Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => The World => Topic started by: JBG on December 22, 2017, 08:26:33 pm
-
Global loss of daylight can be added to the list of the world's serious problems. People don't take it seriously but if things keep going this way we won't ever have sunshine and natural light again. Solar power will be crippled, forcing recourse to fossil fuels and worsening the greenhouse effect and AGW.
This little-noticed but highly dangerous problem has been developing for at least five months or so, probably longer. I have confirmed this by emails to friends in Canada, Poland and the UK.
Just as an example, where I live, near New York City, we have dropped from over 15 hours of daylight to just over 9 hours in recent months. An effort was made back in early November to stop the trend. This has worked for the mornings, temporarily but been counterproductive at night.
At the very least the U.N. must get involved. We cannot go on destroying the earth and not caring.
-
Global loss of daylight can be added to the list of the world's serious problems. People don't take it seriously but if things keep going this way we won't ever have sunshine and natural light again. Solar power will be crippled, forcing recourse to fossil fuels and worsening the greenhouse effect and AGW.
This little-noticed but highly dangerous problem has been developing for at least five months or so, probably longer. I have confirmed this by emails to friends in Canada, Poland and the UK.
Just as an example, where I live, near New York City, we have dropped from over 15 hours of daylight to just over 9 hours in recent months. An effort was made back in early November to stop the trend. This has worked for the mornings, temporarily but been counterproductive at night.
At the very least the U.N. must get involved. We cannot go on destroying the earth and not caring.
And where went all this sunlight?
-
And where went all this sunlight?
Ask the Conservative Party and the Republicans. Their policies are costing us.
-
I can confirm that today, for the first time in several months, there was reported a very small net gain in daylight. Scientists have relabeled the "global darkening" phenomenon as "sunshine change".
-
I can confirm that today, for the first time in several months, there was reported a very small net gain in daylight. Scientists have relabeled the "global darkening" phenomenon as "sunshine change".
Actually that was yesterday and it has already been named. It's called "Solstice".
-
And I shall label this thread "fuckin' retarded".
Climate-change deniers are always the first to shout "weather is not climate", yet they're also the first to say that it was unseasonably cold in their part of the country that day as if that were evidence that climate change isn't real.
My parents took me and my little brother to the Alberta Rockies when we were little kids, and I saw the Columbia Icefields first hand at the time. And now seeing them 30 years later having receded so far from where they used to be... that's hundreds of millions, or maybe billions, of tons of ice that have vanished in a span of a few decades. That's not a cold day or two, that's a vast and sustained change that I've seen with my own eyes within my own short lifetime.
If you live in Westchester New York and have never seen a glacier in person perhaps the whole concept is completely abstract to you. I can assure you, it's not.
-k
-
My parents took me and my little brother to the Alberta Rockies when we were little kids, and I saw the Columbia Icefields first hand at the time. And now seeing them 30 years later having receded so far from where they used to be... that's hundreds of millions, or maybe billions, of tons of ice that have vanished in a span of a few decades. That's not a cold day or two, that's a vast and sustained change that I've seen with my own eyes within my own short lifetime.
So? Glaciers have been retreating for 200 years. Only the last 50 can be plausibly connected to CO2. More importantly there is evidence that glaciers retreated 1000 years ago and again 2000 years ago which suggests that some sort of "weather" exists at time scales greater than 1 year. Now there is some evidence that the current retreat is greater than past retreats but that does not negate the possibility that whatever effects humans are having it is superimposed on natural cycles which the earth is subject to. This makes impossible to quantify how much of the observations can be attributed to CO2 vs how much would have occurred no matter what.
Your kind of lazy correlation analysis is what the OP was trying to satirize. I find it ironic that you missed it.
-
Kimmy's error is subordinate, though, to the retardedness of this thread.
Our problems would be fewer if conservatives called out retards as easily as liberals call out 911 conspiratards.
-
Our problems would be fewer if conservatives called out retards as easily as liberals call out 911 conspiratards.
What's to call out? The op is clearly satire.
-
You can still call it out.
Political satire has a point behind it. The point here is invalid.
-
So? Glaciers have been retreating for 200 years. Only the last 50 can be plausibly connected to CO2. More importantly there is evidence that glaciers retreated 1000 years ago and again 2000 years ago which suggests that some sort of "weather" exists at time scales greater than 1 year. Now there is some evidence that the current retreat is greater than past retreats but that does not negate the possibility that whatever effects humans are having it is superimposed on natural cycles which the earth is subject to. This makes impossible to quantify how much of the observations can be attributed to CO2 vs how much would have occurred no matter what.
Your kind of lazy correlation analysis is what the OP was trying to satirize. I find it ironic that you missed it.
your "correlation analysis" is... predictable - ever grasping for a global Medieval Period, one with global temperature impact, where global temperatures were as warm as/warmer than today's relatively recent post-industrial age period --- ever insinuating the causes of Medieval warming were the same as those causing late 20th century warming. It's all natural cycles - nothing to see here, move along now!
-
none with global temperature impact, where global temperatures were as warm as/warmer than today's relatively recent post-industrial age period
A claim that has nothing but blind faith in dubious correlation based proxy analysis to support it. Sometimes the only acceptable answer is "we don't/can't know".
-
A claim that has nothing but blind faith in dubious correlation based proxy analysis to support it. Sometimes the only acceptable answer is "we don't/can't know".
uhhh... do those who posture for a global temperature impacting MWP do so with your sometimes and most selectively attributed, "we don't/can't know", uncertainty? ;D
-
It's satire everyone lighten up. Nobody here is a climate scientist as far as i know so i literally dont give a **** about anyone's half-informed opinion.
Except for jbg who is a daylight lawyer.
-
A claim that has nothing but blind faith in dubious correlation based proxy analysis to support it. Sometimes the only acceptable answer is "we don't/can't know".
correlation-based proxy analysis, eh? So much for words having meaning.
-
correlation-based proxy analysis, eh? So much for words having meaning.
The proxies used to estimate past temperatures are calibrated by correlating them with the temperature records. Many times they have no clear theoretical basis that the proxies respond to temperature and nothing else (such as rainfall) and simply assume this relationship to be true and use correlation to "prove" the relationship. In some cases, they ignore the basic rules of correlation analysis and simply throw out samples that do not correlate to temperatures based on the premise that "if they don't correlate they must be bad samples". So, yes, all of the proxy-based climate studies are completely depended on correlation analysis even though one would expect that the use of proxies means you don't need correlation.
-
And I shall label this thread "fuckin' retarded".
We don't agree. That doesn't make the thread retarded, though my IQ is 79.
Climate-change deniers are always the first to shout "weather is not climate", yet they're also the first to say that it was unseasonably cold in their part of the country that day as if that were evidence that climate change isn't real.
I don't do that. On the other hand why do climate panickers always cite weather changes where no one lives and where there are no good records?
My parents took me and my little brother to the Alberta Rockies when we were little kids, and I saw the Columbia Icefields first hand at the time. And now seeing them 30 years later having receded so far from where they used to be... that's hundreds of millions, or maybe billions, of tons of ice that have vanished in a span of a few decades. That's not a cold day or two, that's a vast and sustained change that I've seen with my own eyes within my own short lifetime.
That's called the end of an Ice Age. We're not making new ice and old ice melts or sublimates.
If you live in Westchester New York and have never seen a glacier in person perhaps the whole concept is completely abstract to you. I can assure you, it's not.
I have. Mount Rainier and Mount Lassen (though the latter may have just been year-round snow cover).
Next?
-
We don't agree. That doesn't make the thread retarded, though my IQ is 79.
I don't do that. On the other hand why do climate panickers always cite weather changes where no one lives and where there are no good records?
That's called the end of an Ice Age. We're not making new ice and old ice melts or sublimates.
I have. Mount Rainier and Mount Lassen (though the latter may have just been year-round snow cover).
Next?
You don't have to live near a glacier to find out it is melting at an alarming rate. NASA will provide you with actual satellite photos. Greenland, the Arctic Ocean, the Antarctic Ocean just for starters.
-
The proxies used to estimate past temperatures are calibrated by correlating them with the temperature records. Many times they have no clear theoretical basis that the proxies respond to temperature and nothing else (such as rainfall) and simply assume this relationship to be true and use correlation to "prove" the relationship. In some cases, they ignore the basic rules of correlation analysis and simply throw out samples that do not correlate to temperatures based on the premise that "if they don't correlate they must be bad samples". So, yes, all of the proxy-based climate studies are completely depended on correlation analysis even though one would expect that the use of proxies means you don't need correlation.
In other words, the vast majority of the climate science community knows less about the validity of their work than you.
-
I think to deny there are climate changes causing global issues is silly. What causes them is the actual debate.
Draught, desertification, lack of water, ocean and atmosphere changes to temperature are all objectively proven facts.
The connection between lack of water, desertification, mass migration and political instability is fact.
The growth of human population to unsustainable levels in India, China and other nations is fact.
Why debate the cause of it when the symptoms of it are right in your face and need to be dealt with?
If your prostate leaks why deny it?. Either buy diapers or walk around with pee in your pants.
-
I think to deny there are climate changes causing global issues is silly. What causes them is the actual debate.
Not really. There's a consensus on causes. The debate is around response.
-
In other words, the vast majority of the climate science community knows less about the validity of their work than you.
This is the common misconception. The fact is the "majority" of the climate scientists specialize in areas other than the study of past temperature proxies so their opinion is no more informed than any other person with a scientific background that has not looked at the relevant papers. That said, I have spent the time to read a lot about the topic so I can correctly state that I do know better than the "majority" of climate scientists.
Now I realize you would likely want to back-peddle and claim that you only really meant the majority of scientists working on proxy data and this subset of scientists do know more than I do on the topic. However, they are hardly trustworthy sources given the fact that their careers depend on proxy data being perceived as useful. This means they have a huge incentive to ignore problems and engage in statistical games which their peers with the same self interest like but violate all of the normal rules of statistical analysis. Now you can be skeptical of my criticisms but you can't simply claim that I must be wrong because the people I claim are sloppy claim they are not. That is like saying a politician is not corrupt because the politician says he is not corrupt.
Of course, all of these arguments will go over your head because everyone filters climate arguments based on their perception of the resulting policies. You are credulous because climate change gives support to a lot of policies that you like and I am skeptical because I dislike those policies. If you did not like the policies you would find my arguments very reasonable. Case in point: the majority of scientists feel that GMOs are safe - is that good enough for you?
-
Draught, desertification, lack of water, ocean and atmosphere changes to temperature are all objectively proven facts.
Other than warming they are not facts. In fact, warming is expected to increase the amount of water available to human populations (it is stated explicitly in the IPCC reports) and it is increasing populations that will be the primary cause of water shortages.
-
Not really. There's a consensus on causes. The debate is around response.
There is? I thought debate over everything was settled completely and only crazy people and fanatics questioned anything whatsoever.
Next month people are going to start seeing the impact of their shrugged support for the 'climate change' policies of the progressives. Although the Liberals at all levels are doing their best to hide them. They don't want people to see how much of their gas bill or electric bill or hydro bill are going to the new taxes. Oddly, they seem to feel people's support for climate change taxes is based largely on the belief OTHER people will be paying them - like, big corporations or something.
-
There is? I thought debate over everything was settled completely and only crazy people and fanatics questioned anything whatsoever.
No, we haven't settled on a response.
Next month people are going to start seeing the impact of their shrugged support for the 'climate change' policies of the progressives. Although the Liberals at all levels are doing their best to hide them. They don't want people to see how much of their gas bill or electric bill or hydro bill are going to the new taxes. Oddly, they seem to feel people's support for climate change taxes is based largely on the belief OTHER people will be paying them - like, big corporations or something.
Well we can sleep restfully and broke knowing we played our part then.
-
Other than warming they are not facts. In fact, warming is expected to increase the amount of water available to human populations (it is stated explicitly in the IPCC reports) and it is increasing populations that will be the primary cause of water shortages.
good on ya for referencing the IPCC! By the by, do you have an IPCC 'money-quote' to align with your most generalized statement? And which RCP are you presuming to leverage, hey - RCP8.5? ;D Care to speak to all the other aspects of impact/risk attached to RCP8.5... I mean, c'mon, don't just stop with water availability!
most pointedly, that increased water availability won't be uniform, with large population bases subject to water limitations/constraints:
(https://i.imgur.com/oM8B9NN.png)
given your emphasis on population increase and your forever "adapt-R-Us-Only" policy push, just how do you propose the global community of nations will respond to projections of an increased displacement of people associated with higher exposure to extreme weather events... to increased risks of violent conflicts driven by poverty and economic shocks? The U.S. Pentagon and intelligence community certainly acknowledge their concerns in this regard - what's the TimG_adapt-R-Us policy in this regard, hey?
-
"HUR HUR HUR, sure is cold this week! Looks like global warming is FAKE NEWS!"
-President Trump.
"HUR HUR HUR! You tell 'em, Big Daddy!"
-Trumptards.
-k
-
"HUR HUR HUR, sure is cold this week! Looks like global warming is FAKE NEWS!"
There are lots of idiots on both sides of the debate. That does not mean that every person skeptical of the overheated claims of alarmists is necessarily wrong or unreasonable.
-
There are lots of idiots on both sides of the debate. That does not mean that every person skeptical of the overheated claims of alarmists is necessarily wrong or unreasonable.
why so defensive, hey? Wait now... just a few posts back you were asked to provide some of your (postured) reasonableness! Is there a problem - for you?
-
Tim G as you know I am probably on the other side of the debate on this one, but your point was well stated and I do think some phenomena are natural, i.e., have always been happening and I do concede the Al Gore presentations were full of factual errors and misrepresentations and I appreciate your debate from the "other side". I
I would like to think and call me naïve, the same idiot humans that are threatening to blow us up and poison us are equally as capable of doing incredibly positive things as well with those very same brains. You are right there has to be a proper perspective and balance put into the debate which sometimes I admit is lost as this issue triggers primal fear of survival for some which can cloud judgement.
-
There are lots of idiots on both sides of the debate. That does not mean that every person skeptical of the overheated claims of alarmists is necessarily wrong or unreasonable.
define "alarmists"
define "overheated claims"
-
You are right there has to be a proper perspective and balance put into the debate which sometimes I admit is lost as this issue triggers primal fear of survival for some which can cloud judgement.
I would be a lot less concerned about climate policy if so much of it was not pointless exercises in virtue signalling. IMO, a sane CO2 mitigation would have the following elements:
1) Accept that wind/solar cannot replace base load - it can only supplement;
2) Accept that base load options depend on geography. Some places can use hydro but others have no choice but to use coal or gas.
3) No reductions targets unless they can be met by making real reductions with tech that is economic today - i.e. no emission trading scams, no targets that cannot be met without imaginary tech.
-
base load strawman!... notwithstanding traditional baseload attachments speak to nuclear & coal
now, without actually getting into the meat of just what/where renewables have been able to challenge your implicit baseload myth... step up and speak to the supposed climate policy you allude to. Surely you're not just making shyte up again, right?
-
good on ya for referencing the IPCC! By the by, do you have an IPCC 'money-quote' to align with your most generalized statement? And which RCP are you presuming to leverage, hey - RCP8.5? ;D Care to speak to all the other aspects of impact/risk attached to RCP8.5... I mean, c'mon, don't just stop with water availability!
most pointedly, that increased water availability won't be uniform, with large population bases subject to water limitations/constraints:
[ximg]https://i.imgur.com/oM8B9NN.png[/imgx ]
given your emphasis on population increase and your forever "adapt-R-Us-Only" policy push, just how do you propose the global community of nations will respond to projections of an increased displacement of people associated with higher exposure to extreme weather events... to increased risks of violent conflicts driven by poverty and economic shocks? The U.S. Pentagon and intelligence community certainly acknowledge their concerns in this regard - what's the TimG_adapt-R-Us policy in this regard, hey?
With imgur, a photo site as your apparent source I question your logic. I was going to question the fact that all of these climate alarmists rely on weather changes in inaccessible areas with little or no historical data. Thus we have to take the word of the "scientists" as to the quality of the proxy data. Show me any persistent warming in a major temperate zone city where there is data."HUR HUR HUR! You tell 'em, Big Daddy!"
-Trumptards.
When all else fails, bash Trump, your latest dog whistle.no targets that cannot be met without imaginary tech.
The point of the unmeetable targets is to trigger the obligation to fund the "Climate Adjustment Fund." This fund funnels money to Third World leaders to help with adjustment to climate change. Does anyone in their right mind think that Kabila, Madura, Castro or Mugabe are going to use the money for constructive purposes?
-
I was going to question the fact that all of these climate alarmists rely on weather changes in inaccessible areas with little or no historical data. Thus we have to take the word of the "scientists" as to the quality of the proxy data. Show me any persistent warming in a major temperate zone city where there is data.
you've already shown your ignorance on this point on the, "other board"... and you've had your azzz handed to you in that regard. Revel in your 'fringe of the fringe view' that surface temperature records and underlying data methodologies are a global conspiracy focused on artificially crafting a global warming meme!
When all else fails, bash Trump, your latest dog whistle.
clearly you don't understand the term and its usage
The point of the unmeetable targets is to trigger the obligation to fund the "Climate Adjustment Fund." This fund funnels money to Third World leaders to help with adjustment to climate change. Does anyone in their right mind think that Kabila, Madura, Castro or Mugabe are going to use the money for constructive purposes?
clearly you don't understand choose not to understand the administrative mechanics of the fund
-
Tim G as you know I am probably on the other side of the debate on this one
What 'other side' ? This is a dullard's response.
There are many questions:
A: Is warming happening ?
B: Is it likely human caused ?
C: What should the response be ?
Anybody with half a clue who follows these things would understand that.
-
When all else fails, bash Trump, your latest dog whistle.
I'm not even exaggerating. That's what he wrote on twitter last week.
"In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!"
"HUR HUR HUR why we gonna fight global warming when it's cold outside amirite???"
He's a smart man, a very smart man, and his followers are very smart people, the smartest people, you wouldn't even believe it how smart the Trumptards are.
TimG expressed his hope that you were talking about an eons-scale warming-cooling cycle, but I have a hunch that your take is closer to the President's view than to Tim's.
Tim expressed that only dumb-people would say "look how cold it is outside, global warming is fake!" and a week later El Trumpo gets on Twitter and proves him right.
-k
-
What 'other side' ? This is a dullard's response.
There are many questions:
A: Is warming happening ?
B: Is it likely human caused ?
C: What should the response be ?
Anybody with half a clue who follows these things would understand that.
Yes
Yes
Stop it.
Let me know when anyone actually figures out a way to stop it.
-
you've already shown your ignorance on this point on the, "other board"... and you've had your azzz handed to you in that regard. Revel in your 'fringe of the fringe view' that surface temperature records and underlying data methodologies are a global conspiracy focused on artificially crafting a global warming meme!
Are you assuming I'm a "JBG" from another board?
-
Let me know when anyone actually figures out a way to stop it.
