Chevron and Climate change

[CrusaderFrank]

Not Old Rocks, but I can't think of any way that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere could directly impact Jet Stream but I have yet to hear anyone assert such. Please demonstrate the reputable climate researchers that have claimed that CO2 directly shifts the jet stream. A warmer/warming climate will exhibit different atmospheric circulation patterns than a cooler/cooling climate, and climate can be warmed/cooled according to atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but that is not a direct, but rather a secondary or even tertiary (or greater) effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

CO2's primary effect is to retard the exodus of energy from our planet's atmosphere. It is the spread of this excess energy throughout our atmosphere, oceans and land surfaces that are the realms of weather and weather trends or climate. It is those trends that results in changes toward new, higher energy states, ranges and patterns.

So why are you chalking up the heat wave to AGW and not the Jet Stream?

I, personally, wouldn't attribute any single weather event to AGW. Climate is the composite of (trending of) weather patterns over extended time frames. It is one thing to say that the summers in some areas are generally starting to get warmer and drier and that this is in accord with what one would expect to see in some AGW (or CO2 forced) environments than it is to say that we can directly attribute this particular weather pattern and confluence solely and entirely to AGW circumstances. The former, in my consideration is properly qualified and reasonable, the later might be supportable but stripped of AGW significance by removing it from larger weather trends is inappropriate and not typically very rigorous. You might be able to "chalk up" more pole shifted summer routes for the primary northern hemisphere jet streams across the N. Am continent as a consequence of warming climates and you might be able to support that heat waves often result from such northern route jet streams, but this is very different from saying that increased CO2 caused this particular heat wave episode.

Climates have been getting drier..and wetter forever.

Egypt was like a rain forest when Giza was built and unless the Egyptians had cars, it was AGW that changed the climate.

 

[Trakar]

And several are starting to do more. Unlike most of the fringe absurdists typically encountered on political discussion boards, the oil companies understand the problems and the nature of what will ultimately occur. Their own scientists and researchers began warning them about the problem on the horizon 2-3 decades ago. they are simply trying to figure out how to make as much money (and new technology investments) as they can while they can.

Though I'd prefer perfect behavior, I feel that it is important to acknowlege any steps in the right direction.

Their own scientists were predicting global warming 3 decades ago?

No their own scientists were acknowledging the scientific realities of anthropogenic CO2 forced climate change and were informing corporate policy makers of what such was likely to yeild in terms of consequences with regards to the coal, oil and gas industrties as soon as political policy makers began addressing those issues. The european energy companies (BP at the forefront) based upon the advice of their own researchers began investing and planning in alternative energy in the mid '80s. US energy companies moved a bit slower and really didn't begin any major move toward alternatives until the late '90s-early first decade of 21rst century. The push back against climate science was one of the reasons the George C. Marshall institute was formed, though they were initially too engaged in defending SDI to get too far into the climate debate until the late '80s-mid '90s.

The Marshall Institute - Climate Change Policy

According to their own public statements, BP has been investing in and producing solar (PV) energy systems for 35 years.

Business and Politics, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2002 - "Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change: Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry"

Other People's Money. December 2, 1989, The Economist, "Or perhaps not. (global warming)"

You seem to be acting like climate change is a recent issue.

George H.W. Bush campaigned on it in Michigan back in August of 1988:
”Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the ‘greenhouse effect’ are forgetting about the ‘White House effect. In my first year in office, I will convene a global conference on the environment at the White House. It will include the Soviets, the Chinese. . . . The agenda will be clear. We will talk about global warming.” (NYT, 1990)

or we can look at the timeline of such events as recorded in New Scientist:

1957: US oceanographer Roger Revelle warns that humanity is conducting a "large-scale geophysical experiment" on the planet by releasing greenhouse gases. Colleague David Keeling sets up first continuous monitoring of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Keeling soon finds a regular year-on-year rise.

1970s: Series of studies by the US Department of Energy increases concerns about future global warming.

1979: First World Climate Conference adopts climate change as major issue and calls on governments "to foresee and prevent potential man-made changes in climate."

Back in September of 1985 The first major international conference on the greenhouse effect was held in Villach, Austria. Scientists warn that greenhouse gases will “in the first half of the next century, cause a rise of global mean temperature and a rise of sea levels." The conference also reports that gases other than CO2, such as methane, ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide contribute to warming.

1987: Warmest year since records began. The 1980s turn out to be the hottest decade on record, with seven of the eight warmest years recorded up to 1990. Even the coldest years in the 1980s were warmer than the warmest years of the 1880s.

