cg22165 (Chris Golledge)


Comment history

Letter: Climate strategy

I find it disheartening that someone trained as an engineer can't accept that when you measure more energy coming in to a system than leaving, it means energy is building up within the system. We can and have measured exactly that, as well as increasing heat content, shifting climate zones, changes in the Hadley cell convergence zones, and the frequency and extent of extreme heat events.

And, you go on (well, really copy and paste) about how CO2 is a trace gas after having been shown measured effects of CO2 on outbound energy.

Good luck with your own coming to grips with reality.

June 13, 2015 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

No, I asked for a research study. You know, something based on information from the real world, not opinion pieces. That's why I gave you the link to Google Scholar.

It is not enough that you did not claim the work as your own, you have to site the author.

June 12, 2015 at 2:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

So, earlier you claimed that the 97% consensus was bogus, and I explained how you were wrong. Did you ever find an actual research survey that supports your position?

June 11, 2015 at 12:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

The graph is observed reality. Can you or can you not see the reduction in outbound energy caused by CO2?

We have measured energy in, and we have measured energy out. More is coming in than leaving. Your plagiarized wall of words can not change that fact.

June 11, 2015 at 12:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

David, regarding CO2, I wonder where you think all the CO2 we have produced has gone, and I wonder where you think the 40 percent increase we have seen has come from. As for the effect of carbon dioxide in the air, if you look closely, you might be able to see the reduction of outbound energy in the region affected by CO2.

June 9, 2015 at 2:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

50 percent is a worst case scenario. I don't know why the free market would choose to use the least cost effective alternatives to fossil fuels. (That's kind of why I don't want the government to mandate which solutions are used.) Let's pretend the cost of your computer is 1/3 energy and you replace your computer once every 4 years. If the least effecient alternatives are used, that would raise the cost of your computer by 50 dollars. Fifty dollars over 4 years is about 1 dollar per month.

June 7, 2015 at 12:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

There are three basic strategies to mitigating the damages caused by a changing climate, cap & trade, regulations, and carbon taxing. Taxing carbon is the least government intrusive, and the most cost effective. Carbon taxes can also be done wrong if the government gets to keep the money, because that puts a handful of people in a position of picking winners and losers in the energy sector. It is also a bad idea to use the taxes to fund something we care about because, in time, the revenue from the taxes would decline.

June 7, 2015 at 11:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Could you be more specific?

June 5, 2015 at 7:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Johan, let me Google that for you.

June 5, 2015 at 7:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Actually, if our state government wasn't actively working against the development of wind energy, our energy costs would reduce and our state would be attractive to industry. Levelized costs for wind are already competitive.

June 3, 2015 at 11:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )