'Climate change crisis' narrative is taking a beating

[longview]

I think the events in Europe merely exacerbated the hollowness of the whole green movement. Anyone with a brain will tell you that green energy can never truly replace fossil fuels.

The inevitable results of attempting to solve the wrong problem!
We cannot address our energy sustainability problem, but only attempting to reduce CO2 emissions.
Renewable energy can replace fossil fuels, but only with seasonal scale energy storage, and that can only be done within
the scope of existing technology, with hydrocarbon energy storage.
(Technically Ammonia could also work, but we do not have the massive infrastructure in place.)

 

[Glitch]

The inevitable results of attempting to solve the wrong problem!
We cannot address our energy sustainability problem, but only attempting to reduce CO2 emissions.
Renewable energy can replace fossil fuels, but only with seasonal scale energy storage, and that can only be done within
the scope of existing technology, with hydrocarbon energy storage.
(Technically Ammonia could also work, but we do not have the massive infrastructure in place.)

Renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels, and it is completely delusional to even entertain such absolute stupidity.

 

[BlueTex]

70% Favor Increased U.S. Oil and Gas Production

With gas prices soaring, energy policy is likely to be a major issue in the midterm election campaign, and voters strongly favor a policy of promoting domestic petroleum production.

www.rasmussenreports.com

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 70% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the U.S. government should encourage increased oil and gas production to reduce America’s dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas. Only 18% oppose a policy of encouraging U.S. energy independence, while 12% are not sure.

As I've brilliantly and famously stated many tims." Socialism ( or any collectivism) fails for the same reason capitalism succeeds.People act in their self interest. ". Oh they may talk a good game about sacrificing for the common good, but when push comes to shove ,people act in self interest." I want cheap gas and oil"
Facts of life> conservative.

I wonder if Rasmussen did a poll and asked these same likely voters if federal oil royalties should be the lowest royalties oil companies pay, how they would answer. If they should pay the same royalty on federal lands as they do in say, Texas, on state land?

 

[Antiwar]

In other news, addicts did what they could to maintain their bad habits.

 

[longview]

Renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels, and it is completely delusional to even entertain such absolute stupidity.

It is an energy storage problem, not a physics problem.
The fossil fuels themselves are concentrated solar energy.

 

[Antiwar]

With respect, the supply of fossil fuels is so great that for any intent and purpose, it is unending.

It will be replaced by alternative sources when batteries become cheap enough with storage great enough to overcome their current limitations.

It will happen and the ime line seems to be getting shorter with every passing day.

Until then, efforts to make fossil fuels more expensive are hurting the poor more than anyone.

The transition will occur naturally and with no huge government mandate in a very short period of time. My guess? About 50 years.

Until then, we need to ask the question, "WHY are the Green Nazis so committed to punishing everybody they can punish with no good reason and with no demonstrated benefit to anyone?"

You believe:

1. that industrialized humans will naturally transition to fuels and lifestyles that aren't as convenient nor profitable

2. in about 50 years


Science's best conservative guess is that we have much less than 50 years to change our greenhouse gas emitting ways. Many people believe that we're already past the 'tipping point' because global warming has quite a bit of time lag from when the greenhouses are emitted.


And your commentary ended with this:

"WHY are the Green Nazis so committed to punishing everybody they can punish with no good reason and with no demonstrated benefit to anyone?"

I wasn't aware that advocating for at least trying to save our asses/environment is equivalent to being a member of the organization that perpetrated massive human rights abuses, about 80 years ago.

 

[Antiwar]

It is an energy storage problem, not a physics problem.
The fossil fuels themselves are concentrated solar energy.

Is it an energy storage problem and/or a rate of usage versus rate of production problem (otherwise known as demand and supply)?

 

[longview]

You believe:

1. that industrialized humans will naturally transition to fuels and lifestyles that aren't as convenient nor profitable

2. in about 50 years


Science's best conservative guess is that we have much less than 50 years to change our greenhouse gas emitting ways. Many people believe that we're already past the 'tipping point' because global warming has quite a bit of time lag from when the greenhouses are emitted.


And your commentary ended with this:

"WHY are the Green Nazis so committed to punishing everybody they can punish with no good reason and with no demonstrated benefit to anyone?"

I wasn't aware that advocating for at least trying to save our asses/environment is equivalent to being a member of the organization that perpetrated massive human rights abuses, about 80 years ago.

There is only about a 10 year Lag between emissions and maximum warming.
Also the idea of a warming tipping point is dismissed by the ice core records,
past inter glacial periods were several degrees warmer, and no tipping point happened!
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission

Requiring people to accept regulations that affect their lives, without scientific evidence that the computed simulations are accurate,
is equal to a Human rights abuse, it is exactly what happened with Eugenics.