And that is the trillion dollar question. The world seems divided between people who would rather throw money at the problem even if the money has little chance of making a difference and those who think it waste of time to even try because any effort is doomed to fail. In the end we will need to adapt to whatever changes come.
-
And that is the trillion dollar question. The world seems divided between people who would rather throw money at the problem even if the money has little chance of making a difference and those who think it waste of time to even try because any effort is doomed to fail. In the end we will need to adapt to whatever changes come.
Agreed. It does seem that the impression of action is far more important than the effectiveness of such. For the first twenty five years, at least, an outside observer would have been forgiven for thinking the issue was not that big a deal at all.
-
And that is the trillion dollar question. The world seems divided between people who would rather throw money at the problem even if the money has little chance of making a difference and those who think it waste of time to even try because any effort is doomed to fail. In the end we will need to adapt to whatever changes come.
your forever adaptationOnly - noMitigation drumbeat: again, you have never attached any timeline, any requirements, any applied specifics, any related policy, any global/regional associations to your adaptation drumbeat!. As I recall, your only revelation has been to suggest that all adaptation will be done, "in isolation at the local level"... whatever the hell that really translates to for a global community of nations subject to border free atmosphere, oceans and environmental impacts.
you continue to be as vague as ever, as vague as possible, simply alluding to some uncertain and imprecise futures adaptation requirement; something that clearly plays to your, again, "do nothing today, delay at all costs" mantra. Again, you used to only speak of, "do nothing/delay", in terms of mitigation... now you've begun to openly apply it to your nebulous ramblings on adaptation as well - to, as you say, "whatever changes will come"! You forever contest the legitimacy of any shifts towards alternative energy sources... anything that might reduce some degree of reliance on the status-quo fossil-fuel usage while reducing emissions and working to stabilize atmospheric concentrations.
-
Are you assuming I'm a "JBG" from another board?
Seeing as your main argument is "OMG they're bashing Trump", how could you not be?
-
base load
base load
base load
Storing energy generated by wind and solar for later use is a problem that can and will be solved. We're not talking about exceeding the speed of light here. For vehicles the solution is slow and incremental improvements in battery and capacitor technology. But for stationary generating stations there are a lot more possibilities for storing energy, many of them "low-tech". Ideas like pumping water uphill, raising large weights, or compressing air are obvious examples. This isn't a big technological hurdle, it's just a question of how much people want to use it.
-k
-
Ideas like pumping water uphill, raising large weights, or compressing air are obvious examples. This isn't a big technological hurdle, it's just a question of how much people want to use it.
Pumping water is the only option that could possibly work at the scale required and if it is deployed on a large scale it will have a huge footprint and all of the problems/costs that go with it. Look at the fuss over Site C dam - a "water storage" facility that can supply a mere 10% of the electricity needs of a population of 4 million or so. Building enough pumped storage to supply the needs of the world is not remotely viable even if there was the will. Once the costs are added up the only answer will be: we need baseload and that is nuclear, coal or gas (hydro only where geography cooperates). I realize that many people simply deny this reality but such delusional thinking is why I have no interest in an CO2 mitigation. If advocates for mitigation are willing to be reasonable it would a different story.
-
you continue to be as vague as ever, as vague as possible, simply alluding to some uncertain and imprecise futures adaptation requirement; something that clearly plays to your, again, "do nothing today, delay at all costs" mantra. Again, you used to only speak of, "do nothing/delay", in terms of mitigation... now you've begun to openly apply it to your nebulous ramblings on adaptation as well - to, as you say, "whatever changes will come"! You forever contest the legitimacy of any shifts towards alternative energy sources... anything that might reduce some degree of reliance on the status-quo fossil-fuel usage while reducing emissions and working to stabilize atmospheric concentrations.
I don't know what specifically should be done about adaptation either. That doesn't mean I'm going to support spending trillions on a carbon reduction system which clearly won't do much of anything to impact the situation.
-
What 'other side' ? This is a dullard's response.
There are many questions:
A: Is warming happening ?
B: Is it likely human caused ?
C: What should the response be ?
Anybody with half a clue who follows these things would understand that.
I just had a chance to read your response.
First off I have often communicated with Tim G on this issue. He knows I debate him from the other side on this issue. There was nothing dullard in saying that. Its clear on this thread which side for example you are on-the side of acting like some rude jackass because I extended my respect to Tim G and agreed with his attempt to suggest this debate has emotional arguments that get carried away on both sides.
Classic examples of the sides are David Suzuki on one, and the head of Exxon on the other.
Now did you have a point with your doltish comments?
Your arrogance shows you phrase the questions in the black and white all or nothing references I avoid.
You asked whether there is global warming. Of course there is. The temperature of the oceans has gone up. Temperatures on average have risen. That is quantified fact. The cause for it is not. This is why I stated, many of the issues in debate are over the cause of the phenomena, not the phenomena itself.
You also asked IS IT human caused. Again a doltish comment. Who or what is IT? Make yourself clear. Do you mean global warming, CO2 emissions, pollution, what? Some warming is directly attributable to burning of the rain forests and man made pollution caused by coal and fossel fuel burning, some might be caused by circumstances that might not be man made. Why does your question suppose its all or nothing?
Next what the phack do you mean by "what should the response be?."What are you some kind of over-lord who defines what the response should be? Why SHOULD there be a particular response?
See you want to get in my face about a comment I made to Tim G agreeing with him that both sides of the global warming issue (its man made, its not man made, its man made, its just natural phenomena) both have their share of extremists I am going to tell you to shut up unless you have something relevant to say. You didn't. Your sole purpose was to be a little **** and act snarky and try project onto the debate you do not think there are "sides" to this argument and then went and demonstrated with your own doltish questions you presuppose there are.
Here let me help your brain out. There are a spectrum of arguments and positions as to what causes global warming and whether that global warming is part of a natural cycle of freezing and warming or whether its being accelerated by man made activities.
Let me conclude by saying I don't doubt you share some of the blame with your methane gas. And a Happy New Year to you MH.
You know where to find me. I will be measuring the shrinking ice down at the South Pole. Its full of alien bases.
-
Let me conclude by saying I don't doubt you share some of the blame with your methane gas.
You and I both manufacture it
[/quote]And the snow, extreme cold and wind we've had in NYC since December 26 is lies and fake news; a Republican disinformation campaign.
-
You asked whether there is global warming. Of course there is. The temperature of the oceans has gone up. Temperatures on average have risen. That is quantified fact. The cause for it is not. This is why I stated, many of the issues in debate are over the cause of the phenomena, not the phenomena itself.
Some warming is directly attributable to burning of the rain forests and man made pollution caused by coal and fossel fuel burning, some might be caused by circumstances that might not be man made. Why does your question suppose its all or nothing?
There are a spectrum of arguments and positions as to what causes global warming and whether that global warming is part of a natural cycle of freezing and warming or whether its being accelerated by man made activities.
no - legitimate skeptics have moved away from questioning causal ties to GW - there is consensus agreement that today's relatively recent warming can't be attributed to natural forcings or internal variability. The debate you allude to is actually one over the degree of warming related impact.
you speak of your, 'extended respect for member TimG' - perhaps you can leverage your relationship to ply a response from him in regards his year-over-year denial in accepting anthropogenic sourced CO2 as the principal causal tie to today's relatively recent warming. Somehow in all his denial he can't quite manage to step-up and actually provide his alternative causal attribution - go figure!
-
And the snow, extreme cold and wind we've had in NYC since December 26 is lies and fake news; a Republican disinformation campaign.
please sir! CPE has been declared a climate-versus-weather troll free zone - carry on!
-
please sir! CPE has been declared a climate-versus-weather troll free zone - carry on!
It's not trolling and you aren't declaring anything.
-
It's not trolling and you aren't declaring anything.
Perhaps you missing the point that a cold snap here or a dump of snow there does not change the current trend of the global climate.
-
And the snow, extreme cold and wind we've had in NYC since December 26 is lies and fake news; a Republican disinformation campaign.
"HUR HUR HUR sure is cold out today! What global warming?"
-morons, yokels, Republicans, dumb-people, hillbillies, imbeciles, President Trump, ignoramuses, oil barons, Rex Murphy, people suffering from blunt-force trauma to the head.
Toldja so, Tim.
-k
-
Pumping water is the only option that could possibly work at the scale required and if it is deployed on a large scale it will have a huge footprint and all of the problems/costs that go with it. Look at the fuss over Site C dam - a "water storage" facility that can supply a mere 10% of the electricity needs of a population of 4 million or so. Building enough pumped storage to supply the needs of the world is not remotely viable even if there was the will. Once the costs are added up the only answer will be: we need baseload and that is nuclear, coal or gas (hydro only where geography cooperates). I realize that many people simply deny this reality but such delusional thinking is why I have no interest in an CO2 mitigation. If advocates for mitigation are willing to be reasonable it would a different story.
I've been reading about energy storage. One interesting thing is that conventional (ie, fossil fuel) facilities are also using energy storage. The reason is that the difference between peak requirements and off-peak demand is so massive that creating new generating capacity to meet increasing peak requirements is simply not as efficient as finding ways to store power generated during off-peak times. A power consumption graph shows a peak from 7am-8am, medium consumption during work-day hours, another massive peak from 6pm to 7pm, medium consumption from 7-11pm, and extremely low consumption overnight. They long ago realized that storing excess off-peak power made more sense than creating new generating capacity that's only needed for a couple of hours a day. Huge energy storage projects were already in operation long before solar power was even a blip on the radar.
-k
-
I've been reading about energy storage. One interesting thing is that conventional (ie, fossil fuel) facilities are also using energy storage. The reason is that the difference between peak requirements and off-peak demand is so massive that creating new generating capacity to meet increasing peak requirements is simply not as efficient as finding ways to store power generated during off-peak times. A power consumption graph shows a peak from 7am-8am, medium consumption during work-day hours, another massive peak from 6pm to 7pm, medium consumption from 7-11pm, and extremely low consumption overnight. They long ago realized that storing excess off-peak power made more sense than creating new generating capacity that's only needed for a couple of hours a day. Huge energy storage projects were already in operation long before solar power was even a blip on the radar.
We are talking about a different order of magnitude. A baseload plant has to produce a constant load for maximum efficiency. Power demand fluctuates so having a battery buffer to help deal with these changes can result in a more efficient plant. There is no way that these batteries would be large enough to replace the plant output if it went down nor would they have enough power for more than few minutes of production. If we talk about trying to build a world that did not need these big baseload sources we would need batteries that completely replace at least 1 or 2 days of production since major weather events can last that long. Meeting that engineering requirement would result in massive investments in water storage the size of Site C or greater. This is on top of the duplication of power lines used to run the pumps used to store the water. It is not helpful to ignore the huge scale of the problem.
As a thought exercise: whenever there is a report of storage in the media look for the numbers that would allow one to assess the economic viability of the source. i.e. how many minutes of power can the storage supply in the event that the wind stops/blows too hard or the sun is obscured by clouds?
Here is a report from a few years ago on the "world's biggest battery":
https://www.windpowerengineering.com/electrical/battery-stores-40-mw-for-ankorage-emergencies/
The batteries can produce up to 27 MW of power for 15 minutes, giving the utility enough time to get back-up generation on line. While the BESS is capable of producing up to 46 MW for a short time, the client’s primary need is for the system to cover the 15-minute period between sudden loss of generation and start-up of back-up generation.
Another from the Telsa PR exercise in Australia:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-42190358
When fully charged, the battery can power up to 30,000 homes for an hour. However, it will mostly be used to support and stabilise existing electricity supplies.
-
-morons, yokels, Republicans, dumb-people, hillbillies, imbeciles, President Trump, ignoramuses, oil barons, Rex Murphy, people suffering from blunt-force trauma to the head.
Don't forget the morons that scream "climate change" whenever a drought/flood/storm hits. If people really mean "weather is weather" then it cuts both ways. People who want to hypocritically use that argument only when it advances their personal agenda should be called out no matter what their agenda is.
-
Don't forget the morons that scream "climate change" whenever a drought/flood/storm hits. If people really mean "weather is weather" then it cuts both ways. People who want to hypocritically use that argument only when it advances their personal agenda should be called out no matter what their agenda is.
I think you will find there are a lot more "morons" who will try and promote the climate change denier approach every time there is a cold snap or a snowfall somewhere.
-
First off I have often communicated with Tim G on this issue. He knows I debate him from the other side on this issue. There was nothing dullard in saying that.
Given that there are at least 4 positions possible, there is no 'other side'. TimG agrees that warming is happening, for example.
Its clear on this thread which side for example you are on-the side of acting like some rude jackass because I extended my respect to Tim G and agreed with his attempt to suggest this debate has emotional arguments that get carried away on both sides.
I don't have to be sweet with people who are rude to me, so live with it.
Now did you have a point with your doltish comments?
Your arrogance shows you phrase the questions in the black and white all or nothing references I avoid.
Yes. My point is there are more than two sides, which is the exact opposite of what you are saying.
I'm not reading the rest of your long post until you acknowledge this so we can be on the same page.
-
Don't forget the morons that scream "climate change" whenever a drought/flood/storm hits. If people really mean "weather is weather" then it cuts both ways. People who want to hypocritically use that argument only when it advances their personal agenda should be called out no matter what their agenda is.
Great point and frankly you nailed it.
Global warming is like a religion because cold waves, mild winters, heat waves, cool summers, droughts, Biblical amounts of rain and the common cold are all caused by global warming.
-
Global warming is like a religion because cold waves, mild winters, heat waves, cool summers, droughts, Biblical amounts of rain and the common cold are all caused by global warming.
Nobody should use weather as a rationale for climate change. Instead, you can point at larger trends. But the 'debate' as such is now in the political domain entirely, where it should have been years ago.
-
Great point and frankly you nailed it.
Global warming is like a religion because cold waves, mild winters, heat waves, cool summers, droughts, Biblical amounts of rain and the common cold are all caused by global warming.
AGW can and does cause certain localized extremes, all while the global temperature creeps up. You're catching on it seems.
-
AGW can and does cause certain localized extremes.
Sorry - that is the BS "weather is climate" argument that most people here seem to correctly reject.
-
Nobody should use weather as a rationale for climate change. Instead, you can point at larger trends. But the 'debate' as such is now in the political domain entirely, where it should have been years ago.
Temperatures have been trendless in most locations with lengthy, reliable records. The alarmists cite to a so-called "world temperature," which is based on proxy data and extrapolation. If AGW were real there would be at least some cities with a steady warming trend, albeit with year to year jumping around or "noise." And you can be sure you'd never hear the end of it.
If you read history texts about the Revolutionary and Civil War, the weather and climate conditions are about the same as now. A New York City summer is a New York City summer. A New York City winter is a New York City winter. And that is from pre-Industrial times.
I have read novels by authors extremely familiar with the Arctic who describe mid-winter warmups. Farley Mowat's Lost in the Barrens, a Canadian author is one, and no one could accuse him of being in the pockets of oil companieis. Two teen-agers leave a safe camp with the weather suddenly warms, only to be trapped by extreme cold and blizzards when normal conditions return.
While that is not evidence, neither is the proxy data assembled, sometimes with dubious methods.
-
Sorry - that is the BS "weather is climate" argument that most people here seem to correctly reject.
Ah nope, but don't be sorry, just read up. Weather is day to day, climate is a trend of what is happening year over year. A little snow in Newfoundland just now does not correct huge masses of arctic ice melt for instance.
-
Ah nope, but don't be sorry, just read up. Weather is day to day, climate is a trend of what is happening year over year.
Logic fail. Claiming that an weather event is evidence of climate change is no different than saying an weather event is evidence that climate change does not exist. Your failure to understand this means you are no different from Trump.
-
Logic fail. Claiming that an weather event is evidence of climate change is no different than saying an weather event is evidence that climate change does not exist. Your failure to understand this means you are no different from Trump.
Apparently it is you who has comprehension problems. I am pointing out that a cold snap or a snowfall does NOT preclude the existence of overall global climate warming. Weather vs Climate, get it now?
-
I am pointing out that a cold snap or a snowfall does NOT preclude the existence of overall global climate warming.
And I am saying a drought/flood or other extreme event is not evidence that climate change exists. Weather vs Climate, get it now?
-
And I am saying a drought/flood or other extreme event is not evidence that climate change exists. Weather vs Climate, get it now?
You seem to keep repeating yourself, and I have already pointed out a number of times that a weather event here or there is not evidence of climate change. 800,000 sq.km. of ice melted from the Arctic Ocean over 20 years IS one climate change indicator.
-
Temperatures have been trendless in most locations with lengthy, reliable records.
cite ?
-
cite ?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/jbgusa/Weather/Climate%20Change/Chicago%20seasonal%20temperatures_zpsuvjymigu.png
-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/jbgusa/Weather/Climate%20Change/Chicago%20seasonal%20temperatures_zpsuvjymigu.png
"Photobucket"? I suggest you find a tad more credible cites. Here's one,
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/jbgusa/Weather/Climate%20Change/Chicago%20seasonal%20temperatures_zpsuvjymigu.png
**** off! This is the same bullshyte you plied on 'that other board'... I had forgotten you were one of those "eyeball" guys deciphering trendlines directly from data! ;D If you recall I took one of your sample data streams and actually plotted it and applied a positive trendline. Again, only the fringe of the fringe actually deny warming... legitimate skeptics have taken to challenging the severity of warming impacts.
here... the waldo offers you a bone - enjoy; per Resilient Chicago http://www.resilientchicago.org/about.html:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZED8jA4.png)
-
TimG agrees that warming is happening, for example.
BFD! He still deny's that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to GW... yet, when challenged, he refuses to provide his alternative principal causal tie. Ask him yourself - sure you can.
-
BFD! He still deny's that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to GW... yet, when challenged, he refuses to provide his alternative principal causal tie. Ask him yourself - sure you can.
We are in no way to blame, it's all due to dinosaur farts don't ya know?
-
We are talking about a different order of magnitude. A baseload plant has to produce a constant load for maximum efficiency. Power demand fluctuates so having a battery buffer to help deal with these changes can result in a more efficient plant. There is no way that these batteries would be large enough to replace the plant output if it went down nor would they have enough power for more than few minutes of production. If we talk about trying to build a world that did not need these big baseload sources we would need batteries that completely replace at least 1 or 2 days of production since major weather events can last that long. Meeting that engineering requirement would result in massive investments in water storage the size of Site C or greater. This is on top of the duplication of power lines used to run the pumps used to store the water. It is not helpful to ignore the huge scale of the problem.
Your argument seems to be that since we can't eliminate coal powered generators right now, there's no point in doing anything at all.
Even accepting the premise that we need some amount of fossil-fuel powered generator for the time being, there's certainly still plenty of potential to reduce the amount of coal being burned.
As a thought exercise: whenever there is a report of storage in the media look for the numbers that would allow one to assess the economic viability of the source. i.e. how many minutes of power can the storage supply in the event that the wind stops/blows too hard or the sun is obscured by clouds?
