Global warming solutions (on topic)

[brenthutch 383]

We can reduce our CO2 emissions by getting rid of COP.  Private jets and limousines needlessly dumping tones of CO2 into the atmosphere while accomplishing nothing. 

 

 

 

[olofscience 420]

43 minutes ago, metalslug said:

If the former applies then my earlier comment about energy types competing fairly (and naturally drawing consumers to green) in the market should apply

My several analogies already explained why your earlier comment shouldn't apply (in either scenario)

Edited November 8, 2021 by olofscience

[brenthutch 383]

42 minutes ago, olofscience said:

My several analogies already explained why your earlier comment shouldn't apply (in either scenario)

 

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

So which is it then ? You can't have it both ways. Either power from green is already cheaper than fossil, without subsidies, taxes or penalties for either, or it's not.

They are cheaper.  Specifically, in terms of power sources being built now that will be online in five years, and in $/megawatt-hour (and WITHOUT subsidies) - 

Conventional:
Coal $72
Natural gas CCS $37
Nuclear $69
Geothermal $36

Renewable:
Wind $36
Solar $32
Hydro $55

Peaking:
Gas turbine $106
Battery storage $119

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Quote

If the former applies then my earlier comment about energy types competing fairly (and naturally drawing consumers to green) in the market should apply, or do the examples you've linked apply to countries that already penalise fossil power?

End the subsidies on fossil fuels AND renewables - and include all the costs, not just the purchase price - and I'd agree.
 

[billvon 2,396]

3 hours ago, metalslug said:

What is this showing exactly ?  Regardless of 'green' technologies we're always going to have domestic cats, glass buildings and power lines for quite some time. More turbines might logically imply more bird deaths but surely this should be compared to bird deaths caused by other energy types, if it's a specific criticism of wind turbines.

It is showing that wind turbines do indeed increase bird deaths, as pretty much every single thing we build that sticks up into the air does.  It highlights:

1) That bird deaths are not caused by blades "chopping up" birds, but by birds flying into the blades, towers and structure surrounding the wind farm.  Just as they fly into power lines, buildings and towers.

2) That if your desire is to reduce bird deaths, you should aim your efforts wisely.  If you manage to abolish wind power and destroy every single wind turbine out there, vs. a declawing-cats initiative that affects only .1% of domestic cats - the domestic cat effort will show a 100x reduction in bird deaths vs. ending all wind power.

OTOH, if your desire is purely political, it works well if people don't look at the numbers very carefully (which they usually don't)

 

[billvon 2,396]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

BH argument cycle:

• climate change isn't happening
• ok it is happening, but it's perfectly natural and humans have nothing to do with it <-------- we are here
• it is happening but there's nothing we can do about it, because China
• if renewables were so great why do they need subsidies* to compete with fossil fuels?
• rinse, repeat ad infinitum

I'd also add in there somewhere "climate change is happening and we're doing it and it is resulting in a miraculous greening of the planet, so it's all good."  (usually right before a return to "the planet isn't warming.")

[brenthutch 383]

48 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 

Before I get dinged for thread drift, the above character is from South Park.  He is the son of “Chief Runs With Premise”, his name is “Premise Running Thin”. Given the weakness of Olof’s analogies I thought it appropriate 

Edited November 8, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Before I get dinged for thread drift, the above character is from South Park.  He is the son of “Chief Runs With Premise”, his name is “Premise Running Thin”. Given the weakness of Olof’s analogies I thought it appropriate 

Answering a question no one asked  because nobody cares, brent 

I am, however, mildly interested in hearing what you think made my analogies weak.

[brenthutch 383]

34 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Answering a question no one asked  because nobody cares, brent 

I am, however, mildly interested in hearing what you think made my analogies weak.

Equating CO2 to sewage.  

Also, when conducting a cost benefit analysis one must look at both sides of the ledger.  Even if you disagree with the IPCC and NOAA and think bad weather is caused by CO2, you still must consider the benefits of fossil fuels before you can make a rational judgement.

[wmw999 2,121]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Equating CO2 to sewage.  

Also, when conducting a cost benefit analysis one must look at both sides of the ledger.  Even if you disagree with the IPCC and NOAA and think bad weather is caused by CO2, you still must consider the benefits of fossil fuels before you can make a rational judgement.

Sewage has lots of fertilizing compounds in it; why else do people use manure, and even night soil (human poop) as fertilizer?

The benefits have to be weighed against ALL of the issues -- not just the new ones, or the ones that jump up and down. Issues like the contamination of soil in places where old gas station tanks weren't maintained; contamination of soil around refineries and other petrochemical processing (did you know I used to live next to a Superfund site?). Against the respiratory illness caused by smog. These are just a few; we're used to them, kind of like how we're used to the 30-40,000 people a year killed by guns and cars. They are still real costs.

Wendy P.

[olofscience 420]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Equating CO2 to sewage.  

Do you not know what an analogy is?

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Do you not know what an analogy is?

