Global Climate Change Science News

Post Reply
Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Seth » Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:21 pm

Tero wrote:Image
* After historic data tampering.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51265
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Tero » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:45 pm

Benghazi! Seth's pals in Senate subpoena scientist to bully them into retracting paper!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed ... committee/
Smith has actually nothing, citing some unknown whisteleblower (ha haa!)
Smith shifted tactics last week, alleging that the research was rushed and citing what he says is information provided by agency whistleblowers showing that some employees at the agency were concerned that it was premature to publish the study.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed ... cientists/

Paper is copyrighted (does the public understand that all tax supported science is published in commercial journals the tax payer has no access to? Papers are all available for a charge. Like any copyrighted material)
...NOAA’s temperature dataset, which for the oceans relies on measurements from buoys and ship thermometers that measure the temperature of water taken in to cool engines. (For an overview of these data sources, see here). Noting that “buoy data have been proven to be more accurate than ship data,” the new study applies a new “bias correction” to address the difference between them.
The paper actually explains why use one set of data over another. There are no secrets.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... -slowdown/

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51265
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Tero » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:11 pm

Here is the same bit of news, simplified for Seth to read. It contains no science.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa- ... ng-hiatus/

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51265
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Tero » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:26 pm

"news"
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa- ... ng-hiatus/

The Biased Watts analysis
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/n ... past-data/

Original paper (no link)
Karl et al (2015) Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.

rebuttal to Watts retampering the tampering..or whatever round we are in
Buoys are appealing measurement platforms, as they are not restricted to shipping routes and often have fully automated reporting via satellite uplink.
NOAA argues that the transition to buoys introduced a spurious cooling bias into the record. ERIs tend to warm the water a bit before measuring it (ship engine rooms being rather hot), whereas buoys do not.

The ship records are important because they form the foundation for a long sea surface temperature record, but they require careful calibration. The differences between HadSST3 and ERSSTv4 suggest that the finer details of the ship record are not yet settled, and as a result care is required especially when considering short term trends. However the buoy data, ARGO floats, and daily OISST record all support the NOAA claim that ERSSTv3b suffered a significant cool bias over recent years arising from inhomogeneities in the ship record and the increasing use of buoys.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/buoy_on ... ature.html

The whole shit storm, reaching all the way to the Senate, who want to subpoena e-mails in Climategate style (there was no climate conspiracy there either, just cherry picked emails)has to do with scientist
Karl picking buoy data over ship data, Which is all justified.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39950
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:06 pm

Someone be along shortly to call you a liar. :biggrin:
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Seth » Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:19 pm

Two hundred nations vote humanity back into wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing in the dirt with pointy sticks.

Fucking idiots. Do a bunch of bureaucrats really think that the entire population of the planet is going to agree to live like African bush people or Australian aboriginals? Please, give me a break, this is simply not going to happen no matter what a bunch of fuckwits in Paris say. What will happen is that those who ratified this "agreement" and those who try to enforce it will simply be voted out of office or removed from office, by force if necessary, and the agreement will sink to the bottom of the Atlantic like a stone, never to be heard from again.

I mean really, what were they thinking? Oh wait, they WEREN'T thinking, they were assuming that everybody in their respective nations would go along with this horseshit.

Not gonna happen.
World
Almost 200 Nations Adopt Climate Change Pact: ‘This is Huge’
Dec. 12, 2015 2:23pm Kaitlyn Schallhorn
15
Shares

Editor’s Note:

Story by the Associated Press; curated by Kaitlyn Schallhorn.

LE BOURGET, France (AP) — Nearly 200 nations adopted the first global pact to fight climate change on Saturday, calling on the world to collectively cut and then eliminate greenhouse gas pollution but imposing no sanctions on countries that don’t.

