Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[david890]

If anybody want's some real estate that experiences zero climate change I can help you out, it passes overhead most every night. You want a climate? Deal with the changes, it comes with having an atmosphere.

IN has been under a tropical sea and alternately 100' of ice; if it's not hotter or colder than that it not the hottest or coldest it's ever been.

True, but we have never measured CO2 levels increasing at the current rate.

The inconvenient truthers like to forget the whole last part of the water cycle...after the ice melts and goes into the oceans (since it's is, gasp, hotter than last year ) it EVAPORATES.

There is an upper limit to how much water the atmosphere can absorb. You're not really suggesting that if the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelfs melt, all that water simply evaporates? Will that happen immediately or at some future time? If later, how much will sea levels go up in the meantime (experts say 200' or more).

All that fresh water would alter the very chemistry of the ocean, as well as ocean currents. Wonder what happens if the Atlantic Conveyor shuts down??

 

[david890]

The term they consistently used was "proven reserves". That is known oil deposits that can be accessed using current technology. That means that undiscovered deposits, accessible using currently unknown/unproven technologies, and unknown forms (such as shale gas) were not included.

Yeah, fracking is working out really well for Oklahoma...

 

[david890]

Yeah, you're right. What's the societal cost of my spare tire? I'll write a check.

Not *your* tire; ALL THE SPARES.

Really? Now you're pulling Pascal's Wager?

SMH

Not at all. Pascal's Wager is unproveable. Fossil fuels are limited, and costs will increase as sources get increasingly scarce.

 

[david890]

Still waiting to see actual evidence of a statistically significant correlation between CO2 concentration and climate

That's Venus.

 

[david890]

I think that when real petro-geologists and petrochem engineers started talking about running out of oil, they were really talking about running out of oil that we can access easily and cost effectively. Then the media and other people take what they say and all they hear is "running out of oil."

No one knows how much is really left. No one knows whether or not there are huge amounts that we just haven't found or not.

Right now, we have to sink a shaft 35,000' in the Gulf of Mexico to hit oil. We're aiming for the last vestiges...

We do know that we have quite a bit (that's a technical engineering term) that we know where it is, it's just a matter of getting to it as inexpensively and as safely as possible.

Yeah, about that safety...

View attachment 49923

 

[jamil]

Not *your* tire; ALL THE SPARES.

Wait. Why you makin' me pay for your spare tire? YOU pay for yours.

I get the feeling you don't get what I'm saying. I'd like to have you spell it out so that I can feel more confident.

Not at all. Pascal's Wager is unproveable. Fossil fuels are limited, and costs will increase as sources get increasingly scarce.

What? Oh, no you di'nt. You said "if you're wrong about climate change". You didn't say, "if you're wrong about running out of fossil fuels". If I'm wrong about climate change and global warming is actually the pending doom that you alarmist types pray it is, I suppose we are "farked". I'm thinking the odds, given the torqued up models, are in my favor, though. I'll be happy to keep my heating bills affordable.

And if we accept your bait-n-switch, and pretend you meant "farked" = running out of fossil fuels, I think we have considerable time to figure that out. There's plenty of it, probably we're not "farked" on that front either. Besides, I kinda think the green industrial complex would orgasm over a sudden shortage of "all below". Then there'd actually be a market for "all above", rather than an artificial one.

 

[Thor]

Interesting that we've been told for DECADES now that oil is running out. Yet we now have more proven reserves than at any point in world history.

They have engaged in this type of obfuscation since before the first Earth Day. Say you ask Exon how much oil is left and they say 'we have identified 20 years of product' then the greenies scream 'there's only 20 years of oil left! We must do something NOW!'. When what Exon was saying is that they have identified the next 20 years of their operational requirements...meanwhile geological engineers are out looking for more and will keep that 20 year margin identified next year too, and the year after that.

If we let capitalism and technology continue to march we will eventually find other ways that work better to do things. If we let the gubment fix it for us they will do something, probably something incredibly stupid, and people will die NOW.

 

[Thor]

True, but we have never measured CO2 levels increasing at the current rate.



