I repeat my point: you don't know what these words mean. Look, no one ever said that cars are a "food-based technology". Or that icecream is an "atom-based product". Yes, you need plastic for these things,but 1) everything is made out of plastic 2) plastic can and already is made without oil, and most importently 3) Oil used to make plastic is not burned. For global warming to stop, we need to stop burning coal and gas. After we accomplish that, we can try to improve the planet even more by not using plastic and whatnot, but that debate has nothing to do with climate change.
People have stopped because of political reasons. Many nations are trying to improve their solar industry. Germany, China, etc.
I do not get your argument here. What are the "essential problems" of solar and wind? Yes, some things are questionable, some things must improve (using rare earths for example). But so far I can only see a giant nirvana fallacy:" Renewable energy does not solve all our problems, therefore these technologys are useless.
My point is that arguing there is profit in solar and wind as evidence of proof human-caused climate change is happening is an absurd argument. So I presented a counter-argument equally valid to show the absurdity of it.
My pointing out the lack of acceptance by nations was to further show the absurdity of the argument and to, in turn, show that just because there is both profit and a need doesn't mean that people are accepting reason or letting profit guide them on this matter.
Absurd arguments in favor of taking action against climate do not help us. At all. They simply get used as evidence by those who oppose doing anything to argue that our stance is absurd and not based on logic, all the while blatantly ignoring logic for their own stance.
In short, my bringing up those political reasons you mention was to show that both scientific reason and profit are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Nations are ignoring both for other reasons, as you cited.
Then you should point out to these people that traditional technologies use even MORE fossil fuels: in production AND use.
I do. But, it's like arguing evolution science with people who oppose evolution. It is a waste of time arguing with people who will never accept reason because reason is not guiding their actions to begin with.
That was my point with saying to wait and see. This is a topic where increasingly profit and science are irrelevant to the discussion.
What should we do? Ignore them for the most part. Stop giving them the validity of attention. They'll shout themselves hoarse and we can then move on.
|
My point is that arguing there is profit in solar and wind as evidence of proof human-caused climate change is happening is an absurd argument. So I presented a counter-argument equally valid to show the absurdity of it.
So... the reason the things you are saying make no sense is that you are mimicking absurd arguments... that no one actually made?
Alrighty then, moving on.
As predicted, China is moving to take a global leadership role on climate change.
China's new carbon market will be pretty much the final death blow to the coal power industry. India alone wouldn't be able to keep it going (and doesn't seem to be trying) and most of Africa and the rest of the developing world is skipping directly to renewables.
The argument was made with these words:
Fortunately, there is now also a great deal of money to be made on solar and wind power... whether you 'believe' in AGW or not. Which is pushing us towards a tipping point where the denial industry can no longer afford to keep up the charade. Indeed, it has collapsed nearly world wide at this point, and the process should be complete within a few years. By 2030 everyone will be denying that they ever denied AGW.
I cut it off because it does not make the argument any less bonkers, nor does it actually counter anything I said.
No, they will not stop opposing it. Rich people and corporations invest in things they openly oppose just to make a profit all of the time. And just because they have money and make a lot of profit off it doesn't mean they're going to listen to reason. This is a matter of faith, after all.
It is the same logic that has people demand electric cars, then go out and buy the latest gas guzzler simply because they don't want to pay for electric cars. The same logic that has an environmentalist agreeing plastic is bad for the environment while carrying her plastic bags from the store. The same logic that has people demand wind power, but also not want the turbines in their neighborhood. People do not always make decisions that back their core beliefs when those decisions benefit them more than the core beliefs. Which is why alternative energy is always going to be an uphill fight.
And as insane as it is, there is profit to be made off being an insane contrarian. Just ask ExxonMobil or Fox News.
In order to get them to change their minds, you pretty much have to present proof that they will accept and believe. That means that in order for CB's argument to have any basis in reality, it must be arguing the insane stance that they will accept the profit as proof. Because otherwise, it relies on a stance that does not match human behavior in this kind of scenario.
But, how about we table this for 13 years? You will see the proof of which of us is right then.
I have edited this to expand a bit and show my logic.
I mentioned ExxonMobil as an example of a group making money off being intentionally wrong. The fact they continue to lie even when they are convinced shows they are making money off being insane contrarians.
And pandering to a viewpoint that has political power, especially when it is your own viewpoint, is also human behavior. These companies have spent a lot of money to buy that political power, leading to the political reasons adoption of alternative energy has stalled in some places. Do you really think that the profit in alternative energy will make them sacrifice the political power they have built up to switch sides? Power is worth a lot more profit in the long run.
