Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[jamal]

Still waiting for some of that science that questions the relationship between co2 and temperature.

[Core Shot]

what about ending the federal reserve?
Low interest rates have allowed the plunder of the earth and expansion of development of real estate as well as the population.

But no we can’t have any slowdown of the economy. Dow must go up up up up.
Same reasons you aren’t getting anywhere with emissions reductions. Can’t kill the golden goose that gets everyone re-elected

Small changes are happening. But nothing that makes a dent.

I did see that one of our lumberyards has started placing azek recycle bins on larger job sites.

[dan_pdx]

But no we can’t have any slowdown of the economy. Dow must go up up up up.
Same reasons you aren’t getting anywhere with emissions reductions. Can’t kill the golden goose that gets everyone re-elected

Now that is a good and interesting point. Endless growth as the baseline goal for society does seem a) unsustainable and b) pointless when the benefits only accrue to the top 0.1%.

[Dantheman]

Now that is a good and interesting point. Endless growth as the baseline goal for society does seem a) unsustainable and b) pointless when the benefits only accrue to the top 0.1%.

Yeah, I ponder that one myself frequently. Current US GDP is ~$19 trillion and needs to grow by ~3% per year. 3% annual growth is a doubling time of ~23 years. You're telling me that in less than 50 years, when I will hopefully still be alive, GDP is going to be ~$80 trillion? And in another 23 years when my kid is still alive it will be ~$160 trillion? I don't see how that's remotely possible. There are inescapable realities of exponential growth that are fast approaching us--when and how the music stops is really fucking scary. I wish I had Ray Kurzweil's optimism.

[ron johnson]

So in other words "Oh no, it's impossible for our society to come up with anything better than the status quo!"

LOL, I actually feel a little sorry for you that you are paid to deliver that line...

I feel sorry for you that your brain somehow interprets my post that way.

[ron johnson]

1 more thing, have you heard of the planets Venus or Mars? Sure you have. One of the main reasons they can't support life as we know it is too much CO2. Look it up. Something about runaway greenhouse effect. At least in the case of Venus.

We've already discussed this. The density of the atmosphere on Venus has a greater effect on the warmth of the planet than the greenhouse effect of CO2. Mars has a lot of CO2 in its atmosphere. It is cold due to its lack of density.

[ron johnson]

Ron's favorite fraudster Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller along with wattsupwiththat, notrickzone, and Breitbart try to argue that it's PV=nRT and that CO2 has nothing to with it.

They ignore the straightforward math and prattle on about Death Valley and Everest then talk about pressure on Venus to argue against the existence of a greenhouse effect. The conspiratorial nonsense proceedes on the assumption that climatologists and astrophysicists are unaware of the ideal gas law.

You mean the guy you tried to discredit and failed? I don't think anyone is using atmospheric pressure to argue against the greenhouse effect. Saying that Venus' extreme temperature is due to its extreme pressure doesn't deny the greenhouse effect.

[ron johnson]

Ron couldn’t read a basic graph and failed to understand intermediate statistics. You think he has the capacity to understand the ideal gas law?

I was around a bunch of boomer deniers this week. A few of whom I’ve know through work for years and have heard them on this topic before. They all now seemed to have begrudgingly come around to the fact that GW / CC is real. Yet lack the self awareness to admit how wrong they were on the topic. Yet still oppose any action to curb green house gas emissions as it is inconvenient and could harm the economy in the short term. Several even through in a, “well I’ll be gone before we really have to deal with it anyways. The kids will have to figure it out.” Leave the next generations up to their eyeballs in fiscal and climatological debt.... cool guys.

Almost 600 posts and all you guys can hang your hat on is me misinterpreting a graph and misreading a sentence about a sigma confidence level.

[dan_pdx]

I feel sorry for you that your brain somehow interprets my post that way.

So you do think we can improve on the status quo of being fossil-fuel reliant? I'm glad you finally got on board with the program, our time spent helping you understand these issues over the last 600 posts when we would rather be perusing the NSFW threads has paid off!

[ron johnson]

So you do think we can improve on the status quo of being fossil-fuel reliant? I'm glad you finally got on board with the program, our time spent helping you understand these issues over the last 600 posts when we would rather be perusing the NSFW threads has paid off!

Yes, but it could be a while considering that solar and wind are unlikely to do it.

[WMD]

Why not? This would be comical if it weren't such bullshit.

[Buster Highmen]

Almost 600 posts and all you guys can hang your hat on is me misinterpreting a graph and misreading a sentence about a sigma confidence level.

Why discuss Nabokov with a thrashing illiterate, especially when they can't understand with whom they might actually agree.

