patrick.net

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.

socal2 says

like chicken-little's

Like the original the sky is falling fable chicken little, not that stupid Disney remake.

Global Warming is the Leftist Eschaton, that somewhat replaced "Three Generations of Idiots so let social workers sterilize people at their whim."

socal2 says

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.

Certainly if you act like it's not a real problem there's a low chance people will do anything about it.
And it is a big problem - for 2100, 2200,...
The thing is: 100 yrs is way beyond what people can reasonably think about. But it is also a short duration with regard to even human history, itself a blink in the history of this planet.

Heraclitusstudent says

The thing is: 100 yrs is way beyond what people can reasonably think about.

100 years is even further beyond what we can forecast.

Therein lies your original sin: trusting the cult of climate modeling.

CBOEtrader says

100 years is even further beyond what we can forecast.

Yeah, So let's do nothing. Let's watch temperature increase decade after decade, based on phenomenons we fully understand and observe taking place, and can easily project.

Because, you know... maybe some miracle will happen by itself and eliminate the problem before anything worrying happens.

That's great thinking.

Heraclitusstudent says

phenomenons we fully understand and observe taking place

No and no.

We do not understand the super complex phenomenom we call weather much less climate. Too many variables. The observations in no way match what some climate scientists have predicted with their co2 models.

Michael Mann and AlGore talked about co2 as the imminent cause of the poles melting, and Florida and Manhattan flooding. Some even conflated climate change with imminent mass wetbulb death in India. Never happened.

Heraclitusstudent says

based on phenomenons we fully understand and observe taking place, and can easily project.

Which phenomenon is that? We have yet to produce a single accurate model. Not one.

The politicizing of this topic is about control , not about helping the planet.

Heraclitusstudent says

The thing is: 100 yrs is way beyond what people can reasonably think about. But it is also a short duration with regard to even human history, itself a blink in the history of this planet.

Good luck convincing people to suffer high energy costs now for something that MIGHT happen 100 years from now.

When the pain is sufficient, people will react. Not before.

FFS - we can't even get people and politicians to do the right thing about our bankrupt entitlement and pension systems which are already causing pain now (States raising taxes and diverting infrastructure and general fund money to municipal union pensions). And unlike global warming models, the entitlement and actuarial math of the pension and entitlement systems is basic arithmetic.

socal2 says

And unlike global warming models, the entitlement and actuarial math of the pension and entitlement systems is basic arithmetic.

Lol. This is an amazing comparison. If you came up with it good on you. It's mostly blue states in these pensions holes. They can't do basic finance math, but are able to figure out extremely intense math/calculations that take into account land surface, water, air space, atmosphere, etc. on a massive ball flying through space.

The problem arises when ONLY CO2 is the cause of warming and that's it. I think that's what a lot of climate change pumpers don't understand and why they get so much resistance. What if your car doesn't start and you replace the battery (CO2 made it die) thinking that was the problem? Turns out it was the starter after replacing the battery. Sure you have a new usable battery (solar, wind, nuke), but now you've still got to replace the starter to get the car to work. You've spent money fixing the wrong problem.

That's the concern of the deniers. That THIS and ONLY THIS will save us. There's no nuance or balance to it. The scientists could be 100% right. Reduce CO2 and warming stops. And ice age maybe comes then which is likely as destructive as warming due to the food needs of the massive population we have. All of this will take place over thousands of years. So let's buy that new battery, wait 500 years to start the car and then realize we needed a new starter the whole time (less humans).

Onvacation says

We do not understand the super complex phenomenom we call weather much less climate. Too many variables. The observations in no way match what some climate scientists have predicted with their co2 models.

This is where you are wrong: we don't need to understand climate - at least not 100% - to see that there is a problem.

As long as the heat that was leaking out into space as radiations is prevented from leaking out, and we can directly observed the reflected radiations, then the heat will stay and accumulate. This is 100% understood and this is the relevant bit.

The heat has to go somewhere. If you say it will somehow disappear, then either you have to explain why, or you believe in miracles.

Combine that with empirical evidence that no miracle is happening, and you'd have to be a lunatic to not see that there is a long term problem.

Heraclitusstudent says

then the heat will stay and accumulate.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, how much do you think the temperature has gone up the last century?

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

then the heat will stay and accumulate.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, how much do you think the temperature has gone up the last century?

I will give you a hint. The difference between the first and second hottest year EVER is 4/100ths of one degree.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah, So let's do nothing.

As always, question is what to do. Taxes on carbon, solar panels in Canada, and corn-based ethanol are probably harming environment more than oil.