I said your analogy was weak, not nonexistent.

 

[olofscience 420]

Just now, brenthutch said:

I said your analogy was weak, not nonexistent.

Well I asked you why you thought it was weak, and all you could answer was I equated sewage to CO2. Do you not see that you haven't answered the question?

[brenthutch 383]

8 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Well I asked you why you thought it was weak, and all you could answer was I equated sewage to CO2. Do you not see that you haven't answered the question?

Exhaling is just like pooping.

Got it, brilliant analogy 

[olofscience 420]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Exhaling is just like pooping.

Got it, brilliant analogy 

That's the most reluctant answer I've seen in a while  sorry I had to drag it out of you...

[metalslug 31]

9 hours ago, olofscience said:

BH argument cycle:

• climate change isn't happening
• ok it is happening, but it's perfectly natural and humans have nothing to do with it <-------- we are here
• it is happening but there's nothing we can do about it, because China
• if renewables were so great why do they need subsidies* to compete with fossil fuels?
• rinse, repeat ad infinitum

People who have the viewpoints above (rather exaggerated but not entirely inaccurate) are weighing that against demonstrably failed doom prophecies and tunnel-vision mantras;.

This year is the 'last chance saloon'. Pacific Islands and/or arctic ice and/or snow weather phenomenon will be gone by.. <current year + 20 to +50 years>, rinse & repeat. Also, lest we forget the 70's warnings of a looming ice age and Greta's more recent advice to 'stick your climate crisis...'  

There are some valid arguments for the existence and dangers of climate change aspects but the kinds of circus sideshows, hyperbole and wildly inaccurate pseudoscience that pervades the discussion does significant damage against creating believers on the 'green' side, along with the undeniable hypocrisy of climate speakers and public figures who are not following their own 'green' advice.

IMO the net-zero push also has a curiously narrow focus towards a 'climate is all that matters' mantra, appearing to disregard the social and economic realities of many nations, such as the cobalt industry (widely used in green solutions) mining & conditions for workers in those countries.

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

This year is the 'last chance saloon'. Pacific Islands and/or arctic ice and/or snow weather phenomenon will be gone by.. <current year + 20 to +50 years>, rinse & repeat. Also, lest we forget the 70's warnings of a looming ice age

That was one report that said "if current high altitude aerosols continue to increase, then . . . ."  They did not.  Thus the study did not predict a looming ice age.

One publication, Newsweek, took that and ran with it.  We will enter a new ice age and the "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."  They later apologized for their irresponsible journalism.

Then, as now, it is important to get your info from reliable sources.

Quote

There are some valid arguments for the existence and dangers of climate change aspects

Agreed.

Quote

the kinds of circus sideshows, hyperbole and wildly inaccurate pseudoscience that pervades the discussion

Like "the 70's warnings of a looming ice age?"  Yes, agreed.

Quote

IMO the net-zero push also has a curiously narrow focus towards a 'climate is all that matters' mantra, appearing to disregard the social and economic realities of many nations

Not sure why you think that.  Most solutions I've seen are market based.  The reduction in coal power, the increase in EV sales and the spread of solar-PV are three examples.

[metalslug 31]

43 minutes ago, billvon said:

That was one report that said "if current high altitude aerosols continue to increase, then . . . ."  They did not.  Thus the study did not predict a looming ice age.

One publication, Newsweek, took that and ran with it.  

Then, as now, it is important to get your info from reliable sources.

One report eh ? Then I guess you missed quite a few, they are rather easy to find, such as this one or this one  ...or how about Kallend's good friend The Washington Post; Surely there is no more reliable gospel than that source ? 

Edited November 9, 2021 by metalslug

[olofscience 420]

8 hours ago, metalslug said:

People who have the viewpoints above (rather exaggerated but not entirely inaccurate) are weighing that against demonstrably failed doom prophecies and tunnel-vision mantras;.

But I was quoting BH's arguments made here, by him.

Now you're using arguments I never made. I was never making any doom prophecies, although you did accuse my analogy of being hyperbole (but you haven't really explained why).

You can certainly choose the most wild, extreme and wrong predictions of the climate-change side and use that to attack their credibility, but you have to actually make arguments why the mainstream science view now is wrong. I'm not going to get dragged down defending why people in the 70s were wrong, what matters to me - is the science wrong NOW?

In any case, many of the past agreements were trying to limit the heating to 1.5C. However, data from the past 7 years clearly indicates we've already warmed 1C. I think we're going to overshoot 1.5, and while panicking isn't the solution - like having a mal we need to deal with this calmly - those in denial about the situation pose a far bigger threat.

[metalslug 31]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

But I was quoting BH's arguments made here, by him.

Now you're using arguments I never made. I was never making any doom prophecies,

Steady on. It was not meant to imply that you were making wild doom prophecies (not that I've seen yet), I thought that was rather obvious when I started paraphrasing Prince Charles and Greta. I was referring to the loss of credibility of the 'left' side of the climate debate with regard to the more extreme elements in that crowd, perhaps the same way that the centre-right are thrown in with the far-right. It pollutes (forgive the pun) the actual status and undermines arguments.