[k2skier112]

Almost 600 posts and all you guys can hang your hat on is me misinterpreting a graph and misreading a sentence about a sigma confidence level.

shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

[ron johnson]

Why not? This would be comical if it weren't such bullshit.

How many times have I posted this?

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...ear-impossible

[reckless toboggan]

https://amp.trueachievements.com/n40...y-announcement

Microsoft have pledged in their sustainability announcement to be carbon negative by 2030, and by 2050 to have removed all the carbon the company's emitted since it was founded in 1975, either by electrical consumption or directly. The announcements come from Microsoft President Brad Smith, Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood, and CEO Satya Nadella.

[neufox47]

Almost 600 posts and all you guys can hang your hat on is me misinterpreting a graph and misreading a sentence about a sigma confidence level.

No there were a ton of other things. I stopped correcting you after showing you were posting incorrect things and incorrectly interpreting basic science / statistics the first four or five times. Like when you claimed that it was reasonable to only compare melt to snowfall and ignore calving on Greenland.

[neufox47]

How many times have I posted this?

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...ear-impossible

Ooh an opinion piece from a conservative think tank that is paid for by industry. That settles it then.

A small example:
“With today’s technology, $1 million worth of utili- ty-scale solar panels will produce about 40 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) over a 30-year operating period (Figure 2). A similar metric is true for wind: $1 million worth of a modern wind turbine produces 55 million kWh over the same 30 years.13 Meanwhile, $1 million worth of hardware for a shale rig will produce enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh”.

Hey look, we ignored the cost of operational labor for this super misleading statistic! Not like it costs much to operate a shale rig for 30 years... Not disingenuous at all to only quote hardware costs.

If this were even remotely true then why is the cheapest electricity in the world from solar farms?

[ron johnson]

No there were a ton of other things. I stopped correcting you after showing you were posting incorrect things and incorrectly interpreting basic science / statistics the first four or five times. Like when you claimed that it was reasonable to only compare melt to snowfall and ignore calving on Greenland.

There weren't a ton of other things, and I never claimed it was reasonable to only compare melt to snowfall and ignore calving on Greenland. I was defending a video critiquing the media's coverage of summer melt.

Let's not pretend you haven't been plenty wrong in your limited involvement in this discussion.

[ron johnson]

Ooh an opinion piece from a conservative think tank that is paid for by industry. That settles it then.

That's just a cop-out. I can just as easily claim the same about any pro solar/wind left wing sourcing.

A small example:
“With today’s technology, $1 million worth of utili- ty-scale solar panels will produce about 40 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) over a 30-year operating period (Figure 2). A similar metric is true for wind: $1 million worth of a modern wind turbine produces 55 million kWh over the same 30 years.13 Meanwhile, $1 million worth of hardware for a shale rig will produce enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh”.

Hey look, we ignored the cost of operational labor for this super misleading statistic! Not like it costs much to operate a shale rig for 30 years... Not disingenuous at all to only quote hardware costs.

Do you think it costs nothing to operate solar and wind? Do you think operating a shale rig is so costly that it's going to make up for the 6x difference in energy production? You got any sourcing?

If this were even remotely true then why is the cheapest electricity in the world from solar farms?

Because they make up a small % of a grid backed by fossil fuels. Remove the fossil fuels and the costs are enormous.

[rideit]

However, the climate costs of fossil fuels are even more ginormous.

[neufox47]

That's just a cop-out. I can just as easily claim the same about any pro solar/wind left wing sourcing.

Do you think it costs nothing to operate solar and wind? Do you think operating a shale rig is so costly that it's going to make up for the 6x difference in energy production? You got any sourcing?

Because they make up a small % of a grid backed by fossil fuels. Remove the fossil fuels and the costs are enormous.

Solar and wind farms have minimal cost and the output is electricity. Yes, the cost to generate and the cost of labor is more than 6x the cost. We know this because, by far, the cheapest generation of power cost is solar. It isn’t until you factor in the cost of storage, that fossil fuels become cheaper in most areas of population.

There’s an issue with storage currently, everyone can agree on that. But for your arguments and the Manhattan institutes position to be correct, you have to assume that energy storage costs will not continue to drop exponentially (it will) and that we go to 100% renewables (the hardest 1% is the last 1%). Your argument starts at the absolute of no bio-generation, no nuclear, etc. Nothing but wind, solar, and batteries. Only the extreme proponents of renewables are saying these things. I

Change the argument to we are going to use nuclear reactors, geothermal, hydro, tidal, etc (depending on a given area) to produce a constant 10-30% of the grid. Then add in locally deployed solar and batteries, smart grids, transmission upgrades, scaled utility rates, and some fossil fuels where absolutely necessary and it all becomes much more feasible.