There is an upper limit to how much water the atmosphere can absorb. You're not really suggesting that if the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelfs melt, all that water simply evaporates? Will that happen immediately or at some future time? If later, how much will sea levels go up in the meantime (experts say 200' or more).

All that fresh water would alter the very chemistry of the ocean, as well as ocean currents. Wonder what happens if the Atlantic Conveyor shuts down??

The oceans are massive reflectors open to the sky, hot years show decreased levels not increased. And until the humidity in Phoenix is 100% the atmosphere is nowhere near saturation.

I do not agree with the ridiculous premise that the ice shelves 'will' melt. Yet even if they did core samples in Greenland show vegetation deep under the permafrost showing that it has been much warmer in the past...and the oceans didn't die...and the land wasn't flooded...and humanity survived. But then again we didn't have ten thousand 'scientists' all on the government dole telling us about it either. I suppose earlier iterations of humanity would have done the smart thing and burned them at the stake...for their carbon credits.

 

[Hohn]

Atmospheric oxygen is also limited-- you worry about running out of that too?

 

[Woobie]

View attachment 49922

That's Venus.

NASA - The Planet Venus

Im sure the problems there have nothing to do with the clouds of sulfuric acid. Or the landscape of volcanoes and magma. Or the proximity to the sun. Nope it's all the CO2 created by inhabitants driving around with those danged spare tires.

 

[Woobie]

Not *your* tire; ALL THE SPARES.




Not at all. Pascal's Wager is unproveable. Fossil fuels are limited, and costs will increase as sources get increasingly scarce.

Actually Pascal's Wager is exactly what you used. Own it bud.

I have actually needed a spare a couple of times. They are there for a reason. So I'll not be giving mine up, thanks. And I would love to see the numbers on this, too. I'll bet all the spare tires in the U.S. don't add 1/2 the CO2 as the cooking fires in one province of Cambodia.

 

[Woobie]

True, but we have never measured CO2 levels increasing at the current rate.



There is an upper limit to how much water the atmosphere can absorb. You're not really suggesting that if the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelfs melt, all that water simply evaporates? Will that happen immediately or at some future time? If later, how much will sea levels go up in the meantime (experts say 200' or more).

All that fresh water would alter the very chemistry of the ocean, as well as ocean currents. Wonder what happens if the Atlantic Conveyor shuts down??

The salinity of the oceans has been increasing. And every day it takes in billions of gallons of fresh water. If it is warming, then the atmosphere will be able to hold more water, due to being farther from the dew point. Evaporation continues, and the oceans have little if any loss of salinity.

Sounds like you had a professor or a documentary set your hair on fire, and you're scared. Take a deep breath, and think this stuff through. We need to identify actual problems, real and workable solutions to those problems, and implement them through law. If we played whacka-mole with every climate bogey man, using the preposterous solutions presented to us, and implementing them by EPA edict, we would look like the EU. This isn't about saving anything to the puppet masters. It's about control. Cut the string and think for yourself.

 

[Thor]

Atmospheric oxygen is also limited-- you worry about running out of that too?

Only if the government creates a bureaucracy to manage it.

 

[pudly]

The term they consistently used was "proven reserves". That is known oil deposits that can be accessed using current technology. That means that undiscovered deposits, accessible using currently unknown/unproven technologies, and unknown forms (such as shale gas) were not included.

"Peak oil" was a political term used to try and allow government direction/control of energy policy.

[STRIKE]Yeah, fracking is working out really well for Oklahoma...[/STRIKE] Non sequiturs are my specialty.

FTFY

 

[david890]

Wait. Why you makin' me pay for your spare tire? YOU pay for yours.

I get the feeling you don't get what I'm saying. I'd like to have you spell it out so that I can feel more confident.

I get the feeling you don't understand what a "societal" cost is. Your individual cost to CO2 increase by carrying a spare may be negligible, but the CUMULATIVE cost borne by SOCIETY as a whole cannot be ignored - ALL the spares carried by ALL the cars. The average visitor to our National Parks leaves behind a negligible amount of trash (definitions of "negligible" may vary), but the CUMULATIVE amount exceeds 100 million tons per year. Where do we put all that?

