The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

[Smokepole]

OK....riddle me this Batman....if all that fresh water hits the ocean what will that do to the salt content., Will it dilute it to the point it kills off the plankton which is the very base of the food chain.

Also.....these idiots can not tell us from day to day what the weather is going to do......how in the hell can they make these predictions.

I keep saying that when the weather community can predict the weather 3 to 6 months in advance with an 80% or better level of accuracy, then I will consider their 100 yr. forecast. Really, they can't make a 7 day forecast that will survive 2 days better than 50% of the time. How I am supposed to believe they are going to get a 50 or 100 yr. forecast. NOT.

All of the predictions on Global Warming that are being made are MODEL based. It is impossible with the amount of information that they have to make accurate models. But, in the case of the AGW crowd, it is all a matter of where you baseline your data. And when you make your baseline at roughly the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (which is about when record keeping began), which just - coincidentally - happens to begin right after we come out of the "Little Ice Age", what do you think all of their models are going to do? Before one puts out model data - assuming they care for accuracy - one must test the accuracy of the model. How is that done you ask? You take your model and run it against historical data sets where you already know the outcome. The financial industry is very practiced at this and their models are very accurate. What happens when the AGW models are tested against historical data? Well, from what I have read, a monkey with a dart board could do as good a job. There hasn't been a single model out there that has projected past climate history with any level of accuracy and frequency. And that is just one of the numerous problems that exist with the AGW crowd. Then you have the wholesale fabrication and alteration of data that has been thoroughly debunked. But let's not nitpick shall we.

Oh, let's not forget that the poles on Mars have been melting too. I guess our greenhouse gasses have been leaving the Earth and going there to try to mess them up too.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I keep saying that when the weather community can predict the weather 3 to 6 months in advance with an 80% or better level of accuracy, then I will consider their 100 yr. forecast. Really, they can't make a 7 day forecast that will survive 2 days better than 50% of the time. How I am supposed to believe they are going to get a 50 or 100 yr. forecast. NOT.

I don't think that Kevin Gregory, Chris Wright, and Angela Buchman have been conspiring to convince us that Global Warming exists.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I say that if you claim to be certain that global climate change ISN'T happening, then you're just as big a maroon as the person who claims that he's certain that it IS.

 

[MisterChester]

First, "better safe than sorry" isn't a good enough reason to price poor old granny out of heating her home. It doesn't consider the cost of "safer" or establish the extent thereof. It also doesn't consider the likelihood, nor attempt to calculate the actual severity of "sorry", nor guarantee us that "safer" won't actually make us "sorrier".

Second, I don't know why you think that people who are skeptical of the impact man has on climate, necessarily want to make the planet dirty for their kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7OHG7tHrNM

If you weren't alive around 1970 you might think the above public service message overstated reality. But yeah, we really threw trash out all over the place without any thought. It was indeed a mindset of indifference. I see commercials like that as beneficial. After seeing it a few times, I stopped throwing trash out the car window. And I scolded my parents when I saw them do it. And not because of the Indian's tears, or because I felt ashamed, but because it showed my behavior from a different perspective, that made me more conscious about what I was actually doing.

That's a positive message, IMO. However, the "green" crowd isn't really like that, at least not anymore. It is manufactured. Artificial. Superficial. Much more like "cool" is manufactured high school society. And there's not such a fine line between changing social behavior through real information, and coercing behavior through fear, intimidation, ridicule, and propaganda. The difference is obvious enough if we care to pay attention.



Wind, solar, hydro are indeed free. The wind blows, water flows, the sun shines whether we harness them or not. So, go ahead. This very afternoon go outside and throw a steak on the grill. No charcoal, no flame. Just wind and solar. I hope you like your steak rare. Converting those "free" energy sources into a usable form costs money.

A gallon of gasoline fluctuates between $3.50 and $4.00 per gallon. That gallon represents 114K BTU. That's the same as 33.41 KWH of electrical power. On average I pay just under $.11 / KWH from the electric coop, so let's call that an even $3.50 for using 33.41 KWH. Pretty comparable to gasoline. The power coop gets its energy from another fossil fuel source, coal burning plants..at least for the time being. If the coal plants were replaced with natural gas, another fossil fuel, I'd pay possibly much less, but anywhere from $.08 per KWH to $.12, depending on several factors other than just the cost of the fuel.