You were found completely wrong on numerous obvious points which demonstrated a fundamental lack understanding of science and statistics. I’m not going to waste a ton of time disproving someone who claims to have google fu’d their way into disproving the vast majority of climatologists. Your latest graph is a fantastic example. You just blew out the scale and acted like that was informative.

[rideit]

Why do you fear this change so much, Ron?
Are you not invested properly?

[WMD]

New study finds that going 100 percent renewable energy world wide is feasible and would pay for itself in 7 years:

A global effort to transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 would cost nations $73 trillion upfront — but the expense will pay for itself in under seven years, according to a new report from researchers at Stanford University. The study also found that the shift to a zero-carbon global economy would create 28.6 million more full-time jobs than if nations continue their current reliance on fossil fuels.

The report, published in the journal One Earth, presents detailed roadmaps for how 143 countries that account for 99.7 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions could successfully transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. The report is a follow up to a 2015 study by the same research team that generated state-by-state plans for the United States, findings that helped lay the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s proposed Green New Deal.

The roadmaps call for increased energy efficiency and the electrification of all energy sectors, including transportation, buildings, heating and cooling, industrial processes, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and the military. The blueprint also finds it is technically and logistically feasible for countries to get 80 percent of their energy needs from wind, hydroelectricity, and solar by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050. The analysis excludes nuclear power, biofuels, and clean coal. New renewable energy infrastructure would require just 0.17 percent of the 143 countries’ total land area, as well as 0.48 percent of land for “spacing purposes,” such as the area between turbines, according to a press release.

In the U.S., reaching 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 will require an investment of $7.8 trillion. It will involve building 288,000 new 5-megawatt (MW) wind turbines and 16,000 100-MW solar farms on 1.08 percent of U.S. land (85 percent of that land will be used for spacing purposes, and could serve other functions, such as for farmland). Such an initiative would create 3.1 million more jobs than if the U.S. stayed on a business-as-usual trajectory, and would save 63,000 lives from air pollution every year, the report said. The decarbonization plan would also reduce energy costs by $1.3 trillion per year, because renewable energy is cheaper to generate over time than fossil fuels. In addition, the plan would cut health and climate costs by $700 billion and $3.1 trillion annually, respectively, compared to current fossil fuel infrastructure.

“There’s really no downside to making this transition,” Jacobson told Bloomberg News. “Most people are afraid it will be too expensive. Hopefully this will allay some of those fears.”

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/the-glo...gy-73-trillion

[ron johnson]

Solar and wind farms have minimal cost and the output is electricity. Yes, the cost to generate and the cost of labor is more than 6x the cost. We know this because, by far, the cheapest generation of power cost is solar. It isn’t until you factor in the cost of storage, that fossil fuels become cheaper in most areas of population.

Solar is not "by far, the cheapest generation of power." Rooftop residential and commercial is not cheap, only utility scale solar located in advantageous areas would be considered cheap, but still, it's LCOE is no better than natural gas. Storage and transmission are immense costs. All fossil fuels are cheaper in all areas of population when storage is included. And from my link:

But in a critical and rarely noted caveat, EIA states: “The LCOE values for dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables because comparing them must be done carefully”[29] (emphasis added). Put differently, the LCOE calculations do not take into account the array of real, if hidden, costs needed to operate a reliable 24/7 and 365-day-per-year energy infrastructure—or, in particular, a grid that used only wind/solar.

The LCOE considers the hardware in isolation while ignoring real-world system costs essential to supply 24/7 power. Equally misleading, an LCOE calculation, despite its illusion of precision, relies on a variety of assumptions and guesses subject to dispute, if not bias.

For example, an LCOE assumes that the future cost of competing fuels—notably, natural gas—will rise significantly. But that means that the LCOE is more of a forecast than a calculation. This is important because a “levelized cost” uses such a forecast to calculate a purported average cost over a long period. The assumption that gas prices will go up is at variance with the fact that they have decreased over the past decade and the evidence that low prices are the new normal for the foreseeable future.[30] Adjusting the LCOE calculation to reflect a future where gas prices don’t rise radically increases the LCOE cost advantage of natural gas over wind/solar.

An LCOE incorporates an even more subjective feature, called the “discount rate,” which is a way of comparing the value of money today versus the future. A low discount rate has the effect of tilting an outcome to make it more appealing to spend precious capital today to solve a future (theoretical) problem. Advocates of using low discount rates are essentially assuming slow economic growth.[31]

A high discount rate effectively assumes that a future society will be far richer than today (not to mention have better technology).[32] Economist William Nordhaus’s work in this field, wherein he advocates using a high discount rate, earned him a 2018 Nobel Prize.

