patrick.net

LOL so much detail in that graph.

Wind and Solar is the 2000's "Everybody is going to be driving flying cars in the future".

Solving global warming will destroy our way of life?

We had Climate Change in 1949

This is all in 1949
First it was a brutal Cold Winter. Even with out Polar Vortexes it by far worse than anything that we've experienced post "Inconvenient Truth"

The Blizzard of 1949 is considered one of the worst on record for the northern Plains. The first storm began January 2 and continued through January 5, with heavy snow, strong winds and cold temperatures. Subsequent storms through mid-February produced enormous snow drifts that paralyzed much of the region. Roads and railroads were blocked, so airplanes were used to bring food and medical supplies to isolated towns and hay to livestock.

January 1949 is the snowiest January on record for many of the observing stations in the Black Hills region. Snowfall during the month ranged from 12 to over 40 inches—three to eight times the normal of four to eight inches. It was also one of the coldest Januarys recorded, even with several days between blizzards reaching highs in the 50s and even 60s.

Two accounts of the storm, including personal stories from South Dakota and Nebraska residents, were written by Harl A. Dalstrom and Kay Calame Dalstrom:

The 1949 Texas hurricane was a tropical cyclone of the 1949 Atlantic hurricane season. Forming in the Pacific Ocean on September 27, the storm crossed into the Gulf of Mexico—one of only a handful of known storms to do so—and began to intensify. It ultimately peaked with winds corresponding to high-end Category 2 status on the modern-day Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale and made landfall near Freeport, Texas, on the morning of October 4. It rapidly weakened after moving inland and dissipated several days later. Damage from the storm was moderate, although the hurricane temporarily cut off the city of Galveston from the mainland. Rice crops suffered extensive damage, with losses estimated at up to $10 million (1949 USD, $105 million 2019 USD). Two people died due to the hurricane.



Then topped it off with a very hot and active Hurricane Season. Does all of this sound familiar? Well it should.

What was the last big hurricane to strike Palm Beach County?
Believe it or not, it’s been more than a half century since the county suffered a major hurricane, at Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, with winds of 111 mph or more.

Should the 1949 hurricane strike today, accounting for inflation, population growth and the dramatic increase in coastal property values, it would do $7 billion in damage, making it the 21st costliest storm in U.S. history. Since the storm, the combined population of Palm Beach, Martin and St. Lucie counties alone has grown nearly tenfold, from about 143,000 to about 1.5 million.

The storm came ashore about 6:30 p.m. on Aug. 26. Its eye passed directly over Palm Beach International Airport, destroying hangars and garages and at least 37 airplanes. It moved through Central Florida and into Georgia, leaving heavy rain from the Carolinas to New England before it died off.
There would be only two deaths: a Miami man who drowned and a Stuart doctor whose car struck a tree. It damaged 90 percent of Stuart’s businesses and homes, 40 percent of them severely. Flooded crops and uprooted citrus trees left the region with $20 million, in 1949 dollars, in farm losses.

The 1949 Atlantic hurricane season was fairly active. Thirteen storms reached tropical storm strength. Out of a total of seven hurricanes that year, three developed into major hurricanes. Most destructive were a Category 4 hurricane that hit near West Palm Beach in August and the Category 4 hurricane that hit Freeport and Galveston, Texas on October 3 and 4, 1949.

The Texas coast has been struck by many hurricanes before and after 1949. The worse hurricane was the one that hit Galveston in 1900 and resulted in 6,000 - 8,00 deaths and the almost complete destruction of a large part of the city. The hurricane that struck Galveston and the Texas coastline on 3-4 October 1949 did not result in as many deaths, but nonetheless was very destructive. Storm surges caused extensive damage in Greens Bayou and at Matagorda. Two persons died in Freeport. Total damage was estimated at $6.7 million (1949 dollars).

Actually the 1949 Hurricane season was followed by a 20 year drought then after a few hit in the 60's South Florida never saw a named Storm until 1992 Hrricane Andrew.

The Energiewende proves the inability to switch to solar and wind, and reinforces the principle that there is no way to store it and no way to predict the generation.

Wind and Sun are fickle. Coal and Nuclear are not.

I don’t see how they get that trend line. We will somehow go from 15% to 50%? I mean it might just be true, but the graph won’t tell us how they got there.

I do think solar is going to be a decent source of power until someone finally heats up a Tokamak fusion reactor and starts selling power. That will put every fossil fuel out of business eventually. This isn’t going to start in the USA. The fossil fuel industry is far too deep into the pockets of our government officials.
But I can see it in a European country or maybe China.

Heraclitusstudent says

Solving global warming will destroy our way of life?

No. The alarmists will soon find something new.

Onvacation says

alarmists will soon find

When? Because for the past 15 yrs I've been reading people like you on Internet forums that GW is a fad, that such and such is the last nail of the coffin of that hoax, etc, etc...

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

At what point do you admit defeat?

If 50% is derived from solar and wind by 2050, awesome.

The caveat being that the government doesn't mandate it and therefore making the citizens bear the cost of it. If there's money to be made in the field, smart people will figure it out. But the government forcing something that isn't profitable is scary. These companies will still make their 20% margins installing all this shit and maintaining it and if it's more expensive than coal/nuke they'll just raise rates, aka us paying for it. I'm not willing to sign onto that. I could handle the increase, but all it's going to do is make the poor more poor and some of the middle class into the poor bracket. This then causes more social problems.

And lets not go down the typical climate change thread rabbit hole here. The only solution IF you think it's man made is less humans. There is zero way to get back to pre-industrial age total carbon emissions with solar, wind, electric cars, nuclear, etc. I'm all for less pollution, but to think it's a solvable problem with technology just isn't realistic. We can lower it per capita all we want, but we're adding more people daily that will increase the total output of carbon emissions.

The World Will Get Half Its Power From Wind, Solar by 2050

Great, now lets let the population stabilize to a level sustainable by those renewables. Curtail immigration (especially 3rd world illegals) and heavily tariff nations like China that produce products under lax pollution and labor laws.

I’m not convinced we are getting hotter anymore. With the solar minimum, beginning after 2016, the trend is clearly going the other way. There’s no way to fudge the data differently. We don’t know how long this solar cycle will last or if it will get worse. We do know that it buys us some time to get our shit together and boot up fusion power. Solar is pretty cheap now as well, so let’s have more of that, with battery technology increasing as well to manage storage for night or cloudy hours.

I can draw a chart like that too, I just don't see any evidence as to why it's real.

Heraclitusstudent says

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

link when you make comments like this please.

I'm not being difficult, I don't pretend to be an expert on climate news. Wanna follow your logic . Links?

Just a tad difficult.




https://www.climate.gov/news-features/department/understanding-climate?page=1

These charts aren't difficult.

What are you suggesting they imply?

410 ppm of co2 is perfectly healthy for plants and people. life thrives at ppm into 1000.

"Record" temps since 1880? Lol, that's a time snapshot of climate history and considering the flawed methods that have changed over the years, do you really think a .8° temp increase is a problem?

If the evidence is there I havent seen it.

Big Question: Why did temps fall when we began spewing, without the least controls, huge amounts of coal into the atmosphere in the 19th Century?

Also, if the temps were generally rising since the 1930s, as the above chart claims, why were scientists considering an impending Ice Age in the 1970s claiming that we had decades of cooling?

We went up not a single degree celsius in 40 years, when it was repeatedly claimed we'd see 1 degree rises "By the end of the decade/next 10-15 years" since at the mid 1980s?

Finally, where's the big sea level rises?

We can all have fun w models! https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/have-humans-postponed-the-next-ice-age/

From CBOETrader's article:

The recent study showed—through simulations—that humans narrowly missed an ice age just before the Industrial Revolution and probably postponed the next one by at least 50,000 years. Researchers note that with the large quantities of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere in the last two centuries, the “probability of glacial inception during the next 100,000 years is notably reduced.”

Laying the baseline 'scuses for when all those model predicted temperature and sea level rises do not occur.

CBOEtrader says

do you really think a .8° temp increase is a problem?

Ah so we moved the goal post from "Show me we're beating new temp records on a regular basis." to "explain me why 0.8 degree is a problem"?

Got it.

Do you think 2 degree is a problem? 5 degree? 10 degree?
Just wondering.

HonkpilledMaster says

Finally, where's the big sea level rises?

That's cause we just started. Ice will melt for hundreds of years just with the CO2 we added so far.
It may take 5000 yrs to melt Antarctica. Better hope we have an other source of energy before then.

HeadSet says

From CBOETrader's article:

The recent study showed—through simulations—that humans narrowly missed an ice age just before the Industrial Revolution and probably postponed the next one by at least 50,000 years. Researchers note that with the large quantities of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere in the last two centuries, the “probability of glacial inception during the next 100,000 years is notably reduced.”

Laying the baseline 'scuses for when all those model predicted temperature and sea level rises do not occur.

New models suggest we were right all along!

Heraclitusstudent says

CBOEtrader says

do you really think a .8° temp increase is a problem?

Ah so we moved the goal post from "Show me we're beating new temp records on a regular basis." to "explain me why 0.8 degree is a problem"?

No fool, this isn't a record. We have gone down last 2 years and we are comparing to 140 years = nothing.

Calling this a record is a lie

Heraclitusstudent says

Do you think 2 degree is a problem? 5 degree? 10 degree?
Just wondering.

You will have to prove why .8 degrees isn't just sampling error. Our methods have drastically changed over the years and still have enormous limitations.

THEN you will need to explain why it's a problem. Historical fluctuations are far more extreme.

It may take 5000 yrs to melt Antarctica. Better hope we have an other source of energy before then.

Just think of how easier it will be to drill at the South Pole without all that ice in the way!

Ok....so we have a time equivalent to all of recorded history to adapt with science?

(dark blue 1000–1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455–471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956

(blue 1000–1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759–762.

(light blue 1000–1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270–277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270

(lightest blue 1402–1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929–2941.