1988: Global warming attracts worldwide headlines after scientists at Congressional hearings in Washington DC blame major US drought on its influence. Meeting of climate scientists in Toronto subsequently calls for 20% cuts in global CO2 emissions by the year 2005. UN sets up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to analyse and report on scientific findings.

1990: The first report of the IPCC finds that the planet has warmed by 0.5°C in the past century. IPCC warns that only strong measures to halt rising greenhouse gas emissions will prevent serious global warming. This provides scientific clout for UN negotiations for a climate convention. Negotiations begin after the UN General Assembly in December.

"What is a conservative after all, but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live.... And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live - our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it." - Ronald Reagan

1987 - Ordered U.S. diplomats to negotiate a strong treaty to begin phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. The resulting Montreal Protocol was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1988 and entered into force in 1989. The Montreal Protocol, which President Reagan called a “monumental achievement,” has resulted in a 95 percent decline in production of the targeted chemicals. The atmosphere’s protective ozone layer has begun to recover.

The Montreal Protocol has produced a significant climate stewardship benefit because ozone-depleting chemicals have heat-trapping properties. Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, emissions of heat-trapping gases equivalent to nearly 5 years of global carbon dioxide emissions have been prevented since 1990. President Reagan’s leadership made that enormous climate stewardship achievement possible.

Faced with today's evidences what would Reagan do?

 

[Trakar]

Chevron, Mobil, and BP are the largest non-government investors in renewable/alternative energy technologies.

I don't know that they are the largest, but they are certainly major and important investors. But I would expect no less. They are more intimately in tune with what is happening in the energy sector and where the future of that sector lies.

Fossil fuels are the future of the energy sector for the foreseeable future. So-called "renewable energy" is a joke.

Your assessment is based on personal preferences not economic or technological realities.

 

[Trakar]

According to some you just must be a fool to believe what you just posted.

As we all know, only government programs reliably develop anything of use in the market.

Like AMTRAK.

Smells like... "hyperbole".

No, it's called "sarcasm." Try using a dictionary before you post.

Looking in the mirror again?

Hyperbole - noun /hīˈpərbəlē/ 

1.Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally

 

[Trakar]

So why are you chalking up the heat wave to AGW and not the Jet Stream?

I, personally, wouldn't attribute any single weather event to AGW. Climate is the composite of (trending of) weather patterns over extended time frames. It is one thing to say that the summers in some areas are generally starting to get warmer and drier and that this is in accord with what one would expect to see in some AGW (or CO2 forced) environments than it is to say that we can directly attribute this particular weather pattern and confluence solely and entirely to AGW circumstances. The former, in my consideration is properly qualified and reasonable, the later might be supportable but stripped of AGW significance by removing it from larger weather trends is inappropriate and not typically very rigorous. You might be able to "chalk up" more pole shifted summer routes for the primary northern hemisphere jet streams across the N. Am continent as a consequence of warming climates and you might be able to support that heat waves often result from such northern route jet streams, but this is very different from saying that increased CO2 caused this particular heat wave episode.

Climates have been getting drier..and wetter forever.

Egypt was like a rain forest when Giza was built...

Support your assertion please.

...and unless the Egyptians had cars, it was AGW that changed the climate.

Please indicate where anyone has stated that AGW is the only mechanism which causes local or global climate change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scientific reality of AGW? What a ******* joke!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I, personally, wouldn't attribute any single weather event to AGW. Climate is the composite of (trending of) weather patterns over extended time frames. It is one thing to say that the summers in some areas are generally starting to get warmer and drier and that this is in accord with what one would expect to see in some AGW (or CO2 forced) environments than it is to say that we can directly attribute this particular weather pattern and confluence solely and entirely to AGW circumstances. The former, in my consideration is properly qualified and reasonable, the later might be supportable but stripped of AGW significance by removing it from larger weather trends is inappropriate and not typically very rigorous. You might be able to "chalk up" more pole shifted summer routes for the primary northern hemisphere jet streams across the N. Am continent as a consequence of warming climates and you might be able to support that heat waves often result from such northern route jet streams, but this is very different from saying that increased CO2 caused this particular heat wave episode.

Climates have been getting drier..and wetter forever.

Egypt was like a rain forest when Giza was built...

Support your assertion please.

...and unless the Egyptians had cars, it was AGW that changed the climate.

Please indicate where anyone has stated that AGW is the only mechanism which causes local or global climate change.

Support how? You want a computer model? tree ring?

