Good luck with that warming . . .

[Amazon 7]

You first ... your corner of it is already far worse than mine... but some of you who want the rest of us to live in the same level of crap that you are comfortable with, will deserve every bit of what is coming to those who will see you as the ancestors who fucked it all up.

[billvon 2,400]

>How do you know that the current warming/cooling that we are seeing today
>isn't the Earth's natural process of maintaining a balanced ecosystem?

The Earth doesn't have a "natural process of maintaining a balanced ecosystem." It does have characteristics that can almost destroy ecosystems, though. Climactic variations, caused by things like massive volcano eruptions and meteor impacts, regularly wipe out most life on the planet.

Fortunately (for us) most of the time, it's somewhat stable. Best not fuck with it too much.

[billvon 2,400]

>One could say that morons and charlatans are using local transient warm spells
>and natural changes in weather to encourage an activist segment of society that is
>predisposed to extreme views to claim that the "sky is falling."

Agreed. Similarly, political shills and people who are heavily invested in oil and coal are using local transient cold spells and natural changes in weather to encourage a particularly clueless segment of society that is predisposed to hateful rhetoric to deny climate change, and to try to suppress and ignore any science that deals with it.

Fortunately, scientists don't pay much heed to either side. They concentrate on the gradual increase in global temperatures that has been occurring since 1850.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Fortunately, scientists don't pay much heed to either side.

Sure they do. There's a shitload of money to be made off of climate science.

Quote

They concentrate on the gradual increase in global temperatures that has been occurring since 1850.

That's part of the problem. The buildup of greenhouse gases due to human industry would not have had an effect any greater than noise until the 1940's-1950's. It wasn't until the mid-1900's when the effects of industrial emissions and land use started having some effect.

By focusing on temperature increase since 1850, they are inherently focusing on temperature increase absent anthropogenic causes.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I wonder why Edison bothered to invent light bulbs before there were any operating electrical power plants. Could it be planning for the future?

Of course! Today what would have happened is that the federal government would have given large grants and subsidies for Edison to build his power plants and infrastructure for DC power. Generation and transmission would be the policy of the federal government. Considering the eminence of Edison, that whole Tesla and Westinghouse method would have been merely the work of evil (we know it was evil - Edison executed an elephant with it to show how dangerous it is).

It's a good thing we didn't have the government looking toward the future for everybody to make sure it was beneficial and positive. Instead, AC transmission became the standard when it was found to be more efficient for residential and commercial use. (Not to say that DC doesn't have a role - High Voltage DC transmission is used, too).

This is what the discussion is about, John. Whether all of our money should be directed to benefit what may be the equivalent of Edison's DC electrical grid. We've got the brilliant Edison versus that kooky OCD Tesla and that robber baron Westinghouse?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>Sure they do. There's a shitload of money to be made off of climate
>science.

Yep, and a shitload of money to be made in denying it. Nevertheless, most scientists are more interested in the science than in the hype.

>That's part of the problem. The buildup of greenhouse gases due to
>human industry would not have had an effect any greater than noise until
>the 1940's-1950's.

CO2 ppm in 1850: 280ppm
CO2 ppm in 1950: 310ppm

Overall, you are correct, though. From the 1850's to the 1920's or so, both CO2 and temperatures were rising slowly, and were not all that significant compared to decadal changes. Indeed, if CO2 had continued rising at that rate we'd be seeing much less effect today.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Fortunately, scientists don't pay much heed to either side.

Sure they do. There's a shitload of money to be made off of climate science.

.

Interesting how the worms turn:

Subsidies for corn producers that encouraged overproduction of corn - Richard Nixon

Loan guarantees to corn producers to use the corn surplus to produce ethanol - Ronald Reagan

Cap and Trade - Ronald Reagan

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Fine examples, John, of how these things work. But I don't get your "worm" comment. Please explain it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Fine examples, John, of how these things work. But I don't get your "worm" comment. Please explain it.

Idiom. The situation changes.

