patrick.net

Maybe you're right ? It's too boring to address problems that we damn well should be able to at least agree on and address.

Now back to our regular scheduled program of arguing with deniers....

"Whatever" is not just a weak part. It's a way to blur the line between inferior (but heavily supported) technology and a superior one, and to put those responsible for misdirected funds in the clear. It's a way to justify in public opinion investments in solar - by putting it in the same compartment as nuclear (in this case) and creating an umbrella item: "alternative energy". Nice. Scroll forward: "All those tax rebates for solar roofs? We've invested in alternative energy, and see how well alternative energy does!"

"Sky is falling, we MUST do something!", followed by forceful (i.e. tax-sponsored) implementation of bad ideas, followed by jumping on a bandwagon of a good idea, followed by blurring the line between the two, followed by righteous "we told you so!" - this pattern is too familiar to call it's recognition a weird flex. I view solar (which was shoved down our throats) different from nuclear (which wasn't)

Solar is getting cheaper, sure. Cheaper than what? Cheaper than what it was before. But there's still tax credit in 2018 for installing a solar roof, and that's most of what I need to know on the subject.

socal2 says

"What if it is a big hoax and we hike the cost of energy for nothing?"

- Economic decline
- Famine
- War
- Genocide
- Poverty

Actually solar and winds are already the cheapest form of energy in many places.
They are because we already invested a lot of money in these, and nothing bad happened to the economy.

Not to mention that gas reserves are more quickly becoming more and more expensive to exploit. The cheapest places to exploit are already dry. Only the most expensive places remain. Shale wells in the US will dry quickly and requires more and more new drilling. Literally trillions are invested in finding and drilling to new oil. Not only that but drilling itself and purifying oil requires energy, so that the energy return on the energy invested to drill is getting smaller.

So no matter what, we are bound to invest fortunes in transforming the way we get and consume energy. There is no way around this.

marcus says

Look at Germany and what they've done with solar and wind. Arguably too much too fast, but it's not cause massive strife.

It's been a disaster. Real electric costs for Commercial and Residential has doubled, almost no significant progress on the electric generation mix, and it proved that solar/wind is utterly unreliable.

Heraclitusstudent says

In the meantime, we're still beating new temp records on a regular basis and all evidence shows it is happening.

Coldest summer in a long time here.

marcus says

"If the stock market is increasing, how can every day not be the highest the market has ever been ?"

Why argue with people that don't know what a trend is ?

Heraclitusstudent says

moved the goal post

You fell in to your own trap.

You're arguing with people that are in an anti science anti knowledge bubble, that is, when it pleases them. It's not just Brietbart and Fox, it's twitter and social media - the same monster that helped create the young SJW wackos.

Also, I think there is a personality type, that loves the idea of thinking they knew things before others SO MUCH, that in this case, they feel that if somehow climate change is not happening, they will get much more "I told you so" pleasure from thinking to themselves, and telling other for the rest of their lives that they knew all along, than the shame and embarrassment of having parroted the AGW denial ...

Energy independence on that list is a FUCKING LIE. Who has all of the Rare Earths that are needed for all of these "Renewable" sources. Not USA!

We will be dependent upon when the sun shines or when the wind blows, as there isn't enough known lithium in the whole world to provide battery backup/load shift power to supply even just every house/business in only the USA with 48 hours of power. We all know there will be periods of time where there will be less power produced via solar/wind in a 24 hour period to carry you over to the next day.

Booger says

Coldest summer in a long time here

Happy second day of summer.

Booger says

Coldest summer in a long time here.

Fucking oven here...80+ at night

marcus says

WE don't have infinite fossil fuels

This is perhaps best argument against fossils...no one can argue against that

ForcedTQ says

We all know there will be periods of time where there will be less power produced via solar/wind in a 24 hour period to carry you over to the next day.

Nobody is saying we can get everything from solar and wind.

ForcedTQ says

Energy independence on that list is a FUCKING LIE

Why ?

Why couldn't you have solar, wInd and 4th generation nuclear. THere are ways to do nuclear that are WAY safer than the reactors built 20 to 50 years ago.

