Are we really addicted to fossil fuels ?

[PoS]

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say the US was short of oil.
What's wrong with you? Don't you realize that there's lots of countries out there that aren't called USA? When I say that a country that has to buy energy is smart to find ways to produce their own, d'ya think I might be talking about one of those other countries?
Jesus.

Aww, youre just mad because no one listens to Canuckistan. Cope.

 

[Grand Mal]

Aww, youre just mad because no one listens to Canuckistan. Cope.

Oh look, another dumbass post.
You just don't care how you look, do you.

 

[Glitch]

Fossil fuels are a very important element of energy production. But we should also be investing in renewable energy sources, to make our power grid less dependent on fossil fuels. It's never wise to put all your eggs in one basket.

While I agree with the underlying philosophy, developing new energy sources just for diversity sake makes no sense either. Particularly when those new energy sources are an order of magnitude more expensive.

I'll give you an example: The city of Anchorage primarily uses natural gas power plants to generate the majority of its power, with the vast majority of that natural gas coming from off-shore Cook Inlet drilling rigs. Approximately 90% of Anchorage's renewable energy comes from hydroelectric which supplies Anchorage with ~33% of its power. Anchorage also gets 2% of its total power from a wind farm on Fire Island.

Because those renewable energy costs are so high, it has increased the cost of living for everyone, thereby lowering the standard of living for everyone in Anchorage. The more energy costs, the worse off people are, and it doesn't matter if it is renewable or not. To improve the standard of living for everyone energy must be both cheap and abundant. "Going Green" will have everyone who has survived this leftist insanity living in caves, if they are lucky.

 

[Glitch]

If its not economically sustainable then its not sustainable ..... period.

Lifting people out of poverty using affordable fossil fuel generation is morally right and is going to keep happening everywhere in the third world irrespective of pompous self righteous Western sensibilities on their use

Not just in the third world either.

Alaskan natives are divided on the subject. Some want the improved standard of living that oil development will bring, such as the Iñupiat who live in the 10-02 Area of ANWR. While others, namely the Gwitch’in Athabascan - who do not live in the area and will not profit from oil development - are opposed to drilling because of the misinformation they've been fed about the oil industries impact on the wildlife.

Safe and responsible development of ANWR unlocks its potential

For the economic future of my communities as well as the energy security of the United States, it is critical we hold the 1002 Area of ANWR up to the light and see it for what it really is – a sliv…

thehill.com

With ANWR drilling on its doorstep, an Alaska Native village is poised to profit

It’s still too early to know if petroleum even exists in the refuge in commercially-viable quantities. But if it’s found, Kaktovik’s residents are simultaneously positioned to be among the biggest beneficiaries, and to experience some of the biggest disruptions.

alaskapublic.org

A lot of Alaskan natives are resentful that Democrats would deny them the same standard of living that they enjoy with their irrational war on fossil fuels. I can't say I blame them either.

 

[PoS]

Oh look, another dumbass post.
You just don't care how you look, do you.

LOL projection, especially since none of your posts ever amounts to anything.

 

[flogger]

Join us in 2023 and try again.

Of course you have got evidence that 2023 is so much worse than what this graph clearly illustrates ?

 

[flogger]

No duh....who would think that CO2 levels would cause eruptions? I was just stating that high CO2 levels existed before humans and were the cause of mass extinctions in the past. Nature (plants) eventually removed that excess carbon from the air and allowed temperatures to return to normal and life to thrive again. It took millions of years though. We are now digging up that same carbon and potentially releasing it all in a few centuries and some don't think that could be a disaster. Life as we know it requires a very limited range of temperatures and while some life might survive in a mass extinction humans certainly will not. Humans are already in uncharted waters as far as CO2 levels are concerned.

So how do you explain the far higher levels of CO2 even when there werent those eruptions and as a consequence the total volume of life on Earth was far higher than what we see today ?

For most of the time life has existed on Earth CO2 levels were 5 times or more higher than at present

 

[iguanaman]

So how do you explain the far higher levels of CO2 even when there werent those eruptions and as a consequence the total volume of life on Earth was far higher than what we see today ?

For most of the time life has existed on Earth CO2 levels were 5 times or more higher than at present

LOL AFAIK Atmospheric CO2 levels were always controlled by volcanoes before man. Do you have another source you want to add? And no most of the time life has existed on Earth we had ice caps at the poles and the only time they were higher than today was during the mass extinctions. Except for the time a giant asteroid collided with Earth all the mass extinctions that destroyed 90% of the species on earth were caused by high CO2 levels.

What Earth was like last time CO2 levels were so crazily high​

"We’re on our way to the Pliocene."
The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, ocean waters drowned the lands(opens in a new tab) where metropolises like Houston, Miami, and New York City now exist.