Similarly, I recently cited a few examples, at least one reputable scientist from a reputable source even by lefty standards, forecasting an ice-age from fossil fuel burning no less. Everyone believes they are correct in the moment and when such arguments are published with supposed satellite data backing them up and NASA's name being dropped, it's curiously reminiscent of the current 'we're quite sure that warming will cause catastrophe XXX in XX years time', and subsequent failure of that prediction. Credibility.

While we're discussing BH's (supposed) arguments;

• it is happening but there's nothing we can do about it, because China

In an earlier post we had bill offsetting wind turbine bird deaths by deflecting to several other more substantial causes of bird deaths, suggesting that anyone who feels aggrieved by bird deaths should pursue the larger causes.  A curious argument because it pretty much applies the same logic as to BH's point above (if assuming that BH has actually implicated China in that way in a post).

Edited November 9, 2021 by metalslug

[olofscience 420]

2 minutes ago, metalslug said:

It pollutes (forgive the pun) the actual status and undermines arguments.

Then let's try to keep those out of the discussion. I didn't bring them in.

3 minutes ago, metalslug said:

NASA's name being dropped

NASA is name dropped a lot because they have a good reputation. But individual scientists' views in random news articles are not official NASA views, and until NASA makes an official press release or the scientist actually publishes a peer-reviewed paper (or in the TRS) then you can't assume that anyone affiliated with NASA is reputable by "lefty" standards. Even Brent name-drops NASA when it suits him.

6 minutes ago, metalslug said:

In an earlier post we had bill offsetting wind turbine bird deaths by deflecting to several other more substantial causes of bird deaths, suggesting that anyone who feels aggrieved by bird deaths should pursue the larger causes.  A curious argument because it pretty much applies the same logic as to BH's point above (if assuming that BH has actually implicated China in that way in a post).

The problem with this analogy is that the larger causes of bird deaths (wildfires, etc) is STILL under our control. China isn't under our control. But we can still reduce the impact massively without them, and the purpose of these international agreements is to get them to join the cause.

The size of the impact of wind turbines on wildlife is still debatable - they're currently being studied and people are trying to come up with ways to improve the issue. At least there's the possibility of fixing the problem (and solar doesn't have this problem). Are people on the right determined to put the same effort into making coal plants *not* emit any CO2 or other pollutants?

This is why I don't think it's the same logic. Let me know if I need to clarify my points above.

[olofscience 420]

Ok I'll have to correct my last statement - yes, the two arguments seem to be the same logic, but in my opinion one argument is more valid than the other because of the reasons I outlined.

[billvon 2,396]

15 hours ago, metalslug said:

how about Kallend's good friend The Washington Post; Surely there is no more reliable gospel than that source ? 

So: If people keep putting high altitude aerosols in the stratosphere, "in the next 50 years" that could cause a significant drop in temperature.  Then, if that temperature drop is "sustained over 5 to 10 years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

I agree with all that.

Did people keep putting high altitude aerosols in the stratosphere?

Let's put this in a skydiving perspective.  A guy at your DZ keeps pulling at 400 feet.  The S+TA tells him the DZO is going to ground him, and tells him "you keep doing that, you're going to die."

Guy starts pulling at 2500 feet and everyone breathes a sigh of relief.  A month later the guy says "the S+TA doesn't know shit!  I didn't die - and the DZO didn't even ground me!"

Is he right?  Is the S+TA a clueless alarmist?

[billvon 2,396]

7 hours ago, metalslug said:

In an earlier post we had bill offsetting wind turbine bird deaths by deflecting to several other more substantial causes of bird deaths, suggesting that anyone who feels aggrieved by bird deaths should pursue the larger causes.  A curious argument because it pretty much applies the same logic as to BH's point above (if assuming that BH has actually implicated China in that way in a post).

No, there was no 'offsetting' of bird deaths.  I did say that if your goal is reducing bird deaths, then going after the larger causes first makes the most sense.  In the same vein, if you are an American who wants to reduce bird deaths, declawing your cat will do a lot more than making angry posts on the Internet about how people in Canada should declaw their cats.

[brenthutch 383]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

No, there was no 'offsetting' of bird deaths.  I did say that if your goal is reducing bird deaths, then going after the larger causes first makes the most sense.  In the same vein, if you are an American who wants to reduce bird deaths, declawing your cat will do a lot more than making angry posts on the Internet about how people in Canada should declaw their cats.

How many large predatory birds or bats do cats kill? 

“Unprecedented numbers of migratory bats are found dead beneath industrial-scale wind turbines during late summer and autumn in both North America and Europe,” says Paul Cryan, a research biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. “There are no other well-documented threats to populations of migratory tree bats that cause mortality of similar magnitude to that observed at wind turbines.”

Edited November 9, 2021 by brenthutch