Healthcare is more profitable than not having it because healthy employees are more profitable. Net neutrality, leveraged properly, is more profitable than opposing it. Providing quality products at a reasonable price is more profitable. Yet each of these is something many corporations oppose. Why should alternative energy ever be any different?
You are forgetting the people who financially back or purchase from ExxonMobil because of its opposition.
And, yes. I accept a company I brought up as being contrarian knows the score. But that does not extend to all who oppose doing something about climate change.
I might be unintentionally misrepresenting the initial argument. I am willing to let this lay for 13 years. See which of us was more accurate. No need to argue this further until we have seen the outcome. If I'm wrong, humanity benefits. If I'm right, we're no worse off than we were going to be anyway.
Either way, we agree something needs to be done. Now.
|
|
The argument was made with these words:
Fortunately, there is now also a great deal of money to be made on solar and wind power... whether you 'believe' in AGW or not. Which is pushing us towards a tipping point where the denial industry can no longer afford to keep up the charade. Indeed, it has collapsed nearly world wide at this point, and the process should be complete within a few years. By 2030 everyone will be denying that they ever denied AGW.
As others have noted... those words obviously do not mean what you claimed they did;
My point is that arguing there is profit in solar and wind as evidence of proof human-caused climate change is happening is an absurd argument.
Indeed, I can't see any logical way to get from "whether you 'believe' in AGW or not" to "evidence of proof human-caused climate change is happening".
In any case, reality continues to march forward towards decarbonization. California is on track to meet it's 2030 goal of 50% renewable electricity... by 2020.
Given that the California economy is larger than that of the vast majority of countries in the world, there should no longer be any question that switching to renewable power is possible. Heck, California is saving money and growing its economy because renewables cost less.
So yes, there are still 'true believers' and moneyed interests pushing fossil fuels... but anyone with eyes should be able to see that they are losing. Not because climate change is real (though it obviously is), but rather because people like to save money. Saving money while NOT poisoning the planet is an extra plus. We have gone from most governments questioning whether AGW is happening to only ONE government doing so... because the profit motives have shifted. There is no longer much money to be made by denying reality. Many coal plants are being shut down, or never completed, because they would actually LOSE money if they continued... coal operational costs now exceed income in many parts of the world. Soon that will be worldwide... so why would anyone pay to continue to push for more coal power when that would mean they would actually lose even MORE money?
Because they are coal companies that sell coal. Or construction companies that can make money off the wasted construction. Or people who simply oppose doing something about climate change and invest in a project to fail just to prevent alternative energy from taking over their area.
There are a lot of reasons to invest in coal power plants that have nothing to do from making money actually running the plant.
A better question is, what incentive do these people have to move on rather than becoming an entrenched opposition?
The anti-vaccine movement shows how well people are willing to ignore a negative feedback loop. And there are ways to manipulate laws to make them profitable again.
We are not going to resolve this. Shall we agree to drop it? We can revisit in December of 2030, when reality has shown which way things will go.
|
|
There are a lot of reasons to invest in coal power plants that have nothing to do from making money actually running the plant.
A better question is, what incentive do these people have to move on rather than becoming an entrenched opposition?
So... people are going to pay to continue generating coal power at a loss?
Let's pretend that were plausible. These hypothetical people will throw away money... which will lead to them not having any money.
Same result. They stop spending the money they no longer have pushing pro-coal propaganda.
Meanwhile, people investing in wind and solar are making lots of money... which they can (and will) then use to push for laws making coal (and eventually other fossil fuel) power ever less viable.
Basically... industries that make money outperform and replace industries that lose money. Go figure.
I've got no idea why you think 13 years is the proper timeframe, but whatever.
It is certainly possible that the climate change denier movement will continue. I speculated yesterday about it becoming a tribal identity thing for some.
But the actual huge financed propaganda campaign that sways politics will end when it's no longer profitable.
13 years is because CBDunkerson said 2030 for when it would fade away. So, December of that year, when the results up to that point are inarguable.
The question is, how long before it's no longer profitable in some way? We could be looking at decades, depending on what comes.
So... people are going to pay to continue generating coal power at a loss?
Let's pretend that were plausible. These hypothetical people will throw away money... which will lead to them not having any money.
Same result. They stop spending the money they no longer have pushing pro-coal propaganda.
Meanwhile, people investing in wind and solar are making lots of money... which they can (and will) then use to push for laws making coal (and eventually other fossil fuel) power ever less viable.
Basically... industries that make money outperform and replace industries that lose money. Go figure.
It won't be the first time in power generation people have backed technology for years that was not making a profit. The largest-scale example of that are wind and solar. Wind and solar eventually became profitable because the technologies caught on, but for quite some time operated at a net loss as far as investment.
