2020 climate fails

[brenthutch 383]

8 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You mean like this NOAA "Stuff?"

Exactly, “climate change threatens everything from skiing to French fries”. The skiing one is already debunked and if Macdonalds still have French fries in a couple years that will be debunked as well.

[brenthutch 383]

45 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

I honestly can't tell at this point if you're trolling or genuinely can't see where you're failing at fundamental logic.

Not trolling, I can’t understand why you can’t wrap your brain around the fact that CO2 levels exceeded Hansen’s worst case scenario and temperatures went up by only a fraction of what he predicted.  

[mistercwood 287]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Not trolling, I can’t understand why you can’t wrap your brain around the fact that CO2 levels exceeded Hansen’s worst case scenario and temperatures went up by only a fraction of what he predicted.  

Because I can read. If all other factors remained equal, you'd have a point - but they didn't. Your source explicitly calls out that the model assumed an ongoing increase in CFC outputs. They didn't increase. The underlying assumptions of the model were not met, ergo it failing to meet predictions is an expected outcome.

Again - if the model was only relying on CO2 as a factor for the predictions, you would have a solid point. It didn't, so you don't.

[brenthutch 383]

38 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

Because I can read. If all other factors remained equal, you'd have a point - but they didn't. Your source explicitly calls out that the model assumed an ongoing increase in CFC outputs. They didn't increase. The underlying assumptions of the model were not met, ergo it failing to meet predictions is an expected outcome.

Again - if the model was only relying on CO2 as a factor for the predictions, you would have a solid point. It didn't, so you don't.

You make a good point, but that undermines the argument that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. If CFCs were responsible for much of the warming,  we have already solved climate change by eliminating/reducing CFCs.  But that seems unlikely since CFCs are responsible for just over 10%. (Still invalidating his projections)

BTW the Montreal Protocol limiting CFCs was agreed to the year before, if he was a competent scientist he would have taken that into consideration

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 1,912]

2 hours ago, mistercwood said:

I honestly can't tell at this point if you're trolling or genuinely can't see where you're failing at fundamental logic.

ya figure?

[kallend 1,623]

Meanwhile, in the Arctic:

[BIGUN 1,053]

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Exactly, “climate change threatens everything from skiing to French fries”. The skiing one is already debunked and if Macdonalds still have French fries in a couple years that will be debunked as well.

You really don't read more than headlines that suit your narrative, do you? I realize the French Fries article may be a bit long, but you can do it.  

[airdvr 197]

On 1/4/2021 at 7:05 PM, mistercwood said:

Because I can read. If all other factors remained equal, you'd have a point - but they didn't. Your source explicitly calls out that the model assumed an ongoing increase in CFC outputs. They didn't increase. The underlying assumptions of the model were not met, ergo it failing to meet predictions is an expected outcome.

Again - if the model was only relying on CO2 as a factor for the predictions, you would have a solid point. It didn't, so you don't.

So your basically agreeing that the catastrophe predictions are wrong.  Talk about moving the goalposts.

But I digress.  I've maintained from the beginning that we won't do the things they say are necessary because we aren't willing to destroy our economy.  We'll adapt to be sure; you've already taken down coal...oil is next on your list. And yet you eschew nuclear.  All the wind farms and solar panels won't do the trick without nuclear power. 

You'll eventually reach a point where even the most die hard greenie will realize the tonic is more deadly than the disease.  I'll be worm food by then.

[mistercwood 287]

46 minutes ago, airdvr said:

So your basically agreeing that the catastrophe predictions are wrong.  Talk about moving the goalposts.

But I digress.  I've maintained from the beginning that we won't do the things they say are necessary because we aren't willing to destroy our economy.  We'll adapt to be sure; you've already taken down coal...oil is next on your list. And yet you eschew nuclear.  All the wind farms and solar panels won't do the trick without nuclear power. 

You'll eventually reach a point where even the most die hard greenie will realize the tonic is more deadly than the disease.  I'll be worm food by then.

There's so many strawmen in that post I'm inclined to report you to the Fire Department for creating a safety hazard...

From the top:

I didn't move a thing. Brent used a hacky critique of a climate model to say "Ha! Those idiots predicted these numbers and those numbers never happened!". I looked at the model. It was their worst case scenario, with specific assumptions built in. Those assumptions did not end up eventuating in the real world. Ergo, the model predictions also did not match the real world. Because, you know. That's how science works.