It’s a time called the Pliocene or mid-Pliocene, some 3 million years ago,(opens in a new tab) when sea levels were around 30 feet higher(opens in a new tab) (but possibly much more(opens in a new tab)) and giant camels dwelled in a forested high Arctic(opens in a new tab). The Pliocene was a significantly warmer world, likely at some 5 degrees Fahrenheit (around 3 degrees Celsius) warmer than pre-Industrial temperatures of the late 1800s. Much of the Arctic, which today is largely clad in ice, had melted. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide levels, a major temperature lever, hovered around 400 parts per million, or ppm. Today, these levels are similar but relentlessly rising, at over 420 ppm(opens in a new tab).

https://mashable.com/article/carbon-dioxide-earth-co2

 

[flogger]

.

 

[mrjurrs]

Of course you have got evidence that 2023 is so much worse than what this graph clearly illustrates ?

Of course.
"Antarctica, the world’s coldest, windiest and driest continent, has often been referred to as a stable ‘sleeping giant’, but increasingly extreme temperatures, together with unusual rain and ice shelf shifts, remind us that it must not be taken for granted, the UN Weather Agency (WMO) warned on Friday."

Antarctica ‘should not be taken for granted’ scientists declare, amid extreme weather uptick

Antarctica, the world’s coldest, windiest and driest continent, has often been referred to as a stable ‘sleeping giant’, but increasingly extreme temperatures, together with unusual rain and ice shelf shifts, remind us that it must not be taken for granted, the UN Weather Agency (WMO) warned on...

news.un.org

 

[flogger]

Of course.
"Antarctica, the world’s coldest, windiest and driest continent, has often been referred to as a stable ‘sleeping giant’, but increasingly extreme temperatures, together with unusual rain and ice shelf shifts, remind us that it must not be taken for granted, the UN Weather Agency (WMO) warned on Friday."

Antarctica ‘should not be taken for granted’ scientists declare, amid extreme weather uptick

Antarctica, the world’s coldest, windiest and driest continent, has often been referred to as a stable ‘sleeping giant’, but increasingly extreme temperatures, together with unusual rain and ice shelf shifts, remind us that it must not be taken for granted, the UN Weather Agency (WMO) warned on...

news.un.org

But there is nothing wrong with Antarctica and given that our observational record of it is only 43 years thats hardly a long enough period to be making conclusions about anything much less generating scare stories about it . Just 9 years ago a record for maximum observed coverage was set but that too is meaningless given the timescale

 

[mrjurrs]

But there is nothing wrong with Antarctica and given that our observational record of it is only 43 years thats hardly a long enough period to be making conclusions about anything much less generating scare stories about it . Just 9 years ago a record for maximum observed coverage was set but that too is meaningless given the timescale

View attachment 67446689

So you deny the UN Climate Report conclusions?

 

[Deuce]

While I agree with the underlying philosophy, developing new energy sources just for diversity sake makes no sense either. Particularly when those new energy sources are an order of magnitude more expensive.

I'll give you an example: The city of Anchorage primarily uses natural gas power plants to generate the majority of its power, with the vast majority of that natural gas coming from off-shore Cook Inlet drilling rigs. Approximately 90% of Anchorage's renewable energy comes from hydroelectric which supplies Anchorage with ~33% of its power. Anchorage also gets 2% of its total power from a wind farm on Fire Island.

Because those renewable energy costs are so high, it has increased the cost of living for everyone, thereby lowering the standard of living for everyone in Anchorage. The more energy costs, the worse off people are, and it doesn't matter if it is renewable or not. To improve the standard of living for everyone energy must be both cheap and abundant. "Going Green" will have everyone who has survived this leftist insanity living in caves, if they are lucky.

Fossil fuels have a higher cost, you just pay the price elsewhere.

 

[flogger]

So you deny the UN Climate Report conclusions?

I challenge them given they have been giving out alarmist crap like this since 1989 when by any measurable real world statistic the climate (including Antarctica) is doing just fine

 

[flogger]

Fossil fuels have a higher cost, you just pay the price elsewhere.

By all means feel free to quantify that with some numbers

 

[Deuce]

By all means feel free to quantify that with some numbers

Coal as an energy source and its impacts on human health

Attempts to secure more energy, food, and infrastructure leave a trail of environmental contamination and human health hazards. Coal is a fossil fuel …

www.sciencedirect.com

Your coal addiction can give me lung cancer. Why should I be paying for that?

If fossil fuels had the real cost on the meter, you'd be begging for solar panels.

 

[mrjurrs]

I challenge them given they have been giving out alarmist crap like this since 1989 when by any measurable real world statistic the climate (including Antarctica) is doing just fine

Have at it. Find something to challenge and then post some level of support for your position.

Here's another source you can challenge when you're done.
"Two expeditions to the Thwaites Ice Shelf have revealed that it could splinter apart in less than a decade, hastening sea-level rise worldwide"

Antarctica's Collapse Could Begin Even Sooner Than Anticipated

Two expeditions to the Thwaites Ice Shelf have revealed that it could splinter apart in less than a decade, hastening sea-level rise worldwide

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[flogger]

Coal as an energy source and its impacts on human health

Attempts to secure more energy, food, and infrastructure leave a trail of environmental contamination and human health hazards. Coal is a fossil fuel …

www.sciencedirect.com

Your coal addiction can give me lung cancer. Why should I be paying for that?