An LCOE also requires an assumption about average multi-decade capacity factors, the share of time the equipment actually operates (i.e., the real, not theoretical, amount of time the sun shines and wind blows). EIA assumes, for example, 41% and 29% capacity factors, respectively, for wind and solar. But data collected from operating wind and solar farms reveal actual median capacity factors of 33% and 22%.[33] The difference between assuming a 40% but experiencing a 30% capacity factor means that, over the 20-year life of a 2-MW wind turbine, $3 million of energy production assumed in the financial models won’t exist—and that’s for a turbine with an initial capital cost of about $3 million.

U.S. wind-farm capacity factors have been getting better but at a slow rate of about 0.7% per year over the past two decades.[34] Notably, this gain was achieved mainly by reducing the number of turbines per acre trying to scavenge moving air—resulting in average land used per unit of wind energy increasing by some 50%.

LCOE calculations do reasonably include costs for such things as taxes, the cost of borrowing, and maintenance. But here, too, mathematical outcomes give the appearance of precision while hiding assumptions. For example, assumptions about maintenance costs and performance of wind turbines over the long term may be overly optimistic. Data from the U.K., which is further down the wind-favored path than the U.S., point to far faster degradation (less electricity per turbine) than originally forecast.[35]

To address at least one issue with using LCOE as a tool, the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently proposed the idea of a “value-adjusted” LCOE, or VALCOE, to include the elements of flexibility and incorporate the economic implications of dispatchability. IEA calculations using a VALCOE method yielded coal power, for example, far cheaper than solar, with a cost penalty widening as a grid’s share of solar generation rises.[36]

One would expect that, long before a grid is 100% wind/solar, the kinds of real costs outlined above should already be visible. As it happens, regardless of putative LCOEs, we do have evidence of the economic impact that arises from increasing the use of wind and solar energy.

Also, "If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/#368cd81a1dc6

There’s an issue with storage currently, everyone can agree on that. But for your arguments and the Manhattan institutes position to be correct, you have to assume that energy storage costs will not continue to drop exponentially (it will)

That is an absurd claim backed by nothing.

As for modern batteries, there are still promising options for significant improvements in their underlying physical chemistry. New non-lithium materials in research labs offer as much as a 200% and even 300% gain in inherent performance.[80] Such gains nevertheless don’t constitute the kinds of 10-fold or hundredfold advances in the early days of combustion chemistry.[81] Prospective improvements will still leave batteries miles away from the real competition: petroleum.

There are no subsidies and no engineering from Silicon Valley or elsewhere that can close the physics-centric gap in energy densities between batteries and oil (Figure 5). The energy stored per pound is the critical metric for vehicles and, especially, aircraft. The maximum potential energy contained in oil molecules is about 1,500% greater, pound for pound, than the maximum in lithium chemistry.[82] That’s why the aircraft and rockets are powered by hydrocarbons. And that’s why a 20% improvement in oil propulsion (eminently feasible) is more valuable than a 200% improvement in batteries (still difficult).

Finally, when it comes to limits, it is relevant to note that the technologies that unlocked shale oil and gas are still in the early days of engineering development, unlike the older technologies of wind, solar, and batteries. Tenfold gains are still possible in terms of how much energy can be extracted by a rig from shale rock before approaching physics limits.[83] That fact helps explain why shale oil and gas have added 2,000% more to U.S. energy production over the past decade than have wind and solar combined.[84]

[ron johnson]

and that we go to 100% renewables (the hardest 1% is the last 1%). Your argument starts at the absolute of no bio-generation, no nuclear, etc. Nothing but wind, solar, and batteries. Only the extreme proponents of renewables are saying these things. I

Change the argument to we are going to use nuclear reactors, geothermal, hydro, tidal, etc (depending on a given area) to produce a constant 10-30% of the grid. Then add in locally deployed solar and batteries, smart grids, transmission upgrades, scaled utility rates, and some fossil fuels where absolutely necessary and it all becomes much more feasible.

My argument is not no bio-generation. A backbone of solar, wind, and batteries supplemented with hydro/geothermal/tidal where possible is the mainstream green energy plan. Support for nuclear is a fringe position. Nuclear is not included in the GND. Germany, the leading country in decarbonization is shutting down their nuclear plants: https://apnews.com/46c4e06013c8e14212e2f0e5bff3db6c

You were found completely wrong on numerous obvious points which demonstrated a fundamental lack understanding of science and statistics. I’m not going to waste a ton of time disproving someone who claims to have google fu’d their way into disproving the vast majority of climatologists. Your latest graph is a fantastic example. You just blew out the scale and acted like that was informative.

If that were true the minions would never live it down like they have with "my inability to read a graph."

The last graph was half in jest, but a scale showing the range of temperatures humans experience is probably more appropriate and shows some needed perspective than the extreme small scale graphs that accentuate the warming.