accessible to low income people. So there are some positives in the subsidy policy.
Other ways of speeding the uptake of solar panels are carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, but these can potentially hurt low income people and have other downsides. There is no magic bullet, just a choice of the least worst option.
Whether subsides or carbon price schemes are best for promoting renewables is contested. Economists seem to prefer carbon price schemes over subsidies. However Norway has strong incentives to buy EV's and uptake has been very impressive.
Carbon pricing schemes are largely quite weak. The price has to be high to promote change but its politically difficult to have strong carbon pricing, strong carbon taxes, and the like. Quite a conundrum.
-
scaddenp at 05:46 AM on 8 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
Dennis, did I miss something? What makes you think that the methane ignited? I understand these to be pressure-blasts.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:35 PM on 7 March 2023Which state is winning at renewable energy production?
peppers @ 5:
No, I am not "talking about the speaker". I am talking about your lack of reponse to counter-arguments that have already been made, and suggesting your lack of response indicates a failure to engage in meaningful discussion. Also, your provision of arguments against things that people have not said - in other words, putting (inaccurately) words into people's mouths - also reflects poorly on your level of engagement. It is your actions that are in question, not you as an individual.
I suggest that you read the Comments Policy carefully. So far, I'm giving you mild suggestions on how you should approach discussions here. If I have to step in as moderator, I will also have to step out as a participant in the discussions. So far, you have not responded at all to my previous comments on regulation in the California electricity market, on that other thread. To make it easier for you to find those comments, here are links to them:
https://skepticalscience.com/take-advantage-clean-energy-tax-credits.html#140216
https://skepticalscience.com/take-advantage-clean-energy-tax-credits.html#140222
https://skepticalscience.com/take-advantage-clean-energy-tax-credits.html#140226
-
DennisHorne at 20:45 PM on 7 March 2023Methane emissions from Siberian sinkholes
The methane explodes. What is the source of the ignition - lightning?
-
peppers at 20:31 PM on 7 March 2023Which state is winning at renewable energy production?
Gentlemen,
Bob, your are talking about the speaker and not the topic. Chime in whenever.
Rob, the link to Ca. Gov statistics is provided up there, and is the basis of my comments. As the wealthy install solar panels with incentives and sell power back and reduce their bill to low or none even, they do not participate in the fees or absorbing Cares discounts, the addon's and subsidy participation costs which are routinely added on the the electric bills. The burden is now passed to the common payer as the payer pool shrinks, and Ca is scrambling to change regs to stem this inequity. As they raise recovery times against costs to put up solar from 3.5 to 10 years and consider charging these costs as an aside ( removing big incentives for buying solar ), it will be hitting the brakes on new purchases of panels as well. A yo yo outcome. I am not just speculating, I am responding to what I read from the ca.gov site there.
-
commonsense at 14:01 PM on 6 March 2023Filling an editorial policy hole
Please consider using columns or borders to create categories for content with different degrees of credibility.
For example, direct (or indirect but accurate) quotes from research reports or letters published in peer-reviewed journals might have green borders. Likewise, quotes from annual reviews or treatises whose editors' prior research reports have been published in more than one peer-reviewed journal might also have green borders.
Quotes from government agencies of stable democracies might have black borders.
Quotes from agencies of other governments or from journals, magazines and newspapers (or unpublished original research data and opinions from authors previously published in the same discipline) and research reports without peer review which the Skeptical Science moderator finds to be credible might have grey borders.
Unpublished observations of natural events and on-topic opinions from unknown commentators might have orange borders.
Typical non-authoritative but on-topic comment that is constructive in tone might have no border.
Material the moderator finds to be barely within the limits of what is fit to post might have a red border.
If creating these borders in the web site proves too difficult, different type styles, fonts and sizes might be used instead (with explanation).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:16 AM on 6 March 2023Renewable energy is too expensive
Ah, that makes more sense, stranger1548. I was trying to reconcile the two and defaulted to the latter half as what you were claiming. There are a bunch of formatting functions in the text editing box that you can use to differentiate your words from others. I tend to utilize the...
Block quote and/or italics to doubly reinforce the separations between speakers/sources. And will also make sure to include an "[emphasis added]" if want to point out specific aspects of someone's written comments which they didn't include.
-
stranger1548 at 07:53 AM on 6 March 2023Renewable energy is too expensive
Sorry for the confusion! I forgot put in the quote marks. The first paragraph is what I wrote. The rest was the skeptics claim.