The “Paris agreement” aims to keep global temperatures from rising another degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) between now and 2100, a key demand of poor countries ravaged by rising sea levels and other effects of climate change.
French foreign minister and President of the COP21 Laurent Fabius, center, applauds while United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, left, and French President Francois Hiollande applaud after the final conference of the COP21, the United Nations conference on climate change, in Le Bourget, north of Paris, Saturday, Dec.12, 2015. Nearly 200 nations adopted the first global pact to fight climate change on Saturday, calling on the world to collectively cut and then eliminate greenhouse gas pollution but imposing no sanctions on countries that don’t. (AP Photo/Francois Mori)

French foreign minister and President of the COP21 Laurent Fabius, center, applauds while United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, left, and French President Francois Hiollande applaud after the final conference of the COP21, the United Nations conference on climate change, in Le Bourget, north of Paris, Saturday, Dec.12, 2015. Nearly 200 nations adopted the first global pact to fight climate change on Saturday, calling on the world to collectively cut and then eliminate greenhouse gas pollution but imposing no sanctions on countries that don’t. (AP Photo/Francois Mori)

Loud applause erupted in the conference hall after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius gaveled the agreement. Some delegates wept and others embraced.

The agreement, South African Environment Minister Edna Molewa said, “can map a turning point to a better and safer world.”

“This is huge,” tweeted U.S. President Barack Obama. “Almost every country in the world just signed on to the #ParisAgreement on climate change — thanks to American leadership.”

This is huge: Almost every country in the world just signed on to the #ParisAgreement on climate change—thanks to American leadership.

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) December 12, 2015

In the pact, the countries commit to limiting the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100.

In practical terms, achieving that goal means the world would have to stop emitting greenhouse gases altogether in the next half-century, scientists said. That’s because the less we pollute, the less pollution nature absorbs.

Achieving such a reduction in emissions would involve a complete transformation of how people get energy, and many activists worry that despite the pledges, countries are not ready to make such profound and costly changes.


The deal now needs to be ratified by individual governments — at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions — and would take effect in 2020. It is the first pact to ask all countries to join the fight against global warming, representing a sea change in U.N. talks that previously required only wealthy nations to reduce their emissions.

The deal commits countries to keeping the rise in global temperatures by the year 2100 compared with pre-industrial times “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), and says they will “endeavor to limit” them even more, to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The world has already warmed by about 1 degree Celsius since pre-industrial times.

Ben Strauss, a sea level researcher at Climate Central, said limiting warming to 1.5 degrees instead of 2 degrees could potentially cut in half the projected 280 million people whose houses will eventually be submerged by rising seas.
US Secretary of State John Kerry, second right, talks with unidentified people at the final conference at the COP21, the United Nations conference on climate change, in Le Bourget, north of Paris, Saturday, Dec.12, 2015. France crafted an unprecedented deal to slow global warming by cutting and then eliminating greenhouse gas pollution, urging climate negotiators from nearly 200 nations to adopt it Saturday. (AP Photo/Francois Mori)

US Secretary of State John Kerry, second right, talks with unidentified people at the final conference at the COP21, the United Nations conference on climate change, in Le Bourget, north of Paris, Saturday, Dec.12, 2015. (AP Photo/Francois Mori)

More than 180 countries have already presented plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions— a breakthrough in itself after years of stalemate. But those pledges are not enough to achieve the goals in the accord, meaning countries will need to cut much more to meet the goal.

“We’ve agreed to what we ought to be doing, but no one yet has agreed to go do it,” said Dennis Clare, a negotiator for the Federated States of Micronesia. “It’s a whole lot of pomp, given the circumstances.”

The agreement sets a goal of getting global greenhouse gas emissions to start falling “as soon as possible”; they have been generally rising since the industrial revolution.

It says wealthy nations should continue to provide financial support for poor nations to cope with climate change and encourages other countries to pitch in on a voluntary basis. That reflects Western attempts to expand the donor base to include advanced developing countries such as China.

In what would be a victory for small island nations, the agreement includes a section highlighting the losses they expect to incur from climate-related disasters that it’s too late to adapt to. However, a footnote specifies that it “does not involve or provide any basis for any liability or compensation” — a key U.S. demand because it would let the Obama administration sign on to the deal without going through the Republican-led Senate.