Traditional reservoir storage stations like these ones can provide 2-3 GW of output for 11 hours. That's enough to meet the overnight requirements for a very large number of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant
These are mated to the grid-- they're agnostic as to what powers the pumps. Presently they're mostly storing energy generated by coal and nuclear stations, but that will change. These plants have been operating for decades. I believe that in California they're now using abandoned open-pit mines as reservoirs for pumped storage.
Newer technologies are in development. Using underwater tanks is an interesting idea because it doesn't use any land area and because it uses the pressure of the water column to create more potential energy than you could with gravity alone. Many of the world's largest cities are located on coastlines, so plunking some underwater reservoirs offshore nearby would be ideal.
They're also using abandoned mines for compressed air energy storage. Molten salt is another thing that's in development. I don't know much about that yet.
Here is a report from a few years ago on the "world's biggest battery":
https://www.windpowerengineering.com/electrical/battery-stores-40-mw-for-ankorage-emergencies/
Another from the Telsa PR exercise in Australia:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-42190358
Ok, so that Tesla battery stores 129MWh of energy. That's pretty tiny in the grand scheme of things. 30,000 households is, what, about 100,000 people? About the size of Kim City, I'd guestimate. And the calculation of 129MWh/30,000 households = 1 hour gives a result of 4300W per household. That's clearly a peak-- cooking dinner with the air conditioner on while the kids watch TV or play video games. Average power would be significantly lower, and overnight power use would be a fraction of that 4300W. It's not out of the question to think that the Tesla battery in Australia could store enough power to meet Kim City's needs overnight.
The other thing that's striking about it is that it's actually quite small.
(https://i.imgur.com/PVPjgMf.jpg)
You could easily fit one of those in the abandoned Kim City rail-yard.
Building extra power storage would be a good thing regardless of whether you believe in renewable energy or not. Remember a few years back when the entire east coast power grid was shitting its pants because it couldn't handle the daytime load during the Great Lakes heat wave? It's a real problem, to the extent that as your article indicated, Amazon is considering buying one of Mr Musk's mega-batteries just to ensure the security of their own electrical power.
Also, there's this tendency to think in terms of mega-projects. Site C, etc. I think that we will probably see the opposite in the future. People are already generating their own power and selling their excess into the grid. I would expect that people will be able to buy power at cheap overnight rates, and sell it into the grid at peak daytime rates. As energy generation and energy storage technology reaches the point where it's accessible to consumers, more people are going to install it in their homes and businesses, and the sum of that private generation and storage capacity will become, in a sense, a mega-project in its own right.
-k
-
So things get warm and then they get cool and it's been doing this for several thousand years. I don't think too many dispute things are getting warmer. The issue is really what to do about it. The only actual suggestion seems to be for rich countries to give lots of money to poor countries, which doesn't seem likely to help much. Oh, and we're supposed to tax energy production and use - which is needed by everyone for almost everything, thus damaging world economies. No one actually suggests this is going to solve things, but hey, it might help slightly - eventually. At a cost of many TRILLIONS of dollars.
[attachimg=1]
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
-
Your argument seems to be that since we can't eliminate coal powered generators right now, there's no point in doing anything at all.
My argument is if we have the economically viable tech to eliminate base load then we can discuss. Until that time (if it ever comes) we need baseload and people should stop whining about needing to build new base load power sources (this is especially true if we want EVs to be successful). The "ban it first let the future fix the chaos" approach generally does not work well.
Even accepting the premise that we need some amount of fossil-fuel powered generator for the time being, there's certainly still plenty of potential to reduce the amount of coal being burned.
Sure - with CO2 free nuclear or CO2 lite gas but those options face similar opposition.
Traditional reservoir storage stations like these ones can provide 2-3 GW of output for 11 hours. That's enough to meet the overnight requirements for a very large number of people.
I already agreed that pumped storage could technically solve the problem but it is not cheap by any means. Bath county cost 1.6 billion and took 10 years in 1985 (at least 5 billion today with simple inflation - probably closer to 10-15 billion once all of the modern regulations are factored in). IOW - the project is definitely on the same scale as Site C and it is naive to assume that anything close to the capacity needed to turn off baseload could get built. This does not mean we can't build some to support renewable expansion but that should not be at the expense of maintaining our baseload sources.
Newer technologies are in development.
And when they actually exist and are shown to be economically viable at large scales then these issues can be revisited. In the meantime we need to maintain and build new baseload.
It's not out of the question to think that the Tesla battery in Australia could store enough power to meet Kim City's needs overnight.
At what cost? According to numbers from the Tesla project it was $200 million for 80 mins of power for a city of 100K or $6000 per household. Enough capacity for 8 hours would ~36K which is an absurd sum even if you assume battery costs will decrease in the future (optimistic estimates say the cost will be cut in half by 2030 - not enough to make it viable).
Remember just you can't assume that a technology can be deployed widely simply because it exists. Lots of technology is simply too expensive for large scale deployments even though it is extremely useful for small scale applications.
Also, there's this tendency to think in terms of mega-projects. Site C, etc. I think that we will probably see the opposite in the future. People are already generating their own power and selling their excess into the grid.
These are nothing but money wasting feel good projects where governments force power companies to absorb the losses. Microgeneration is only interesting when people store excess locally and reduce their need for grid power.
-
So things get warm and then they get cool and it's been doing this for several thousand years.
(Attachment Link)
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
job well done... your conspiracy nutters are well known charlatans - completely unqualified; neither trained as a climatologist or meteorologist ... unless you consider hosting a blog and reporting tee-vee weather are qualifications: "By an agreement, Cliff did not use or publish any of this information for 30 years." ;D --- http://www.longrangeweather.com/Long-Range-Weather-Trends.htm
the internets provide "climatologist" Cliffee's education chops: "Education: 312 units of college credit from seven different colleges and universities. Insurance broker for 25 years (1968 to 1992) a registered commodity adviser for 32 years, since 1980. Written daily weather and commodity columns for decades."
-
I don't know what specifically should be done about adaptation either. That doesn't mean I'm going to support spending trillions on a carbon reduction system which clearly won't do much of anything to impact the situation.
I don't think too many dispute things are getting warmer. The issue is really what to do about it. The only actual suggestion seems to be for rich countries to give lots of money to poor countries, which doesn't seem likely to help much. Oh, and we're supposed to tax energy production and use - which is needed by everyone for almost everything, thus damaging world economies. No one actually suggests this is going to solve things, but hey, it might help slightly - eventually. At a cost of many TRILLIONS of dollars.
are you able to qualify your registered concerns beyond simple unqualified references to, "trillions... at a cost of many TRILLIONS... on a carbon reduction system"?
-
Given that there are at least 4 positions possible, there is no 'other side'. TimG agrees that warming is happening, for example.
Yes. My point is there are more than two sides, which is the exact opposite of what you are saying.
I'm not reading the rest of your long post until you acknowledge this so we can be on the same page.
I never stated there were only two sides or argued there were only two sides to this or any debate.
Run along MH before I light a match. Kaboom.
-
Quite the little chart sir argus came up with; very colorful and cartoon like, and interesting if you want to know what's happening on Mt. Pinatubo. However I don't see any consideration as to the effect that burning a billion tons of coal annually nowadys, or the 1 billion cars we now have chugging around the globe daily. I wonder if any of those things could have any effect?
-
job well done... your conspiracy nutters are well known charlatans - completely unqualified; neither trained as a climatologist or meteorologist \
Are the temperatures on the chart right or wrong? If they're not wrong then it doesn't matter what their history is. Most of those involved in climate science never trained as climatologists either.
Right or wrong? If we completely stop carbon emissions today the temperature won't stop rising for 40 years.
-
are you able to qualify your registered concerns beyond simple unqualified references to, "trillions... at a cost of many TRILLIONS... on a carbon reduction system"?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2013/11/climate_change_the_eu_wants_to_spend_7_trillion_on_projects_that_will_barely.html
https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-outshines-countries-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions/
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-china-climatechange/china-puts-6-trillion-price-tag-on-its-climate-plan-idUSL1N0Z92A920150623
-
Are the temperatures on the chart right or wrong? If they're not wrong then it doesn't matter what their history is. Most of those involved in climate science never trained as climatologists either.
jeezaz! Stop digging. ;D Right or wrong, you ask... do you know why their cartoon has a 57 degree Fahrenheit baseline... and what's with no vertical temp scale? Right or wrong? Oh my!
Right or wrong? If we completely stop carbon emissions today the temperature won't stop rising for 40 years.
completely stop? Today? Really - who knew! Hey, run with that... run with do nothing... don't even attempt to begin stabilizing increasing CO2 concentration levels. Just follow the TimG adapt-R-Us-Only plan - whatever happens, happens. Just adapt to it!
-
jeezaz! Stop digging. ;D Right or wrong, you ask... do you know why their cartoon has a 57 degree Fahrenheit baseline... and what's with no vertical temp scale? Right or wrong? Oh my!
I couldn't help noticing you didn't answer.
completely stop? Today? Really - who knew! Hey, run with that... run with do nothing... don't even attempt to begin stabilizing increasing CO2 concentration levels. Just follow the TimG adapt-R-Us-Only plan - whatever happens, happens. Just adapt to it!
The point is we're not about to completely stop today, now are we? So we're going to be pumping out lots of CO2 for decades to come. So it's unlikely anyone alive today is going to see any real impact on global warming from all our efforts regardless of what we do about carbon emissions.
I think real carbon reduction will happen as scientific development allows for more efficient renewable energy development, and we switch to electric cars and the like. Not before.
-
I couldn't help noticing you didn't answer.
sure I did... you should have inferred something from my cartoon labeling. As I said, keep digging.
The point is we're not about to completely stop today, now are we? So we're going to be pumping out lots of CO2 for decades to come. So it's unlikely anyone alive today is going to see any real impact on global warming from all our efforts regardless of what we do about carbon emissions.
I think real carbon reduction will happen as scientific development allows for more efficient renewable energy development, and we switch to electric cars and the like. Not before.
what a stooopid position you're projecting... how can you ignore the kids... and the grand-kids... and the kids of the grand-kids! Are you one of those conservative living for yourself/for today types? Oh wait, carry on!
-
sure I did... you should have inferred something from my cartoon labeling. As I said, keep digging.
I take it you either CAN'T or WON'T answer for some reason.
what a stooopid position you're projecting... how can you ignore the kids... and the grand-kids... and the kids of the grand-kids! Are you one of those conservative living for yourself/for today types? Oh wait, carry on!
Do you imagine we'll still be driving cars and trucks, or even flying aircraft powered by the fossil fuels in a century? I doubt it. I would think by then we'd have most power plants working on renewables too. It will happen because of scientific development, not carbon tax and trading schemes.
As to kids. You know, the US tax cuts are going to give somewhere around $2,000 extra to the average American family (well, temporarily) but carbon taxes are going to take pretty close to that much AWAY from the average Canadian family as carbon taxes rise to 50mt. And let's get real, carbon taxes will have to rise well beyond that to have any real impact. Sorry kiddies, you'll have to shiver in the dark for the next century or so.
-
I take it you either CAN'T or WON'T answer for some reason.
it's a bullshyte cartoon graphic with no actual data points... from a couple of charlatans who have no credibility. And you ask, repeatedly now, if the "temperatures on the chart or right or wrong"? Did you actually look at the cartoon you linked? ;D You were caught with your pants around your ankles - just stop before you're bent right over!
-
I take it you either CAN'T or WON'T answer for some reason.
Do you imagine we'll still be driving cars and trucks, or even flying aircraft powered by the fossil fuels in a century? I doubt it. I would think by then we'd have most power plants working on renewables too. It will happen because of scientific development, not carbon tax and trading schemes.
As to kids. You know, the US tax cuts are going to give somewhere around $2,000 extra to the average American family (well, temporarily) but carbon taxes are going to take pretty close to that much AWAY from the average Canadian family as carbon taxes rise to 50mt. And let's get real, carbon taxes will have to rise well beyond that to have any real impact. Sorry kiddies, you'll have to shiver in the dark for the next century or so.
Actually carbon taxes can be revenue neutral. Yhr one we have in BC was just that for the first 5-6 years. Of course governments, whatever stripe they may be can't help to get their hands in the cookie jar after awhile so that neutrality has suffered. However over the same period of time the reduction in fossil fuel usage dropped province wide by 16%. Not moving away from fossil's will have it's costs as well so it's a pay me now or pay me later situation. And if you've ever walked down a street in say, Scotland in winter as I have with your eyes burning and spitting out the taste of coal smoke, you might be convinced that now is better than later.
-
Do you imagine we'll still be driving cars and trucks, or even flying aircraft powered by the fossil fuels in a century? I doubt it. I would think by then we'd have most power plants working on renewables too. It will happen because of scientific development, not carbon tax and trading schemes.
your 'technology will fix-it' naivety aside, you presume that tech won't be influenced by political will/lobbying efforts. One only needs to look at the present dismantling of the U.S. EPA's Obama era shifts in policy/regulation... at the Trump admin backing out of the Paris agreement... at the drumbeat to bring back "clean coal", etc., etc., etc. This from the world's historical #1 emitter! Industry won't drive shyte on its own... it will protect it's past and current/future investments - the one's that will bring the most share-holder value. I got a chuckle out of your earlier linking of well-known poli-sci wingnut Lomborg - the acknowledged leader of the do-nothing/delay at all costs movement! It's quite comical to see you dropping these linked references when you haven't a clue on the subject matter or players involved.
-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/jbgusa/Weather/Climate%20Change/Chicago%20seasonal%20temperatures_zpsuvjymigu.png
Your cite utterly fails to substantiate your claim. Thanks for wasting my time.
-
I couldn't help noticing you didn't answer.
As mind-numbingly annoying as Waldo is, he is pretty much an expert when it comes to sourcing climate studies.
Whatever your study is, it seems to be lacking by a lot although it's better than JBGs.
------
As I have been saying, and I think as TimG says - the debate is about economics. That is the difficult conversation that is before us.
-
My argument is if we have the economically viable tech to eliminate base load then we can discuss. Until that time (if it ever comes) we need baseload and people should stop whining about needing to build new base load power sources (this is especially true if we want EVs to be successful). The "ban it first let the future fix the chaos" approach generally does not work well.
Ontario has eliminated all of its coal plants. The sky hasn't fallen, even with the gross mismanagement of the remaining power plants.
Nuclear powers 50% of Ontario's grid, few people up in arms, and hardly anyone even knows that fact.
-
here... the waldo offers you a bone - enjoy; per Resilient Chicago http://www.resilientchicago.org/about.html:
Whoops! Looks like a “strange” thing happens when you plot those Chicago numbers.
-
Ontario has eliminated all of its coal plants. The sky hasn't fallen, even with the gross mismanagement of the remaining power plants.
Ontario has nukes and they invested billions in upgrading them in the last 10 years. The requirement for shutting coal has to be "what will replace the baseload?". "Renewables" is the wrong answer. Ontario appeared to have the right answer even though the politicians made a lot of other dumb decisions. These dumb decisions could have been avoided if the politicians stopped worrying about anti-CO2 posturing and simply focused on building a system that meets the needs of Ontario.
Nuclear powers 50% of Ontario's grid, few people up in arms, and hardly anyone even knows that fact.
And what are the chances of a new nuclear facility being built anywhere in this country today? If EVs take off we will need new baseload and simply upgrading existing nuclear facilities may not be enough. We will need new ones or we can re-open a few coal plants.
-
I guess all these hockey sticks are pretty “hard” to interpret.
[attach=2]
And it’s not like human activities caused them......
[attach=1]
-
I guess all these hockey sticks are pretty “hard” to interpret.
Don't forget pirates:
(https://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png)
Correlation analysis: "All of the explanatory power of witchcraft with the veneer of science".
-
What a stupid comment. The things I posted are scientifically and conceptually related. There are clearly understood mechanisms between them. Yet you’re claiming these relationships are spurious. Nobody should take anything you say on climate seriously, if that’s all you’ve got.
-
What a stupid comment.
Why you gotta use insults like this all the time when you disagree?
-
Yet you’re claiming these relationships are spurious.
You posted a list of random datasets selected only because they correlated with temperatures. You implicitly ignored datasets that did not correlate. This introduces bias Furthermore, the "scientific basis" for these relationships is often the result of post hoc rationalization (i.e. once the correlation is known scientific rationalizations are created to explain the correlation). When you combine that tendency with all of the datasets which were simply ignored due to lack of correlation you have a recipe for self deception.
Aside: scientific hypothesis are often developed by first noting correlations, however, before a hypothesis can be called a theory it must be possible to predict future outcomes of controlled experiments with the hypothesis. This process of validating a hypothesis is normal way to separate spurious correlations from real effects. These kinds of controlled experiments are not possible for most climate phenomena which means we have no way to validate a hypothesis derived from correlations. This means most climate claims are inherently uncertain and cannot be treated as "known" facts.
-
job well done... your conspiracy nutters are well known charlatans - completely unqualified; neither trained as a climatologist or meteorologist ... unless you consider hosting a blog and reporting tee-vee weather are qualifications: "By an agreement, Cliff did not use or publish any of this information for 30 years." ;D --- http://www.longrangeweather.com/Long-Range-Weather-Trends.htm
the internets provide "climatologist" Cliffee's education chops: "Education: 312 units of college credit from seven different colleges and universities. Insurance broker for 25 years (1968 to 1992) a registered commodity adviser for 32 years, since 1980. Written daily weather and commodity columns for decades."
are you able to qualify your registered concerns beyond simple unqualified references to, "trillions... at a cost of many TRILLIONS... on a carbon reduction system"?
jeezaz! Stop digging. ;D Right or wrong, you ask... do you know why their cartoon has a 57 degree Fahrenheit baseline... and what's with no vertical temp scale? Right or wrong? Oh my!
completely stop? Today? Really - who knew! Hey, run with that... run with do nothing... don't even attempt to begin stabilizing increasing CO2 concentration levels. Just follow the TimG adapt-R-Us-Only plan - whatever happens, happens. Just adapt to it!
Waldo, we know nothing about you. You are apparently a one-trick pony climate change machine. It is difficult to take you seriously.
-
Don't forget pirates:
(https://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png)
Correlation analysis: "All of the explanatory power of witchcraft with the veneer of science".
don't be so coy! You're already on record as stating your denial in accepting CO2 as the principal causal tie to today's relatively recent GW... just go a lil' bit further and state your preferred trendline range years to impress your point that CO2 and temperature have no correlation. Step-up now, hey!
in any case, it appears your Pastafarian reference site is calling out to you! ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/9EK0Wxv.png)
-
Waldo, we know nothing about you. You are apparently a one-trick pony climate change machine. It is difficult to take you seriously.
your expressed serious difficulty notwithstanding, who seriously challenges warming/increasing global temperatures? Seriously, who does that - other than someone from the 'fringe of the fringe'. Seriously? More pointedly, who bothers to actually give you cycles - oh, wait... carry on!
