Both coal production and consumption peaked in 2013 and has dropped continuously, falling a further 3.7% in the first 11 months of 2015 compared to the same period the year before. Both coal production and consumption peaked in 2013 and has dropped continuously, falling a further 3.7% in the first 11 months of 2015 compared to the same period the year before.
The central government has curbed construction of new coal fired plants with national regulators ordering in April 2016 a halt to construction in 13 provinces and delays for already approved projects in a further 15 provinces.[5] This is in line with a moratorium issued by the National Energy Agency in 2015 banning new coal mines in China for a period of three years and closure of thousands of small coal mines. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Robert E Murray of Murray energy: "Mackenzie and company just issued a report on all of the coal industry. We are bankrupt. The industry is bankrupt. Indeed we are 45 billion dollars short of the funds needed to fund our debt, our employee related, and our reclamation liabilities. 45 billion short, and as a whole the industry is bankrupt" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
coal will continue to be burnt for a time to come, but consumption will continue to dwindle. Ultimately the coal companies will be left with stranded assets. Not a good investment at any price.
Doesn't really matter how many coal plants they make if their coal consumption continues to fall:
"But they’re unlikely to be used to their maximum since China has practically no need for the energy they would produce. Coal-fired electricity hasn’t increased for four years, and this year coal plant utilization fell below 50%. It looks like this trend will continue, with China committing to renewables, gas and nuclear targets for 2020 — together they will cover any increase in electricity demand." - http://energydesk.greenpeace.o...
Yes it's warming up. It's been warming up for over 1000 years.
You say these things with confidence but they are quite wrong, You may consider whether you could provide a citation for your statements before you commit them. In fact the global mean temperature has been falling for the last 1000 years - up until about 1850 when it suddenly rocketed upwards. See here for CO2 and temperatures over the last 1000 years: http://phosphorus.github.io/ap...
In fact it's been cooling for about 8000 years since the peak of the current interglacial. Up until about 150 years ago anyway.
You should consider reading the following if you are interested in paleoclimate: Zhao et al 1995, Petit et al 1999, Alley 1999, Thompson et al 2002, etc etc through to this one by Marcott in 2013: http://science.sciencemag.org/...
If Turkey can tell you're full of crap, isn't it a bit obvious guys?
Wow. The Turkish minister didn't even address the right organization. I'm sure your Göktürk is spectacular, but your minister is talking out of his ass here.
That the world will warm as atmospheric CO2 increases is basic physics. The radiative forcing from that CO2 is well constrained (given by 5.35 ln(c/c0)wm^-2). That ice melts as it warms is basic physics. That water is less reflective than ice is basic physics. That the atmosphere will hold (and is holding) more moisture as it warms is basic physics. That water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas is basic physics. The amount of warming directly attributable to the added moisture is well constrained. (see http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu...)
We believe that the amount feedbacks will enhance warming from CO2 is well constrained, but there could be (and already have been) surprises. For example arctic ice melt is well beyond what we had anticipated. We have underestimated that feedback.
To some extent you are being alarmist by suggesting that we don't really know, but then again, this is a grand experiment and we may need to learn to expect the unexpected.
Nonsense. Thermodynamics, Stefan–Boltzmann law, solar isolation, and radiative transfer equations = AGW. Feedbacks can be measured. We know how much extra moisture the atmosphere is accumulating as it heats. We measure the change in albedo as the ice melts. Etc.
This is, what, your fourth response under my post containing a challenge — and none of them contain admissible examples
"Admissible" your honour?
I'm unlikely to respond here again
Promises, promises. At least we have established that we have clear examples where the impacts of climate change were much greater than even our worst case prediction. This uncertainty makes the problem all the more challenging. Should we prepare for our "worst case" for sea level rise? It looks like we should prepare for something much worse.
You are crazy paranoid if you think they're hiding something by not providing access to station data that aren't even part of their analysis. If you are curious about how the data is selected and processed maybe read the published literature?
your second example [typepad.com] does not even claim a successful prediction! According to it, the actual data for 2012 is far outside the supposedly predicted range.
Yes. It turned out to be much worse than predicted. This is the problem with uncertainty. Things may not be as well constrained as we hope.
They may have trouble keeping up. They hope to be able to satisfy 500,000 orders a year by 2020. They will need to fast track that considerably, but even at that rate Bloomberg says that EVs will displace over 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day by 2023. That would be enough to cause a crash in the oil market: https://youtu.be/NOPHHgJgJ2s
Maybe we're already doing it. Tesla only has capacity to build about 500,000 cars a year. They got about 200,000 pre-orders in two days on their new car. Consider that when watching this video on S curves: https://youtu.be/NOPHHgJgJ2s
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. How about the Wall Street Journal? Falling Chinese Coal Consumption and Output Undermine Global Market
Both coal production and consumption peaked in 2013 and has dropped continuously, falling a further 3.7% in the first 11 months of 2015 compared to the same period the year before. Both coal production and consumption peaked in 2013 and has dropped continuously, falling a further 3.7% in the first 11 months of 2015 compared to the same period the year before.
The central government has curbed construction of new coal fired plants with national regulators ordering in April 2016 a halt to construction in 13 provinces and delays for already approved projects in a further 15 provinces.[5] This is in line with a moratorium issued by the National Energy Agency in 2015 banning new coal mines in China for a period of three years and closure of thousands of small coal mines. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
coal will continue to be burnt for a time to come, but consumption will continue to dwindle. Ultimately the coal companies will be left with stranded assets. Not a good investment at any price.
"But they’re unlikely to be used to their maximum since China has practically no need for the energy they would produce. Coal-fired electricity hasn’t increased for four years, and this year coal plant utilization fell below 50%. It looks like this trend will continue, with China committing to renewables, gas and nuclear targets for 2020 — together they will cover any increase in electricity demand." - http://energydesk.greenpeace.o...
The trajectory is important though. Coal is losing steam, renewables gaining.
China is also dumping coal. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... and http://www.smh.com.au/business...
India is investing 1.2 billion in solar: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...
The third world was the last hope for the coal industry.
Yes it's warming up. It's been warming up for over 1000 years.
You say these things with confidence but they are quite wrong, You may consider whether you could provide a citation for your statements before you commit them. In fact the global mean temperature has been falling for the last 1000 years - up until about 1850 when it suddenly rocketed upwards. See here for CO2 and temperatures over the last 1000 years: http://phosphorus.github.io/ap...
In fact it's been cooling for about 8000 years since the peak of the current interglacial. Up until about 150 years ago anyway.
You should consider reading the following if you are interested in paleoclimate: Zhao et al 1995, Petit et al 1999, Alley 1999, Thompson et al 2002, etc etc through to this one by Marcott in 2013: http://science.sciencemag.org/...
If Turkey can tell you're full of crap, isn't it a bit obvious guys?
Wow. The Turkish minister didn't even address the right organization. I'm sure your Göktürk is spectacular, but your minister is talking out of his ass here.
It was the best of times it was the BLURST of times? You stupid Monkey! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That the world will warm as atmospheric CO2 increases is basic physics. The radiative forcing from that CO2 is well constrained (given by 5.35 ln(c/c0)wm^-2). That ice melts as it warms is basic physics. That water is less reflective than ice is basic physics. That the atmosphere will hold (and is holding) more moisture as it warms is basic physics. That water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas is basic physics. The amount of warming directly attributable to the added moisture is well constrained. (see http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu...)
We believe that the amount feedbacks will enhance warming from CO2 is well constrained, but there could be (and already have been) surprises. For example arctic ice melt is well beyond what we had anticipated. We have underestimated that feedback.
To some extent you are being alarmist by suggesting that we don't really know, but then again, this is a grand experiment and we may need to learn to expect the unexpected.
Nonsense. Thermodynamics, Stefan–Boltzmann law, solar isolation, and radiative transfer equations = AGW. Feedbacks can be measured. We know how much extra moisture the atmosphere is accumulating as it heats. We measure the change in albedo as the ice melts. Etc.
This is, what, your fourth response under my post containing a challenge — and none of them contain admissible examples
"Admissible" your honour?
I'm unlikely to respond here again
Promises, promises. At least we have established that we have clear examples where the impacts of climate change were much greater than even our worst case prediction. This uncertainty makes the problem all the more challenging. Should we prepare for our "worst case" for sea level rise? It looks like we should prepare for something much worse.
I'm curious
No. No you are not.
The point remains, it was not a successful prediction.
You are right. This is a grand experiment. We should learn to expect the unexpected.
It's not hidden. It is published in the literature. Enough of the crazy.
I don't know, if "worse" or "better" are applicable here.
It is worse in terms of cost. As you've pointed out, we've failed to fully appreciate the impact of even the modest warming we've experienced so far.
If you are curious, they've compiled a document with the answers. If you are not curious then I am not interested in playing whatever this game is.
How do you suppose we know the physical properties if not through observation?
You are crazy paranoid if you think they're hiding something by not providing access to station data that aren't even part of their analysis. If you are curious about how the data is selected and processed maybe read the published literature?
your second example [typepad.com] does not even claim a successful prediction! According to it, the actual data for 2012 is far outside the supposedly predicted range.
Yes. It turned out to be much worse than predicted. This is the problem with uncertainty. Things may not be as well constrained as we hope.
Or you can choose option 2 and get the raw station data.
The cost of solar is on a similar trajectory.
Check the IPCC smart guy.
They may have trouble keeping up. They hope to be able to satisfy 500,000 orders a year by 2020. They will need to fast track that considerably, but even at that rate Bloomberg says that EVs will displace over 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day by 2023. That would be enough to cause a crash in the oil market: https://youtu.be/NOPHHgJgJ2s
WE GET IT. But... Now what?
Maybe we're already doing it. Tesla only has capacity to build about 500,000 cars a year. They got about 200,000 pre-orders in two days on their new car. Consider that when watching this video on S curves: https://youtu.be/NOPHHgJgJ2s
Too easy: http://uclu.org/sites/uclu.org... and http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6...
there isn't any actual evidence for the "A" in AGW, unless you consider
Unless you consider physics...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...