Government subsidies effectively allow you to ignore a net loss.
But, there are plenty of other examples in human history. Often resulting from human stubbornness outweighing sense.
You are assuming that coal and oil won't manage to use their power to leverage against solar and wind even more than they are now. If the oil industry really wants to leverage its power, there is the fact the majority of the world's plastics and some medications are made from oil. If they are willing to play the villain to defeat alternative energy, they have some very nasty advantages they can leverage. Coal has a similar position with its leverage over steel production.
We do have alternatives to both industries, but these are not anywhere near the production capacity to remotely be viable replacements.
The fossil fuel industry has not brought its full resources to the fight, and there's a question of if they plan to or if they plan to simply consume the alternative market and then continue to deny while selling the alternatives. After all, it is not just the alternative energy companies researching renewable energy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What he’s getting at is that systems in nature aren’t generally well modeled by “collections of mathematical equations”.
See, the thing is, this statement is absolutely false. (Unless you define "well modeled" as 0% error, but let's assume you mean 50% or 10% or even 1%.)
I could seriously go on for pages with this stuff. If you think natural systems aren't generally susceptible to mathematical modeling, all I can say is that the entire natural world is at odds with you. That's why we talk about the "laws of physics," and not the "chance whims of the gods."
|
|
You are assuming that coal and oil won't manage to use their power to leverage against solar and wind even more than they are now.
Yes.
I believe that if, for example, the coal industry had 'more power to leverage', they would have done so before the three largest private coal companies in the world were all forced in to bankruptcy.
Every country on the planet accepted the Paris climate agreement (yes, ONE is now planning to pull out, but the original point stands)... that would not have happened if the fossil fuel industries still had the power to prevent it. They no longer have enough leverage to counter the growing clout of the clean energy industries.
Essentially, your argument is the equivalent of claiming that because the horse and buggy industry was once completely dominant there was no way it would ever be replaced by the automobile industry.
Fossil fuels clearly had a massive advantage. They just as clearly don't any more. If they were going to 'leverage their power' it would have been smart to do it before renewables became dominant in new electricity generation.
The automobile industry didn't replace the horse and buggy in all nations. It replaced the streetcar industry in some. And leveraged the result of replacing streetcars to eventually mostly replace the horse and buggy. There is a more complex and less straightforward technology advancement there.
The fossil fuel industry didn't have to leverage against nations joining the Paris agreement. Even now, many signatories lament the Paris agreement has really not amounted to much.
And those fossil fuel giants did leverage their power. That's why so many nations that they had power over suddenly found political reasons not to continue with renewables advancement. Add to China practicing a stranglehold on certain solar panel components and you have both wind and solar facing a stranglehold on advancement. And you can bet the China manipulation was backed by fossil fuel companies.
Essentially, your argument is that the electric car will replace the horse and buggy simply because there is money in it. Anyone familiar with automotive history can tell you how that turned out.
We are getting nowhere. And never will. Agree to end it here and stop the thread derail?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The automobile industry didn't replace the horse and buggy in all nations. It replaced the streetcar industry in some. And leveraged the result of replacing streetcars to eventually mostly replace the horse and buggy. There is a more complex and less straightforward technology advancement there.
Don't argue the analogy itself. If you need to, address what the analogy is talking about, but not the specifics of the analogy. It's a waste of time. It shifts the topic from the one at hand, and makes it about a new topic. This thread is not about the history of streetcars, cars, and 'horse and buggies'. It's about climate change.
See, here's why your attack of the analogy is flawed. If the streetcar industry was so powerful, why didn't it leverage it's power to prevent automobiles from taking over? See, you changed the specifics, but nothing actually changed.
Don't argue the specifics of an analogy. It's dumb.
I had a longer post here, going in depth as to my reasons why I addressed the analogy. But at this point, who cares? Can we end it here before it derails the thread to the point it has to be locked?
Has this report been covered on here? We need to renewables to grow much more rapidly if we have any chance of even mitigating climate change.
International Energy Outlook 2017
Approximately same results as last year, which is worrying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a longer post here, going in depth as to my reasons why I addressed the analogy. But at this point, who cares? Can we end it here before it derails the thread to the point it has to be locked?
The thread is stuck in a loop anyways. QB argues that he understands more about science than anyone else alive for a page, then a random person enters the thread for the first time and addresses the OP. Then CBD argues with QB some more.
Seriously, scour a couple pages. I predict it's the next couple as well.
I had a longer post here, going in depth as to my reasons why I addressed the analogy. But at this point, who cares? Can we end it here before it derails the thread to the point it has to be locked?The thread is stuck in a loop anyways. QB argues that he understands more about science than anyone else alive for a page, then a random person enters the thread for the first time and addresses the OP. Then CBD argues with QB some more.