-
Waldo, we know nothing about you. You are apparently a one-trick pony climate change machine. It is difficult to take you seriously.
Apparently you know little about science, especially climate science. I have yet to see you citer anything that would seriously confront anything waldo has brought to the discussion. You must try harder if you wish to be taken seriously.
-
Why you gotta use insults like this all the time when you disagree?
I don’t disagree. He’s just completely wrong. It was a stupid comparison.
-
You posted a list of random datasets selected only because they correlated with temperatures. You implicitly ignored datasets that did not correlate. This introduces bias Furthermore, the "scientific basis" for these relationships is often the result of post hoc rationalization (i.e. once the correlation is known scientific rationalizations are created to explain the correlation). When you combine that tendency with all of the datasets which were simply ignored due to lack of correlation you have a recipe for self deception.
Aside: scientific hypothesis are often developed by first noting correlations, however, before a hypothesis can be called a theory it must be possible to predict future outcomes of controlled experiments with the hypothesis. This process of validating a hypothesis is normal way to separate spurious correlations from real effects. These kinds of controlled experiments are not possible for most climate phenomena which means we have no way to validate a hypothesis derived from correlations. This means most climate claims are inherently uncertain and cannot be treated as "known" facts.
Youre being intentionally dense. Your vague comments here about the scientific method are useless. I ignored data sets about record sales, but by your reasoning they should be included. The things posted above, like I already said, are related. If you need the scientific details about how agricultural land use is related to methan outputs, go look it up.
Human activities have had such a huge impact on earth systems that scientists are proposing we’ve entered a new geological epoch due to the impact of human activities. We’ve literally changed the planet we live on so dramatically that geologists are seriously considering naming the anthropocene a new epoch.
But here you are, continuing to deny, obstruct, and move the goal posts. Talking about this **** with you isn’t even worth the time because anyone who seriously studies this stuff would ignore you. The people who matter in these discussions don’t take your position. So I don’t even know why Waldo bothers trying to inform the uninformable.
-
Human activities have had such a huge impact on earth systems that scientists are proposing we’ve entered a new geological epoch due to the impact of human activities. We’ve literally changed the planet we live on so dramatically that geologists are seriously considering naming the anthropocene a new epoch.
So what? Why do you imply this is a bad thing? Simply stating the fact that humans change the planet does not establish that we should be concerned. Change is not bad in itself. Nature prior to human impact is not some perfect Eden that needs to be preserved at all costs. The planet getting warmer is not necessarily bad. All of the alarm around AGW does not come from the simple fact of AGW but they poorly supported assertion that warming is necessarily a bad thing.
But here you are, continuing to deny, obstruct, and move the goal posts.
Deny what? You seem to think that people should blindly assume that a set of datasets chosen only for their apparent correlation is some sort of proof for all of claims that you would like to make about the consequences of AGW? This is sloppy thinking which I called you out for. It is certainly not science.
-
So what? Why do you imply this is a bad thing? Simply stating the fact that humans change the planet does not establish that we should be concerned.
Pick up a book Tim. The consequences are known. The concerns are well founded. I’m not going to write a doctoral dissertation on the forum explaining why all of these scientists are concerned. If you don’t know why you should be concerned yet, then there’s no amount of explaining it to you that will get over your blind ignorance.
-
So what? Why do you imply this is a bad thing? Simply stating the fact that humans change the planet does not establish that we should be concerned. Change is not bad in itself. Nature prior to human impact is not some perfect Eden that needs to be preserved at all costs. The planet getting warmer is not necessarily bad. All of the alarm around AGW does not come from the simple fact of AGW but they poorly supported assertion that warming is necessarily a bad thing.
Nature doesn't have to be perfectly preserved, but when irreversible change means dramatically higher-than-natural extinction rates (estimated 1000 to 10,000x higher) for animal and plant species for the benefit of a single species and caused by that species it's cause for serious alarm.
-
Nature doesn't have to be perfectly preserved, but when irreversible change means dramatically higher-than-natural extinction rates (estimated 1000 to 10,000x higher) for animal and plant species for the benefit of a single species and caused by that species it's cause for serious alarm.
The extinction rate claims are not based on real data. They are simply statistical protections based on unverifiable models.
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-species-extinction-overreported.html
The most widely used methods for calculating species extinction rates are "fundamentally flawed" and overestimate extinction rates by as much as 160 percent, life scientists report May 19 in the journal Nature.
We also have no real data for the past so claims about extinction rates being 'abnormal' are simply made up.
Lastly, extinction and renewal is the way of life. Simply establishing that mix of species is changing does not establish that there is a problem. You are simply assuming there is a problem based on the 'change must be bad' fallacy.
-
why all of these scientists are concerned.
Scientists claiming there is a big problem tend to get funding. Scientists claiming there is nothing to be concerned about generally don't get funding. This means all research is biased towards exaggerating alarm. It is reasonable to assume that whatever reality is it is not going to be as bad as claimed.
-
it's a bullshyte cartoon graphic with no actual data points... from a couple of charlatans who have no credibility. And you ask, repeatedly now, if the "temperatures on the chart or right or wrong"? Did you actually look at the cartoon you linked? ;D You were caught with your pants around your ankles - just stop before you're bent right over!
So show me another bullshit graphic with or without data points which shows there actually haven't been deep temperature swings over the last some thousand years. Or even deny there have been any. Show a little integrity for once in your online life.
-
your 'technology will fix-it' naivety aside, you presume that tech won't be influenced by political will/lobbying efforts. One only needs to look at the present dismantling of the U.S. EPA's Obama era shifts in policy/regulation... at the Trump admin backing out of the Paris agreement... at the drumbeat to bring back "clean coal", etc., etc., etc. This from the world's historical #1 emitter! Industry won't drive shyte on its own... it will protect it's past and current/future investments - the one's that will bring the most share-holder value. I got a chuckle out of your earlier linking of well-known poli-sci wingnut Lomborg - the acknowledged leader of the do-nothing/delay at all costs movement! It's quite comical to see you dropping these linked references when you haven't a clue on the subject matter or players involved.
And yet, once again, you have been completely unable to deny anything they said or I said, while frantically trying to bury your incompetence in swaggering mockery and sneers.
-
So what? Why do you imply this is a bad thing? Simply stating the fact that humans change the planet does not establish that we should be concerned. Change is not bad in itself. Nature prior to human impact is not some perfect Eden that needs to be preserved at all costs. The planet getting warmer is not necessarily bad. All of the alarm around AGW does not come from the simple fact of AGW but they poorly supported assertion that warming is necessarily a bad thing.
Deny what? You seem to think that people should blindly assume that a set of datasets chosen only for their apparent correlation is some sort of proof for all of claims that you would like to make about the consequences of AGW? This is sloppy thinking which I called you out for. It is certainly not science.
Try telling people who live in places like Florida that global warming is not such a bad thing as their houses disappear under water.
-
So show me another bullshit graphic with or without data points which shows there actually haven't been deep temperature swings over the last some thousand years. Or even deny there have been any. Show a little integrity for once in your online life.
hey stable genius guy... your statement: "So things get warm and then they get cool and it's been doing this for several thousand years."
this is the nonsensical position implying today's relatively recent warming is related to so-called, "natural cycles of cooling and warming". If you really want to dance, step-up and state, with legitimate substantiation, what natural forcings and/or internal variability are the cause of today's relatively recent warming. Shyte doesn't just happen. Note: by legitimate, I don't include your earlier referenced Cliffee guy or Cletus from the back 40!
-
And yet, once again, you have been completely unable to deny anything they said or I said, while frantically trying to bury your incompetence in swaggering mockery and sneers.
your whiney lil' beeatch act is wearing me down! ;D
-
So show me another bullshit graphic with or without data points which shows there actually haven't been deep temperature swings over the last some thousand years. Or even deny there have been any. Show a little integrity for once in your online life.
He can't. That's like asking a dog not to wag its tail.
-
And yet, once again, you have been completely unable to deny anything they said or I said, while frantically trying to bury your incompetence in swaggering mockery and sneers.
hey stable genius guy... your statement: "So things get warm and then they get cool and it's been doing this for several thousand years."
this is the nonsensical position implying today's relatively recent warming is related to so-called, "natural cycles of cooling and warming". If you really want to dance, step-up and state, with legitimate substantiation, what natural forcings and/or internal variability are the cause of today's relatively recent warming. Shyte doesn't just happen. Note: by legitimate, I don't include your earlier referenced Cliffee guy or Cletus from the back 40!
your whiney lil' beeatch act is wearing me down! ;D
One of you is a bore. and a "gore" to boot.
-
He can't. That's like asking a dog not to wag its tail.
same challenge to you:
this is the nonsensical position implying today's relatively recent warming is related to so-called, "natural cycles of cooling and warming". If you really want to dance, step-up and state, with legitimate substantiation, what natural forcings and/or internal variability are the cause of today's relatively recent warming. Shyte doesn't just happen.
-
One of you is a bore. and a "gore" to boot.
exposing your denier self has apparently touched a nerve. Clearly your ability to eyeball trends from raw data is profound! ;D
-
I'm just glad this board exists so I can continue to watch Waldo (now with less moderator intervention!). :D
-
The extinction rate claims are not based on real data. They are simply statistical protections based on unverifiable models.
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-species-extinction-overreported.html
The most widely used methods for calculating species extinction rates are "fundamentally flawed" and overestimate extinction rates by as much as 160 percent, life scientists report May 19 in the journal Nature.
We also have no real data for the past so claims about extinction rates being 'abnormal' are simply made up.
I'll see your 2011 phys.org article/study and raise you another/more current Aug 2014 study within the Conservation Biology journal --- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12380/abstract :
Species going extinct 1,000 times faster than in pre-human times --- https://phys.org/news/2014-09-species-extinct-faster-pre-human.html
The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection {May2014 - Science mag/journal} --- http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6187/1246752
Lastly, extinction and renewal is the way of life. Simply establishing that mix of species is changing does not establish that there is a problem. You are simply assuming there is a problem based on the 'change must be bad' fallacy.
yabut, what about humans driving extinction faster than species can evolve... that rates of new species development are slower than diversity loss caused by the destruction of habitats ala climate change? So what - too bad, so sad?
-
Are you Waldo's cheering section? I'm sure he'll be relieved. Because hitherto he's been forced to do all the cheering for himself. In every post, in fact. The closest political resemblance would be Donald Trump. I expect his next post to tell us he's a 'genius' and 'like, really smart', and then start making up childish names for anyone who opposes him.
Maybe try citing someone more reliable than Lomborg if you want to be taken seriously. He is more of a business man than a scientist and he used a paper by Isabel Galiana to support his idea that working against AGW wasn't worth it financially, after she had already stated:
And Galiana herself has conceded “the paper does not explicitly undertake a benefit/cost analysis of keeping climate change to two degrees” and that a 2C target might be justified if “tipping points” of accelerated environmental damage were considered.
-
The extinction rate claims are not based on real data. They are simply statistical protections based on unverifiable models.
I'm not talking about projections or models, I'm talking about the extinction rate which is occurring right now in reality, which is hard to pin down an exact # and the estimates vary which is why I stated the "1000x - 10,000x the typical rate" stat. There's little debate that humans have been causing a high number of species extinctions the past several decades.
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-species-extinction-overreported.html
The most widely used methods for calculating species extinction rates are "fundamentally flawed" and overestimate extinction rates by as much as 160 percent, life scientists report May 19 in the journal Nature.
First, your article is 8 years old. Let's say it's right and came out yesterday, let's go with a 100x - 1000x the typical rate of extinction. That's still very alarming. From your article:
However, while the problem of species extinction caused by habitat loss is not as dire as many conservationists and scientists had believed, the global extinction crisis is real, says Stephen Hubbell, a distinguished professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA and co-author of the Nature paper.
"The methods currently in use to estimate extinction rates are erroneous, but we are losing habitat faster than at any time over the last 65 million years," said Hubbell, a tropical forest ecologist and a senior staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. "The good news is that we are not in quite as serious trouble right now as people had thought, but that is no reason for complacency. I don't want this research to be misconstrued as saying we don't have anything to worry about when nothing is further from the truth."
..."However, the next mass extinction may be upon us or just around the corner. There have been five mass extinctions in the history of the Earth, and we could be entering the sixth mass extinction."
Lastly, extinction and renewal is the way of life. Simply establishing that mix of species is changing does not establish that there is a problem. You are simply assuming there is a problem based on the 'change must be bad' fallacy.
Extinction is a normal process. Mass extinction is not normal, and more biodiversity is better than less by just about any measure. When species are becoming extinct at a much higher rate than new species can appear due to evolutionary adaptation it's cause for concern.
-
I'm not talking about projections or models, I'm talking about the extinction rate which is occurring right now in reality, which is hard to pin down an exact # and the estimates vary which is why I stated the "1000x - 10,000x the typical rate" stat.
And I am saying those stats are not real numbers - they are based on models. And most of the species which are supposedly going extinct are not even known to exist in the first place - their existence is another hypothesis from yet another model. You should never take any of these claims at face value and always look into how this knowledge was obtained. Many times the basis for extravagant claims are extremely dubious.
Extinction is a normal process. Mass extinction is not normal, and more biodiversity is better than less by just about any measure. When species are becoming extinct at a much higher rate than new species can appear due to evolutionary adaptation it's cause for concern.
It is a cause for concern if you accept that the models used to estimate the rate have not been manipulated to increase the sense of alarm and therefore the funding that flows to scientists studying this stuff. Self interest permeates every element of our society. Why should scientific research be any different?
-
hey stable genius guy... your statement: "So things get warm and then they get cool and it's been doing this for several thousand years."
this is the nonsensical position implying today's relatively recent warming is related to so-called, "natural cycles of cooling and warming". If you really want to dance, step-up and state, with legitimate substantiation, what natural forcings and/or internal variability are the cause of today's relatively recent warming. Shyte doesn't just happen. Note: by legitimate, I don't include your earlier referenced Cliffee guy or Cletus from the back 40!
What? You don’t take the word of an insurance salesman over climatologists?
-
A) As much as I appreciate that you all appreciate this place, I have taken liberty to remove some....superfluous....posts.
B) This thread is going to be locked for the night, so that everyone can cool down. I have the day off tomorrow, so I might not get up that early. When I get up, and remember, I'll unlock it.
-
And I am saying those stats are not real numbers - they are based on models. And most of the species which are supposedly going extinct are not even known to exist in the first place - their existence is another hypothesis from yet another model. You should never take any of these claims at face value and always look into how this knowledge was obtained. Many times the basis for extravagant claims are extremely dubious.
It is a cause for concern if you accept that the models used to estimate the rate have not been manipulated to increase the sense of alarm and therefore the funding that flows to scientists studying this stuff. Self interest permeates every element of our society. Why should scientific research be any different?
They're estimates. The point is: humans are making species go extinct at a high rate, and climate change is almost certain to increase this as species will be forced to adapt or die. Do accept this, yes or no? Is this good, yes or no?
-
They're estimates. The point is: humans are making species go extinct at a high rate, and climate change is almost certain to increase this as species will be forced to adapt or die. Do accept this, yes or no? Is this good, yes or no?
Do you accept that we aren't going to be able to do anything about that without technological advances?
-
Do you accept that we aren't going to be able to do anything about that without technological advances?
Actually we can. We can stop using coal plants, for one. We can use nuclear and/or natural gas plants instead.
-
They're estimates. The point is: humans are making species go extinct at a high rate, and climate change is almost certain to increase this as species will be forced to adapt or die. Do accept this, yes or no? Is this good, yes or no?
They are estimates based on the kind of science that said dietary fat is bad or stress causes ulcers. The main differences is with medical science we have billions of ongoing real world experiments (i.e. human lives) that eventually tell which old ideas are completely wrong. No such real world validation is possible for claims such as the extinction rate. Especially when claims are made about how it compares to times before modern human record keeping. So the end result is I dismiss such claims as if they are astrology. They could be right we have no way to know and I am certainly not going make decisions based on the premise that they are correct or reasonable.
-
Actually we can. We can stop using coal plants, for one. We can use nuclear and/or natural gas plants instead.
Which is my point all along. I might think that the field of climate science is filled with goons that manipulate science to exaggerate alarm in order to advance their careers, however, there is enough solid science that can be connected back to reproducible experiments to accept that CO2 could be a problem. My only requirement is any actions must have a reasonable chance of actually addressing the stated problem without imposing crippling costs on society. i.e. progress - not perfection. Nuclear and natural gas to replace coal is high on my list of reasonable things that can be done.
-
... there is enough solid science that can be connected back to reproducible experiments to accept that CO2 could be a problem.
'could' be a problem? Geezaz! Slow down now... don't get carried away here. ;D
My only requirement is any actions must have a reasonable chance of actually addressing the stated problem without imposing crippling costs on society. i.e. progress - not perfection. Nuclear and natural gas to replace coal is high on my list of reasonable things that can be done.
reasonable? With 4th gen nuclear showing real promise, notwithstanding approval/funding/planning & construction phase time, there might be a renewed willingness for countries/governments to reconsider nuclear: Nuclear Experts Head to China to Test Experimental Reactors --- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-21/nuclear-scientists-head-to-china-to-test-experimental-reactors
coal to (latest gen) natural gas efficiencies are real... but this should also include continued research/trials of CCS - industry should not be allowed to quash CCS simply because of a low(er) cost of natural gas.
that being said, what's your acceptance... your reasonable acceptance on the penetration rate of renewables? You've managed to strawman the hell out of baseload through earlier posts --- take that off the discussion for now. With a legitimate focus on the U.S. (as the world's #1 historical emitter): you know there are no shortage of legitimate studies that have looked at the U.S. energy mix toward enhanced renewables penetration. In that context, without any changes to the current infrastructure, what's your understanding... your "reasonable" understanding... of what the penetration rate of renewables could go to, without any impact on efficiency or reliability? What's your "reasonable" number?
-
They are estimates based on the kind of science that said dietary fat is bad or stress causes ulcers. The main differences is with medical science we have billions of ongoing real world experiments (i.e. human lives) that eventually tell which old ideas are completely wrong. No such real world validation is possible for claims such as the extinction rate. Especially when claims are made about how it compares to times before modern human record keeping. So the end result is I dismiss such claims as if they are astrology. They could be right we have no way to know and I am certainly not going make decisions based on the premise that they are correct or reasonable.
The estimate is 100x - 1000x the normal extinction rate. Those are the best range of figures that science has for us right now. Obviously the figure is not knowable, hence a range, and the range itself could be wrong for reasons you say. But I don't care about the exact #, the point is, as I say, that species are going extinct at a high rate because of a variety of human behaviours such as mass hunting/fishing, pollution, habitat destruction etc. and that seems pretty logical to me.