We need to wake the fuck up and figure out how to make the electricity for all the electric vehicles.

https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/

marcus says

wind

Wind does have a YUUGE problem

Wind turbines kill a rather staggering 600,000 to 900,000 bats every year, according to a new study. But this does not mean we should start shutting down wind farms.

Dead bats have been found at almost every wind energy facility where someone has looked for them, and researchers have tried to use these numbers to estimate how many bats die every year. Mark Hayes, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Colorado at Denver, analyzed published findings and places the number at more than 600,000. This number is probably conservative, he says in a new paper published in the December issue of the journal BioScience.
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eek-squad/wind-turbines-kill-more-600000-bats-year-what-should-we-do/

marcus says

"for nothing"

It can't be for nothing. WE don't have infinite fossil fuels, and burning it pollutes, even if somehow AGW was false.

Argue against pollution, I am with you.

Tell children that the temperature is going to spike and the world will be flooded and there will be mass wetbulb death unless you recycle; that I have a problem with.

marcus says

Can you agree that there are millions of people smarter than you that disagree with you on this ?

You do realize that the temperature supposedly went up less than 1 degree over the last century and is now going down, don'tcha?

All these "smart people" can disagree all they want. Facts are facts and co2 caused AGW has been disproven by the fact that co2 has risen and temperatures are falling.

Onvacation says

Facts are facts

Yes. There you are correct.

Climate is complex. Ice on parts of the planet melts when it gets warmer. Why should it be surprising that at this stage of AGW it's an uptrend that includes down swings ?

Thank goodness that's the case, or it would be all over, if every month was hotter on average for the planet than the same month the previous year. That would have to lead very quickly to an exponential increase in temps and the end of all life on earth.

The data you like to cite is taking an anomolous hot February of 2016 and compare that to a cool February two years later.


Onvacation says

I've never argued against climate change. I've argued against alarmism

You are arguing against climate change. As for alarmism ? We have entrenched fossil fuel interests (who btw pay for some of the propaganda that deniers eat up). It's not being alarmist to be in favor of honest discussion of this issue, and reasonable movement in the direction of clean energy.

marcus says

Climate is complex. Ice on parts of the planet melts when it gets warmer. Why should it be surprising that at this stage of AGW it's an uptrend that includes down swings ?

Can we agree on the following facts:
1. The temperature has risen less than one degree in the last century.
2. The last couple of years have been cooling in spite of co2 increasing.
3. 2018 was the 4th warmest year on record.
4. Co2 is essential to life.
5. The predictions of Manhattan and Florida being underwater by now are false.
6. The proposed solutions (Kyoto, Paris, etc.) of reducing co2 would have virtually no effect for an incredible amount of money.
7. Humans can adapt to a wide range of conditions.
Do you deny any of these facts?

marcus says

You are arguing against climate change.

Climate changes like the weather. Earth has had ice ages. The climate has fluctuated way more than one degree since humans walked the earth.

I am arguing against alarmism. And, as others have pointed out, alarmists don't want solutions.

marcus says

The data you like to cite is taking an anomolous hot February of 2016 and compare that to a cool February two years later.

What are you talking about?

marcus says

Nobody is saying we can get everything from solar and wind.

I believe many prominent Democrats and "Green New Deal" advocates are saying we have to be 100% off of carbon energy in 10-12 years.

That is radically extreme.

I agree with the thread title that in 30+ years the world will be 50% on renewables. But we will be burning natural gas for electricity production for at least a few more decades. It is way better for the environment than burning coal and oil and we have plenty of natural gas to go around.

Heraclitusstudent says

Actually solar and winds are already the cheapest form of energy in many places.
They are because we already invested a lot of money in these, and nothing bad happened to the economy.

I believe all of these places also rely on supplemental gas, coal and oil power plants to keep electricity on the grid during the peak hours in the evening or when there is no wind.

We will eventually get there in terms of renewables with good battery storage technology. But I think we have plenty of time to burn the shit out of our cleaner natural gas (reducing carbon emissions along the way) while the storage technology matures and is more reliable.