The right is so consumed by its ODS that it now repudiates policies of its heroes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm not into hero worship. It's the reason why I've said that even Justice Brennan wasn't always wrong.

Do you somehoww think that Reagan is my hero? I'd like to see you show me. If you've got the evidence to show me that I've never opined that I thought Reagan was wrong, please show it to me.

Otherwise, follow your own suggestion and retract the ad hominem that added ZERO to the discussion. Frankly, I don't believe I'm more important than the underlying point. Trust me - I'm not flattered by the attention you've directed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Quote

Yes you are quite correct. .

Yes, I am, and your lame effort to deflect the discussion is both transparent and futile.

Yes I am trying to transparently deflect the discussion back into the real would. I know that as a member of the academic effete, this is hard for you to deal with, but trust me, it is the only path forward.
How do we get the co2 out of the combustion of hydrocarbons? (not hypothetical) If you need some help with the math, and it appears that you do, let me know. As a banker I am good at ciphering.

[billvon 2,400]

>How do we get the co2 out of the combustion of hydrocarbons? (not hypothetical)

1) Sequestration. It basically stores the CO2 you get from combustion so it is not released into the environment. Four fuel plants currently do this, and sequester about four million tons a year of CO2.

2) Lower carbon fuels. Methane is a good one. Much, much less CO2 per energy unit obtained. And there are plenty pf methane vehicles and power plants available.

But all that is sort of beside the point. Oil is a very useful substance, and yet we burn it by the gigaton. The goal should not be to reduce the amount of CO2 you get when you burn hydrocarbons, but rather to reduce the amount of hydrocarbons we burn so that:

1) they last longer
2) they are available for more useful applications, like medicine, plastics and industrial feedstocks
3) we reduce the amount of CO2 we emit.

The earth can deal with a _lot_ of CO2 production via its natural carbon cycle, so we don't have to never burn any hydrocarbons again. All we have to do is burn less.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why don't you list the threads on here started by deniers listing local cold spells, and compare with the list of threads by believers citing local hot spells. You will find quite a difference.

That's probably true. Of the postings authored here, the deniers print more anecdotal evidence. The scare-mongers counter the deniers, and just say it's scientific fact, rarely bother to add anything more.

However, the deniers also print numerous citations by the [mis]spokespeople of the scare-monger side. That side has made no shortage of outlandish claims based on short term weather. Similar to what rush and others have said - a bad hurricane year = proof of climate change. Several years of calm hurricane seasons = weather.

The snow melt predictions are all over the place. I'll get to Kilamanjero before the supposed disappearance of the glaciers (said to be by 2015), but we'll see when it really happens.

The funniest, to me, are the rapidly declining predictions of increasing sea levels. It started with 10s of feet and much of California becoming a lake, then it was mere feet, and recently the description in Cancun would be an inch every 11 years. Doesn't have quite the same ring as 50 or 60 feet underwater.

At the end of it, the scare mongers need to present real plans of action. One that could actually be accepted and adopted. They probably need to kill off Greenpeace and its antinuclear message. Because there's only so much oil, so many people, and a hell of a lot of carbon emitting coal waiting to be burned when there's nothing else.

[brenthutch 383]

"All we have to do is burn less."

And we will, as demand increases and supplies diminish, prices will rise and more and more alternative sources of energy will become economically viable. As lawrocket pointed out, the market has a way of working all of this out. It will be ok, everybody take a deep co2 enhanced breath. No need to panic. No need for government intervention, no cap n trade, no wind subsidies no solar subsidies. We will be off of the oil in the next 100 years whether we like it or not.

[billvon 2,400]

>And we will, as demand increases and supplies diminish, prices will rise and more
>and more alternative sources of energy will become economically viable. As lawrocket
>pointed out, the market has a way of working all of this out.

It does indeed. One way for it to all work out is a worldwide economic collapse, brought about when oil becomes very suddenly too expensive to afford, and we rapidly lose most of our transportation, military and agricultural energy sources. If you see that as a good thing, and would be fine groveling at the feet of Chavez and the Sauds for enough oil to run even a quarter of our military, then do nothing.