I'm far from an alarmist that believes everything I read, especially if it's not peer-reviewed science, and even still as you also say there's different reasons to not take that as indisputable. We need to deal with things reasonably, based on things like likelihood of outcomes and cost. There's also a totally subjective philosophical element, in how much each of us values nature vs values human life/human standard of living. I see an ethical problem in changing the earth in dramatic ways (probably mostly irreversibly) for the benefit of a handful of generations of one species. Everyone will have a different philosophy about this.
-
The estimate is 100x - 1000x the normal extinction rate.
It is simply delusional to make any claim about what the "normal" rate is. We simply do not have the data from prehistory that would allow anyone to make such claims. Simply printing the dubious claims in "peer reviewed" journals does not make them more credible. We do have the data that would allow someone to claim that a lot of species are at risk and/or going extinct. This may be a concern but it depends on the specific reasons (e.g. overfishing is something that has to be stopped). The overheated rhetoric that gives the impression that every lost species is a tragedy is ridiculous. Extinction is nature's way.
I see an ethical problem in changing the earth in dramatic ways (probably mostly irreversibly) for the benefit of a handful of generations of one species. Everyone will have a different philosophy about this.
The "gaia" religion something that many believe in. My only concern about the environment comes from the need to ensure that humans can continue to live and prosper but that does not require static eco-systems. Eco-systems that evolve to better meet the needs of humans are fine.
-
It is simply delusional to make any claim about what the "normal" rate is. We simply do not have the data from prehistory that would allow anyone to make such claims. Simply printing the dubious claims in "peer reviewed" journals does not make them more credible. We do have the data that would allow someone to claim that a lot of species are at risk and/or going extinct. This may be a concern but it depends on the specific reasons (e.g. overfishing is something that has to be stopped). The overheated rhetoric that gives the impression that every lost species is a tragedy is ridiculous. Extinction is nature's way.
The "gaia" religion something that many believe in, however, it is not sufficient to justify imposing harm on people who do not share your beliefs. My only concern about the environment comes from the need to ensure that humans can continue to live and prosper but that does not require static eco-systems. Eco-systems that evolve to better meet the needs of humans are fine.
"Dubious claims" according to who, you? But you dismiss the peer reviews by actual climate scientists. And yes we know what caused the demise of the cod fishery off our east coast, but don't try to conflate all species demise with that type of human activity. You don't have to eat fish to kill them.
-
Actually we can. We can stop using coal plants, for one. We can use nuclear and/or natural gas plants instead.
And what do you believe the impact of that will be? I've already pointed out that according to scientists if we actually stop, end, eliminate all Co2 emissions TODAY, there won't be any noticeable impact for 40 years. So how long do you think it will take to show any impact if we manage to lower Co2 emissions by say, 25% in 30 years?
-
And what do you believe the impact of that will be? I've already pointed out that according to scientists if we actually stop, end, eliminate all Co2 emissions TODAY, there won't be any noticeable impact for 40 years. So how long do you think it will take to show any impact if we manage to lower Co2 emissions by say, 25% in 30 years?
Which scientist's are those?
-
And what do you believe the impact of that will be? I've already pointed out that according to scientists if we actually stop, end, eliminate all Co2 emissions TODAY, there won't be any noticeable impact for 40 years. So how long do you think it will take to show any impact if we manage to lower Co2 emissions by say, 25% in 30 years?
Computer models are used to design and plan just about everything these days, just blowing off ones used to predict climate change is irresponsible. Doesn't anyone think trying to slow the process down while we try to come up with remedial actions and technologies is worthwhile?
-
Computer models are used to design and plan just about everything these days, just blowing off ones used to predict climate change is irresponsible.
Nonsense. Computer models are not all equal. Do you treat an economic model of what will happen in 2030 as fact? Well - climate models used to project future consequences depend on so many economic assumptions that they really no better than economic models.
Furthermore, when engineers use computer models to design a plane they eventually build a real plane that will tell them how close their computer model is to reality. If the plane does not fly the model is assumed to be wrong. No such real world feedback exists for climate models. In fact, climate scientists take the attitude that if the real world does not match the models the real world data must be wrong and they spend a lot of time trying to "adjust" previously collected data to match the modesl. The net result is garbage that does not deserve to be even called science.
-
Nonsense. Computer models are not all equal. Do you treat an economic model of what will happen in 2030 as fact? Well - climate models used to project future consequences depend on so many economic assumptions that they really no better than economic models.
Furthermore, when engineers use computer models to design a plane they eventually build a real plane that will tell them how close their computer model is to reality. If the plane does not fly the model is assumed to be wrong. No such real world feedback exists for climate models. In fact, climate scientists take the attitude that if the real world does not match the models the real world data must be wrong and they spend a lot of time trying to "adjust" previously collected data to match the modesl. The net result is garbage that does not deserve to be even called science.
Guess there is no point in trying to figure it out then.
-
I'll see your 2011 phys.org article/study and raise you another/more current Aug 2014 study within the Conservation Biology journal --- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12380/abstract :
Species going extinct 1,000 times faster than in pre-human times --- https://phys.org/news/2014-09-species-extinct-faster-pre-human.html
The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection {May2014 - Science mag/journal} --- http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6187/1246752
yabut, what about humans driving extinction faster than species can evolve... that rates of new species development are slower than diversity loss caused by the destruction of habitats ala climate change? So what - too bad, so sad?
I have to agree with you here but not because of climate. The book 1493 by Charles Mann (I frequently cite to his book 1941 to show that Native Americans died mostly of epidemics) details how the spread of exotic species throughout the world and habitat destruction have caused an awful lot of this kind of damage. For once I largely agreed with you. I've looked for such an opportunity.
-
B) This thread is going to be locked for the night, so that everyone can cool down.
Pun intended? Or a play on the East's weather?
-
Actually we can. We can stop using coal plants, for one. We can use nuclear and/or natural gas plants instead.
A plug for fracking?
-
Nonsense. Computer models are not all equal. Do you treat an economic model of what will happen in 2030 as fact? Well - climate models used to project future consequences depend on so many economic assumptions that they really no better than economic models.
Furthermore, when engineers use computer models to design a plane they eventually build a real plane that will tell them how close their computer model is to reality. If the plane does not fly the model is assumed to be wrong. No such real world feedback exists for climate models. In fact, climate scientists take the attitude that if the real world does not match the models the real world data must be wrong and they spend a lot of time trying to "adjust" previously collected data to match the modesl. The net result is garbage that does not deserve to be even called science.
Ever rode on a Boeing 777? Totally computer designed with no costly mock up. And it flies just like the computer that flies it said it would. And that was over two decades ago.
-
Guess there is no point in trying to figure it out then.
Climate models are not useless and can be used to test hypothesis - as long as one understands the limitations and do not treat them as oracles. The problem is they are being used for political advocacy which means the advocates exaggerate their usefulness and ignore their limitations.
-
Ever rode on a Boeing 777? Totally computer designed with no costly mock up. And it flies just like the computer that flies it said it would. And that was over two decades ago.
Yep. And all through the design process engineers were constantly testing the models against the real world (e.g. wind tunnel tests) and fixing the models when differences are found. No climate model could possibly meet standards that aerospace models are expected to meet. This is partially because there are equivalents to wind tunnels that could be used to validate the model. It is partially because climate scientists face no consequences for pushing bogus models because by the time the models are proven to be worthless they will be long gone.
-
Yep. And all through the design process engineers were constantly testing the models against the real world (e.g. wind tunnel tests) and fixing the models when differences are found. No climate model could possibly meet standards that aerospace models are expected to meet. This is partially because there are equivalents to wind tunnels that could be used to validate the model. It is partially because climate scientists face no consequenchos eoutcomes. for pushing bogus models because by the time the models are proven to be worthless they will be long gone.
So you are trying to say that a climate scientist disregards what science shows him/her because their life span won't be long enough for them to actually experience what their research shows them. Boy that's a stretch!
-
So you are trying to say that a climate scientist disregards what science shows him/her because their life span won't be long enough for them to actually experience what their research shows them. Boy that's a stretch!
Every system in our society depends on accountability. When there is no accountability the system fails because the humans put their self interest first. In the case of climate models, the self interest for climate scientists is to defend the models and deny any evidence of serious problems. Without needing to prove their models against real world results they can get away with it. Aerospace engineers cannot get away with it because the plane has to fly which is the ultimate validation of the models.
-
Every system in our society depends on accountability. When there is no accountability the system fails because the humans put their self interest first. In the case of climate models, the self interest for climate scientists is to defend the models and deny any evidence of serious problems. Without needing to prove their models against real world results they can get away with it. Aerospace engineers cannot get away with it because the plane has to fly which is the ultimate validation of the models.
Let me try to put you straight. Planes designed completely by computer do fly quite well. I just flew on from YYZ-YVR. Climate scientists do rely on real world indicators such as sat. pics. of rapidly increasing ice melt to the tune currently of 800,000 sq. km. missing from the arctic over the past 20 years. So following your logic, might not fly, but the Global Warming will increase.
-
Every system in our society depends on accountability. When there is no accountability the system fails because the humans put their self interest first. In the case of climate models, the self interest for climate scientists is to defend the models and deny any evidence of serious problems. Without needing to prove their models against real world results they can get away with it. Aerospace engineers cannot get away with it because the plane has to fly which is the ultimate validation of the models.
Like I said, there is no point in bothering to try an figure it out. We'll just have deal with whatever happens. Or not.
-
The problem is they are being used for political advocacy which means the advocates exaggerate their usefulness and ignore their limitations.
in regards your referenced political advocates... policy makers... policy deciders: citation request
It is partially because climate scientists face no consequences for pushing bogus models because by the time the models are proven to be worthless they will be long gone.
and yet... you've already offered a 'worthless declaration'
In the case of climate models, the self interest for climate scientists is to defend the models and deny any evidence of serious problems.
citation request to align with your broad-based, all-encompassing, blanket inclusiveness
-
lost in the wave of conspiratorial opinions and unsubstantiated musings on the state of climate models: so..... reposting
My only requirement is any actions must have a reasonable chance of actually addressing the stated problem without imposing crippling costs on society. i.e. progress - not perfection. Nuclear and natural gas to replace coal is high on my list of reasonable things that can be done.
reasonable? With 4th gen nuclear showing real promise, notwithstanding approval/funding/planning & construction phase time, there might be a renewed willingness for countries/governments to reconsider nuclear: Nuclear Experts Head to China to Test Experimental Reactors --- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-21/nuclear-scientists-head-to-china-to-test-experimental-reactors
coal to (latest gen) natural gas efficiencies are real... but this should also include continued research/trials of CCS - industry should not be allowed to quash CCS simply because of a low(er) cost of natural gas.
that being said, what's your acceptance... your reasonable acceptance on the penetration rate of renewables? You've managed to strawman the hell out of baseload through earlier posts --- take that off the discussion for now. With a legitimate focus on the U.S. (as the world's #1 historical emitter): you know there are no shortage of legitimate studies that have looked at the U.S. energy mix toward enhanced renewables penetration. In that context, without any changes to the current infrastructure, what's your understanding... your "reasonable" understanding... of what the penetration rate of renewables could go to, without any impact on efficiency or reliability? What's your "reasonable" number?[/quote]
-
"Dubious claims" according to who, you? But you dismiss the peer reviews by actual climate scientists. And yes we know what caused the demise of the cod fishery off our east coast, but don't try to conflate all species demise with that type of human activity. You don't have to eat fish to kill them.
Some people have a very difficult time understanding rate of change. A lot of climate problems are about the pace of change accelerating, not just the change itself.
Speaking of the rate of change:
Oxygen disappearing from the world's oceans at an alarmingly rapid pace
http://www.newsweek.com/oxygen-disappearing-worlds-oceans-alarmingly-rapid-pace-771406
-
Nonsense. Computer models are not all equal.
You're right. They're not. And you haven't demonstrated at all that you're capable of discerning between good ones and poor ones, especially when it comes to climate models.
-
Yep. And all through the design process engineers were constantly testing the models against the real world (e.g. wind tunnel tests)
Your climate arguments are more akin to you criticizing aviation testing because it doesn't put the models in through tests in every possible weather conditions. It's like saying, "Oh sure....they tested the model in a wind tunnel, but did they subject it to rain? Oh they did. BUt that was at 21 celsius....did they test it in colder rain? How about rain in hotter temperatures? Did they test the models in snow? How about sand and desert conditions? Well they didn't account for the updraft of buildings in their tests. They didn't test the models around different spatial configurations of buildings either. HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLE KNOW?" It's reductio ad absurdem.
You reach an "absurd" conclusion based on nonsensical premises, namely that we can't know anything until it happens. We don't need to know precisely what the temperatures will be in 60 or 100 years. We know the rate of change and we can see those rates accelerating, and not just with temperatures but myriad other environmental conditions. It's been clearly connected to human activities. But you want to do sweet **** all about it because we can't know the precise measurements of the future. An example of your reasoning would be riding on a bus that is accelerating towards a precipice--the brakes don't work and the steering is broken. People are jumping of the bus to save their lives, but you're sitting there saying we need to wait and see if the bus will fall off the cliff because we can't know for sure whether or not the brakes and steering will come back and we don't know for sure whether the bus will continue moving forward. You want to wait and see if it might suddenly throw itself in reverse. What's worse is that you're not only arguing that you should stay on the bus yourself, but you're arguing that we lock the doors on that bus and not let anyone else off either. Why? Because that bus careening towards a cliff might not actually go over the edge.
-
You're right. They're not. And you haven't demonstrated at all that you're capable of discerning between good ones and poor ones, especially when it comes to climate models.
My criteria are straightforward and uncontroversial: to be credible it must be possible to use computer models to make accurate predictions of future outcomes. Ideally these future outcomes should be part of a controlled experiment but it is not essential if the successful predictions are detailed enough.
Now insisting that computer models be validated against the real world is problem for people peddling models in domains where it is not practical to do in timescales we care about (e.g. climate models), however, it is only way to seperate good models from bad models. Now I realize that people who spend their careers working on these models in areas where validation is not practical can't afford to admit that their models are unverifiable and therefore quite likely to be garbage. This leads to numerous hand waving attempts to hide the deficiencies (e.g. the models predict the past therefore they must be accurate about the future) but these attempts do not demonstrate that the models are credible.
I am sorry that my high standards for computer models are inconvenient for your political agenda but science is supposed to be about finding the truth - not some political agenda.
-
But you want to do sweet **** all about it because we can't know the precise measurements of the future.
That is not what I am saying at all. In fact, a post I made above made it clear that I think there is enough verifiable science to support reasonable actions to reduce CO2. The debate for me is more about what is reasonable (e.g. nuclear power, hydro and gas, carbon taxes) and what is unreasonable (e.g. hard reduction targets, renewables).
I get into debates about computer models and climate science because I see climate sciences as a cesspool filled with advocates who see science as a tool to advance their political agenda rather than a tool to understand their world. I would like to see the field reformed and the advocates forced out of the field but this is a desire that is not directly related to the question of what to do about CO2.
-
If all climate studies and models are written off as politically motivated, there is no point in doing them and we will just have to operate on blind faith that we will be able to cope with the consequences, without even trying to determine what they will likely be. That doesn’t look like a strategy to me.
Waiting until events overtake the studies done using the scientific data we have, isn’t a plan.
-
Waiting until events overtake the studies done using the scientific data we have, isn’t a plan.
Which is really better: making plans based on the assumptions that turn out to be false or making plans based on the assumption that we can't know what will happen? Seems to me the latter is a much safer strategy. The illusion of knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
In the end we will need to adapt to whatever changes occur. Adaptation will often need to be after the fact because we can't know the future but there will likely be numerous trends on a local level that allow some educated guesses to extrapolate (e.g. local tidal gauge measurements that show rising water levels which will indicate dikes and land use changes).
-
... there is enough solid science that can be connected back to reproducible experiments to accept that CO2 could be a problem.
My only requirement is any actions must have a reasonable chance of actually addressing the stated problem without imposing crippling costs on society. i.e. progress - not perfection. Nuclear and natural gas to replace coal is high on my list of reasonable things that can be done.
In fact, a post I made above made it clear that I think there is enough verifiable science to support reasonable actions to reduce CO2. The debate for me is more about what is reasonable (e.g. nuclear power, hydro and gas, carbon taxes) and what is unreasonable (e.g. hard reduction targets, renewables).
after multiple posts, you've chosen not to comment on my reference to 4th gen 'experimental nuclear reactor' deployments in China; you've chose not to comment on my reference to NG coupled with CCS and you've chosen not to comment on my questioning your reasonable acceptance on the penetration rate of renewables (with a particular focus on the U.S. as the world's historical #1 emitter). And now, instead... you choose to explicitly declare renewables as... TimGunreasonable! ;D
you know there are no shortage of legitimate studies that have looked at the U.S. energy mix toward enhanced renewables penetration. In that context, without any changes to the current infrastructure, what's your understanding... your (now) "TimGunreasonable" understanding... of what the penetration rate of renewables could go to, without any impact on efficiency or reliability? What's your "TimGunreasonable" number?
-
In the end we will need to adapt to whatever changes occur. Adaptation will often need to be after the fact because we can't know the future but there will likely be numerous trends on a local level that allow some educated guesses to extrapolate (e.g. local tidal gauge measurements that show rising water levels which will indicate dikes and land use changes).
your forever adaptationOnly - noMitigation drumbeat: again, you have never attached any timeline, any requirements, any applied specifics, any related policy, any global/regional associations to your adaptation drumbeat!. As I recall, your only revelation has been to suggest that all adaptation will be done, "in isolation at the local level"... whatever the hell that really translates to for a global community of nations subject to border free atmosphere, oceans and environmental impacts.
you continue to be as vague as ever, as vague as possible, simply alluding to some uncertain and imprecise futures adaptation requirement; something that clearly plays to your, again, "do nothing today, delay at all costs" mantra. Again, you used to only speak of, "do nothing/delay", in terms of mitigation... now you've begun to openly apply it to your nebulous ramblings on adaptation as well - to, as you say, "whatever changes will come"! You forever contest the legitimacy of any shifts towards alternative energy sources... anything that might reduce some degree of reliance on the status-quo fossil-fuel usage while reducing emissions and working to stabilize atmospheric concentrations.
-
The illusion of knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
in the hands of fake-skeptic/denier lightweights like yourself - noproblemo!
-
t the penetration rate of renewables could go to, without any impact on efficiency or reliability?
Grid planning for the future must focus first on baseload and dispatchable sources. If resources/money is left over it could be used to expand renewables as long as the cost is manageable. The problem with renewables is the hidden cost of backup power whether it comes from unused fossil fuel capacity that has to be built and maintained or greater reliance on expensive dispatchable power. Grid scale batteries or water storage is just more expensive ways to provide backup that renewables need. One of the bigger problems in this debate are renewable activists that ignore the cost of backups when they quote renewable prices. This is pure deceit.
-
I get into debates about computer models and climate science because I see climate sciences as a cesspool filled with advocates who see science as a tool to advance their political agenda rather than a tool to understand their world.
your unsubstantiated opinions... are not conducive to your presumed debating. You have repeatedly, year-over-year, been challenged to, "name Names" of your declared political advocates... and to offer your rationalization as to why it allows you to apply your broad-brush to the thousands of world-wide scientists working in direct/related fields. You continue to provide NOTHING.