 

[longview]

Is it an energy storage problem and/or a rate of usage versus rate of production problem (otherwise known as demand and supply)?

It is not quite so simple! There is still a lot of oil out there, but the cost of extracting if for fuel, is greater than the cost
of making the fuel other ways.

 

[Antiwar]

There is only about a 10 year Lag between emissions and maximum warming.
Also the idea of a warming tipping point is dismissed by the ice core records,
past inter glacial periods were several degrees warmer, and no tipping point happened!
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission

Requiring people to accept regulations that affect their lives, without scientific evidence that the computed simulations are accurate,
is equal to a Human rights abuse, it is exactly what happened with Eugenics.

First, I'm going to believe/trust the scientific community.

Second, we don't need accurate simulations to know that we're ing the nest and NEED to change our industrial ways. Regulations always have consequences, and social consequences can usually be dealt with in humane ways (if there's the will to do so). So no, environmental regulations are decidedly NOT equal to human rights abuse.

 

[Antiwar]

It is not quite so simple! There is still a lot of oil out there, but the cost of extracting if for fuel, is greater than the cost
of making the fuel other ways.

The principles I used still stand; you chose to add a detail.

 

[longview]

First, I'm going to believe/trust the scientific community.

Second, we don't need accurate simulations to know that we're ing the nest and NEED to change our industrial ways. Regulations always have consequences, and social consequences can usually be dealt with in humane ways (if there's the will to do so), so no, environmental regulations are decidedly NOT equal to human rights abuse.

Which is why I cited a peer reviewed publication from the same scientific community you claim to believe and trust!
Without an unknown lag between emission and maximum warming, AGW is reduced to an black box amplifier,
whose amplification can be evaluated, like any other amplifier.

Tell the people who were sterilized under Eugenics that the regulation was not a Human rights abuse!

 

[longview]

The principles I used still stand; you chose to add a detail.

It does come back to supply and demand, but the idea that options exists that have real costs of goods sold
that may be less than fuel from oil, means that fuel made from oil has a price ceiling.
It can still spike up, but the higher level is unsustainable, as there are replacements.

 

[Antiwar]

Which is why I cited a peer reviewed publication from the same scientific community you claim to believe and trust!
Without an unknown lag between emission and maximum warming, AGW is reduced to an black box amplifier,
whose amplification can be evaluated, like any other amplifier.

I have used the term 'black box' in discussing global warming and other environmental issues. The black box is humanity's understanding of the complexities, which I'm guessing are approaching infinity.

The above is the first part. This is part two: Humanity has been using Earth as a supply box and a trash box for centuries.

Part three: When we don't have anywhere near a complete understanding of the complexities of global warming, nor all of the other environmental issues, how much longer can humanity continue to use Earth as a box store and dumpster? No one knows. The conservative course would be to reverse course as soon as possible, with ASAP being at least several decades ago.

 

[longview]

I have used the term 'black box' in discussing global warming and other environmental issues. The black box is humanity's understanding of the complexities, which I'm guessing are approaching infinity.

The above is the first part. This is part two: Humanity has been using Earth as a supply box and a trash box for centuries.

Part three: When we don't have anywhere near a complete understanding of the complexities of global warming, nor all of the other environmental issues, how much longer can humanity continue to use Earth as a box store and dumpster? No one knows. The conservative course would be to reverse course as soon as possible, with ASAP being at least several decades ago.

No, a black box amplifier is an engineering concept! We may not know what processes are in the box, but we can qualify
them by evaluating the input vs the output.
The American Chemical Society uses a similar approach for the climate feedbacks.
Forcing and Feedback

​

AGW without high levels of climate feedbacks is simply an interesting observation, as each doubling of CO2
would only produce about 1.1C of warming, and we likely could not achieve 2 doublings of the CO2 level even if we had to.

The conservative path is to address the actual problem as opposed to a perceived side effect.
We (Humans) do not emit CO2 because that is the goal, we emit CO2 because of our ever increasing demand for energy.
The solution is to find a way to get the demanded energy in the needed form, but without increasing the CO2 level.
Solar power, combined with hydrocarbon energy storage, could get us there,
but simple conservation, and switching passenger cars to battery electrics, cannot.
People will use the carbon neutral fuel, because it will be the least expensive option.
The oil companies will make the fuel from scratch, because it will be the most profitable option.

 

[Antiwar]

No ...

A black box records flight data on airliners.

 

[longview]

A black box records flight data on airliners.

No, that is an actual recording device, the black box I am speaking of is an idea,
a way of testing unknown systems.
We do not know all the factors that go into the climate warming of cooling, but evaluating
how the climate actually has responded to earlier inputs, gives up an understand of how the climate will respond in the future.
The last variable was the latency of lag, between input and output, which Ricke and Caldeira 2014, qualified as 10.1 years.