I'm not saying either way whether catastrophic predictions are right or wrong. I'm merely saying that that specific scenario from that specific model did not pan out as expected, because peoples behaviours changed and consequently the underlying assumptions of the model were not met. And that it's fucking stupid for Brent to use it as an indictment of the scientific method.

Switching to renewables won't destroy the economy. Fossil fuels are viable because we spent a century investing in them and continue to prop them up. Renewables will do just as well with the same drive behind them.

PS I'm generally pro-nuke and am annoyed it's a complete non-starter here when it could potentially help the transition move along. I don't however know enough about the real world risk/reward so I don't tend to talk about it.

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

So your basically agreeing that the catastrophe predictions are wrong.

AFF student: "I didn't have a malfunction on my first jump despite you going on and on about it for THREE HOURS!  So all your talk about malfunctions was dead wrong."

Quote

I've maintained from the beginning that we won't do the things they say are necessary because we aren't willing to destroy our economy.

We will do them to make money and save the economy.  There are trillions to be made from decarbonizing our energy systems.

Quote

We'll adapt to be sure; you've already taken down coal...oil is next on your list.

No it's not.  We will ALWAYS need oil for things like plastics.  You do know that plastics come from oil, right?

Quote

And yet you eschew nuclear. 

I have no problem with nuclear.  If someone comes up with an affordable/safe plan for nuclear, I am all for it.  SMR's look promising in a decade or so.

Quote

All the wind farms and solar panels won't do the trick without nuclear power. 

Sure they can (renewables in general.)  We are already seeing it happen.  If nuclear comes along at some point in the future - great.  If not, we don't absolutely need it.

Quote

You'll eventually reach a point where even the most die hard greenie will realize the tonic is more deadly than the disease.  I'll be worm food by then.

The people who thought that horses would always be the primary form of human transportation are worm food.  So are the people who thought people would never fly, who thought rockets didn't work outside the atmosphere, and who thought that computers would never amount to much.  (Actually I think a few of those last ones are still alive.)

About 20 years ago I read an article that talked about how it was impossible to reuse booster rockets.  There was simply no safe way to recover them.  Parachutes didn't really work; the Shuttle SRB's proved that.  Controlled re-entry was impossible with a booster designed to go UP, not down.  People just don't understand the structural problems of getting back a booster that has a skin thickness to contents ratio that's thinner than an eggshell!  The design margins are already too narrow.  Anyone who thinks they can is crazy.

There's been a long history of people saying "can't be done, impossible, never" - and then someone coming along and doing it.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

AFF student: "I didn't have a malfunction on my first jump despite you going on and on about it for THREE HOURS!  So all your talk about malfunctions was dead wrong."

We will do them to make money and save the economy.  There are trillions to be made from decarbonizing our energy systems.

No it's not.  We will ALWAYS need oil for things like plastics.  You do know that plastics come from oil, right?

I have no problem with nuclear.  If someone comes up with an affordable/safe plan for nuclear, I am all for it.  SMR's look promising in a decade or so.

Sure they can (renewables in general.)  We are already seeing it happen.  If nuclear comes along at some point in the future - great.  If not, we don't absolutely need it.

The people who thought that horses would always be the primary form of human transportation are worm food.  So are the people who thought people would never fly, who thought rockets didn't work outside the atmosphere, and who thought that computers would never amount to much.  (Actually I think a few of those last ones are still alive.)

About 20 years ago I read an article that talked about how it was impossible to reuse booster rockets.  There was simply no safe way to recover them.  Parachutes didn't really work; the Shuttle SRB's proved that.  Controlled re-entry was impossible with a booster designed to go UP, not down.  People just don't understand the structural problems of getting back a booster that has a skin thickness to contents ratio that's thinner than an eggshell!  The design margins are already too narrow.  Anyone who thinks they can is crazy.

There's been a long history of people saying "can't be done, impossible, never" - and then someone coming along and doing it.

Hi BIll,

Re:  'There's been a long history of people saying "can't be done, impossible, never" - and then someone coming along and doing it.'

That is why the engineering professions have historically had very low unemployment numbers.

