Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?


Off-Topic Discussions

3,901 to 3,950 of 4,052 << first < prev | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | next > last >>

CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
No, you have not cited a single piece of evidence. I've already demonstrated this before.

True or false;

Data on how quickly electric vehicle sales are increasing in various countries constitutes evidence of how quickly the transition from ICEs to EVs can take place.

If you accept that to be true, then I've cited evidence. If not, then you are using some definition of 'evidence' which is not apparent to me.

Please, feel free to share the data.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Please, feel free to share the data.

As noted, I already have;

He also goes on at some length about EVs being only 2% of global sales... apparently not having bothered to study technology disruptions at all. If he had, he'd know that when exponentially growing technologies (as EVs have been) get over 2% they're only a few years from market dominance.

We're already seeing this with EVs in a few countries that have adopted policies which shifted the price point. Norway adopted new incentives and got above 2% EV sales in 2013... and by 2019 it was 56%. Iceland went over 2% in 2015... and hit 25% in 2019. Sweden, over 2% in 2017... 11% in 2019. Et cetera.

We are now hitting that same ~2% tipping point (w/o subsidies) world-wide and thus some time in the next few years we'll see EV sales start surging along the same trajectory (i.e. ~10% after 2 years, ~25% after 4, ~60% after 6, etc). The same thing has already happened with global renewable energy (~66% of new capacity last year), and yet somehow people still manage not to see what is happening there either.


None of the links in the post you linked two have any data on global sales figures, one makes a vague reference to market share, but it provides zero information on how that prediction was modeled.

So, you are still claiming things to be true, and not providing evidence to support it.

I want to be real clear here. I don't believe you. At the same time, when Quark Blast says that EV adoption is impossible, I don't believe him either. I think both of you talk out your ass when you are trying to predict the future.

As for electricity generation, this source predicts that by 2050, 49% of electricity generation will come from renewable sources, including hydroelectric.

Also, in the UK the EV market was 2% in 2015 and was 7% in 2019, much slower growth than the examples you gave. I wonder how many cars each of these countries has:

UK: ~31 million
Sweden: ~4.8 million
Norway: ~2.75 million
Iceland: ~344,000 (not million)

I guess that's one way to tell a story with statistics... by leaving out a much larger portion of cars and not include them in how you arrived at your conclusion. Maybe if we include Germany, that will help make your case.

Germany: ~46 million cars
EVs: 0.4% of those are EVs

Huh, I guess that's why you didn't cite Germany as proof of your claim. If we pooled all these totals together, the % numbers we could cite would go way down.

Article with car registration statistics for the EU.

And all of this, we would still need to see a model of how emissions are going to change, and will they have changed enough to prevent warming of catastrophic levels. I mean, if we convert to 100% EVs by 2050, but it does nothing to prevent the worst outcomes of 2100, then it doesn't matter.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:

None of the links in the post you linked two have any data on global sales figures, one makes a vague reference to market share, but it provides zero information on how that prediction was modeled.

So, you are still claiming things to be true, and not providing evidence to support it.

I literally just quoted it for you.

You've mentioned links a couple of times now. When you say that I 'have not provided any evidence / data' do you mean that I have not linked to outside sources to support the data I am citing?

Setting aside that there are many cases where I have included such links... they also just shouldn't be necessary for readily confirmable facts. You can use a search engine. If you really don't believe me you can check for yourself.

IF your demands for 'evidence' were really demands for links to outside sources, it also would be helpful to specify which information you are unable / unwilling to confirm for yourself.

Irontruth wrote:
I want to be real clear here. I don't believe you.

...and do you have any reason to believe the figures I cite are inaccurate? Or is it just general hostility?

Irontruth wrote:
At the same time, when Quark Blast says that EV adoption is impossible, I don't believe him either. I think both of you talk out your ass when you are trying to predict the future.

Predicting the future is indeed always difficult. However, I think if you went back through this and similar threads you'd find I've got a much better track record than Quark Blast. For example, five years ago he was saying that wind power was reaching its practical limit and I was saying it was going to experience explosive growth. Guess which happened.

Irontruth wrote:
As for electricity generation, this source predicts that by 2050, 49% of electricity generation will come from renewable sources, including hydroelectric.