>No need for government intervention, no cap n trade, no wind subsidies no
>solar subsidies.

Again, if the end of the US as a first world economy is acceptable to you, then yes, that's an option. Personally, I would rather not see that happen; I'd rather we end up relying on those hated evil windmills, solar power systems, nuclear reactors etc than die with honor at Big Oil's side.

[brenthutch 383]

"It does indeed. One way for it to all work out is a worldwide economic collapse, brought about when oil becomes very suddenly too expensive to afford, and we rapidly lose most of our transportation, military and agricultural energy sources. If you see that as a good thing, and would be fine groveling at the feet of Chavez and the Sauds for enough oil to run even a quarter of our military, then do nothing."

Straw man. Suddenly? Rapidly? What makes you think so?
We have plenty of oil in the tar sands of Eastern Utah and oil off of the coast of California, Florida and ANWAR. The military already has the capacity to make synthetic fuels in the event of a crises. We can even make gasoline out of coal. The market is a wonderful thing you just have to let it work and it works much better in the absence of government subsidies.

[billvon 2,400]

>Suddenly? Rapidly? What makes you think so?

Look at demand vs supply over the past 100 years or so. It's been ramping up very rapidly, while supply has stopped ramping. Some of that demand is flexible; most, nowadays, isn't.

How does an airline deal with fuel prices that triple or quadruple? They go out of business, and the remaining people who can afford to travel do so on the few remaining airlines. Oil demand drops.

How does a shipping company deal with fuel prices that triple or quadruple? Again, they go out of business, and the people who can still afford to ship use the remaining companies (and rail, which is a lot more energy efficient.) Oil demand drops.

How does a retailer who relies on shippers deal with the loss of shipping capacity? They go out of business.

How do the employees of that retailer deal with a loss of employment? They go on welfare, spend less, get a job painting houses part time etc. They can't afford gasoline so oil demand drops.

That's what you are talking about when you say "the market has a way of working all of this out." Yes, it does. You just may not like it.

Now, compare that scenario to a scenario where we have viable alternatives. How does an airline deal with oil prices that triple or quadruple? They switch to their biofuel planes and many manage to stay in business.

How about that guy who lost his job? He still can't afford gas. But he can afford the few cents a mile it costs to drive his PHEV; he just has to drive shorter distances.

That's the reason for the big effort to get alternatives to the point where they are viable - they give us options when the cheap oil runs out. And at that point, the pain is much less intense.

>The military already has the capacity to make synthetic fuels in the
>event of a crises.

Nowhere near enough to run our military. And the (small) capacity we do have was paid for by the very programs you claim to detest in your post above. Are you now supporting them? If so, good! They will indeed help when we start running low on oil. We just need a lot more capacity than we have now,

>We have plenty of oil in the tar sands of Eastern Utah and oil off of
>the coast of California, Florida and ANWAR.

Yes, we do. We should save those for our military for when we really need it. We would drain ANWAR dry in a few months if we used it to supply our economy with oil. Best save it for when we are facing a military crisis, and we want to have our aircraft in the air and not sitting on a base as someone hunts for fuel.

>The market is a wonderful thing you just have to let it work . . .

The market gave us Enron, the mortgage bubble, the Great Depression of 1929 and Standard Oil. It's not always a good thing.

The market is like nature. Yes, nature regulates itself too. But sometimes that regulation means that you and everyone in your family dies of bubonic plague. You OK with that, or would you rather have a little more control over what happens to you?

[brenthutch 383]

Again Straw man, airlines, tucking companies and many large petroleum users purchase futures to insulate them from price shocks. And yes bad companies will fail.



Or move into a new career, start a company, develop a new product.
(Your example is illustrative of your world view. Definitely a glass is half empty /victim type.)

Again just wrong, The Germans did it in WWII and we have ample stores on hand for any foreseeable contingency.