The adoption of the agreement was held up for nearly two hours as the United States tried — successfully, in the end — to change the wording on emissions targets. The draft agreement had said developed countries “shall” commit to reducing emissions; in adopting the pact organizers changed the language to say those countries “should” make that commitment.

Experts said the deal probably won’t need congressional approval.

Activists who say the agreement won’t go far enough held protests across Paris on Saturday, calling attention to populations threatened by melting glaciers, rising seas and expanding deserts.
An activist hold a poster reading "Change the system, not the Climate" near the Eiffel Tower, in Paris, Saturday, Dec.12, 2015 during the COP21, the United Nations Climate Change Conference. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham)

An activist hold a poster reading “Change the system, not the Climate” near the Eiffel Tower, in Paris, Saturday, Dec.12, 2015 during the COP21, the United Nations Climate Change Conference. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham)

Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace praised the accord was a good start but isn’t enough.

“Today the human race has joined in a common cause, but it’s what happens after this conference that really matters,” he said. “This deal alone won’t dig us out the hole we’re in, but it makes the sides less steep.”

Still, the accord is a breakthrough in climate negotiations. The U.N. has been working for more than two decades to persuade governments to work together to reduce the man-made emissions that scientists say are warming the planet.

The previous emissions treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, included only rich countries and the U.S. never signed on. The last climate summit, in Copenhagen in 2009, ended in failure when countries couldn’t agree on a binding emissions pact.

The talks were initially scheduled to end Friday but ran over as Western powers, tiny Pacific island nations and everyone in between haggled over wording.

The main dispute centered over how to anchor the climate targets in a binding international pact, with China and other major developing countries insisting on different rules for rich and poor nations. The agreement struck a middle ground, removing a strict firewall between rich and poor nations and saying that expectations on countries to take climate action should grow as their capabilities evolve. It does not require them to do so.

Some scientists who had criticized earlier drafts of the pact as unrealistic praised the final language for including language that essentially means the world will have to all but stop polluting with greenhouse gases by 2070 to reach the 2-degree goal, or by 2050 to reach the 1.5-degree goal.

That’s because when emissions fall, nature compensates by absorbing less carbon dioxide — and can even release old pollution once there’s less of it in the air, said Princeton University’s Michael Oppenheimer. Forests, oceans and soil currently absorb about half the world’s man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

“It means that in the end, you have to phase out carbon dioxide,” said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

In addition to the cuts in emissions, the goal could be reached in part by increasing how much carbon dioxide is sucked out of the air by planting forests or with futuristic technology, said Princeton University’s Michael Oppenheimer. But, he added, such technology would be expensive and might not come about.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Jason » Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:27 pm

Given current technology it's not a difficult proposition for 300 million people to live on Earth with an extremely high standard of living while retaining a carbon neutral footprint. The real problem is overpopulation.. to the tune of about 7 billion or so.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51265
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Tero » Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:28 pm

In the long run, it will be more expensive to keep emitting CO2 at the current rate than to fix it. Many of our normal activities will become difficult and more expensive to do. Patching the disasters caused by climate will be costly. All we can do then is quick fixes that just buys some time. But does not actually solve the problem.

An epidemic wiping out half the people might help at this point.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Seth » Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:40 pm

Śiva wrote:Given current technology it's not a difficult proposition for 300 million people to live on Earth with an extremely high standard of living while retaining a carbon neutral footprint.
Da fuck it is. Fossil fuels will be the predominant energy source for the foreseeable future, perhaps 200 years and at a minimum 50 years because that's how long it will take to replace the transportation fleet alone. The economics of switchover to carbon-neutral transportation, even if it were possible, which it's not right now, prohibit any rapid turnover because it would cost untold trillions of dollars to do so and no economy, including the global economy, can afford that.

Even if there is a scientific discovery like cold fusion that enables manufacturers to put zero-emission fusion powerplants in new automobiles tomorrow it will be 50 years before the old fleet can be economically retired and the new fleet implemented.

And that says nothing about industrial or residential power needs which simply cannot be replaced in less than 50 years even if the same fusion plants are made available on an industrial scale simply because of the sunk costs of the existing infrastructure. And that assumes fusion becomes a reality, which would be great, but is unlikely in the immediate future called for by all the Warmist dumbfucks.