Notice that they have renewables growing from 28% in 2018 to 40% in 2030 (1% per year)... but then only another 9% over the subsequent 20 years (0.45% per year). In short, they're partially acknowledging the (undeniable) current rapid growth of renewables, but then assuming that it won't continue... renewable growth will slow down.

Why would that happen? Can you think of another disruptive technology that rapidly offset a large portion of a long entrenched market and then slowed down before claiming a majority?

That just isn't how disruptions work. The more the new technology grows, the greater its advantages over the old become. This causes exponential growth until the old technology is only still used for a shrinking minority of slow to change situations.

Automobiles grew slowly for a couple of decades, then exploded to rapidly replace the vast majority of horse transport over a period of 10-20 years, and then slowly whittled the remaining horse transport down to niche markets. Ditto every other technology disruption I can think of. They don't 'slow down in the middle' because there is no logical reason for them to do so.

Irontruth wrote:
Also, in the UK the EV market was 2% in 2015 and was 7% in 2019, much slower growth than the examples you gave.

There will of course be variations by country, but those numbers don't seem "much slower" to me. I'd guess that you are looking at the data linearly (i.e. ~1% per year) while I view it exponentially (i.e. doubling every ~2 years).

Irontruth wrote:

I wonder how many cars each of these countries has:

UK: ~31 million
Sweden: ~4.8 million
Norway: ~2.75 million
Iceland: ~344,000 (not million)

I guess that's one way to tell a story with statistics... by leaving out a much larger portion of cars and not include them in how you arrived at your conclusion. Maybe if we include Germany, that will help make your case.

Germany: ~46 million cars
EVs: 0.4% of those are EVs

Huh, I guess that's why you didn't cite Germany as proof of your claim. If we pooled all these totals together, the % numbers we could cite would go way down.

The countries I cited were specifically all early movers and the point was that they were following similar trajectories after exceeding ~2% market share. Germany hasn't reached that explosive growth phase yet.

As to your apparent belief that larger populations adopt new technologies more slowly... again, can you cite an example? Did smart phones get adopted in Lesotho much more quickly than they did in Brazil?

Or, how about some predictions? You think that EVs are growing "much slower" in the UK. Based on results thus far there and in the early mover countries, I'd estimate that by 2025 they'll be at around 50% of new sales market share on their way to near total market dominance by 2030... and that's with the current economic slowdown working against them. Where do you think they'll be?

Irontruth wrote:
I mean, if we convert to 100% EVs by 2050, but it does nothing to prevent the worst outcomes of 2100, then it doesn't matter.

If we convert to 100% EVs by 2050 then the AGW outcomes in 2100, whatever they may be, will be much better than they would have been if we hadn't. Thus, it very much does matter.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Why would that happen? Can you think of another disruptive technology that rapidly offset a large portion of a long entrenched market and then slowed down before claiming a majority?

Yes I can. The automobile.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Automobiles grew slowly for a couple of decades, then exploded to rapidly replace the vast majority of horse transport over a period of 10-20 years, and then slowly whittled the remaining horse transport down to niche markets. Ditto every other technology disruption I can think of. They don't 'slow down in the middle' because there is no logical reason for them to do so.

They did slow down. The fact that you think they didn't means you haven't actually looked at the numbers. If you think I'm wrong, it should easy to show that I'm wrong by posting the number of cars in the US for each year from say... 1910 to 1960. If your claim is true, that means there won't be a reduction in the number cars at any point during this period.

If your claim is not true, than we will see a reduction of cars in the US at some point during this period.

Of course, if you think about this topic for just a few moments, and consider all of the economic events that happened during this time... it should be obvious that certain events DID happen and will prove you wrong. Right now, for your claim to be correct, the Great Depression and WW2 will need to have had a negligible effect on the number of cars being built and purchased.

I eagerly await to see how you dodge this.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Why would that happen? Can you think of another disruptive technology that rapidly offset a large portion of a long entrenched market and then slowed down before claiming a majority?

Yes I can. The automobile.

They did slow down. The fact that you think they didn't means you haven't actually looked at the numbers.

Every source I have seen says that it was a rapid uninterrupted transition over the course of a decade or two depending on which applications (e.g. personal vs goods transport, cars vs tractors, etc) and areas we are looking at;

Graph showing rapid growth of cars and corresponding reduction in horse carriages
Scientific American
Access Magazine
History Channel
Contemporary account of the transition

Irontruth wrote:

If you think I'm wrong, it should easy to show that I'm wrong by posting the number of cars in the US for each year from say... 1910 to 1960. If your claim is true, that means there won't be a reduction in the number cars at any point during this period.