 

[Trakar]

Climates have been getting drier..and wetter forever.

Egypt was like a rain forest when Giza was built...

Support your assertion please.

Support how? You want a computer model? tree ring?

If you have compelling models or proxy studies to present, that would certainly help, but any verified and compelling evidences would be a big step toward presenting such support.

...and unless the Egyptians had cars, it was AGW that changed the climate.

Please indicate where anyone has stated that AGW is the only mechanism which causes local or global climate change.

 

[Mr. H.]

I don't know that they are the largest, but they are certainly major and important investors. But I would expect no less. They are more intimately in tune with what is happening in the energy sector and where the future of that sector lies.

Fossil fuels are the future of the energy sector for the foreseeable future. So-called "renewable energy" is a joke.

Your assessment is based on personal preferences not economic or technological realities.

You've never visited the EIA website?

 

[flacaltenn]

Fossil fuels are the future of the energy sector for the foreseeable future. So-called "renewable energy" is a joke.

Your assessment is based on personal preferences not economic or technological realities.

You've never visited the EIA website?

No -- not personal preference -- performance measurement. Like the weekly log of production for a wind turbine farm.. It's sketchy performance at best -- requiring a DUPLICATE capacity that can be kicked in quickly to sustain the grid.. Same with Solar.. Germany --- turns out -- was not even far enough south to make it a reliable source in the winter. The FACTS AND NUMBERS have come in and the List of Alternatives is pretty well shredded. From Geothermal -- which is a Dirty Mining Operation with LOADS of enviro issues to Burning trees and calling it green because of faulty logic and reason about carbon cycling. To hydro which is STILL on the list even tho most Greenies hate it because it's the LARGEST green source. Which leaves us with wind and solar. NEITHER of which is an Alternative -- but a Supplement. And would be better off being used in non-grid isolated applications like hydrogen production and desalinization.

The logic of growing stuff to BURN IT and calling it cleaner than coal has been defeated. And the folks in England who were baited and switched are angry and want to chuck the dirty business OUT. So is there anger in Germany about committing to 20 year subsidies of $Bills for a such a small kick in the grid.

The farce is about done. Stick a fork in it...

 

[bripat9643]

No need to, Pattycake. We all understand what cretin means, and it fits you to a tee.

Look up the definition of "senile," brain damage.

 

[bripat9643]

You only quoted a bunch or warmist scientists, journalists and bureaucrats, not any scientists working for the energy companies.

And several are starting to do more. Unlike most of the fringe absurdists typically encountered on political discussion boards, the oil companies understand the problems and the nature of what will ultimately occur. Their own scientists and researchers began warning them about the problem on the horizon 2-3 decades ago. they are simply trying to figure out how to make as much money (and new technology investments) as they can while they can.

Though I'd prefer perfect behavior, I feel that it is important to acknowlege any steps in the right direction.

Their own scientists were predicting global warming 3 decades ago?

No their own scientists were acknowledging the scientific realities of anthropogenic CO2 forced climate change and were informing corporate policy makers of what such was likely to yeild in terms of consequences with regards to the coal, oil and gas industrties as soon as political policy makers began addressing those issues. The european energy companies (BP at the forefront) based upon the advice of their own researchers began investing and planning in alternative energy in the mid '80s. US energy companies moved a bit slower and really didn't begin any major move toward alternatives until the late '90s-early first decade of 21rst century. The push back against climate science was one of the reasons the George C. Marshall institute was formed, though they were initially too engaged in defending SDI to get too far into the climate debate until the late '80s-mid '90s.

The Marshall Institute - Climate Change Policy

According to their own public statements, BP has been investing in and producing solar (PV) energy systems for 35 years.

Business and Politics, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2002 - "Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change: Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry"

Other People's Money. December 2, 1989, The Economist, "Or perhaps not. (global warming)"

You seem to be acting like climate change is a recent issue.

George H.W. Bush campaigned on it in Michigan back in August of 1988:
”Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the ‘greenhouse effect’ are forgetting about the ‘White House effect. In my first year in office, I will convene a global conference on the environment at the White House. It will include the Soviets, the Chinese. . . . The agenda will be clear. We will talk about global warming.” (NYT, 1990)

or we can look at the timeline of such events as recorded in New Scientist:

1957: US oceanographer Roger Revelle warns that humanity is conducting a "large-scale geophysical experiment" on the planet by releasing greenhouse gases. Colleague David Keeling sets up first continuous monitoring of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Keeling soon finds a regular year-on-year rise.