What? Oh, no you di'nt. You said "if you're wrong about climate change". You didn't say, "if you're wrong about running out of fossil fuels". If I'm wrong about climate change and global warming is actually the pending doom that you alarmist types pray it is, I suppose we are "farked". I'm thinking the odds, given the torqued up models, are in my favor, though. I'll be happy to keep my heating bills affordable.

So, you're content to let a potential fix to the problem pass you by, just so long as you're nice and toasty? Yeah, that's some nice social responsibility. To hell with everyone else - and their kids, and grandkids, etc., as the problem cannot be fixed in their lifetime. We've passed the tipping point.

I'm not wrong about fossil fuels. They will run out. In the meantime, they'll become so expensive that you won't be able to afford them.

And if we accept your bait-n-switch, and pretend you meant "farked" = running out of fossil fuels, I think we have considerable time to figure that out.

First, I didn't bait-and-switch; "farked" applies to both climate change and a limit on fossil fuels. An endless supply of fossil fuels does not mean climate change won't kill us. We might have hundreds of years of cheap oil left, but what good is that when rising temps shift the grain belt into Canada? You forget that permafrost has LOTS of greenhouse gas trapped in it, as does the large amounts of hydrates in the ocean. Release of either will only accelerate temp increases.

There's plenty of it, probably we're not "farked" on that front either.

So cavalier with other people's futures. Put that "probably" into a grounded number. 10%? 50%? 90%? Show your work.

Besides, I kinda think the green industrial complex would orgasm over a sudden shortage of "all below". Then there'd actually be a market for "all above", rather than an artificial one.

Is there enough industrial capacity of the GIC to meet demands should oil suddenly come up short. A market, yes. A market that could be satisfied? Not so much. BTW, it's not just the issue of producing electricity through green energy that must be addressed; storage is a huge problem that has no obvious solution. Someone might produce more than they need during the day, but without a means of storage, they'll be dependent on the grid at night.

Is there enough Ni-Cad or Lithium-Ion capacity/production to supply the needs for homes and industry when demand is high (i.e., at night)?

 

[david890]

The salinity of the oceans has been increasing.

A link, please.

And every day it takes in billions of gallons of fresh water.

Actually, it's billions of TONS. More than 1 trillion tons since 2011.

If it is warming, then the atmosphere will be able to hold more water, due to being farther from the dew point. Evaporation continues, and the oceans have little if any loss of salinity.

You talk as if there were no variance world-wide, and if there were no limit on moisture uptake. Prove otherwise.

Sounds like you had a professor or a documentary set your hair on fire, and you're scared. Take a deep breath, and think this stuff through. We need to identify actual problems, real and workable solutions to those problems, and implement them through law. If we played whacka-mole with every climate bogey man, using the preposterous solutions presented to us, and implementing them by EPA edict, we would look like the EU. This isn't about saving anything to the puppet masters. It's about control. Cut the string and think for yourself.

Germany seems to have it worked out:

"Solar and wind power peaked at 2 p.m. local time on Sunday, allowing renewables to supply 45.5 gigawatts as demand was 45.8 gigawatts, according to provisional data by Agora Energiewende, a research institute in Berlin."

So, for that day, Germany had it's needs (aside from vehicles) fully met by renewables. Keep in mind that they did this after shutting down half of their nuke plants following the 2011 Fukushima disaster. If they can do it, why can't we? Even in Texas, it just makes sense...

 

[eldirector]

The average cost of electricity in the US is $0.12 / kWh

The average cost of electricity in Germany is $0.35 / kWh

Data from 2011
https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html

Or, you can look at Wikipedia:
Germany = $0.32 / kWh
USA = $0.08 to $0.17 / kWh

So, I'm guessing we could go as green as we want to pay for.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

True, but we have never measured CO2 levels increasing at the current rate.

There is an upper limit to how much water the atmosphere can absorb. You're not really suggesting that if the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelfs melt, all that water simply evaporates? Will that happen immediately or at some future time? If later, how much will sea levels go up in the meantime (experts say 200' or more).