And all this assumes that it's even a problem, and it's becoming clear that it's not a CO2 problem it's a greed, power and control problem, and in this case the third-world countries have managed to set up a global extortion program forcing industrialized nations to bankrupt their economies by transferring wealth to the third-world countries while simultaneously crippling the very industry and economies that create the wealth that the third-world covets and wants turned over to them...largely so that dictators and despots in African and South American shitholes can embezzle it from the government coffers to live opulent lives while the people of those nations remain exactly as they are and enjoy no benefits whatsoever from the wealth transfer.

This is nothing more than environmental theater and will do nothing to fix a problem which for 20 years now has been proven not to exist, what with the "hiatus" in global warming, the Maunder Minimum coming on, and the evidence of massively increased plant growth and carbon re-sequestration caused by higher atmospheric CO2 levels.
The real problem is overpopulation.. to the tune of about 7 billion or so.
I say we take off and nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Seth » Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:43 pm

Tero wrote:In the long run, it will be more expensive to keep emitting CO2 at the current rate than to fix it.
This falsely assumes that anything needs fixing in the first place, which the planet itself is telling us there isn't, at least with respect to CO2.
An epidemic wiping out half the people might help at this point.
I say we take off and nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Jason » Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:46 pm

Seth wrote:I say we take off and nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Unilateral action dictated with overwhelming force.. how very American. I think what we need is a world war with revolutions and fighting in the streets. Gives everyone a more equal opportunity to die. The ultra rich like Donald Trump can afford a capitalist defense of hiring a private army. The poor will have to band together in Marxist armies. Whichever ideology triumphs will inherit the Earth. Seems fair.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by mistermack » Wed Dec 23, 2015 7:09 pm

Seth wrote:
Śiva wrote:Given current technology it's not a difficult proposition for 300 million people to live on Earth with an extremely high standard of living while retaining a carbon neutral footprint.
Da fuck it is. Fossil fuels will be the predominant energy source for the foreseeable future, perhaps 200 years and at a minimum 50 years because that's how long it will take to replace the transportation fleet alone. The economics of switchover to carbon-neutral transportation, even if it were possible, which it's not right now, prohibit any rapid turnover because it would cost untold trillions of dollars to do so and no economy, including the global economy, can afford that.
Absolute rubbish. The transportation fleet is constantly being renewed. So replacing the fleet could easily be done in time with natural wastage. It's only going to happen if it saves money, so it's not going to actually cost any money at all. If electricity gets cheap and easy to use, it will roll itself out without government money.
It all depends on prices and practicality. In fifty years time, electricity could well be the cheapest option, coming from much cheaper solar and wind than we have now, plus nuclear generation which should be far in advance of what it is now. In fifty years, we could well have the first fusion reactors coming online as well, keeping prices down.

Fossil fuels are going to be a very minor player, in fifty years time.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by mistermack » Wed Dec 23, 2015 7:41 pm

Here is the latest on the Arctic Sea Ice.
Still defying all of the prophecies of doom. In fact, no resemblance of doom whatsoever.
Just slightly down on the average extent.

Image

And here is the five year comparison. It's hard to spot any trend at all. The ice is a little lower than the long-term average, but that seems to be a pretty stable situation.

Image

According to the dire predictions around the turn of the century, we were in danger of having the North Pole clear of ice in the summer, by 2010. We've now gone five years past that date, and there's no sign of any such thing.