Seriously, scour a couple pages. I predict it's the next couple as well.
Ah.
Well, I might as well post this: I addressed the analogy because it shows the fault in CB's logic.
Neither the horse and carriage industry or the streetcar industry used their political or economic power to oppress automobiles because that power did not exist. The automobile industry rapidly crushed the streetcar industry because of that, and it was never even a contest with horses and carriages. The analogy is completely unrelated to the point it was attempting to support.
And the same is true of the prediction that companies who fund climate denial will drop it by 2030 simply because renewables are so profitable. Those companies have an existing customer base, in the anti-evolution crowd that is increasingly also a climate denial crowd. As long as those people exist and continue to have a lot of money, there will always be a profit in climate denial and always a reason for companies seeking pure profit to leverage against renewables. That renewables are not growing fast enough to become a majority source of power at any time before I hit old age helps those companies have reason to continue to fund it.
The fault is his logic for his prediction relies on ignoring aspects of reality that don't fit his worldview. His choice of analogy merely demonstrates that.
The key disputed point here is actually "That renewables are not growing fast enough to become a majority source of power at any time before I hit old age helps those companies have reason to continue to fund it."
If that's actually true (and assuming you're not already close to old age :), you're right.
I suspect and I think CB believes even more strongly, that renewables are growing that fast and that even more importantly the rate of growth is increasing fast enough that they will be the major source of power much faster than you expect. With the price dropping rapidly to the point of being as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuel power sources, there's little reason for that not to continue.The existing customer base is basically everyone, but most aren't ideologically attached, just doing whatever seems to make economic sense. The base of those who will refuse cheaper renewable power when it's available is small. Tiny. Even the anti-evolution/climate denier crowd aren't going to pay higher electric rates to get real oil power. Some may avoid electric cars even if they drop in price, but not everyone will. Business largely won't.
Aye, and that's the issue where only time will tell for certain.
CB relies on current market price trends. But I am looking at the International Energy Report, which paints a less rosy picture even while taking those trends into account. By its projections, fossil fuels will still provide over three quarters of the world's energy as late as 2040. And it's not until 2040 that renewables start to see enough of a market share to stand on equal footing with coal and natural gas, when you split the fossil fuels by type. If that projection is accurate, you're probably talking a minimum of 2060 before renewables are supplying more than half of the world's power.
The International Energy Report doesn't show all negatives. Even as it shows India going more heavily into coal, it shows China's renewables market exploding. China's projection is more what we need for the world if we are to mitigate climate change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I might as well post this: I addressed the analogy because it shows the fault in CB's logic.Neither the horse and carriage industry or the streetcar industry used their political or economic power to oppress automobiles because that power did not exist. The automobile industry rapidly crushed the streetcar industry because of that, and it was never even a contest with horses and carriages. The analogy is completely unrelated to the point it was attempting to support.
But that doesn't matter.
The point of an analogy isn't to be a perfect representation of what you're making the analogy to. Because then it wouldn't be an analogy. An analogy, by definition, is imperfect. It doesn't mean "two things that are identical." It is "a comparison of two things for purposes of explanation."
The fact that you understood what information was being conveyed in the analogy therefore means that you understood the "comparison of two things for the purposes of explanation." It doesn't matter if the details were incorrect, because you understood the comparison.
Arguing the details is an irrelevant tangent, because if you are capable of arguing the details, it means you already understand the intended comparison. At which point, there is no value in arguing the details, because the details are not relevant. The details that are relevant (in this discussion) are not horse/carriage or streetcar details from the 1890s to 1930s, but those concerning climate change in the contemporary and future eras.
Whether or not his details on automobiles vs horse/buggy is right is not the point of the discussion. The analogy only serves as an illustrative point, not a factual one, regardless of whether his facts are correct or not.
A lot of analogies that are commonly used are understood to have meaning, even if they are not factually correct. For example "treat the disease, not the symptom" references medical care in order to explain problem solving. Except the analogy is factually incorrect, because a fever if untreated can kill you, but "fever" is not a disease, it is a symptom. Bleeding is not a cause, it is a symptom, yet if left untreated it will kill you if it is severe enough. But when someone says "treat the disease, not the symptom" we understand what the person is saying, even if the analogy is technically incorrect in all of it's assumptions because the information is still useful. Imagine though that every time someone used that phrase we had to pause the previous debate and debate all the merits of this analogy.
Debunking his point is not aided by debunking the analogy, because even if the analogy is technically wrong, the underlying idea he expressed could still be correct. Time spent debunking the analogy is time wasted, because it doesn't actually disprove his point. Just like an analogy doesn't actually prove/disprove anything else. It is merely for illustrative purposes to provide better understanding of what the speaker/writer is trying to express.