If your claim is not true, than we will see a reduction of cars in the US at some point during this period.

A: Number of cars alone doesn't necessarily tell us about shift in market share from horses to cars.

B: I made no claim that there were not minor yearly / quarterly / monthly / whatever fluctuations.
C: The transition period was over (i.e. only niche applications for horses remained) long before 1960, and thus events in those later decades would have nothing to do with it.
D: That said, are you really suggesting that the total number of cars in the US decreased at some point between 1910 and 1960? While I hadn't said anything about that, and haven't looked into it, that seems highly unlikely.

Irontruth wrote:
Right now, for your claim to be correct, the Great Depression and WW2 will need to have had a negligible effect on the number of cars being built and purchased.

Wow.

There is a vast difference between your suggestion that there was "a reduction of cars in the US" and the events you later cite to suggest that "the number of cars being built and purchased" were impacted... and NEITHER of them have anything to do with my points about the transition from cars to horses. The transition was long over by then. The Great Depression and WW2 had NO impact on the ground transportation market share split between ICEs and horses.

BTW, while searching for links on the horse to car transition I came across a talk which pretty much concurs with and expands on everything I've been saying about how past technology transitions have proceeded and what the indicators are for current transitions (i.e. EVs, renewables, self driving, etc);

Tony Seba 2020 NC DOT keynote


CBDUnkerson wrote:
That just isn't how disruptions work. The more the new technology grows, the greater its advantages over the old become. This causes exponential growth until the old technology is only still used for a shrinking minority of slow to change situations.

Well, I don't think that's an inherent quality of disruptive technology. And there might be reasons to think that future growth can't be modeled by past growth.

Take for example, hydro and wind. You can only set them up in a limited number of spots, and not all spots are created equal. Once you've set them up in the best spots, you have not only fewer spots left but also worse ones*

On the other hand, solar goes anywhere it wants.

For predicting the future you're looking at complicated unknowns: what i mentioned above is reasons it might grow slower, but it could also grow faster. Once you have X number of electric cars on the road you get more electric car stations which make electric cars better which means more stations which....

And I think a big overlooked thing is once wind and solar start raking in the kind of disposable income petrol does, they'll be able to pool their resources and get the same kind of influence over government that petroleum corporations have now... which is a lot of whats keeping these innovations out. It will be a lot harder because you can't monopolize wind and solar the way you can petroleum.

*considering the infinite complex calculation of variables from suitable terrain to market share to how hard you'll have to fight with the neighbors to install it.


CBDunkerson wrote:


B: I made no claim that there were not minor yearly / quarterly / monthly / whatever fluctuations.

You made the claim:

CBDunkerson wrote:
Can you think of another disruptive technology that rapidly offset a large portion of a long entrenched market and then slowed down before claiming a majority?

I kinda figured you'd move the goalposts to maintain your argument. You did so with flying colors.

Only a single one of your sources actually comes close to giving a year-by-year account. And while cars did have a majority market share, they did still see a slump and although the graph is scaled to make it unclear, actually saw declines in the millions of cars in the US, during the same time that horses stabilized once more. The numbers are a little easier to see if you just use a chart with... you know.... numbers. There's a high in 1929, and a sharp decline afterwards until rising again until 1941, where it didn't recover until after the war.

But hey, you already have a stellar track record of avoiding statistics that disagree with you.

The car v. horse model is also a bad analogy. Even before roads improved, cars were a massive improvement in the cost of transportation. Using horse drawn carts, the average cost of moving goods was $100 a mile per ton. That's very expensive. Railroads by 1900 had dropped that cost to somewhere less than $1 a mile per ton (can't find the exact figure at the moment), but moving goods by horse was still expensive and only profitable on short distances (a few miles).

Cars represented a massive reduction in costs compared to horses. The price of a car was more than a horse, but gas was cheaper than feed, took less man hours to care for, and quite a bit faster as well (even if early speeds were mostly in the 20 mph range).