Aren't the facts "inconvenient" to the alarmists ! :funny:

You can fiddle the temperature measurements quite easily. But it's very hard to fiddle mile upon mile of ice.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Seth » Wed Dec 23, 2015 8:40 pm

mistermack wrote:
Seth wrote:
Śiva wrote:Given current technology it's not a difficult proposition for 300 million people to live on Earth with an extremely high standard of living while retaining a carbon neutral footprint.
Da fuck it is. Fossil fuels will be the predominant energy source for the foreseeable future, perhaps 200 years and at a minimum 50 years because that's how long it will take to replace the transportation fleet alone. The economics of switchover to carbon-neutral transportation, even if it were possible, which it's not right now, prohibit any rapid turnover because it would cost untold trillions of dollars to do so and no economy, including the global economy, can afford that.
Absolute rubbish. The transportation fleet is constantly being renewed.
Yes, it is, and therein lies the point, which you have missed.
So replacing the fleet could easily be done in time with natural wastage. It's only going to happen if it saves money, so it's not going to actually cost any money at all. If electricity gets cheap and easy to use, it will roll itself out without government money.
It all depends on prices and practicality. In fifty years time, electricity could well be the cheapest option, coming from much cheaper solar and wind than we have now, plus nuclear generation which should be far in advance of what it is now. In fifty years, we could well have the first fusion reactors coming online as well, keeping prices down.

Fossil fuels are going to be a very minor player, in fifty years time.
Nope. It takes a long time, if it's ever going to happen before we actually run out of fossil fuels, which is hundreds of years in the future. Here's why: First, the "transportation fleet" includes, rather importantly, cargo ships, which have a very long useful life...at least 25 years or more, and ALL of which are operated on diesel fuel (no more coal-powered ships unfortunately). In addition, the trucking industry buys trucks that run for decades as well, and they all run on diesel. Then there's the aviation industry, which runs on gasoline and jet fuel. Next are the railroads, who can use diesel-electric engines for 50 years effectively.

Then there's the oil and gas industry and the liquid fuel distribution system, which have trillions invested in them. Even if we shut down oil, gas and coal production itself tomorrow because the Green Energy Fairy had waved her wand and created some magical fuel that can power all those non-existent vehicles, there would be trillions of dollars wasted in either closing down the existing massive distribution system or converting it to transport and deliver this unicorn-fart magic fuel.

And then there's the cost of building a worldwide infrastructure to create and deliver whatever magical substance the fairy comes up with, not to mention the decades it will take to actually build the system.

So, first someone has to come up with powerplant alternatives for all of these transportation modes that don't run on fossil fuels. So far the total number of such vehicles, both commercial and private, is exactly zero. Yes, I know about the electric car craze, but they are neither cost-effective nor suitable for general transportation purposes because of lack of operating range and time and difficulty of recharging. So even assuming that the ENTIRE private passenger vehicle fleet were replaced by government mandate with short-range electric cars, fossil fuels will still be powering them because the world does not have enough "renewable" electrical generation capacity to recharge them and likely never will, given the inherent inefficiencies and expenses of "green" energy.

Now nuclear power (including fusion as you suggest) is a viable generating option for electricity, so we could say that the entire civilian personal vehicle fleet could be scrapped and replaced with electric cars, which would cost trillions upon trillions of dollars to do, but it's still going to take 25 to 50 years to build enough nuke powerplants to recharge them all...assuming the greenfucks don't kill the program entirely out of paranoia. But assuming that we could mass-produce miniature nuke plants you put in your backyard to run your house and charge your car (yes, such a thing is both possible and has been prototyped) it is still going to cost the worldwide economy uncounted trillions to build them and distribute them and decades to do so because such things don't happen overnight.

You seem to think (wrongly) that the world can afford to (or will be willing to) invest in duplicative parallel energy production and delivery systems while the transportation fleet is slowly migrated from one to the other. That's a nice fantasy, but it won't work because of the economics involved. For that to work the economy has to be willing to spend enormous amounts of money on creating the parallel system before it can even be used by anybody. And then it has to spend enormous amounts of money propping up the fossil fuels industry so it can continue to provide the needed fuel, less and less of it all the time, for those segments of the transportation industry that have not completed the transition or have not yet amortized the costs of their existing fleets.

"But wait! The electrical grid exists already and THAT can be used to distribute the energy!", I hear you cry.

Not really. First, the added demand requires rebuilding or expanding of the existing infrastructure to both supply and deliver the additional loads. You can't just shove unlimited amps through a wire, you have to size the system to carry the load, which means massive investment in not just nuke plants, but in infrastructure improvements and expansions to deliver the electricity...assuming for a moment arguendo that electricity is the rational substitute for fossil fuels...which it's not.