To post something actually on discussion...
I don't know if we've reached the tipping point that CBD is predicting or not. There's a lot of growth in the economies of China and India still to go, as well as lot of other places, and with that growth comes both the demand for energy and the ability to pay for it. As renewable energy takes up market share that is going to push down the price for fossil fuel, which will increase the demand for fossil fuel.
The US prices on energy has effectively priced coal out of the market to the point that people are converting coal to natural gas because the profitability is higher. Lots of renewable is competitive with natural gas, but the two are going to share the market for the foreseeable future.
Around the world though there's still a lot of coal plants being planned. China has plans to build another 700 over the next 20 years or so, though a big portion of those in terms of MWh are being built in other countries, and the government is financing these plants to maintain domestic manufacturing in the sector. They've canceled plans for 100 plants domestically, but not in foreign markets. They're handing out billions in loans which is going to increase coal demand for decades to come.
There's another potential problem with China.
The rare earth metals that are necessary for most solar panel designs come from China. If they massively expand their use of solar, this could mean a reduction in the raw materials necessary for solar power expansion in most other nations and could seriously slow solar growth until the various solar companies retool for another design.
There are a number of other technologies that would be massively impacted by this. Electric cars are another relevant technology to what we're discussing; some of them use rare earth metals in their engines. A sudden reduction in supply could drive companies like Tesla out of business, depending on the electric car designs they use.
That specific problem is extremely more solvable than it is often presented. China currently mines 95% of the world's rare earth minerals, but that's because China spent a long time ramping up production. The United States used to mine a very large amount as well, but in the 70s and 90s we passed a lot of environmental regulation that made mining too costly.
That name "rare earth" is catchy, but it's more common than you'd think, though not all of it is cheaply obtainable. That said, as costs of basic materials go up, engineers develop new designs that use something else. That is a process that is super common and happens in every industry that has ever existed.
Mountain Pass mine in California was the world's largest producer of rare earth minerals from 1960-1980, and not just largest, but produced the majority of rare earth minerals. It was overtaken by a combination of mines in China in the 80's, and slowly ramped down production after that. The western third of the US shares a lot of geological similarities with China. If something is present in one, it's pretty much guaranteed to be present in the other, especially things that are abundant. It's quite likely that if there were a concerted effort to do so, we could equal China's production, though it would be expensive, but it's illustrative of just how much of this stuff there actually is.
The Chinese have innovated some refinement techniques, and so looking for clues as to how they do it might make it easier for other countries to do so as well. Rare earth elements aren't that rare though, they just don't congregate in large groupings like gold, silver, copper, or iron. Basically any igneous rock with phosphates has some amount of REEs, it's just a question of how much, and how hard it is to get out.
Another potentially massive source could be seafloor mud between Hawaii and Japan. A plume like the one under Hawaii brings a fair amount of REE up with it. A lot of that stuff has settled into the mud to the east of Hawaii over the past few million years. At current manufacturing usage, there's probably a few thousand years worth. The estimate I remember was that roughly 0.5 sq miles had enough REE for 1 year of world consumption. And we're talking about a strip of land that spans 1/3 of the Pacific Ocean. Of course, the environmental consequences of mining that quickly and cheaply could be disastrous.
I'm thinking it would be more of a technological speed bump than a serious threat, but a speed bump like that can still be deadly to smaller companies and still be enough to slow down adoption of a technology. It takes time and money to research those mining techniques, as well as time and money to develop replacement methods of producing the same technologies without those materials. And time and money is something those companies that would be threatened wouldn't necessarily have with a sudden loss of income.
Not something we wouldn't advance past eventually, but still something that may mean that tipping point on alternative energy could come about later than some project.
That's like saying that tar sands are too complicated of a speed bump to keep the oil industry going.
It was true until it wasn't. This isn't a scientific discovery problem, it's an engineering problem. We're remarkably good at solving those when we really want to.
Irontruth, are you responding to a post that was deleted between your's and mine? Because I am confused how that is related to anything I said in the post immediately prior to your's.
If it is in response to my post, I am curious as to why you would respond to an imaginary argument that what I am calling a speed bump would be too complicated to keep the industry going. I already acknowledged twice in the past two posts that the most it would do is slow us down for a short period.
I also ignored it for my previous post, but I must ask this: Why did you ignore, in that post where you talked so much about mining, that I had already acknowledged other designs that don't use rare earth metals already exist?