Onvacation says

2. The last couple of years have been cooling in spite of co2 increasing.

This is consistent with what has been happening for the last century. Yes it's a trend. Higher highs and higher lows.



Onvacation says

3. 2018 was the 4th warmest year on record.

I wonder how far back you have to go to find the top 3 ? (again - it's called a trend )

Onvacation says

4. Co2 is essential to life.

This may be the stupidest of these. OF course the word scientific consensus means nothing to you.


Onvacation says

5. The predictions of Manhattan and Florida being underwater by now are false.

As if there were wide spread predictions like that. Most predictions have talked ranges of sea level rise, over the next century or longer time frames.

Onvacation says

7. Humans can adapt to a wide range of conditions.

Yes, humans also can and will get off of fossil fuels. The smart money is betting that the cost of expediting the transition actually saves us a lot including costs that are not strictly financial.

One pretty much has to be an employee of an energy company to deny this.

marcus says

This is consistent with what has been happening for the last century.

So, you agree that all my facts are true?

When it became obvious that the climate model predicted multi degree temperature spike was not happening, the alarmists renamed global warming climate change and started the narrative of " even a couple degrees can be catastrophic".

When people see the facts they usually start questioning the narrative.

Why couldn't you have solar, wInd and 4th generation nuclear. THere are ways to do nuclear that are WAY safer than the reactors built 20 to 50 years ago.

Marcus, we agree here. We do NOT need AGW as a prompt to do this, as pollution and resource depletion are enough motivation. Still need to stabilize 1st World population to allow wind solar, new nuke tech, and conservation/recycling to be suffcient.

Of course the word scientific consensus means nothing to you.

"Science consensus" should mean nothing to all thinking people. Science is determined by measurements and tested hypothesis, not by vote. No scientist wants to here "We like Relativity Theory because Einstein likes it." True scientists would say, "Lets see the numbers and reproducible proof."

marcus says

Yes, humans also can and will get off of fossil fuels.

This is happening, but our civilization needs time to make it happen. If we banned fossil fuels tomorrow, first people would ignore the ban, and then they would disband the government, and vote the bums who banned fossil fuels out of office. That’s because they’d be cold, hungry, and trying to fend off roving packs of looter gangs in the fucking dark!
You have no idea how terribly fragile our thin shell of civilization is on this stew we call humanity. Remove one layer, and the whole thing will fall apart in the most messy way imaginable.

The very best we can do is what we are already doing: developing our technology to address the energy problem. Eventually we will get there to your green utopia, but it is going to take time or else we will wind up in a Mad Max scenario with cannibal anarchy, yams, and everyone firing M130 at whatever moves. Oh and burning the fuck out of anything flammable.
Civilization takes time and effort to build and manage, but not much effort at all to topple back into chaos.

Onvacation says

When it became obvious that the climate model predicted multi degree temperature spike was not happening, the alarmists renamed global warming climate change and started the narrative of " even a couple degrees can be catastrophic".

You should have been a politician. Total right wing bubble propaganda.

They renamed it climate change becasue half the country is below average in intelligence (FACT) and many of them are gullible idiots that don't know the difference between climate and weather. And becasue it's true that becasue climate is complex. We've been watching this for a while now. Worse floods, droughts, unusual cold pattern on one side of the planet while simultaneously multiple other parts are having 120 degree summers.

Turms out that's what AGW looks like.

THe only multi degree increase models were for a century or more out. OR possibly there was some wackos saying that, but it's never been what the climate science people in general have been predicting.

When someone has to resort to big lies to make their argument, you know they are on very weak ground.

marcus says

THe only multi degree increase models were for a century or more out.

Then we have little to worry about.
The planet can tolerate a degree of temp.
We can too.

Quigley says

Then we have little to worry about

No we have plenty to worry about. Yes it's theoretical, but the amount of c02 already in the atmosphere will be affecting climate for a long time, and increases in temperature beget further increases in temperature, what with increasing ocean temperatures, and melting ice caps.

