patrick.net

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.

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.