I am curious as to why you would argue for development of alternative mining techniques or new versions of those technologies without rare earth metals when I had said in the prior post that such designs already exist and that the great difficulty for solar power would be retooling for them.
Yes, developing new designs from scratch is possible, but I fail to see why they would not switch over to existing designs that do the same thing first. Especially since some of the smaller companies would not necessarily have the capital to do that development, rather than simply retooling for an existing design at a much lower cost.
I do admit I suggested some small electric car companies would go out of business, but I also acknowledged it depends on the design of their electric cars. But they are automotive companies; suddenly being unable to repair, finish producing, or sell your existing designs would be a potential crippling financial blow to nearly any automotive company. Even then, I merely said it was a possibility, not a guarantee.
|
|
CB relies on current market price trends. But I am looking at the International Energy Report
LOL!
I can't imagine a more telling comment. Far from just 'relying on current market price trends', I have actually studied this in considerable depth... which is why I, for example, know how ironic your EIA citation is. Allow me to share their history on these issues with you;
EIA US coal production estimates vs actual
EIA global solar estimates vs actual
So yes... the EIA "paints a less rosy picture" than I do. However, taking a 'more rosy' outlook than the EIA is simply recognition of the fact that they have been consistently wrong, and always in the same direction, for a couple of decades now.
If you actually read the EIA reports you will find that they base their projections on assumptions that are simply implausible... renewable prices holding steady at 'current' (as of the prior year, so already outdated) levels or only decreasing slowly, increased discovery of fossil fuel reserves in line with past averages (rather than the declining trend we have actually been seeing), et cetera. They are slowly catching up to reality, but for the most part their models and logic are stuck in the patterns which held consistently during the decades of fossil fuel dominance. Basically, they project continued fossil fuel dominance because all of their models and assumptions have that built in.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The science is absolutely "not in" and the entire premise defies logic. The notion that CO2, a nutrient that is KEY to all life on planet earth is somehow an evil gas that is sentient? Meaning, it knows WHENT to allow the Sun's rays in and when to trap it?
CO2 is not "key" to ALL life on the planet. All photosynthesizing organisms (e.g. green plants) require it and many other life forms up the food chain require those organisms... but there are plenty of species that do not. For example, mushrooms would be just fine with no CO2. Humans, being omnivores, could theoretically survive as a species on non CO2 dependent foods, but the transition would certainly wipe out most of us.
As to 'sentience'. Red paint does not have to be 'sentient' to 'reflect' red light but 'absorb' blue and green light. Ditto carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They absorb infrared light, but not visible light... so incoming sunlight goes right past them while outgoing infrared gets absorbed and re-emitted. That's basic spectography... no sentience required.
Ask yourself, if climate denial had a valid case why would it instead present such ridiculous nonsense?
Zhu et al publishing in Nature Climate Change in April 2016 found that the growing season increased by 50% (meaning more plants and food for us all). In essence, we are greening and Zhu et al attribute that greening to an increase in CO2.
Yes, the 'growing season' has increased. No, that is not the same thing as 'greening'. In some areas that increased warmth means desertification... not green. Also, it is not so simplistic as 'longer overall growing season = more food'... Canada cannot simply become a major corn producing region overnight when Iowa becomes too warm to support that crop. 'More plants' does not mean more food for humans... we cannot survive on most weeds.
We also know that Climate Alarmists have been lying. Leaked emails from university servers noted that global climate liars altered temperature data sets.
The stolen (not leaked) 'Climategate' e-mails contain nothing which supports your claim of lying. Yes, temperature data sets are adjusted... to account for factors like growing urban sprawl, recording site relocation, differing recording times, et cetera. Nothing untoward and nothing which significantly changes the overall results (i.e. the unadjusted values actually show slightly higher warming). In short, the claims you are parroting are the actual lies.
In addition, computer models used EXAGERRATED the warming by putting increased emphasis on CO2 when it was not the case.
Observed warming has been within the range projected by the climate models.
Tell me, at what point will a given well become no longer cost-efficient to continue operation? Something you’re really not interested in of course...
I actually am very interested in that, insofar as my clients rely on me to be very careful with their money. O&M costs, equipment life, etc. are absolutely factored into these things.
Item “A)” is not subject to any of these Three Forms of Ignorance.
Item “B)” is not subject to any of these Three Forms of Ignorance at the scale you want to model.
Item “C)” is only slightly subject to these Three Forms of Ignorance, at the time/space scale you want to model.
That's the point. These "forms of ignorance" you keep holding up as the supposed banes of science are not applicable nine times out of ten. And the remaining obscure corner-cases in no way indicate that "the natural world generally cannot be modeled," which seems to be your primary thesis in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell me, at what point will a given well become no longer cost-efficient to continue operation? Something you’re really not interested in of course...I actually am very interested in that, insofar as my clients rely on me to be very careful with their money. O&M costs, equipment life, etc. are absolutely factored into these things.