All that fresh water would alter the very chemistry of the ocean, as well as ocean currents. Wonder what happens if the Atlantic Conveyor shuts down??

And we've been accurately measuring yearly co2 for how long now? 50 years or so? Ice core samples and such do not give an accurate reading over a short time period.

And yes there is a limit to how much water the atmosphere can absorb, which is in large part dependent on the temperature of the atmosphere. So warmer atmosphere = higher limit.

And yep it could/would alter the chemistry of the oceans, which has happened before. They survived didn't they?

Right now, we have to sink a shaft 35,000' in the Gulf of Mexico to hit oil. We're aiming for the last vestiges...


Yeah, about that safety...

View attachment 49923

Actually no we don't have to sink a shaft 35,000 ft in the Gulf of Mexico to hit oil. Well we don't have to barring federal regulations that is. The reason they are doing so is because they aren't allowed to drill where it would be easier.

I'm not wrong about fossil fuels. They will run out. In the meantime, they'll become so expensive that you won't be able to afford them.

Is there enough industrial capacity of the GIC to meet demands should oil suddenly come up short. A market, yes. A market that could be satisfied? Not so much. BTW, it's not just the issue of producing electricity through green energy that must be addressed; storage is a huge problem that has no obvious solution. Someone might produce more than they need during the day, but without a means of storage, they'll be dependent on the grid at night.

Is there enough Ni-Cad or Lithium-Ion capacity/production to supply the needs for homes and industry when demand is high (i.e., at night)?

Are you sure on that? You do know that there is work in progress to create new "fossil fuels" right? For instance here is one example Scientists create renewable fossil fuel alternative using bacteria. And another https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130422154911.htm

Not to mention that fossil fuels are still being produced naturally.

And how do you expect oil to suddenly come up short? You don't think that an increasing price which would come from decreasing supplies wouldn't drive up the industrial capability to produce those things you mentioned?

Oh and I forgot to quote it but you mentioned all the "subsidies" the oil companies get. Which specific subsidies are you referring to? Are you talking about the various tax deductions that are available to all businesses? Although I will admit that in one case that I know of the deductions are calculated differently than for other companies. Compared to the actual subsidies that the govt provides for renewable energy. Along with things such as mandatory use of some of them like ethanol. How much ethanol would be produced without the subsidies and mandates do you think?

 

[Woobie]

A link, please.

According to NSF.gov, the tropical areas are increasing in salinity, while the Arctic is becoming slightly less salty.



Actually, it's billions of TONS. More than 1 trillion tons since 2011

Wowee! Thems big numbers! All the more to my point that we aren't having an oceanic salt crisis.



You talk as if there were no variance world-wide, and if there were no limit on moisture uptake. Prove otherwise.

If the atmosphere is warming, as you claim, then I don't need to prove physics to you. Warm air holds more water. If it is not warming, then you are wrong, and I have nothing to worry about. Besides, yours is the burden of proof.



Germany seems to have it worked out:

"Solar and wind power peaked at 2 p.m. local time on Sunday, allowing renewables to supply 45.5 gigawatts as demand was 45.8 gigawatts, according to provisional data by Agora Energiewende, a research institute in Berlin."

So, for that day, Germany had it's needs (aside from vehicles) fully met by renewables. Keep in mind that they did this after shutting down half of their nuke plants following the 2011 Fukushima disaster. If they can do it, why can't we? Even in Texas, it just makes sense...

Wow! So Germany had nearly all its needs met on one day when the sun was shining and the wind was blowing at the right speed. It still didn't power their evil vehicles (with spare tires). Meanwhile, they can't even buy an electric kettle because it uses too much electricity. I think I'll wait for consistent success before I get too giddy about this.

 

[printcraft]

....... The average visitor to our National Parks leaves behind a negligible amount of trash (definitions of "negligible" may vary), but the CUMULATIVE amount exceeds 100 million tons per year. Where do we put all that?

It came from the earth and so it shall return. Or are you saying that 100 million tons of material just appears out of thin air every year?
I know we get material from space every year that adds to the earths mass.... explain please.... here is where that doctorate pays off.