So let's talk about renewable energy costs. Especially when you remove the government subsidies, the total cost per BTU for most "green" sources of energy, is typically much higher.

You think Solar and Wind are the best choices. Solar is not anywhere near ready to replace our current energy needs. It is most expensive. That 33.41 KWH of electricity produced from a solar power plant would cost ~ $8.75. It's just not cost effective enough to create anything more than a niche market. Solar does have its advantages. It's probably the most fit for individual use since it's not as practical for most individuals to build a hydro dam or wind mill in their yard. If solar were less expensive--or maybe I should say--when it is affordable for average people, then average people will use solar.

Wind or hydro are more affordable sources as power plants. Unlike solar, at least they're in the same order of magnitude as fossil fuels. But they have their own costs other than just $, like environmental costs.

I would like to see alternatives to fossil fuels get better, and be more available to individuals without the power company. But they're not there yet. But getting there should be the result of free people seeing a need and filling it through innovation, rather than it being the result of forced economic fascism. Necessity is the mother of invention. But we're trying to artificially create necessity and fuel it with the resources everyone. I don't think that, itself, is sustainable.





BTW, someone once told me they got that saying a bit sideways. It should be "Mother is the necessity of invention". At least that's how it often works in my house.

The costs of starting ways of harnessing solar and wind power today are pretty high, I acknowledge that. Our current technology can do it, albeit not very efficiently. I'm sure in the future it'll be cheaper and more efficient like any other technology. Nuclear is a great option for today, as it is relatively cleaner and efficient. I don't see us making many more nuclear plants because it has a very bad rep right now (first from Chernobyl and now Japan). If it's not handled properly it can surely be disastrous.

My point is, one of the following will happen some day: we'll run out of natural resources, or the demand for it outpaces it's creation (which would increase the price over time and will only go up), or there will be plenty to use however it's so out of reach that the cost to get said resources would not be worth it. As long as our collection of it is less than or equal to how much there is, we'll be okay. We can decrease how much we use dramatically by using solar wind and hydro.

 

[Twangbanger]

As was their plan. They didn't even try to hide it and many still won't believe.


[video=youtube;HlTxGHn4sH4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4[/video]



Coal rule would increase power prices by 70 or 80 percent | The Daily Caller

Is it just me...or does anybody else think Obama in this video sounds eerily like Hank Johnson, getting ready to tell us Guam will tip over?

 

[Bunnykid68]

The costs of starting ways of harnessing solar and wind power today are pretty high, I acknowledge that. Our current technology can do it, albeit not very efficiently. I'm sure in the future it'll be cheaper and more efficient like any other technology. Nuclear is a great option for today, as it is relatively cleaner and efficient. I don't see us making many more nuclear plants because it has a very bad rep right now (first from Chernobyl and now Japan). If it's not handled properly it can surely be disastrous.

My point is, one of the following will happen some day: we'll run out of natural resources, or the demand for it outpaces it's creation (which would increase the price over time and will only go up), or there will be plenty to use however it's so out of reach that the cost to get said resources would not be worth it. As long as our collection of it is less than or equal to how much there is, we'll be okay. We can decrease how much we use dramatically by using solar wind and hydro.

Solar has been around for decades and it still hasnt gotten much cheaper

 

[Bunnykid68]

I say that if you claim to be certain that global climate change ISN'T happening, then you're just as big a maroon as the person who claims that he's certain that it IS.

Really? 1 degree is global climate change? we just came out of an ice age here as far as I am concerned. The climate is always changing, always will be changing, not a damned thing we can do about it.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

"not a damned thing we can do about it."

That's right, even if we are causing it.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I hope one day we switch to other means of energy production. We will run out of oil and natural resources one day. I think the issue will be shelved until it's too late. We have the means to do it. Solar and wind energy is our best bet. Clean, reliable, and most important of all it's free. We'll never run out of wind, and solar energy is guaranteed for another few billion years. I can't argue against that. There really is no excuse to not use them.

Wind and Solar? Oh, absolutely! Leave your electrical needs to the vagaries of weather. Makes sense to me.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Nuclear power using Thorium is not all that dangerous. And the only reason that it is expensive is due to the environmentalists. Get rid of them as a political force and energy prices drop.

We need something far more powerful, in a smaller package, as we are heading towards anti gravity and space travel which will take huge amounts of energy, far more than we produce worldwide over decades.