That's the point. These "forms of ignorance" you keep holding up as the supposed banes of science are not applicable nine times out of ten. And the remaining obscure corner-cases in no way indicate that "the natural world generally cannot be modeled," which seems to be your primary thesis in this thread.Item “A)” is not subject to any of these Three Forms of Ignorance.
Item “B)” is not subject to any of these Three Forms of Ignorance at the scale you want to model.
Item “C)” is only slightly subject to these Three Forms of Ignorance, at the time/space scale you want to model.
You're debating the viability of models with a person who has repeatedly claimed that models are incapable of giving an accurate picture of what the world will look like, while referencing the output of models that agree with his own predictions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also Kirth... while you may do this for a living, QB read a book about it by a guy who does a lot of math. QB clearly knows more about this.
CB relies on current market price trends. But I am looking at the International Energy ReportLOL!
I can't imagine a more telling comment. Far from just 'relying on current market price trends', I have actually studied this in considerable depth... which is why I, for example, know how ironic your EIA citation is. Allow me to share their history on these issues with you;
EIA US coal production estimates vs actual
EIA global solar estimates vs actual
So yes... the EIA "paints a less rosy picture" than I do. However, taking a 'more rosy' outlook than the EIA is simply recognition of the fact that they have been consistently wrong, and always in the same direction, for a couple of decades now.
If you actually read the EIA reports you will find that they base their projections on assumptions that are simply implausible... renewable prices holding steady at 'current' (as of the prior year, so already outdated) levels or only decreasing slowly, increased discovery of fossil fuel reserves in line with past averages (rather than the declining trend we have actually been seeing), et cetera. They are slowly catching up to reality, but for the most part their models and logic are stuck in the patterns which held consistently during the decades of fossil fuel dominance. Basically, they project continued fossil fuel dominance because all of their models and assumptions have that built in.
I've read it. And chuckled at the idea of discovery. We're actually not drilling nearly the amount of oil we've discovered; what we're drilling is the oil reachable under current drilling techniques.
And this is far from the first time I've seen people say we're going to run out of fossil fuels. Far from the first time we've been on the brink of it, too. Every time we get there, someone comes up with a new technique or a new technology to drill what we knew was there, but could not currently reach. And then the price falls on oil and demand goes up.
Now, let's grab a graph that continues past 2016 to see how solar is really doing.
https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/share-new-capacity_q 42017.png
Note Solar is down in that graph. That's matching closer to EIA projections than the graph you posted.
Now, let's take a look at coal production.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.cfm
Coal saw a production increase in the U.S. in 2017. Still closer to EIA projections than your own.
It helps to rely on current data, not outdated information, when making a projection as to how things will go. This is the current data: Solar is down and coal production is increasing in the United States.
Also, I noticed you only addressed one nation in your reply, while mine covered the entire world. If you are right that they are massively wrong, then alternative energy is about to be dealt a massive blow as far as growth is concerned; they show China going heavily alternative energy.
So, you've argued yourself into a Morton's Fork by arguing the EIA is consistently wrong: Either they're right and you're wrong about the future because alternative energy isn't going to grow as fast as we want, or they're wrong and you're wrong about the future because China is about to go heavily into fossil fuels, cutting alternative energy off from one of the biggest energy growth sectors.
Either way, you are wrong.
Terrinam, are you saying that if a source is right once, it's right all the time?
Terrinam, are you saying that if a source is right once, it's right all the time?
Nope. I'm countering the argument that if a source is wrong once, it's wrong all of the time.
And showing how, in this particular case, that line of logic has painted the person I'm dealing with into a corner.
One of the fun things about someone only focusing on one portion of a source instead of paying attention to all of it is that they inevitably screw themselves over. By arguing that their methodology is wrong, he's also completely destroyed his argument based on China since that argument uses the same methodology.
In fact, really, his entire argument uses the same exact methodology. He's just starting from a different set of assumptions and using outdated data.
He could just stop arguing. I could stop arguing. Neither of us is going to convince the other or get the other to admit they're wrong.
But, I'm waiting to see if he replies and gives me the opening, or if he decides to go full goblin and blow up his own argument in trying to counter the point I made.
My money is that he tries to weasel out of it by claiming that the China projection falls under "catching up to reality," despite the fact it's still the same methodology as every other projection and hasn't actually changed from the prior projection. Really, the only thing that's changed is they're plugging in a different data set.
I'm also saving the item that I've not addressed yet. I've been holding that card in reserve because I didn't feel it was time to address it just yet. If you've paid attention to the report and the link I made up above about solar energy, you know what it is already.