I would like to see the field reformed and the advocates forced out of the field but this is a desire that is not directly related to the question of what to do about CO2.
reformed? To meet what TimG standards? ;D
-
Which is really better: making plans based on the assumptions that turn out to be false or making plans based on the assumption that we can't know what will happen? Seems to me the latter is a much safer strategy. The illusion of knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
Humans have always moved ahead by making plans based on what they knew at the time, not what they may or may not know in the future. Columbus headed west assuming he would find Asia, instead he found two new continents. You are the one making the assumptions.
In the end we will need to adapt to whatever changes occur. Adaptation will often need to be after the fact because we can't know the future but there will likely be numerous trends on a local level that allow some educated guesses to extrapolate (e.g. local tidal gauge measurements that show rising water levels which will indicate dikes and land use changes).
Adapt to what, more severe changes arising sooner because we continue on our merry way and do nothing, or less severe changes arriving later because we took actions reduce or at least stop the increase in human generated CO? emissions?
-
Adapt to what, more severe changes arising sooner because we continue on our merry way and do nothing, or less severe changes arriving later because we took actions reduce or at least stop the increase in human generated CO? emissions?
A false choice. The marginal reductions which are feasible given existing tech will have little impact on future consequences. More importantly, resources are finite so pissing away trillions on marginal reductions will reduce our ability to adapt. This means spending on mitigation could increase the harm caused by climate change - not decrease as you assume.
-
A false choice. The marginal reductions which are feasible given existing tech will have little impact on future consequences. More importantly, resources are finite so pissing away trillions on marginal reductions will reduce our ability to adapt. This means spending on mitigation could increase the harm caused by climate change - not decrease as you assume.
So what you've basically said is that by adapting we will reduce our ability to adapt. Got it.
-
A false choice. The marginal reductions which are feasible given existing tech will have little impact on future consequences. More importantly, resources are finite so pissing away trillions on marginal reductions will reduce our ability to adapt. This means spending on mitigation could increase the harm caused by climate change - not decrease as you assume.
So you put blind faith in future tech being able to cope with the consequences that you maintain are not known. Yikes.
-
So you put blind faith in future tech being able to cope with the consequences that you maintain are not known. Yikes.
Not blind faith. It is about not having any real choice because I don't have blind faith in CO2 reduction tech. Large scale mitigation is a fool's errand that will only consume resources that would otherwise be available for adaption without really changing the consequences. The only people with "blind faith in tech" are the people insisting that unicorns will appear when governments decree that CO2 must be reduced.
-
Computer models are used to design and plan just about everything these days, just blowing off ones used to predict climate change is irresponsible. Doesn't anyone think trying to slow the process down while we try to come up with remedial actions and technologies is worthwhile?
Encourage the use of renewables by making them cheaper. Make them cheaper by improving their technology.
-
Encourage the use of renewables by making them cheaper. Make them cheaper by improving their technology.
Renewables require backups which means solar panels could be free but still too expensive compared to alternatives. No discussion of the cost of renewables can be had without including the cost of backup power.
-
Which scientist's are those?
The forty year delay between cause and affect seems to be fairly often mentioned even by those who are very zealous in supporting CO2 emissions reductions.
So if we stop emitting carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels today, it’s not the end of the story for global warming. There’s a delay in air-temperature increase as the atmosphere catches up with all the heat that the Earth has accumulated. After maybe 40 more years, scientists hypothesize the climate will stabilize at a temperature higher than what was normal for previous generations.
http://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-would-happen-climate-if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-today/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/07/25/reduce-u-s-carbon-emissions-to-zero-and-the-temperature-decrease-by-2100-will-be-undetectable/#7d16be313909
ww.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html
-
The forty year delay between cause and affect seems to be fairly often mentioned even by those who are very zealous in supporting CO2 emissions reductions.
So if we stop emitting carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels today, it’s not the end of the story for global warming. There’s a delay in air-temperature increase as the atmosphere catches up with all the heat that the Earth has accumulated. After maybe 40 more years, scientists hypothesize the climate will stabilize at a temperature higher than what was normal for previous generations.
http://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-would-happen-climate-if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-today/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/07/25/reduce-u-s-carbon-emissions-to-zero-and-the-temperature-decrease-by-2100-will-be-undetectable/#7d16be313909
ww.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html
That sounds like the argument climate change deniers went to after the science was too overwhelming to the contrary. "Well we can't stop GW so why bother doing anything about it". We have now achieved around 1F warming but if we ignore it projections are we could easily hit 6C. We can do a lot to reduce the impact with renewables.
-
Not blind faith. It is about not having any real choice because I don't have blind faith in CO2 reduction tech. Large scale mitigation is a fool's errand that will only consume resources that would otherwise be available for adaption without really changing the consequences. The only people with "blind faith in tech" are the people insisting that unicorns will appear when governments decree that CO2 must be reduced.
What makes you think there is a choice? If you accept that human CO2 emissions are a major contributing factor to climate change, it should be obvious that we can't keep dumping ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere forever. If as others maintain, there is a 40 year lag until the full effects of warming are felt, we are already at a point where we will have to do both. So maybe we should get at it instead of just hoping it will go away or there will be some kind of magic solution.
-
If you accept that human CO2 emissions are a major contributing factor to climate change, it should be obvious that we can't keep dumping ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere forever.
So tell me we you figure out a way to stop emitting CO2 when you breathe. Oh - right - you can't. Emitting CO2 is a fundamental part of your biology and you have no choice. Our modern society emits CO2 for the same reasons and the tech needed to eliminate these emissions at a scale required to make a difference is largely imaginary. So the choice is between wasting money pretending to do something about emissions or continue on and hope for the best. The option that you seem to favour (reduce consequences by reducing CO2 emissions) does not exist in the real world.
-
So tell me we you figure out a way to stop emitting CO2 when you breathe. Oh - right - you can't. Emitting CO2 is a fundamental part of your biology and you have no choice. Our modern society emits CO2 for the same reasons and the tech needed to eliminate these emissions at a scale required to make a difference is largely imaginary. So the choice is between wasting money pretending to do something about emissions or continue on and hope for the best. The option that you seem to favour (reduce consequences by reducing CO2 emissions) does not exist in the real world.
Not this canard again. The digging up of carbon that has been built up and stored underground for millennia and pumping it into the atmosphere in the space of a few decades is not a fundamental part of biology or anything other natural phenomenon.
-
Not this canard again. The digging up of carbon that has been built up and stored underground for millennia and pumping it into the atmosphere in the space of a few decades is not a fundamental part of biology or anything other natural phenomenon.
You completely missed the point. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not - our society needs massive amounts of energy to function. Fossil fuels are the only viable source for many applications at this time and there are no real alternatives that work at the scale required. Renewables don't scale well and need backup. Nuclear is disliked by too many and hydro is limited by geography. So the net result is our society does need to emit CO2 and no amount of indignation from you will change that fact.
So the choice is pissing away money pretending to reduce emissions to keep people who insist "we must do something" happy or save the money and use it to adapt to whatever changes come. The latter is the rational logical response. The former is an irrational emotional response.
-
You completely missed the point. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not - our society needs massive amounts of energy to function. Fossil fuels are the only viable source for many applications at this time and there are no real alternatives that work at the scale required. Renewables don't scale well and need backup. Nuclear is disliked by too many and hydro is limited by geography. So the net result is our does does need to emit CO2 for the same reason you emit CO2 to breathe.
Not really, there actually is no alternative to breathing. While I agree that there are areas where fossil fuels can't be replaced at this time, there are plenty of other areas where they can and are.
-
Not really, there actually is no alternative to breathing. While I agree that there are areas where fossil fuels can't be replaced at this time, there are plenty of other areas where they can and are.
And those areas are too tiny to make any difference to the over all emissions rate yet often consume ridiculous amounts of scarce resources. They are a waste of money.
-
It's interesting that Alberta, the fossil fuel capital of the country is also the largest producer of wind and solar generated electricity. 11% of electricity produced in 2015 with a target of 30%. A 30% reduction of CO2 emissions from electricity generation isn't peanuts.
-
It's interesting that Alberta, the fossil fuel capital of the country is also the largest producer of wind and solar generated electricity. 11% of electricity produced in 2015 with a target of 30%. A 30% reduction of CO2 emissions from electricity generation isn't peanuts.
According to this:
http://www.auc.ab.ca/market-oversight/Annual-Electricity-Data-Collection/Documents/2017/Total%20Generation.pdf
Wind only produces 5% of Alberta's energy and the total wind production is less than the increase in total production from 2014. This means it is absolute nonsense to suggest that wind was a factor in the claimed 30% reduction in emissions. It would have slightly reduced the increase at best. Misinformation like your post are common and it does explain why so many people seem to believe that mitigation can make a difference. But if you dig into the details it becomes quickly apparent that potential gains from mitigation measures are grossly exaggerated.
-
California, a state with the population of Canada currently gets 30% of its electricity from renewable sources, with a target of 50% by 2030. Not only can it be done, it is being done.
-
Actually the your chart puts renewables at around 10%. Wind is not the only source of renewable energy.
-
California, a state with the population of Canada currently gets 30% of its electricity from renewable sources, with a target of 50% by 2030. Not only can it be done, it is being done.
California is paying a high price to pay obeisance to the CO2 religion. They also benefit from geography that makes solar power very attractive. Whether they succeed and at what cost is TBD. I suspect they will be able to play games with other states so they can pretend to meet their targets by importing renewables at a high cost from other states while those states use fossil fuels for power used inside the state. IOW - it will be a massive shell game since once power is on the grid there is no distinction between fossil fuel and renewable sourced power.
Actually the your chart puts renewables at around 10%. Wind is not the only source of renewable energy.
More misinformation. "Renewables" include hydro which I agree is a viable source of energy. The trouble with hydro is geography limits the available capacity and most viable hydro production is already built which means there is no way to increase production from the current levels. i.e. there is no way to reduce emissions by increasing hydro production in the future. The only "renewables" which Alberta could increase is wind generation but that needs backup so it will never be fossil fuel free.
-
I haven't had time to follow this - I will try to catch up soon though.
This is a far better argument than on other boards btw. I will learn a lot.
-
California, a state with the population of Canada currently gets 30% of its electricity from renewable sources, with a target of 50% by 2030. Not only can it be done, it is being done.
California get a lot of blizzards and -30 degree weather does it? Don't they have deserts and tons of sunshine?
-
California get a lot of blizzards and -30 degree weather does it? Don't they have deserts and tons of sunshine?
Sure, not everything is going to work everywhere but to just kiss it off as undoable is just stupid and irresponsible. Tell me, what do you think is the bottom line? How much CO2 so you think we can pump into the atmosphere before we have to deal with not only our emissions but the consequences as well? Because that day is coming, the only unknown is how soon and how much, assuming anything can save our asses.
-
Sure, not everything is going to work everywhere but to just kiss it off as undoable is just stupid and irresponsible.
The atmosphere does not care where CO2 comes from. Completely eliminating CO2 from Canada would make no difference as long as players like China and India continue to increase their emissions. The idea that Canada would 'set an example' for China is laughable. That said, their current priority is smog and they have some scope to reduce CO2 as part of measures to reduce smog but once the deal with the smog problem is dealt with they will reduce CO2 if and only when it can be economically. Canada could revisit the issue if places like China and India start reducing emissions for the sake of emissions. The planet will not benefit if Canadian reduces emissions before that process starts - if it ever does.
-
It's not about setting an example, it's about being part of the solution. China is working hard at it and is a world leader in renewable energy technologies as well as the worlds largest producer of wind generated electrical power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China
-
It's not about setting an example, it's about being part of the solution. China is working hard at it and is a world leader in renewable energy technologies as well as the worlds largest producer of wind generated electrical power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China
And so is India.
http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india.html
-
It's not about setting an example, it's about being part of the solution. China is working hard at it and is a world leader in renewable energy technologies as well as the worlds largest producer of wind generated electrical power.
China is big so wind power can be both huge and inconsequential. It is difficult to get good data from China but according to this source wind is a measly 2.8% of the total which means Alberta is technically doing more already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
What is most interesting about those numbers is they show how inefficient wind is. The installed capacity is nearly 5 times that of nuclear yet nuclear power produces the same amount of energy for the Chinese to use. On top of that every W of wind power needs to be backed up by conventional sources because the wind does not always blow or it blows too hard.
There is a lot of propaganda out there and if you are not willing to look carefully it is it easy to get fooled into believing that wind and other non-dispatchable renewables can do more than they actually contribute. CO2 is not going to be reduced with good propaganda. It will only be reduced with real actions and the scope for real reductions with today's tech is very small.
-
China is big so wind power can be both huge and inconsequential. It is difficult to get good data from China but according to this source wind is a measly 2.8% of the total which means Alberta is technically doing more already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
What is most interesting about those numbers is they show how inefficient wind is. The installed capacity is nearly 5 times that of nuclear yet nuclear power produces the same amount of energy for the Chinese to use. On top of that every W of wind power needs to be backed up by conventional sources because the wind does not always blow or it blows too hard.
There is a lot of propaganda out there and if you are not willing to look carefully it is it easy to get fooled into believing that wind and other non-dispatchable renewables can do more than they actually contribute. CO2 is not going to be reduced with good propaganda. It will only be reduced with real actions and the scope for real reductions with today's tech is very small.
and real actions are being undertaken to actually reduce CO2 whilst you seem to bury your head in the sand.
-
China is big so wind power can be both huge and inconsequential. It is difficult to get good data from China but according to this source wind is a measly 2.8% of the total which means Alberta is technically doing more already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
What is most interesting about those numbers is they show how inefficient wind is. The installed capacity is nearly 5 times that of nuclear yet nuclear power produces the same amount of energy for the Chinese to use. On top of that every W of wind power needs to be backed up by conventional sources because the wind does not always blow or it blows too hard.
There is a lot of propaganda out there and if you are not willing to look carefully it is it easy to get fooled into believing that wind and other non-dispatchable renewables can do more than they actually contribute. CO2 is not going to be reduced with good propaganda. It will only be reduced with real actions and the scope for real reductions with today's tech is very small.
Our per capita CO2 emissions are about double that of China but I guess we are somehow entitled.
Same question for you as for Sr John. What do you think is the bottom line? How much CO2 so you think we can pump into the atmosphere before we have to deal with not only our emissions but the consequences as well? Because that day is coming, the only unknown is how soon and how much, assuming anything can save our asses.
-
Our per capita CO2 emissions are about double that of China but I guess we are somehow entitled.
Per capita emission numbers are irrelevant. The atmosphere only cares about absolute emissions. They are also silly. Why should emissions be more of a concern because the number of people living within a arbitrary line on the map is small?
The use of per capita emission as a metric is a good example of why people obsessing about CO2 reductions don't really care about CO2. They simply see it as a vehicle to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor which is a political position they would take no matter what the science said about CO2. China is doing well enough on its own - it does not need Canadians to commit economic suicide in futile gestures but China would be more than happy to buy up the best assets if we were stupid enough to do it.
-
Our per capita CO2 emissions are about double that of China but I guess we are somehow entitled.
That's just social justice warrior guilt shaming. We live in a modern, technological society. Much of China is still made up of what we would consider complete poverty.
But if you want to volunteer to walk everywhere and not use any power that's fine with me. I decline to do the same.
Same question for you as for Sr John. What do you think is the bottom line? How much CO2 so you think we can pump into the atmosphere before we have to deal with not only our emissions but the consequences as well? Because that day is coming, the only unknown is how soon and how much, assuming anything can save our asses.
No matter what we do, nothing is likely going to change in my lifetime. But this again is like saying "Well, so what if spending ten trillion dollars doesn't actually accomplish much! At least we're doing SOMETHING!"
Doing 'something' pretty much useless that costs trillions simply so you can feel righteous is stupid. Find me something that works and I'll support it.
-
That's just social justice warrior guilt shaming. We live in a modern, technological society. Much of China is still made up of what we would consider complete poverty.
But if you want to volunteer to walk everywhere and not use any power that's fine with me. I decline to do the same.
No matter what we do, nothing is likely going to change in my lifetime. But this again is like saying "Well, so what if spending ten trillion dollars doesn't actually accomplish much! At least we're doing SOMETHING!"
Doing 'something' pretty much useless that costs trillions simply so you can feel righteous is stupid. Find me something that works and I'll support it.
Ignoring the problem is what is really stupid. Luckily most countries currently are not so stupid and have signed onto fixing it as best we can.
Maybe you enjoy sucking coal smoke, but then you probably never have.
-
Per capita emission numbers are irrelevant. The atmosphere only cares about absolute emissions. They are also silly. Why should emissions be more of a concern because the number of people living within a arbitrary line on the map is small?
The use of per capita emission as a metric is a good example of why people obsessing about CO2 reductions don't really care about CO2. They simply see it as a vehicle to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor which is a political position they would take no matter what the science said about CO2. China is doing well enough on its own - it does not need Canadians to commit economic suicide in futile gestures but China would be more than happy to buy up the best assets if we were stupid enough to do it.
So you are saying you have some kind of right to emit twice as much as a Chinese and enjoy the standard of living that goes along with it and they have no right to aspire to the same standard of living you enjoy.
-
So you are saying you have some kind of right to emit twice as much as a Chinese and enjoy the standard of living that goes along with it and they have no right to aspire to the same standard of living you enjoy.
The Chinese will do what makes sense for them. We should do the same. It makes no sense for Canada to reduce its emissions given the relatively small size of the Canadian economy. The per capita emissions number is meaningless propaganda used to manipulate people who don't think carefully about the issues. For example, did know that China's per capita emission are now greater than France's thanks to France's reliance on nuclear? Does that change your willingness to use per capita as a stick or would you just dream up some other metric you could use as an excuse to justify imposing greater burdens on a country like France because they happen to be richer today?
-
According to this:
http://www.auc.ab.ca/market-oversight/Annual-Electricity-Data-Collection/Documents/2017/Total%20Generation.pdf
Wind only produces 5% of Alberta's energy and the total wind production is less than the increase in total production from 2014. This means it is absolute nonsense to suggest that wind was a factor in the claimed 30% reduction in emissions. It would have slightly reduced the increase at best. Misinformation like your post are common and it does explain why so many people seem to believe that mitigation can make a difference. But if you dig into the details it becomes quickly apparent that potential gains from mitigation measures are grossly exaggerated.
clearly you didn't read member 'wilber's' post... specifically mentioning 30% as a production target... 2030 target; one that coincides with the planned phasing out of all coal plants. The actual Alberta government expressed target reads as, "30% of Alberta’s electricity will come from renewable sources such as wind, hydro and solar by 2030."
in actuality, per AESO (Alberta Electric System Operator), 2016 wind generation served 6% of the Alberta Internal Load, while wind farms made up 9% of the total installed generation capacity in Alberta... which included the March 2016 decommissioning of the 18MW Cowley Ridge wind farm in Pincher Creek --- Canada's first wind farm commissioned in 1993. There are expressed intentions by the TransAlta Corp operator to re-power the site with the installation of new/more advanced tech wind turbines on the site.”