In a sane world, we wouldn't have to know with certainty exactly how this is going to unfold in order to feel a relative sense of urgency about getting off of fossil fuels.

getting off of fossil fuels.

Agreed, although "weening" may be a better term. Now the how. That will involve solar, wind, geothermal, etc plus conservation.

Conservation like:
Stabilized population
No imports from high polluting manufacturing countries
Prohibit any HOA, or local gov, etc., from outlawing rooftop solar panels, solar water heaters, or clothes lines
Close businesses at night
Tiered energy prices
Raise gasoline taxes

The chart that started it all from the high priest of AGW Michael Mann.


20 years later and we got 2 feet of snow on the first day of summer in Colorado.

Onvacation says

20 years later and we got 2 feet of snow on the first day of summer in Colorado.

So?

marcus says

In a sane world, we wouldn't have to know with certainty exactly how this is going to unfold in order to feel a relative sense of urgency about getting off of fossil fuels.

I’m already explained how going mad for this will mean actual worldwide insanity and civilization collapse. We have far too many people alive now to revert to 19th century technology. The population has grown ten times since then, and this increase is sustained only with advanced tech, which requires fossil fuels to energize at this time. To suddenly stop using them would trigger a collapse in every good humanity has achieved in the last century. And those excess 6 billion people will make a hell of a mess in their death convulsions. I doubt if half a billion people would be left worldwide once that was over.

The good thing is that people with obtuse and myopic vision aren’t actually in charge of much. Not that they would be for long anyway. They can’t! They’ll destroy whatever they’re leading with their stupidity.

This chart is just like the charts about the world "running out of oil" and so on. Every time we think we have run out, Oil companies go explore and find more. As long as oil/gas are cheaper, cheaper wins.

This investment in wind simply isn't economic - Spain spends $150k per year to support every wind job that pays $70k. Who is paying the difference?

Texas overtook Cali in total installed wind base a few years ago. But Texas discovered the wind dies - sometimes right in the middle of the day, when AC demands are highest. So they built a ton of combined cycle "peaker" powerplants that run on natural gas that can fire up in less than 30 minutes to meet demand. And, boy, do we have plenty of natural gas. Cheap wins again.

But Texas discovered the wind dies - sometimes right in the middle of the day, when AC demands are highest.

Eventually, that mid day is when Solar would kick in.

Heraclitusstudent says

 
 

Onvacation says

20 years later and we got 2 feet of snow on the first day of summer in Colorado.

So?

Just goes to show that the cataclysmic, permanent drought, snow is a memory, global warming scientists were wrong.

Onvacation says

Just goes to show that the cataclysmic, permanent drought, snow is a memory, global warming scientists were wrong.

Show me a scientific article that predicted no snow in Colorado last year.
How are a couple degrees difference on average 100 yrs out - even 5 degrees in a catastrophic scenario - were ever going to prevent snow in mountains LAST YEAR?
These things are obvious and not worth talking about.

The problem with analyzing this projection is we're missing a piece to the puzzle. Is this chart of electricity produced or electricity consumed? What is the total electricity in k or M/wh for each year. I have a sneaky suspicion total electricity is going DOWN.

Heraclitusstudent says

These things are obvious and not worth talking about.

And yet here we are.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.newsweek.com/which-white-christmas-will-be-our-last-snow-december-may-soon-be-history-756921%3Famp%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwic88KXkIPjAhXXGDQIHR0vChUQFjAIegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0tDcO3_Zixs6GMQBGbPr6I&cf=1

Onvacation says

And yet here we are.

So you're mad because Newsweek published something overly dramatic?
Seriously?

Heraclitusstudent says

So you're mad because Newsweek published something overly dramatic?
Seriously?

Do you seriously think it is illegitimate to point out the hyperbolic doom and gloom predictions that ALWAYS fail to pass?

It's not just Newsweek who has been overly dramatic. We have Al Gore, Hollywood, Media, Academia and the Democrat party running around like chicken-little's for nearly 20 years now.