On the other hand, the Solar System has all the resources we can possibly use for the foreseeable future. The outer atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn could supply us with hydrocarbons for thousands of years.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I say that if you claim to be certain that global climate change ISN'T happening, then you're just as big a maroon as the person who claims that he's certain that it IS.

But it IS reasonable to say that global climate change isn't happening the way the chicken littles are saying it is happening because their climate models aren't working out.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

But it IS reasonable to say that global climate change isn't happening the way the chicken littles are saying it is happening because their climate models aren't working out.

Not really. It might be reasonable to say "I'm not convinced that the science you describe is accurate to the point that I would support legislation to counter the supposed effects".

To say that it isn't happening the way chicken little says it's happening is to say that you know enough about it to refute what chicken little says. I don't and neither do you. (I suspect that chicken little doesn't so much either)

 

[Bunnykid68]

"not a damned thing we can do about it."

That's right, even if we are causing it.

When we can control the CFC's that come out of volcanoes I might be willing to think people are the cause of global warming.

 

[Bunnykid68]

1 degree in 100 years. Isn't that what they claim?

 

[Hoosier8]

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”

NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”

NIPCC: “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (“acidification”) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of terrestrial ecosystems and the services they provide for terrestrial livelihoods.”

NIPCC: “Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Empirical data pertaining to numerous animal species, including amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, reptiles, and mammals, indicate global warming and its myriad ecological effects tend to foster the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats, ranges, and populations, or otherwise have no observable impacts one way or the other. Multiple lines of evidence indicate animal species are adapting, and in some cases evolving, to cope with climate change of the modern era.”

IPCC: “Risk of mortality, morbidity, and other harms during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations.”

NIPCC: “A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than those lost under excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases, a phenomenon observed in virtually all parts of the world.”

How credible are the NIPCC reports? Endorsements by prominent scientists, reviews, and citations in peer-reviewed journals appear at the Web site mentioned above. NIPCC reports are produced by scores of scientists from around the world (some 20 countries so far), cite thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and are themselves peer-reviewed. In June 2013, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the 2009 and 2011 volumes.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

1 degree in 100 years. Isn't that what they claim?

I don't pay too much attention to it to be honest. Either way, like I said, it doesn't really matter.

 

[printcraft]

Really? 1 degree is global climate change? we just came out of an ice age here as far as I am concerned. The climate is always changing, always will be changing, not a damned thing we can do about it.

Why is it assumed that the temperature today (we've only been keeping track since the mid 1800's) is "normal" and exactly the temperature it is supposed to be??
So what was the temperature 1 million years ago? Hotter or cooler? Take a guess, because that's all you have.

 

[Bunnykid68]

OMG the temperature has dropped 10 degrees in the last few hours, it is the coming ice age if you are a mayfly

 

[Smokepole]

I don't think that Kevin Gregory, Chris Wright, and Angela Buchman have been conspiring to convince us that Global Warming exists.

You missed that point by a VERY wide margin.

 

[jamil]

The costs of starting ways of harnessing solar and wind power today are pretty high, I acknowledge that. Our current technology can do it, albeit not very efficiently. I'm sure in the future it'll be cheaper and more efficient like any other technology. Nuclear is a great option for today, as it is relatively cleaner and efficient. I don't see us making many more nuclear plants because it has a very bad rep right now (first from Chernobyl and now Japan). If it's not handled properly it can surely be disastrous.

My point is, one of the following will happen some day: we'll run out of natural resources, or the demand for it outpaces it's creation (which would increase the price over time and will only go up), or there will be plenty to use however it's so out of reach that the cost to get said resources would not be worth it. As long as our collection of it is less than or equal to how much there is, we'll be okay. We can decrease how much we use dramatically by using solar wind and hydro.

To dramatically decrease consumption of "all the below" by dramatically increasing consumption of "all the above" without also dramatically increasing the cost of energy. We're in no danger of running out of fossil fuels in the near term. As current power plants reach their end of life, we can start replacing them with the power generation technologies that are in the same order of magnitude.

But that's not what's going on here. This administration isn't pressing fear that we'll run out of fossil fuel. It's pressing fear of global warming. And it's willing to freeze out poor old grannies to make the switch as immediate as possible.

As for solar, I'd rather see that technology be developed and optimized for residential use rather than for power plants. I would love to have an affordable alternative so I could end my consumer relationship with REMC.