This is because nothing yet available to us on a commercial scale has the energy density per cubic meter of liquid fossil fuels. Not natural gas, not hydrogen, and certainly not electricity. In a transportation fleet the energy density of the fuel is of critical importance because vehicles must balance the weight and bulk of the fuel source they carry against the energy produced by the fuel per pound moved. The lower the energy density of the fuel, like CNG, the larger the tank needed to carry enough fuel to make the equation balance economically. That's why there are no CNG over-the-road cargo trucks, or aircraft, or ships. There are CNG fleets of small vehicles, but they are primarily used in limited areas and are not used for transporting cargo over long distances. Some public utilities use CNG powered pickup trucks for maintenance and other light duties, but such vehicles have to remain close to the refueling system because they have relatively short ranges and the infrastructure for CNG refueling simply does not exist on a widespread basis...despite the unicorn-fart predictions of the CNG-vehicle-fuel advocates thirty damned years ago when they first thought it up. In all that time there has been approximately zero interest in spending the trillions required to build a parallel CNG delivery network to power the miniscule number of CNG powered vehicles that even exist, and there has been approximately zero interest on the part of the buying public, both private and commercial, to buy CNG powered vehicles because there is no CNG refueling infrastructure nationwide (much less worldwide) to allow long-distance travel in CNG powered vehicles.

That's why they invented E85, which at least can be transported by existing gasoline pipelines and trucks...which is still not taking off because it's expensive and can't be used in ordinary motor vehicles. And pure ethanol is even worse. It's low energy density and the environmental and human impacts of converting valuable and limited farmland from food production to ethanol production already have the greenies up in arms. Of course it's their fault we're doing it in the first place, so they are hoist on their own petard because those of us with wit and intelligence told them it wouldn't work back when they first came up with the hare-brained scheme.

And then there's the simple fact that the most important segment of a world economy, the shipping industry, which can transport bulk goods half-way around the planet in such quantities as to make it possible for people in the US to afford to buy crap built in China. There's no replacement for the diesel engines those ships use anywhere on the horizon, and even if you could create a pocket fusion reactor the current fleet isn't designed to use nuclear power as some military vessels are, and changing them over to that system would cost...wait for it...trillions of dollars nobody's going to spend doing it.

So, for the foreseeable future, minimum 50 years and likely up to 200 or more years, fossil fuels are STILL going to be the dominant source of transportation fleet energy and there's not a damned thing Obama or anybody else can do about it, no matter how many idiotic agreements they make between themselves, because as you say, economics is going to determine what's used as a fuel source in the end, and nothing else. That's why coal power plants aren't going away, they are just on hold. You see, no matter what this president or this Congress wants to do, unless there is a worldwide totalitarian dictatorship that has and can maintain absolute control over everyone, economics will win out because when, as Obama said during his campaign, "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket," the voters will eventually get fed up with paying too much and will simply vote out, or in some cases remove by force, any leadership that does not provide the people with what they want and need at a reasonable price. What this means is that all the EPA's machiavellian plotting to destroy the coal industry by imposing CO2 standards is meaningless in the long term because what the EPA hath wrought, the Congress can destroy with the stroke of a pen. And it will, sooner or later, as the true impacts on people's wallets start to show up in unaffordable energy prices. at which point the coal industry will pick right up where it left off and the decommissioned coal power plants will be brought back on line and a bunch of greenies, including green national leaders, will be turning black as the crows peck out their eyeballs as they hang from trees and light poles all over the world.

We're not going back to living in wattle-and-daub huts or grubbing in the ground with pointy sticks just to satisfy the ecological sensibilities of a bunch of short-sighted and ideologicallly blinded green freaks. Money will win the day. Always has, always will.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51265
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Tero » Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:56 am

mm
" Models that best match historical trends project a nearly ice-free Arctic in the summer by the 2030s."

Summer. 2030. We are not getting rid of winter. Is that clear?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests