OT When NY is underwater

Apple says new Oregon solar and wind projects will help power Prineville, Oregon data centers

Apple says it has agreed to buy hundreds of megawatts of wind and solar power to help run its growing complex of data centers in Prineville.

In its annual environmental progress report, issued late last week, Apple disclosed that it has a deal to buy 200 megawatts of power for the Montague Wind Power Project in Gilliam County. Apple says this is the first wind project the company created itself. It's due to begin generating energy late next year.

Separately, Apple said it has a deal to buy power from a 56-megawatt project called Solar Star Oregon II, under construction a few miles from the Prineville complex.

Apple had previously disclosed it also is generating a small amount of electricity from a hydroelectric project on the Deschutes River. And the company said it's also buying solar power from a collection of smaller Oregon arrays.

http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2017/04/apple_says_new_oregon_solar_an.html

 

I think this is good.

 

Idso is the author of the UN IPCC documents.

It's not the CO2.

At 600ppm, the most warming you might expect is 0.4°C, or about 1°F

600ppm would be 3x the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1920.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/questions/1998/planets.php

In an extension of a very similar type of analysis, Idso (1988) has shown that a 300 ppm increase in the air's CO2 concentration from a base value of 300 ppm (which would correspond to Earth at about the year 1920) has the ability to warm a planet by approximately 0.4°C, while the initial 300 ppm increment is responsible for about 1°C of warming.

Within the context of the current debate over the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, it is the 0.4°C warming that is of greatest relevance; for the thermal consequence of a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is what people typically attempt to calculate. We feel, however, that this result is an upper limit to what could actually occur; for as Idso (1998) has argued, there are a number of biological phenomena that would likely be set in motion by such a rise in the air's CO2 content that could well negate this primary impetus for warming. Consequently, although the CO2 greenhouse effect is definitely real, as demonstrated by measurements of the surface temperatures and atmospheric compositions of Mars and Venus, Earth - the "living planet" - may well depart somewhat from the expectations provided by its lifeless planetary neighbors.

Even if Earth's biosphere were unable to thwart the primary CO2-induced impetus for warming, however, the maximum temperature rise that is predicted by this comparative planetology analysis is still much less than what is currently being predicted by most general circulation models of the atmosphere. And that is one of the reasons why we do not believe they are providing the correct answer to this problem. There must be large positive feedbacks involved to get the type of warming they are predicting

 

Googled coal powered computer and was not disappointed.

 

CO2Science.Org is funded by ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy (America's biggest coal producer.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

 

So what? The UN isn't.

Your attempt to disqualify the facts based upon their source is known as a logic fallacy, specifically the Genetic Fallacy.

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. ​

http://www.co2science.org/about/chairman.php

Dr. Idso's research has appeared many times in peer-reviewed journals, including Geophysical Research Letters, Environmental and Experimental Botany, Forest Ecology and Management, Journal of Climate, Physical Geography, Atmospheric Environment, Technology, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Energy & Environment, and the Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science.

Dr. Idso is the author or coauthor of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2011), CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2009), CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2009); Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 2003); and The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth's Biosphere? (George C. Marshall Institute, 2003). He contributed chapters to McKittrick, R. (Ed.), Critical Topics in Global Warming (Fraser Institute, 2009) and Encyclopedia of Soil Science (Marcel Dekker, 2002). Dr. Idso has also produced several short video works and three feature-length documentaries, Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Reality or Illusion? (2008), Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Avoiding Plant and Animal Extinctions (2008), and Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Doing the Right Thing (2008).

In 2009, Dr. Idso became the lead author and editor for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), overseeing a team of internationally renowned scientists in the production of several major reports on climate change. Those reports include Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, and Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.​

 

The NIPCC is funded by ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute.

 

Using genetic fallacy again and again - it's still bad logic.

 

The NIPCC vs. IPCC Process

The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.

Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

 

Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of cigarette smoking.

He was involved in 1994 as writer and reviewer of a report on the issue by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where he was a senior fellow.[53] The report criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it "junk science". Singer told CBC's The Fifth Estate in 2006 that he stood by the position that the EPA had "cooked the data" to show that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. CBC said that tobacco money had paid for Singer's research and for his promotion of it, and that it was organized by APCO. Singer told CBC it made no difference where the money came from. "They don't carry a note on a dollar bill saying 'This comes from the tobacco industry,'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer​

 

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.

 

More genetic fallacy.

You sure are good at it.

 

"HCP was wrong with his 23 win prediction, therefore his 41 win prediction this season must be wrong."

-- SlyPokerDog

 

In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of US$1,667 "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'

...

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2]:233–34[3] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[4][5]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute​

 

"HCP was wrong with his 23 win prediction, therefore his 41 win prediction this season must be wrong."

-- SlyPokerDog

 

Even ExxonMobil now agrees that the "science" they funded years ago is complete crap.

The "science" that you are trying to defend.

 

When you have an organization that in the past took money from tobacco companies to argue against the risks of cigarette smoking and then moves on to taking money from oil and coal companies to argue against global warming you bet I'm going to be skeptical of anything they have to say.

I would argue that is the correct logic.