1970s: Series of studies by the US Department of Energy increases concerns about future global warming.

1979: First World Climate Conference adopts climate change as major issue and calls on governments "to foresee and prevent potential man-made changes in climate."

Back in September of 1985 The first major international conference on the greenhouse effect was held in Villach, Austria. Scientists warn that greenhouse gases will “in the first half of the next century, cause a rise of global mean temperature and a rise of sea levels." The conference also reports that gases other than CO2, such as methane, ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide contribute to warming.

1987: Warmest year since records began. The 1980s turn out to be the hottest decade on record, with seven of the eight warmest years recorded up to 1990. Even the coldest years in the 1980s were warmer than the warmest years of the 1880s.

1988: Global warming attracts worldwide headlines after scientists at Congressional hearings in Washington DC blame major US drought on its influence. Meeting of climate scientists in Toronto subsequently calls for 20% cuts in global CO2 emissions by the year 2005. UN sets up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to analyse and report on scientific findings.

1990: The first report of the IPCC finds that the planet has warmed by 0.5°C in the past century. IPCC warns that only strong measures to halt rising greenhouse gas emissions will prevent serious global warming. This provides scientific clout for UN negotiations for a climate convention. Negotiations begin after the UN General Assembly in December.

"What is a conservative after all, but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live.... And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live - our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it." - Ronald Reagan

1987 - Ordered U.S. diplomats to negotiate a strong treaty to begin phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. The resulting Montreal Protocol was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1988 and entered into force in 1989. The Montreal Protocol, which President Reagan called a “monumental achievement,” has resulted in a 95 percent decline in production of the targeted chemicals. The atmosphere’s protective ozone layer has begun to recover.

The Montreal Protocol has produced a significant climate stewardship benefit because ozone-depleting chemicals have heat-trapping properties. Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, emissions of heat-trapping gases equivalent to nearly 5 years of global carbon dioxide emissions have been prevented since 1990. President Reagan’s leadership made that enormous climate stewardship achievement possible.

Faced with today's evidences what would Reagan do?

 

[bripat9643]

Fossil fuels are the future of the energy sector for the foreseeable future. So-called "renewable energy" is a joke.

Your assessment is based on personal preferences not economic or technological realities.

Wrongo. Every honest economic assessment of so-called "green energy" shows that it doesn't even come close to fossil fuels when it comes to the cost of providing a given unit of energy.

If it wasn't for massive government subsidies, green energy wouldn't even appear on the radar screen.

 

[bripat9643]

Smells like... "hyperbole".

No, it's called "sarcasm." Try using a dictionary before you post.

Looking in the mirror again?

Hyperbole - noun /hīˈpərbəlē/ 

1.Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally

The explicit words of the statement indicated the exact opposite of the meaning the author intended. That's sarcasm. There was nothing "exaggerated" about them.

 

[Old Rocks]

Your assessment is based on personal preferences not economic or technological realities.

You've never visited the EIA website?

No -- not personal preference -- performance measurement. Like the weekly log of production for a wind turbine farm.. It's sketchy performance at best -- requiring a DUPLICATE capacity that can be kicked in quickly to sustain the grid.. Same with Solar.. Germany --- turns out -- was not even far enough south to make it a reliable source in the winter. The FACTS AND NUMBERS have come in and the List of Alternatives is pretty well shredded. From Geothermal -- which is a Dirty Mining Operation with LOADS of enviro issues to Burning trees and calling it green because of faulty logic and reason about carbon cycling. To hydro which is STILL on the list even tho most Greenies hate it because it's the LARGEST green source. Which leaves us with wind and solar. NEITHER of which is an Alternative -- but a Supplement. And would be better off being used in non-grid isolated applications like hydrogen production and desalinization.

The logic of growing stuff to BURN IT and calling it cleaner than coal has been defeated. And the folks in England who were baited and switched are angry and want to chuck the dirty business OUT. So is there anger in Germany about committing to 20 year subsidies of $Bills for a such a small kick in the grid.

The farce is about done. Stick a fork in it...

LOL. 40 gw of wind power in 2010, increased to 47 gw in 2011. Just in the US. That is getting close to a 20% increase in just one year. Flatulance, wouldn't you just love to have a business that grew at the rate?

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity

 

[Old Rocks]

Your assessment is based on personal preferences not economic or technological realities.

You've never visited the EIA website?

No -- not personal preference -- performance measurement. Like the weekly log of production for a wind turbine farm.. It's sketchy performance at best -- requiring a DUPLICATE capacity that can be kicked in quickly to sustain the grid.. Same with Solar.. Germany --- turns out -- was not even far enough south to make it a reliable source in the winter. The FACTS AND NUMBERS have come in and the List of Alternatives is pretty well shredded. From Geothermal -- which is a Dirty Mining Operation with LOADS of enviro issues to Burning trees and calling it green because of faulty logic and reason about carbon cycling. To hydro which is STILL on the list even tho most Greenies hate it because it's the LARGEST green source. Which leaves us with wind and solar. NEITHER of which is an Alternative -- but a Supplement. And would be better off being used in non-grid isolated applications like hydrogen production and desalinization.

The logic of growing stuff to BURN IT and calling it cleaner than coal has been defeated. And the folks in England who were baited and switched are angry and want to chuck the dirty business OUT. So is there anger in Germany about committing to 20 year subsidies of $Bills for a such a small kick in the grid.

The farce is about done. Stick a fork in it...

A 100% growth rate in a year for solar for 2011, and Flatulance thinks that sector is done. Wonder what his definition of success is?

U.S. Solar Power Industry Growth Hits New Records | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Installation of photovoltaic panels continues to grow, with solar projects totaling 1,855 megawatts in 2011 alone, compared to just 887 megawatts the year before. These projects ranked the United States as the fourth largest solar market in the world, a jump that just a few years ago did not seem possible. After 2010, last year was not expected to be as booming in the solar industry as it was, so many companies reduced their projected forecasts.

But the success of the solar installer industry in 2011 has raised the bar for 2012. The GTM and SEIA are anticipating 35-50% more construction in 2012, totaling a predicted 2,500-2,800 megawatts. Several utility-scale commercial solar projects, which yield power for the wholesale electricity market, are in the works, and would bring 3,000 megawatts of power in 2012, with another for 6,000 megawatts anticipated to finish in 2013 or 2014. The latter two projects are large scale solar plants by First Solar and SunPower Corp SPRW.O. Installation on private homes increased by 11% from 2010 to 2011, showing that even the private sector is enthusiastic about green energy


Read more: U.S. Solar Power Industry Growth Hits New Records | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

 

[bobgnote]

The problem with CO2-neutral biomass is it is targeted, by liars, who deflect, from any sensible resourcing of any media, whatsoever.

Biomass gets called less clean, than natural gas, when biomass is cyclic carbon media, not sequestered carbon media, and so it accomplishes a significant purpose, directly, if only biomass could provide ethanol, methanol, and methane, for fuels.

But although salted fields should all be recovered, by growing industrial hemp, and semi-arable land should be used, to grow switchgrass, biomass detractors don't care, how Henry Ford accomplished marvelous feats of manufacture, with hemp, since he made the Model T.

When you add ALGAE, to the CO2-neutral equation, argument for biomass becomes compelling, since algae can double its mass, in a short time, while processing to ethanol now includes ultrasound.

The problem with biomass is stupid people are in the way, on behalf of greedy people, in order to prevent either savings, from withholding money, from prison or petroleum industry scams, or to gain value, by growing hemp, switchgrass, and algae.

With all savings and production defeated, the assholes have no difficulty slamming shut, to fog the eyes and brain, of the nation, which needs to cut the crap and grow the biomass. Crap lovers have control of the long-term agenda, in various ways, so no biomass issues.

Fecophiles and other idiots, like Fecaltoons and buttpunk9643 are too common. Flat-earthers have made idiot children. What can save us, from them?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Support your assertion please.

Support how? You want a computer model? tree ring?

If you have compelling models or proxy studies to present, that would certainly help, but any verified and compelling evidences would be a big step toward presenting such support.

...and unless the Egyptians had cars, it was AGW that changed the climate.

Please indicate where anyone has stated that AGW is the only mechanism which causes local or global climate change.

Neolithic Subpluvial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[flacaltenn]

Work it Ole Rocks.. Whoo doggies look at the sweat..



Assuming you know what an ETF index fund is..

First Wind ------

Here's Solar------

That's kind of the tragic trajectory a dead cat makes when dropped from 20 stories up..
It's all done.. Time for dinner..

 

[onecut39]

Chevron, Mobil, and BP are the largest non-government investors in renewable/alternative energy technologies.

According to some you just must be a fool to believe what you just posted.

As we all know, only government programs reliably develop anything of use in the market.

Like AMTRAK.

The energy companies have been spouting this crap for years. Where are all the green products and technologies they have developed?