 

[ataraxia]

70% Favor Increased U.S. Oil and Gas Production

With gas prices soaring, energy policy is likely to be a major issue in the midterm election campaign, and voters strongly favor a policy of promoting domestic petroleum production.

www.rasmussenreports.com

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 70% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the U.S. government should encourage increased oil and gas production to reduce America’s dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas. Only 18% oppose a policy of encouraging U.S. energy independence, while 12% are not sure.

As I've brilliantly and famously stated many tims." Socialism ( or any collectivism) fails for the same reason capitalism succeeds.People act in their self interest. ". Oh they may talk a good game about sacrificing for the common good, but when push comes to shove ,people act in self interest." I want cheap gas and oil"
Facts of life> conservative.

I believe long term we need to be working towards getting off our dependence on oil. But I favor increased drilling at this time also. It's an acute crisis which needs a temporary treatment. The benefits outweigh the side effects.

It's a little like narcotics. I think they are generally dangerous drugs and people need to come off and stay off them. But if someone just fell and broke their leg, then I have no problems with them being on narcotics for the short term.

 

[ataraxia]

I think the events in Europe merely exacerbated the hollowness of the whole green movement. Anyone with a brain will tell you that green energy can never truly replace fossil fuels.

They are going to have to. Fossil fuels are going to run out in the next few decades one way or the other.

 

[longview]

I believe long term we need to be working towards getting off our dependence on oil. But I favor increased drilling at this time also. It's an acute crisis which needs a temporary treatment. The benefits outweigh the side effects.

It's a little like narcotics. I think they are generally dangerous drugs and people need to come off and stay off them. But if someone just fell and broke their leg, then I have no problems with them being on narcotics for the short term.

I am not sure increasing drilling will help much, the supply will increase, but the new oil will have a higher cost.
Many of the oil wells fracked lost money are the extra supply, pushed the price below their break even point.
What oil remains is neither cheap or easy, (we do not know what is on the US eastern seaboard, as seismic surveys are not allowed)

 

[Glitch]

It is an energy storage problem, not a physics problem.
The fossil fuels themselves are concentrated solar energy.

It is both actually. It is physically impossible to use alternative renewable energy to replace fossil fuels when they don't, and can't, produce the same amount of energy. The US alone consumed 20.54 million barrels of oil daily during the 2020 pandemic, and you think you can replace even a tiny fraction of that with your alternative renewable energy nonsense? Talk about completely delusional.

 

[KLATTU]

I believe long term we need to be working towards getting off our dependence on oil. But I favor increased drilling at this time also. It's an acute crisis which needs a temporary treatment. The benefits outweigh the side effects.

It's a little like narcotics. I think they are generally dangerous drugs and people need to come off and stay off them. But if someone just fell and broke their leg, then I have no problems with them being on narcotics for the short term.

that's a fair assesment...agreed.

 

[Glitch]

I am not sure increasing drilling will help much, the supply will increase, but the new oil will have a higher cost.
Many of the oil wells fracked lost money are the extra supply, pushed the price below their break even point.
What oil remains is neither cheap or easy, (we do not know what is on the US eastern seaboard, as seismic surveys are not allowed)

In a market economy increasing supply will lower price, assuming the demand either remains the same or declines. The only way oil will have a higher cost with more supply is if the demand increases as fast or faster than the supply. Furthermore, it can take years to develop a plot of land and start producing oil. Even if Biden had not placed an illegal moratorium on drilling in Alaska, it would not be any sooner than 2025 before oil from the 1002 Area of ANWR could begin flowing down the trans-Alaska pipeline.

In 1988 the trans-Alaska pipeline peaked at 1.5 million barrels per day. Currently, they are producing just over 300,000 barrels per day. I seriously doubt the oil under ANWR will produce as much, or for as long, as Prudhoe Bay has, but it will add life to the pipeline and allow us to locate new sources on the north slope. That pipeline is the only means they have to move their product to market, so it has to stay operational.

 

[Deuce]

As I've brilliantly and famously stated many tims." Socialism ( or any collectivism) fails for the same reason capitalism succeeds.People act in their self interest. ". Oh they may talk a good game about sacrificing for the common good, but when push comes to shove ,people act in self interest." I want cheap gas and oil"
Facts of life> conservative.

Funny, capitalism fails for the same reason...

It's also worth pointing out that the gas price increase you are all whining about is also a result of capitalism.

 

[KLATTU]

It's also worth pointing out that the gas price increase you are all whining about is also a result of capitalism.

Yes that's the way it works.Supply and demand.
Facts of life ->conservative.