< the (small) capacity we do have was paid for by the very programs you claim to detest in your post above. Are you now supporting them?

False analogy, you are conflating the military with civilian open market


Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Yes Bill I would like to have control over what happens to me. Not you or your progressive ilk.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

The military already has the capacity to make synthetic fuels in the event of a crises..

No, that is simply incorrect. They want the capacity, are are sponsoring a lot of research in the area, and have placed orders contingent on the R&D being successful. But the capacity they require doesn't yet exist, and won't if people like you get your way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Quote

The military already has the capacity to make synthetic fuels in the event of a crises..

No, that is simply incorrect. They want the capacity, are are sponsoring a lot of research in the area, and have placed orders contingent on the R&D being successful. But the capacity they require doesn't yet exist, and won't if people like you get your way.

You failed to recognize the larger point; that we already have set aside the necessary reserves for any potential military contingency. All of this bio fuel crap is just that. A large boondoggle. And Bills point, a red herring.

[lawrocket 3]

First, Bill, a great post. (Again, it was you and this reasoning that changed my mind on ANWAR - that place is our savings account and let's not touch it for short-term comfort).

There is one thing, however, that I think gets at the crux of the discussions with AGW:

Quote

would you rather have a little more control over what happens to you?

That's the thing. What do we want to control? Climate is, I think, being approached as present-day "security" is being approached. Sure, we'd rather be safe. But then in order to have that "safety" we are unable to do that which we would want to do.

We don't want to have bubbles bursting. So let's prevent bubbles. We don't want any bad times so let's prevent good times. This is the constant exchange that comes with economic matters. And like it or not, when the world economy is run with fossil fuels, what to do about it is an economic decision.

There is also a principal of economics that is pretty well-known: "The glory is in doing it first. The money is in doing it second." Things like the Hybrid vehicle are great developments that show the slow but steady move toward increased efficiency. Construction techniques that design are making structures more energy efficient because people will pay for something that is cheaper in the long run.

Once the cost of things like solar units comes down to where it is affordable by the general population then we'll see more and more of it.

There are also continuously evolving technologies that are making vehicle engines more efficient. And making power plants more efficient. I like the idea of carbon sequestration. I even agree with James Hansen that things such as nuclear energy and bio-char are good things to look into. (I find bio-char really interesting because it not only acts to sequester carbon but also can turn poor soil into arable land, eliminate the need for some fertilizers and release oxygen at the same time - it's like four-for-one.)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The military already has the capacity to make synthetic fuels in the event of a crises..

No, that is simply incorrect. They want the capacity, are are sponsoring a lot of research in the area, and have placed orders contingent on the R&D being successful. But the capacity they require doesn't yet exist, and won't if people like you get your way.

You failed to recognize the larger point; that we already have set aside the necessary reserves for any potential military contingency. All of this bio fuel crap is just that. A large boondoggle. And Bills point, a red herring.

You can Drill Baby Drill till you are blue in the face but the fact is that in the next 50 years it will be GONE and you better have that BIO_FUEL_CRAP completely online as part of the overall energy picture... or you better be building up those muscles in your calves and thighs to peddle your ass around on bicycles or have a car that you can shovel coal into its firebox.( We got LOTS of coal.... the US is truly blessed with coal... the trouble is... its a pain to get to, a pain to ship, a pain to use, and a pain to the environment that your future generations will have to cope with.)

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]we already have set aside the necessary reserves for any potential military contingency.

[brenthutch 383]

I said that the military has sufficient reserves (refined, crude, and in the ground) to deal with any foreseeable contingency. I did not say that these reserves were infinite, they are not.



The current strategic reserve has enough oil to meet the current energy needs of the United States with NO additional production for 2 months. Much longer if we supplement that with domestic production and yes, Gasp! conservation. I agree with you that there is a distinction to be made between our strategic military and economic needs and Al Gore's crackpot get rich scheme.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]The current strategic reserve has enough oil to meet the current energy needs of the United States with NO additional production for 2 months.