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,384]

30 minutes ago, billvon said:

No it's not.  We will ALWAYS need oil for things like plastics.  You do know that plastics come from oil, right?

Aw, dammit! Are you telling me it was a mistake to invest all that money in the silk worm industry, (in anticipation of parachutes going back to silk)?

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

There's been a long history of people saying "can't be done, impossible, never" - and then someone coming along and doing it.

One of the main mistakes people make when predicting technological improvements is thinking we are at the end of the process.

[wmw999 2,121]

8 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

One of the main mistakes people make when predicting technological improvements is thinking we are at the end of the process.

This. We're not the apex, we're simply the current point. The current state WILL change -- it's up to each of us to decide which ones to embrace.

Wendy P.

[kallend 1,623]

Meanwhile in Norway:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/05/electric-cars-record-market-share-norway

Electric cars rise to record 54% market share in Norway

Nordic country becomes first in the world where electric car sales outstrip those powered by other means

[Phil1111 911]

10 minutes ago, kallend said:

Meanwhile in Norway:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/05/electric-cars-record-market-share-norway

Electric cars rise to record 54% market share in Norway

Nordic country becomes first in the world where electric car sales outstrip those powered by other means

Those Norwegians!

Norway's $1tn wealth fund to divest from oil and gas exploration "World’s largest sovereign wealth fund was created to invest North Sea oil profits"

Meanwhile others cling to oil like whalers pursuing the last right whale.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Those Norwegians!

Norway's $1tn wealth fund to divest from oil and gas exploration "World’s largest sovereign wealth fund was created to invest North Sea oil profits"

Meanwhile others cling to oil like whalers pursuing the last right whale.

You make a very good point.  Just as simple economics drove the switch from whale oil to kerosene, the same thing will happen to fossil fuels We only have about a century’s worth of economically recoverable oil (with current technology). As it begins to deplete, prices will rise and we will slowly transition to other forms of energy.  We just have to be smart enough to let it happen.

Edited January 6, 2021 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Meanwhile in Norway:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/05/electric-cars-record-market-share-norway

Electric cars rise to record 54% market share in Norway

Nordic country becomes first in the world where electric car sales outstrip those powered by other means

Meanwhile in the US.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g32006077/best-selling-cars-2020/

Not a single EV, not even Tesla in the top 25. In fact, only two cars in the top ten.  The rest?  Gas guzzling SUVs and full sized pickup trucks.

Norway? Raotflmao

[SkyDekker 1,122]

51 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Not a single EV, not even Tesla in the top 25. In fact, only two cars in the top ten.  The rest?  Gas guzzling SUVs and full sized pickup trucks.

You seem to automatically assume that defines the viability of EV cars in stead of the possibility it defines Americans.

[brenthutch 383]

12 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You seem to automatically assume that defines the viability of EV cars in stead of the possibility it defines Americans.

 

[brenthutch 383]

23 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You seem to automatically assume that defines the viability of EV cars in stead of the possibility it defines Americans.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/227644/instead-of-vs-in-stead-of

[gowlerk 1,912]

24 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You seem to automatically assume that defines the viability of EV cars in stead of the possibility it defines Americans.

Just wanted to mention that it also defines Canadians. At least it sure does from my experience.

[billvon 2,400]

35 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You seem to automatically assume that defines the viability of EV cars in stead of the possibility it defines Americans.

Tesla model 3 - #7 best selling car in the US.

Remember back when the EV haters were saying "no EV will ever amount to ANYTHING!  No one wants a golf cart."  Now they are the fastest cars on the road, every major manufacturer has an EV of some sort, Tesla has a higher market cap than Toyota, and the anti-EV crowd has to come up with ever more creative ways of defining them as "not popular."

"They can't tow my 28 foot boat!  They will NEVER catch on."

[airdvr 197]

It's a best seller when you're legislated to purchase one.

[brenthutch 383]

27 minutes ago, billvon said:

Tesla model 3 - #7 best selling car in the US.

 

Americans aren’t buying cars, they are buying SUVs and big pickup trucks.  That is why Tesla didn’t show up on the list of the top 25 selling VEHICLES.  As far as market cap goes, Tesla stock is much more popular than their cars. 

Edited January 6, 2021 by brenthutch