Alberta's wind farm deployments have included a geographic diversification beyond the initial Southern Alberta locations to now include 5 new wind farms in Central Alberta... notwithstanding the recent Alberta government announcements related to building additional renewable energy projects; coincident with Round 1 competition results, as announced on Dec 13, 2017:
(https://i.imgur.com/2jGEyHE.png)
(as for your stated 'from 2014' production increases: per AESO, 2014-to-2015 load growth increased by +0.4%... from 2015-to-2016 load growth decreased by 0.9%
-0.9% --- "Slowing load growth since 2014 can be attributed to mild winter weather and decreased industrial activity throughout Alberta"
-
The Chinese will do what makes sense for them. We should do the same. It makes no sense for Canada to reduce its emissions given the relatively small size of the Canadian economy. The per capita emissions number is meaningless propaganda used to manipulate people who don't think carefully about the issues. For example, did know that China's per capita emission are now greater than France's thanks to France's reliance on nuclear? Does that change your willingness to use per capita as a stick or would you just dream up some other metric you could use as an excuse to justify imposing greater burdens on a country like France because they happen to be richer today?
That's up to France, you brought up China but I guess we are just **** because everyone has an excuse why it is someone else's problem. You and Sr John never did answer my question. Doesn't matter because your mind will be made up for you eventually.
-
It is simply delusional to make any claim about what the "normal" rate is. We simply do not have the data from prehistory that would allow anyone to make such claims. Simply printing the dubious claims in "peer reviewed" journals does not make them more credible.
I'm not a climate scientist, nor are you that I'm aware, & I don't know anyone else on here who is unless I'm mistaken. Al Gore isn't, David Suzuki isn't, Stephen Hawking isn't. We don't have the expertise to determine what is or isn't BS in this thread, just as I'm not going to diagnose whether someone has cancer or not. Anyone would be a fool to put a large amount of faith in 1 or 2 academic journal articles. The only thing I can trust is the vast scientific community that tests and re-tests hypotheses until some kind of high consensus can be reached on certain things with a certain likelihood of it being true. I'm sure there's lots of research that has dubious motives, but I'm not ready to believe the vast worldwide scientific community has been corrupted into a mammoth conspiracy despite evidence to the contrary that would go against all of their professional training and ethics. That's one hell of a conspiracy theory.
-
The only thing I can trust is the vast scientific community that tests and re-tests hypotheses until some kind of high consensus can be reached on certain things with a certain likelihood of it being true.
I used to think that way. Then I got interested enough in the paleo-climate issue to do what you would expect any scientist to do: read the literature. I was shocked to discover how much wishful thinking underpins these papers. Take tree rings for example: the biological evidence says tree wing width is a function of temperature, nutrients, water and that it is also non-linear yet all of the studies using tree simply assume a linear response to temperature that that temperature was the only limiting factor. I realized at that point that working scientists specialize and need to pursue grants which means they need to publish and they cannot undermine their speciality. That forces them to be over-confident in the quality of the results they report. The drive to keep one's specialization relevant and get funding supersedes any altruistic desire to "find the truth" because working scientists need income like everyone else. This is no conspiracy - this is a completely predictable human response given the incentives that are in place.
This experience is what has led to me discount scientific results that cannot be connected back to real world experiments that can confirm the assumptions and/or hypothesis. The incentive to gloss over dubious assumptions is simply too large when there is no way to check those assumptions (i.e. we can't go back in time and actually count the number of species that existed so claims about the number of species are unverifiable assumptions). I realize that a lot of people prefer the illusion of knowledge. I don't. I am comfortable saying we don't know and likely can't know.
-
I used to think that way. Then I got interested enough in the paleo-climate issue to do what you would expect any scientist to do: read the literature.
scientist? I recall you claiming to be an engineer... did you forget which board you're on? ;D
I'm surprised it took you this long to pull out your paleo bullshyte! You have no personal standing in dendroclimatology; that is to say, your 'Delingpolesque interpreter of interpretations' is profound - care to step-up and drop a cite or two that affords you such bravado? But man, c'mon... any of your gaggle of doubtingThomas' had a go at the PAGES repository --- http://www.pastglobalchanges.org/ with the most recent iteration here: https://figshare.com/collections/A_global_multiproxy_database_for_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_Common_Era/3285353 (pssst... there's more than just... trees!)
I appreciate your merry-band of blog "scientists" are all altruistic truth-seekers... that only your targeted world-wide climate scientist types have abandoned the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of funding... even including, apparently, tenured types!
-
[May, 2017]Alberta coal phase out by
2030 2020? http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/alberta-could-be-coal-free-years-ahead-of-deadline-as-atco-plans-transition-to-natural-gas-by-2020
Alberta could realize its goal of phasing out coal-fired electricity years ahead of schedule as ATCO Ltd. announced Wednesday it planned to transition its power plants to burn natural gas by 2020.
Calgary-based electricity producer TransAlta Corp. announced this week it would save $1.5 billion by converting its wholly owned coal-fired generating stations to natural gas by 2022. TransAlta’s transition alone would result in a 10-per-cent increase in natural gas use in Alberta.
ATCO and TransAlta are the two largest coal-fired power producers in the province and both companies have said the availability of cheap natural gas in Western Canada made the coal conversions financially feasible.
-
"Renewables" include hydro which I agree is a viable source of energy. The trouble with hydro is geography limits the available capacity and most viable hydro production is already built which means there is no way to increase production from the current levels. i.e. there is no way to reduce emissions by increasing hydro production in the future. The only "renewables" which Alberta could increase is wind generation but that needs backup so it will never be fossil fuel free.
you keep whining about being presented with "misinformation" - pot meet kettle!
Alberta does not lack hydro resource potential. Per 2010 Hatch report - (for Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources): http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Electricity/pdfs/AUCHydroelectricStudy.pdf
Hatch estimated that only 4% of Alberta’s total hydro energy potential of 53,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) per year was being used in the Province. The Canadian Hydro Association ranks Alberta 4th in Canada for undeveloped hydroelectric potential. The Association estimates that Alberta has more than 11,500 MW of remaining economic hydro potential, including both reservoir and run-of-the-river projects.
new hydro development pursuits in Alberta:
- TransAlta is pursuing a 600 to 900 MW large pumped hydro storage expansion project at its existing Brazeau Hydro facility – this will increase that hydro plant’s capacity from its current 355 MW output.
- The Amisk Hydroelectric Project is a 330 MW run-of-river hydroelectric project proposed to be located on the Peace River that is being developed by AHP Development Corporation on behalf of a number of partners, including Concord Green Energy.
- Turning Point Generation has proposed a 125 MW Canyon Creed Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Project.
- ATCO is also interested in Alberta’s hydroelectric generation potential, and in the past has referenced 3 large hydro developments (greater than 1000 MW) on each of the Slave, Athabasca and Peace Rivers in Alberta... a minimally invasive run-of-river 1,800 MW facility on the Slave River and a more traditional 1,500 MW facility on the Athabasca River, near Fort McMurray. The Peace River could also be used to generate 1,500 MW of green power.
-
scientist? I recall you claiming to be an engineer... did you forget which board you're on? ;D
I'm surprised it took you this long to pull out your paleo bullshyte! You have no personal standing in dendroclimatology; that is to say, your 'Delingpolesque interpreter of interpretations' is profound - care to step-up and drop a cite or two that affords you such bravado? But man, c'mon... any of your gaggle of doubtingThomas' had a go at the PAGES repository --- http://www.pastglobalchanges.org/ with the most recent iteration here: https://figshare.com/collections/A_global_multiproxy_database_for_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_Common_Era/3285353 (pssst... there's more than just... trees!)
I appreciate your merry-band of blog "scientists" are all altruistic truth-seekers... that only your targeted world-wide climate scientist types have abandoned the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of funding... even including, apparently, tenured types!
Are you such an engineer?
-
The problem with renewables is the hidden cost of backup power whether it comes from unused fossil fuel capacity that has to be built and maintained or greater reliance on expensive dispatchable power.
One of the bigger problems in this debate are renewable activists that ignore the cost of backups when they quote renewable prices. This is pure deceit.
Renewables require backups which means solar panels could be free but still too expensive compared to alternatives. No discussion of the cost of renewables can be had without including the cost of backup power.
Renewables don't scale well and need backup.
The only "renewables" which Alberta could increase is wind generation but that needs backup so it will never be fossil fuel free.
you talk about "deceit"... how about your own, hey?
re: backup - per U.S. NREL --- https://www.nrel.gov/about/
(https://i.imgur.com/wCztWbm.png)
per REN21 --- http://www.ren21.net/
(https://i.imgur.com/6JnctGK.png)
-
re: backup - per U.S. NREL --- https://www.nrel.gov/about/
Red herring. I never implied that each installation needed backup - I just said that every watt of expected production needs an equivalent conventional source that can supply power when the expected production is not there. If this was not the case we would be facing blackouts whenever the wind dropped off for a few days. The NREL link you provided agrees with everything I said but they try to spin it in a way that makes wind/solar sound more useful that they are. But spin does not change the reality.
-
Red herring. I never implied that each installation needed backup - I just said that every watt of expected production needs an equivalent conventional source that can supply power when the expected production is not there. If this was not the case we would be facing blackouts whenever the wind dropped off for a few days. The NREL link you provided agrees with everything I said but they try to spin it in a way that makes wind/solar sound more useful that they are. But spin does not change the reality.
oh really! See your blanket statements sans any qualifications... again, as per the NREL: Wind & solar generation do not require "backup" capacity in reliable, sufficient systems...
wind & solar installations are ever increasing world-wide - costs continue to decrease. The only, as you say, spin (and its not in reserve) is your non-stop continuous spin to ever decry renewables... and, of course, per your norm, with your always unsubstantiated opinions!
-
oh really! See your blanket statements sans any qualifications... again, as per the NREL: Wind & solar generation do not require "backup" capacity in reliable, sufficient systems...
Try reading more than the headline. Despite the headline text clearly states that wind/solar require conventional sources to "accommodate" variability. i.e. wind/solar are useless without conventional sources to provide backups for when the renewables don't produce.
wind & solar installations are ever increasing world-wide - costs continue to decrease.
The true cost of renewables includes the costs of providing backups.
-
Try reading more than the headline. Despite the headline text clearly states that wind/solar require conventional sources to "accommodate" variability. i.e. wind/solar are useless without conventional sources to provide backups for when the renewables don't produce.
The true cost of renewables includes the costs of providing backups.
no - you tried this same ploy at, 'the other board'... you were clearly shown deployed examples that dispatched your 'variability myth' perpetuation; deployments relying upon aggregation, geographic dispersion and weather forecasting. Again, per NREL:
(https://i.imgur.com/VSbPmv8.png)
-
no - you tried this same ploy at, 'the other board'... you were clearly shown deployed examples that dispatched your 'variability myth' perpetuation; deployments relying upon aggregation, geographic dispersion and weather forecasting. Again, per NREL:
Your own links simply repeat my argument. Your problem is you can't see past the spin which is designed to obfuscate the problems with renewables. In the second link it is extremely clear that wind/solar can only be a supplement to existing power systems and the amount of wind/solar the system can sustain is limited by the ability of the system to provide backup for the wind/solar generation. Adding the flexibility needed to sustain a large share of wind/solar comes with a cost - a cost that needs to be added to the price tag for wind/solar since we only need to pay that cost if people insist on adding wind/solar.
-
Your own links simply repeat my argument. Your problem is you can't see past the spin which is designed to obfuscate the problems with renewables. In the second link it is extremely clear that wind/solar can only be a supplement to existing power systems and the amount of wind/solar the system can sustain is limited by the ability of the system to provide backup for the wind/solar generation. Adding the flexibility needed to sustain a large share of wind/solar comes with a cost - a cost that needs to be added to the price tag for wind/solar since we only need to pay that cost if people insist on adding wind/solar.
The "problem" with renewables is we didn't get started quite soon enough, but we are getting it now.
Clean energy grew at a record pace as the United States added 22GW of capacity — the equivalent of 11 Hoover Dams — to the grid from renewable sources last year, significantly trumping new fossil fuel additions, according to a new report.
http://time.com/4662116/renewable-energy-fossil-fuels-growth/
-
Your own links simply repeat my argument. Your problem is you can't see past the spin which is designed to obfuscate the problems with renewables. In the second link it is extremely clear that wind/solar can only be a supplement to existing power systems and the amount of wind/solar the system can sustain is limited by the ability of the system to provide backup for the wind/solar generation. Adding the flexibility needed to sustain a large share of wind/solar comes with a cost - a cost that needs to be added to the price tag for wind/solar since we only need to pay that cost if people insist on adding wind/solar.
your "argument"... sans support/substantiation? That "argument"? And its par for your course to accuse the U.S. NREL of "spinning... obfuscating".
you continue your blanket/vague statements and when called out, you proceed to backpedal and/or claim (I paraphrase), "that's not what I said/implied"!
the backup you keep stressing over already exists within a properly sized/managed system - already there to meet changes in demand & demand peaks... and as support for existing non-renewable generators should they 'go down' for maintenance/other. Again, you were shown examples of deployed systems on, 'the other board'... e.g. Texas ERCOT which ostensibly relied upon grid management techniques to address variability... "a total wind capacity increase of 8,000 MW without an increase in the need for operational reserves."
-
exas ERCOT which ostensibly relied upon grid management techniques to address variability... "a total wind capacity increase of 8,000 MW without an increase in the need for operational reserves."
1) 8000MW is ~10% of ERCOT installed capacity so we are talking about a marginal increase;
2) ERCOT has a market based system that forces wind producers to shut down when the grid does not need their power. This is infinitely superior to schemes in other jurisdictions where the grid is forced to take renewables. It also increases the ability of the Texas grid to adapt to renewables, however, wind generators cannot depend on being able to sell the power they produce. This increases the real cost of wind power.
3) Even with the market based system, Texas needs and will continue to need to rely on conventional sources for the majority of its power needs for the foreseeable future. This has always been my point. We can have a grid with no wind or solar but we can't have a grid that only has wind/solar. Hydro works when it is available but in most places conventional means coal, gas and nuclear.
-
1) 8000MW is ~10% of ERCOT installed capacity so we are talking about a marginal increase;
;D that brought the Texas wind capacity to 18,000 MW... 2016 generation capacity: coal 22% of capacity... wind 20% of capacity
3) Even with the market based system, Texas needs and will continue to need to rely on conventional sources for the majority of its power needs for the foreseeable future. This has always been my point. We can have a grid with no wind or solar but we can't have a grid that only has wind/solar. Hydro works when it is available but in most places conventional means coal, gas and nuclear.
the only person pushing a total renewables grid would be strawmanTimG!
-
1) 8000MW is ~10% of ERCOT installed capacity so we are talking about a marginal increase;
2) ERCOT has a market based system that forces wind producers to shut down when the grid does not need their power. This is infinitely superior to schemes in other jurisdictions where the grid is forced to take renewables. It also increases the ability of the Texas grid to adapt to renewables, however, wind generators cannot depend on being able to sell the power they produce. This increases the real cost of wind power.
3) Even with the market based system, Texas needs and will continue to need to rely on conventional sources for the majority of its power needs for the foreseeable future. This has always been my point. We can have a grid with no wind or solar but we can't have a grid that only has wind/solar. Hydro works when it is available but in most places conventional means coal, gas and nuclear.
I think you will find that the problems you keep alluding to with renewable energy are rapidly being over come by simply combining renewables (wind+solar+geothermal/biomass) or synergy as it's referred to, as well as storage. All you need for the latter is a battery and an inverter.
-
oh noooos, not another record! Per IEA (International Energy Association):
(https://i.imgur.com/QVSa215.png)
net new, net new, whatca gonna do!
-
that brought the Texas wind capacity to 18,000 MW... 2016 generation capacity: coal 22% of capacity... wind 20% of capacity
Gas+Coal+Nuclear = 78% of capacity. More importantly when you look at the energy produced coal provided 28.8% of needs where wind only provided 15%. Numbers that confirm everything I have been saying: http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/114739/ERCOT_Quick_Facts_4317.pdf
the only person pushing a total renewables grid would be strawmanTimG!
You will get whiplash if you keep moving those goal posts like that:
I would be a lot less concerned about climate policy if so much of it was not pointless exercises in virtue signalling. IMO, a sane CO2 mitigation would have the following elements:
1) Accept that wind/solar cannot replace base load - it can only supplement;
2) Accept that base load options depend on geography. Some places can use hydro but others have no choice but to use coal or gas.
3) No reductions targets unless they can be met by making real reductions with tech that is economic today - i.e. no emission trading scams, no targets that cannot be met without imaginary tech.
It is nice to see that you now agree with my original argument that "Accept that wind/solar cannot replace base load - it can only supplement".
-
oh noooos, not another record! Per IEA (International Energy Association):
I'm 100000% in favour of renewables becoming the norm, but it all comes down to cost. What I'm interesting in knowing is, and maybe you or TimG have answers:
1. how much of these gains from your chart is from government funding or subsidies (aka wishful thinking regardless of cost efficiency) vs the market demand and consumers/government seeing these as the best economic choices for energy?
2. Hypothetically, if renewables (including EVs) were as widely used as other energy sources like fossil fuels, how much would costs drop due to economies of scale? Is fossil fuel being cheaper simply a matter of economies of scale and subsidies and the huge cost of replacing older fossil fuel infrastructures with renewables?
-
1. how much of these gains from your chart is from government funding or subsidies (aka wishful thinking regardless of cost efficiency) vs the market demand and consumers/government seeing these as the best economic choices for energy?
If the market were left to decide it would choses the sources that can commit to provide a minimum amount of power either on demand or on a fixed schedule. These sources allow grid planners to manage the system cost effectively. As soon as you introduce unpredictable sources costs rise. How far they rise depends on what fraction of total production comes from unpredictable sources. As a rule of thumb (i.e. not a hard limit that applies everywhere) I would expect that 15% of production could come from unpredictable sources without seriously impacting grid reliability (15% is the amount that Texas gets from unpredictable sources).
That said, even under the 15% threshold there is a cost and someone has to pay that cost. There are a few models:
1) Make the unpredictable sources pay (the Texas model);
2) Make the baseload providers pay (the German model);
3) Make the users pay (the Ontario model);
In the Texas model wind power providers can't be assured of a ROI on their investment because there is no guarantee they can sell the power they produce. Without capital or production subsidies no one would invest in wind.
In the German model the government forces the grid to accept the power which imposes costs on baseload as it is forced to shutdown to make room for wind. This undermines the business case for baseload because they are longer able to sell all of the power they can produce. This has led to a situation where Germany needs subsidize baseload to provide protection against blackouts when the wind does not blow.