(light turquoise 831–1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250–2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208.

(green 200–1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.

(yellow 200–1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143

(orange 1500–1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781

(red 1–1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613–617. doi:10.1038/nature03265

(dark red 1600–1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675–677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046

(black 1856–2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

R U Ready for Peak electric rates from 3-8pm or 4-9pm when the sun don't sunshine (but demand is high)? Fasten your safety belts.and get out the batteries....
General Electric to scrap California power plant 20 years early
GE is selling the California power plant site to a company that makes battery storage, which is increasingly used to make wind and solar power available when needed, replacing the need for some fossil fuel plants.

Heraclitusstudent says

Because for the past 15 yrs I've been reading people like you on Internet forums that GW is a fad, that such and such is the last nail of the coffin of that hoax, etc, etc...

For the last 40 years i have been hearing the climate is about to change catastrophically. In the 70s it was "the ice age is coming". Nuclear winter was the big story in the 80s. Since the early 90s through the late 00s the story has been global warming. Most recently the moniker climate change has been used to take into account hurricanes, rain, unprecedented snowpacks and the lack of predicted temperature spike.

I've never argued against climate change. I've argued against alarmism. Children are taught fear and lies.

All the chicken little shits should shut up.

Heraclitusstudent says

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

And yet 2018 was the 4th warmest year and 2019 promises to be colder.
Heraclitusstudent says

At what point do you admit defeat?

I am just educating the ignorant.

"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 narrative, if they slowly have to admit it they were probably wrong.

Where as the normal intelligent person that also understands the probabilistic nature of this type of thing, simply wants us to act based on the extremely high probability that AGW is real (and potentially life changing for humanity - even if it's after we are gone)).

Everything on that blue screen list is a good idea. Those items can only be accomplished by limiting First World Population to a resource sustainable level.

Trouble is, AGW types have no interest in that. Just argue that AGW is true, push voting Democrat as atonement, and never discuss real solutions to pollution and resource depletion. If anyone does bring up solutions, just push the discussion back to arguing with deniers.

marcus says

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

All your personal attacks don't hide the fact that the temperature has not really gone up.

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

- Economic decline
- Famine
- War
- Genocide
- Poverty

HeadSet says

If anyone does bring up solutions, just push the discussion back to arguing with deniers.

I find this to be mostly straw man bullshit.

I'd be the first to agree that democrats are almost as far from talking about real solutions as republicans.

Both parties are married to the importance of GDP growth as a measure of economic success. And that's tied to population growth.

Also second and third world population growth is a problem too, relative to long term impact on resources. This stuff gets way more narly than than abortion question, which we blow out of proportion. And I would agree with those that say the value of human life, does enter in to these questions, making them tough to grapple with.

So it's not just that we don't discuss real solutions, we don't discuss the problems that those solutions might address, in a meaningful way.

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.

socal2 says

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

But that's not going to happen. THe worst thing that would happen is that governments do some subsidies (profitable long term investment) and accelerate the advance of cheap solar, or safer nuclear or whatever.

IT's only bad for fossil fuel industries.

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

"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.

Onvacation says

All your personal attacks don't hide the fact that the temperature has not really gone up.

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

Hell you don't even seem to agree with yourself.

Onvacation says

I've never argued against climate change.

marcus says

socal2 says

...THe worst thing that would happen is that governments do some subsidies (profitable long term investment) and accelerate the advance of cheap solar, or safer nuclear or whatever.

The worst thing that would happen is the attitude which is built on "whatever" part. "Let's spend money on something, as long as it sounds good to our camp and we can wrap it up nicely".

Solutions vary from "economically viable, and will make the world a better place even if GW scare is not real" to "non-scalable non-solutions pushed by politicians with agenda using PP slides and scare tactics".

At this time, I suspect that latest gen nuclear power is the former, while wind and solar are the latter.

Your camp puts limited resources into what are likely inferior solutions (wind/solar). Meanwhile, you attempt to secure ideological superiority by using umbrella term "whatever". It doesn't work like that, but the attempt has been noted.

mostly_reader says

Meanwhile, you attempt to secure ideological superiority by using umbrella term "whatever". It doesn't work like that, but the attempt has been noted.

That "whatever" was just a place you chose to argue. You're right, that it's a weak part of my point. But it was just laziness on my part, combined with the assumption that govenrment combined with markets sometimes actually work.

I agree about later generation nuclear. Even it has the drawback though, that it's a massive investment with better and safer technologies sure to come later. But I honestly don't get why we aren't further into development (actually implenmentation) stages of thorium or whatever the experts decide is the safest most economically sound reactors to build now.

But I disagree that solar and wind are non-solutions. People have been saying that for decades, with cost now lower than anyone thought possible and dropping. The jury is out. Solar might not be scalable in the sense that one day electric utilities will all have massive solar farms. But it's scalable in the sense that a lot of homes and other sites (too vague and maybe another attempt at something that should be be noted) ) are already using it.

But that's not to say it will win out long term.

mostly_reader says

It doesn't work like that, but the attempt has been noted.

Weird flex.