He didn't say they are 100% incorrect all the time. He said their projects have been consistently off.
"Consistent" is a pretty vague term. A basketball player who makes over 35% of their 3-point attempts is a "consistently good" shooter.
It seems to me that you've taken a term and applied it in the most extreme way possibly, and chosen that as the hill to be fought upon. You've taken the position that if the EIA is right once, that CBD's analysis of them is wrong. That's a pretty extreme point to stand on.
You're pretending to predict his argument that he'll hedge his argument... but you're ignoring the fact that he's already done that, indicating that he isn't taking the extreme position that you claim he is. In fact, it isn't even hedging, it's just proof that you're taking his point to a ridiculous extreme.
There was a market analyst who predicted the Black Monday crash one week before it happened. Someone asked him how he did it. "I've been predicting the same crash every week for the past 10 years. I had to be right eventually."
His point that they've been largely bad predictors of future trends is pretty accurate and provable. We've looked at that evidence. It's real and you aren't actually disputing it. In fact, the only part you're disputing is other future predictions, which none of us can provide concrete evidence that a specific prediction is good or bad. But we can look at the body making those predictions and how they've been in the past. The EIA's track record is not good.
Irontruth, why didn't you ask what the opening is? It could have saved us both a lot of words.
If you want to argue about track records with predictions from science groups, we're stuck in a problem that we're tossing out a lot of science. Including that of the IPCC, which has a pretty bad track record as well. In effect, to rely on the idea that we should discredit a group based on not being prophets, we're tossing out the major reason we're even having this discussion to begin with.
The other problem is, for the purposes of this discussion, we're tossing out the only scientific study presented in relation to this particular train of argument as for how the future will go. Stating the EIA sucks at predicting the future isn't really something that can be argued against, but it stands to reason it's still the only actual science in play related to how things will go.
If you don't like that my fortune teller has bad odds, then please feel free to present a link to your own so that we can have a real discussion on this. But just because a science group is bad at predicting the future doesn't mean we shouldn't at least pay some attention to what they say in relevance to what it reflects about the world at current; just because the IPCC may have been terrible at predicting what will happen doesn't change the fact that what they say about us heading toward a climatic disaster is still accurate and what precautions they recommend are still very necessary. Just like the EIA can give us a snapshot of the energy industries as they exist now and the impact our current practices could have on the future of those industries.
And saying I'm taking his argument to the ridiculous extreme fails because it was a ridiculous extreme already. He's arguing the EIA consistently fails in the same direction, every time. And given he's relying on information from two years ago rather than reading the document and noting they don't project a true growth of coal (they outright say demand for coal is stagnated and project a slight decline), but instead show the majority of the growth to be natural gas and alternative energy. Oil, another one, is also shown to effectively stagnate. They don't project that alternative energy will be competing with coal and oil; they project it will be competing with natural gas.
In short, CBD is arguing against a stance from two years ago that the EIA doesn't even hold anymore. I just took the sheer ridiculousness of that stance to its conclusion.
And, note that competitor: natural gas. The third fossil fuel.
And guess which company is all for natural gas? You can even see their marketing campaign for it, prepackaged for them by all of the funding they put into environmentalist groups and studies to say natural gas is relatively good for the environment. ExxonMobil isn't the only one; BP is also selling natural gas. And so are several other oil companies, and a number of coal companies are getting in on it as well (such as Consol Energy). They already had a new product they could sell, and one they could sell as environmentally-friendly that wasn't renewable energy.
That is what the EIA knew when making their projection about natural gas growth challenging renewables. The fossil fuel companies have not been gearing up for switching over to sell solar panels or wind, but have instead been leveraging the past twenty years of science to sell a different type of fossil fuel. And their sales continue to grow.
When I mentioned the oil and coal companies having not yet brought their full power to bear in this fight, it's because I knew that power involved natural gas and how they can leverage it to be a danger to alternative energy. How long that fight can last is just a question of how long the natural gas supplies remain plentiful enough.
Irontruth, why didn't you ask what the opening is? It could have saved us both a lot of words.
If you want to argue about track records with predictions from science groups, we're stuck in a problem that we're tossing out a lot of science. Including that of the IPCC, which has a pretty bad track record as well. In effect, to rely on the idea that we should discredit a group based on not being prophets, we're tossing out the major reason we're even having this discussion to begin with.
So... because I don't like the EIA projections, I have to defend the IPCC?
Try again.
Also, while there's a lot of useful stuff in economics, I wouldn't call it a science. The EIA is not science, it's economics. Economics is HORRIBLE at predicting the future.