In the Ontario model wind providers are guaranteed payment even if they don't deliver power. Grid stability is ensured by ordering wind providers to shutdown while paying them for the output that they would have produced. This cost is passed onto consumers.
In short, there is no scenario where you can have wind/solar without subsidies - you can only choose who gets the subsidies. This will true even as the cost of wind/solar installations drop because the costs come from the nature of the power source - not the cost of the physical plant.
Obviously, no one can know the future and I am only communicating what is true based on the tech that is available today.
2. Hypothetically, if renewables (including EVs) were as widely used as other energy sources like fossil fuels, how much would costs drop due to economies of scale? Is fossil fuel being cheaper simply a matter of economies of scale and subsidies and the huge cost of replacing older fossil fuel infrastructures with renewables?
See my discussion of the economics of power production above.
-
More importantly when you look at the energy produced coal provided 28.8% of needs where wind only provided 15%.
interesting - you were all about install/generation capacity until I gave the figures stating that coal and wind had about the same % capacity. Now all of a sudden you prefer energy use by source! ;D
You will get whiplash if you keep moving those goal posts like that:
what does it say when you have to revert to making shyte up? I've not once spoken of, not once spoken to, 'a total renewables grid'... that fits your strawman shtick.
It is nice to see that you now agree with my original argument that "Accept that wind/solar cannot replace base load - it can only supplement".
and again, as I read/recall, not a single member posited such a thing... again, strawmanTimG firing away! There is much to say about the subject; however, wasting time with you has to be a measured evaluation given your penchant for principally providing only unsubstantiated opinion.
-
@Moonlight Graham: subsidy discussions have been done many times over on, 'the other board'. The problem member TimG has is he refuses to accept traditional definitions/types of subsidy... internal versus direct, tax expenditures (breaks and credits), etc.. Subsidy amounts for renewables are 'mice-nuts' in comparison to fossil-fuel subsidies. Invariably, as I recall, member TimG had no where to go once the waldo onslaught showed just how significant fossil-fuel subsidies have been... and remain - to the point that he sought refuge in his personal comfort-zone => attempting to qualify subsidy levels as a reflection on per/Kwh generation.
G20 'empty promises': (fossil fuel versus renewable subsidies... G20 fossil-fuel subsidies versus entire world renewables subsidies)
(https://i.imgur.com/tNnKL4V.png)
How Large Are Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies? --- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867
Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP.
-
interesting - you were all about install/generation capacity until I gave the figures stating that coal and wind had about the same % capacity. Now all of a sudden you prefer energy use by source!
Now you are making stuff up. I only ever care about actual power production. Installed capacity means nothing.
iI've not once spoken of, not once spoken to, 'a total renewables grid'
Go look at your own posts. You went ballistic when I posted the statement above whindging about the 'baseload' myth. You could have simply agreed that the statement I made was correct.
-
Ignoring the problem is what is really stupid. Luckily most countries currently are not so stupid and have signed onto fixing it as best we can.
Maybe you enjoy sucking coal smoke, but then you probably never have.
That's just a variation of "Well, maybe it won't accomplish anything useful, but at least we're doing something!"
Most of the world's countries that signed those agreements are not required to cut back even one percent. Most of them signed because they expected to get paid a lot of money from the idiots like Trudeau in western countries. Of course they signed!
As for coal smoke, the building of coal plants seems to be taking place all over the world, at an increasing pace.
-
On the subsidy question a simple analogy to consider:
- a train which transports 1 million people-trips per year gets $1 million/year subsidy;
- a car which transports 1000 people-trips per year gets a $1000/year subsidy.
who gets the greater subsidy?
the simplistic answer is the train, however, what we really care about is the number of people-trips and by that measure the subsidies are equal.
i.e. if 1000 cars were subsidized those 1000 cars would transport 1 million people-trips per year which is equal to the train at the same cost.
So when thinking of energy subsidies the total dollar value is not what we care about. We care about the subsidy PER UNIT OF ENERGY (e.g. kWh).
When it comes to subsidies per unit of energy renewables receive huge subsidies.
The only reason such subsidies are possible is because much lower cost fossil fuel power provides most of our power needs.
If subsidies were completely eliminated fossil fuels would still be the most cost effective option and no one would build renewables.
-
That's up to France, you brought up China but I guess we are just **** because everyone has an excuse why it is someone else's problem. You and Sr John never did answer my question. Doesn't matter because your mind will be made up for you eventually.
How much Co2 do you think we can pump into the atmosphere? Jesus. How about answering mine. How the **** are we going to stop it? Because I'm not willing to let people guilt me into spending masses of money on a moronic plan that has no chance of succeeding just so they can feel good and noble about how they're 'contributing'.
-
oh really! See your blanket statements sans any qualifications... again, as per the NREL: Wind & solar generation do not require "backup" capacity in reliable, sufficient systems...
That is not what your cite said. It said the opposite.
-
Now you are making stuff up. I only ever care about actual power production. Installed capacity means nothing.
oh really... have one... would you like more?
1) 8000MW is ~10% of ERCOT installed capacity so we are talking about a marginal increase;
Go look at your own posts. You went ballistic when I posted the statement above whindging about the 'baseload' myth. You could have simply agreed that the statement I made was correct.
you have me confused with someone else... you could prove otherwise by easily linking to your claimed "went ballistic" post. I'll wait...
-
That is not what your cite said. It said the opposite.
no... you're replying to this post:
oh really! See your blanket statements sans any qualifications... again, as per the NREL: Wind & solar generation do not require "backup" capacity in reliable, sufficient systems...
the NREL cite/reference that goes with that post is the following:
(https://i.imgur.com/wCztWbm.png)
are you sure you want to play in this thread? ;D
-
So when thinking of energy subsidies the total dollar value is not what we care about. We care about the subsidy PER UNIT OF ENERGY (e.g. kWh).
When it comes to subsidies per unit of energy renewables receive huge subsidies.
The only reason such subsidies are possible is because much lower cost fossil fuel power provides most of our power needs. If subsidies were completely eliminated fossil fuels would still be the most cost effective option and no one would build renewables.
;D what did I say... what did I say... oh damn, I'm good! The guy is fricking unreal: decade upon decade of brazillions of industry fossil-fuel subsidies allowed the install base in place today - yet, somehow, only subsidies per/Kwh are legitimate... and only if you ignore the myriad of indirect subsidies. Of course! Notwithstanding cases where renewable subsidies have actually been eliminated and related renewable costs are still outperforming fossil-fuels... let me look for a reference - sure I can!
@Moonlight Graham: subsidy discussions have been done many times over on, 'the other board'. The problem member TimG has is he refuses to accept traditional definitions/types of subsidy... internal versus direct, tax expenditures (breaks and credits), etc.. Subsidy amounts for renewables are 'mice-nuts' in comparison to fossil-fuel subsidies. Invariably, as I recall, member TimG had no where to go once the waldo onslaught showed just how significant fossil-fuel subsidies have been... and remain - to the point that he sought refuge in his personal comfort-zone => attempting to qualify subsidy levels as a reflection on per/Kwh generation.
-
Most of the world's countries that signed those agreements are not required to cut back even one percent. Most of them signed because they expected to get paid a lot of money from the idiots like Trudeau in western countries. Of course they signed!
citation request
As for coal smoke, the building of coal plants seems to be taking place all over the world, at an increasing pace.
citation request (you've played your 'China/India' card in the past and have repeatedly been asked for cite reference... asking once again)... don't bother with the bullshyte 'a new coal plant is being built every day/week' nonsense. I'll wait:
-
That's just a variation of "Well, maybe it won't accomplish anything useful, but at least we're doing something!"
Most of the world's countries that signed those agreements are not required to cut back even one percent. Most of them signed because they expected to get paid a lot of money from the idiots like Trudeau in western countries. Of course they signed!
As for coal smoke, the building of coal plants seems to be taking place all over the world, at an increasing pace.
Ah no, coal plant production is plummeting worldwide. You're free to support Trump in his efforts to increase coal production in the US, but I suspect you'll lose that one as well.
-
Ah no, coal plant production is plummeting worldwide. You're free to support Trump in his efforts to increase coal production in the US, but I suspect you'll lose that one as well.
I'm not so sure that's the case I remember hearing somewhere that 1600 new plants are planned worldwide.
Alberta's trying to get rid of theirs though...
-
I'm not so sure that's the case I remember hearing somewhere that 1600 new plants are planned worldwide.
Alberta's trying to get rid of theirs though...
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/03/23/global-number-coal-plants-plummeting/
-
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/03/23/global-number-coal-plants-plummeting/
I'm not sure I get this. When you posted that I was forced to look it up to make sure I hadn't imagined it.
According to the NYT "Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent."
How do 1600 plants do that when according to your data, there are almost two million coal plants worldwide? EDIT> Never mind, I was mistaking MW for plants. That said, a 43% expansion in capacity doesn't sound like a reduction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html
-
How much Co2 do you think we can pump into the atmosphere? Jesus. How about answering mine. How the **** are we going to stop it? Because I'm not willing to let people guilt me into spending masses of money on a moronic plan that has no chance of succeeding just so they can feel good and noble about how they're 'contributing'.
Eventually we will have to stop or mother nature will do it for us, so when do we start working on it? Or do you just plan on continuing on as you are an leaving it to your grand children, like the public debt? Or more accurately, on top of the public debt.
-
I'm not sure I get this. When you posted that I was forced to look it up to make sure I hadn't imagined it.
According to the NYT "Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent."
How do 1600 plants do that when according to your data, there are almost two million coal plants worldwide? EDIT> Never mind, I was mistaking MW for plants. That said, a 43% expansion in capacity doesn't sound like a reduction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html
Give ya a hint, look a the first graph and notice all those negative numbers with regard to coal power production plans.
-
Give ya a hint, look a the first graph and notice all those negative numbers with regard to coal power production plans.
You think Trump was right about the New York Times then? Fake News?
Bastards, eh?
-
Eventually we will have to stop or mother nature will do it for us, so when do we start working on it? Or do you just plan on continuing on as you are an leaving it to your grand children, like the public debt? Or more accurately, on top of the public debt.
I don't think we are going to stop, and I don't think our grandchildren will either. Unless they come with cold fusion, or those mini drones I posted on the other site become popular.
-
You think Trump was right about the New York Times then? Fake News?
Bastards, eh?
No idea what you're talking about but has Trump been right about anything lately?
-
No idea what you're talking about but has Trump been right about anything lately?
Well, the New York Times said that there were plans to expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
I don't know about Trump.
-
Well, the New York Times said that there were plans to expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
I don't know about Trump.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-retirement-factbox/factbox-u-s-coal-fired-power-plants-scheduled-to-shut-idUSKCN18C2C5
In 2016 coal-fired generators produced 30 percent of the nation’s total generation, down from over 50 percent in 2003. Gas, meanwhile, fueled about 34 percent in its biggest year ever for U.S. power production.
-
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-retirement-factbox/factbox-u-s-coal-fired-power-plants-scheduled-to-shut-idUSKCN18C2C5
In 2016 coal-fired generators produced 30 percent of the nation’s total generation, down from over 50 percent in 2003. Gas, meanwhile, fueled about 34 percent in its biggest year ever for U.S. power production.
I see. I thought you were talking about worldwide.
-
I see. I thought you were talking about worldwide.
It's the same thing worldwide.
-
It's the same thing worldwide.
That's what I meant about the New York Times.
-
I don't think we are going to stop, and I don't think our grandchildren will either. Unless they come with cold fusion, or those mini drones I posted on the other site become popular.
You may well be right but it's a cop out to justify something by maintaining that others who can't even vote yet won't do anything different from older people who should know better.
-
You may well be right but it's a cop out to justify something by maintaining that others who can't even vote yet won't do anything different from older people who should know better.
Yeah, I would never do that. That would be awful.
-
That's what I meant about the New York Times.
Um, so are you getting the point that coal power, regardless of Trump's wishes, is on the back burner?
-
Um, so are you getting the point that coal power, regardless of Trump's wishes, is on the back burner?
The Trump thing is secondary, concerned only with the New York Times, which seems to say it isn't. I only brought up Trump because the idea of the New York Times providing fake news made me think of him.
That said, I'm still having trouble agreeing with him. I might have to believe the New York Times.
-
The Trump thing is secondary, concerned only with the New York Times, which seems to say it isn't. I only brought up Trump because the idea of the New York Times providing fake news made me think of him.
That said, I'm still having trouble agreeing with him. I might have to believe the New York Times.
I doubt your fund manager will advise you to invest in coal anytime soon.
-
I doubt your fund manager will advise you to invest in coal anytime soon.
I wouldn't anyway. I'm in slide rules.
-
I wouldn't anyway. I'm in slide rules.
Got several of those things of different types. Want to buy some?
-
Got several of those things of different types. Want to buy some?
I have one of those ones they made into a circle and named it after some guy named Dalton. I'd probably let it go for a reasonable price.
-
I have several different CR's of different sizes by Jeppesen and an E6B but I also have an old fashioned straight one that was my dad's in university and I used in high school. I'm sure it's in a box somewhere.
-
no... you're replying to this post:
the NREL cite/reference that goes with that post is the following:
(https://i.imgur.com/wCztWbm.png)
are you sure you want to play in this thread? ;D
"Furthermore, studies and operational practices have found that EXISTING CONVENTIONAL PLANTS that reduce output to accommodate wind and solar typically can provide the reserves needed."
You do realize, don't you, that all this means you have to keep conventional power plants there and ready to pick up the slack? Or do you? You sure you can read? I mean, none of the words were even very long or complicated but... maybe you didn't understand.
-
Eventually we will have to stop or mother nature will do it for us, so when do we start working on it? Or do you just plan on continuing on as you are an leaving it to your grand children, like the public debt? Or more accurately, on top of the public debt.
I plan on continuing until technology provides me with an electric car, and solar panels with a battery, whereupon I will be happy to switch over.
-
I plan on continuing until technology provides me with an electric car, and solar panels with a battery, whereupon I will be happy to switch over.
Electric cars have been around for quite awhile now and grid tied solar is getting cheaper all the time.
-
You do realize, don't you, that all this means you have to keep conventional power plants there and ready to pick up the slack? Or do you? You sure you can read? I mean, none of the words were even very long or complicated but... maybe you didn't understand.
the context was variability... you even cut off the words, "to accommodate additional variability", from your chosen quote --- that is to say, accommodation performed at the existing system level (as distinct from the need for any dedicated backup just for renewable variability).
your smokescreen verbosity and personal penchant for insults don't cover-up your fundamental misunderstandings... even if no targeted measures were deployed, existing reserves already exist within a properly sized/managed grid. However, as highlighted previously, operations companies understand mitigating practices like renewables geographic dispersion and aggregation significantly reduce any need for additional reserves - notwithstanding smart grid aspects and enhanced weather forecasting techniques/technologies reducing uncertainties... all working against the need for additional reserve requirements.
-
the context was variability... you even cut off the words, "to accommodate additional variability", from your chosen quote --- that is to say, accommodation performed at the existing system level (as distinct from the need for any dedicated backup just for renewable variability).
your smokescreen verbosity and personal penchant for insults don't cover-up your fundamental misunderstandings... even if no targeted measures were deployed, existing reserves already exist within a properly sized/managed grid.
In other words, there has to be backup, which is what you've been arguing is unneeded. Duh. ::)
-
In other words, there has to be backup, which is what you've been arguing is unneeded. Duh. ::)
The salient point on backup concerns related to the variability of renewables (wind & solar) is whether or not additional reserves are required, particularly for the current penetration rates. And again, with that same legitimate focus on the U.S. (as the world's historical #1 emitter), I've read references to increased rates even approaching 30% shouldn't require additional reserves for properly managed/sized systems, particularly in relation to the deployment of sound operational mitigating options I mentioned (like renewables geographic dispersion and aggregation; like smart grid aspects; like enhanced weather forecasting techniques/technologies reducing uncertainties; etc..)
-
The salient point on backup concerns related to the variability of renewables (wind & solar) is whether or not additional reserves are required, particularly for the current penetration rates. And again, with that same legitimate focus on the U.S. (as the world's historical #1 emitter), I've read references to increased rates even approaching 30% shouldn't require additional reserves for properly managed/sized systems, particularly in relation to the deployment of sound operational mitigating options I mentioned (like renewables geographic dispersion and aggregation; like smart grid aspects; like enhanced weather forecasting techniques/technologies reducing uncertainties; etc..)
This kind of brainless blowhard snot is why most people with more than half a brain couldn't even be bothered to listen to the global warming fanatics. So desperate to push their idiot agenda they can't even admit what's bloody obvious to everyone, and so they place the legitimacy of their entire argument into doubt.
-
This kind of brainless blowhard snot is why most people with more than half a brain couldn't even be bothered to listen to the global warming fanatics. So desperate to push their idiot agenda they can't even admit what's bloody obvious to everyone, and so they place the legitimacy of their entire argument into doubt.
if you aren't capable of discussing without insults, should you actually be in these types of threads... threads that typically rely upon more critical thought, more in-depth review, more comprehensive analysis, more extensive research, etc.?
-
You both need to cool it a bit.
-
Electric cars have been around for quite awhile now and grid tied solar is getting cheaper all the time.
I'm not going to go solar until there is reasonable battery storage capacity. At that point I'll be all in since I really don't want to rely on the grid at all.
As for electric cars, they don't yet have the supporting infrastructure or range, though they're getting there fast. I expect my next car will likely be one.
-
I'm not going to go solar until there is reasonable battery storage capacity. At that point I'll be all in since I really don't want to rely on the grid at all.
As for electric cars, they don't yet have the supporting infrastructure or range, though they're getting there fast. I expect my next car will likely be one.
The grid tied systems currently available give you solar, battery storage, and then grid if the sun goes down and the battery is flat. From what I've read the system will pay for itself in 8-10 years.
-
The grid tied systems currently available give you solar, battery storage, and then grid if the sun goes down and the battery is flat. From what I've read the system will pay for itself in 8-10 years.
This is a brand new house and is extremely well-insulated with high efficiency systems. It will take somewhat longer than 8-10 years so I need more incentive, and that incentive is being able to have power even if Ontario's teetering, screwed up power system breaks down. Solar cells are also much more resistant to EMPs and have only a few small parts which are vulnerable. At least, according to my electrician brother in law. Prices are going down all the time and batteries are improving and I don't want to get stuck with an overpriced, under performing system. But I'm sure it won't be too long.
-
This is a brand new house and is extremely well-insulated with high efficiency systems. It will take somewhat longer than 8-10 years so I need more incentive, and that incentive is being able to have power even if Ontario's teetering, screwed up power system breaks down. Solar cells are also much more resistant to EMPs and have only a few small parts which are vulnerable. At least, according to my electrician brother in law. Prices are going down all the time and batteries are improving and I don't want to get stuck with an overpriced, under performing system. But I'm sure it won't be too long.
Well then stay on the grid.