If fossil fuels had the real cost on the meter, you'd be begging for solar panels.

I do not use coal but much of the third world does. The cheap electrification it provides vastly increases life expectancy there as a consequence. The health and economic benefits of coal therefore vastly outweigh any environmental disadvantages

 

[flogger]

Have at it. Find something to challenge and then post some level of support for your position.

Here's another source you can challenge when you're done.
"Two expeditions to the Thwaites Ice Shelf have revealed that it could splinter apart in less than a decade, hastening sea-level rise worldwide"

Antarctica's Collapse Could Begin Even Sooner Than Anticipated

Two expeditions to the Thwaites Ice Shelf have revealed that it could splinter apart in less than a decade, hastening sea-level rise worldwide

www.scientificamerican.com

Ok ...... and for the umpteenth time


mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.html

Antarctica is doing just fine

 

[Super Chief]

Fossil fuels are marginally cheaper, but that could easily change. You don't want change, so you fearmonger about it.

Battery/electric conversion will not be "marginally" more expensive to economies when they are FORCED upon those economies before there is time for the infrastructure and for supply and production to absorb those changes and still be profitable and/or affordable.

Progress toward electric only will happen only as soon as makes economic sense to do so. It will happen the same way that eventually people stopped traveling by horse and buggy and invested in cars. But it didn't happen overnight.

 

[longview]

Battery/electric conversion will not be "marginally" more expensive to economies when they are FORCED upon those economies before there is time for the infrastructure and for supply and production to absorb those changes and still be profitable and/or affordable.

Progress toward electric only will happen only as soon as makes economic sense to do so. It will happen the same way that eventually people stopped traveling by horse and buggy and invested in cars. But it didn't happen overnight.

I do not think that the move towards battery electric cars can be forced.
People moved from the horse and buggy to cars, because it was better, and had advantages.
I think a Model T had a top speed of 45 mph, but likely spent much time at 20 mph(because of bad roads).
I think a normal speed for a horse and buggy was about 10 mph.

 

[Deuce]

I do not use coal but much of the third world does. The cheap electrification it provides vastly increases life expectancy there as a consequence. The health and economic benefits of coal therefore vastly outweigh any environmental disadvantages

Tell that to the dead. Did your electrical bill include those costs? No? Then they are subsidizing your fossil fuel use.

Until the real costs of fossil fuels are actually paid for in your energy bills, any economic comparisons are simply invalid. Coal power costs more than solar or wind, we just hid the costs elsewhere.

 

[Glitch]

I do not use coal but much of the third world does. The cheap electrification it provides vastly increases life expectancy there as a consequence. The health and economic benefits of coal therefore vastly outweigh any environmental disadvantages

Not just the third world either. The Usibelli mine in Alaska supplies ~1.2 million tons of coal per year, and Alaska is the 20th largest coal producing State in the US.

There are a lot of homes in Alaska that do not have access to natural gas, which limits their heating options. If they live on the road or river system they can still get diesel, heating oil, propane, or coal delivered, otherwise they are pretty much limited to only wood as a fuel source.

Coal power plants can be made to be completely carbon neutral using carbon sequestration, but that would mean allowing coal power plants to go back into operation and the left will never tolerate that.

 

[mrjurrs]

Ok ...... and for the umpteenth time

View attachment 67446970View attachment 67446971View attachment 67446972
mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.html

Antarctica is doing just fine

The first year on your chart is 1915. Keep that weak shite out of here (graph rejected). Check Antarctica today, where do you suppose this iceberg came from? Better yet, when was the last time one this large calved?

Antarctic Researchers Report an Extraordinary Marine Heatwave That Could Threaten Antarctica’s Ice Shelves - Inside Climate News

Research scientists on ships along Antarctica’s west coast said their recent voyages have been marked by an eerily warm ocean and record-low sea ice coverage—extreme climate conditions, even compared to the big changes of recent decades, when the region warmed much faster than the global...

insideclimatenews.org

 

[flogger]

The first year on your chart is 1915. Keep that weak shite out of here (graph rejected). Check Antarctica today, where do you suppose this iceberg came from? Better yet, when was the last time one this large calved?

Antarctic Researchers Report an Extraordinary Marine Heatwave That Could Threaten Antarctica’s Ice Shelves - Inside Climate News

Research scientists on ships along Antarctica’s west coast said their recent voyages have been marked by an eerily warm ocean and record-low sea ice coverage—extreme climate conditions, even compared to the big changes of recent decades, when the region warmed much faster than the global...

insideclimatenews.org

Utter BS this is a natural phenomenon being trumpeted as something it isnt in order to facilitate an anti human WEF style agenda . As I said earlier back in 2014 it recorded its greatest observed maximum coverage and that too was of no consequence

At least TRY to understand that our tiny 43 year observational record is not sufficient to be making determinations about anything much less committing guilt triggered economic suicide over it