EV's have none of these advantages. The cost is relatively the same. Energy costs are lower, but only by about 1/4 ($2000 to fill up a gas car for a year, about $500 to charge an EV per year). But the performance capabilities are actually slightly worse. Sure, drag racing is better, but the limited range and time spent traveling when you need to charge midroute make trips longer.

Driving from NY to Chicago (without drag racing) there is no inherent advantage to an EV. But the difference between a horse and a car on that same trip is HUGE.

EV's aren't actually that disruptive.

The one major advantage for most daily users would be if they can charge at home, that they no longer have to stop at the gas station, which accounts for maybe 30-40 minutes per week. And of course, if we factor in hour long commutes, that is a small time gain, but not massive.

If we were to grant that you could charge pretty much anywhere whenever, life with an EV would essentially be almost exactly the same as life with an ICE on the individual scale. Nothing is being disrupted.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Take for example, hydro and wind. You can only set them up in a limited number of spots, and not all spots are created equal. Once you've set them up in the best spots, you have not only fewer spots left but also worse ones

This gets complicated because we have two different renewable technologies surging at the same time... in some ways they compete, but in others they complement each other.

I'd argue that if wind were the only disruptive power source right now there would still be plenty of resources available (e.g. offshore wind) for it to rapidly replace coal and natural gas. The only thing which is going to cap its growth is the fact that another technology (solar) is disrupting both the established fossil fuels AND wind. Yet, at the same time, wind and solar can serve as backups for each other (e.g. cloudy days are often windy)... and they both are increasing the usage of hydro power as pumped hydro can store excess wind/solar for later use.

Thus, it is generally easier to look at fossil fuels as a group vs renewables as a group for this transition.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

For predicting the future you're looking at complicated unknowns: what i mentioned above is reasons it might grow slower, but it could also grow faster. Once you have X number of electric cars on the road you get more electric car stations which make electric cars better which means more stations which....

And I think a big overlooked thing is once wind and solar start raking in the kind of disposable income petrol does, they'll be able to pool their resources and get the same kind of influence over government that petroleum corporations have now... which is a lot of whats keeping these innovations out. It will be a lot harder because you can't monopolize wind and solar the way you can petroleum.

Indeed, these and other 'feedback effects' are WHY technology transitions follow the pattern (i.e. 'S curves') I described. It will only take a tiny shift to set off massive changes. Think about the thin profit margins of gas stations, ICE repair shops, parts stores, and other 'ancillary' industries... if there are 5% fewer ICE vehicles on the road then those industries all lose 5% of their GROSS income. Suddenly, a lot of them are no longer profitable and have to close... which makes it harder to own an ICE vehicle... which further accelerates the transition.

As the infrastructure for the new technology is getting better that for the old is getting worse. At the same time the balance of market interventions / government support is shifting. And to top it all off, those two factors are adding to improvements in the new technology to drive the cost down... while the cost of the old technology is going up.


CBDunkerson wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Take for example, hydro and wind. You can only set them up in a limited number of spots, and not all spots are created equal. Once you've set them up in the best spots, you have not only fewer spots left but also worse ones

This gets complicated because we have two different renewable technologies surging at the same time... in some ways they compete, but in others they complement each other.

I'd argue that if wind were the only disruptive power source right now there would still be plenty of resources available (e.g. offshore wind) for it to rapidly replace coal and natural gas. The only thing which is going to cap its growth is the fact that another technology (solar) is disrupting both the established fossil fuels AND wind. Yet, at the same time, wind and solar can serve as backups for each other (e.g. cloudy days are often windy)... and they both are increasing the usage of hydro power as pumped hydro can store excess wind/solar for later use.

Thus, it is generally easier to look at fossil fuels as a group vs renewables as a group for this transition.

Except of course that wind and solar aren't actually disruptive.

They've only recently become marginally cheaper, but come with limitations that actually make them less convenient and much harder to fulfill changes in short term demand.

I think we've identified another problem, you don't know what a disruptive technology is.

To the consumer, there is literally no difference in their experience of power consumption... except of course if they have a utility that charges them an extra $5 to use predominantly wind power. Otherwise the electricity shows up in their sockets exactly the same as before, and they are charged just as much as before. There is no change.

In the contest between horses and cars, there was a reason to switch to a car before your horse died. You immediately gained benefits that were not possible with the horse. You didn't just save a couple bucks each month, but you could now do things that were not possible when you owned a horse.

For a utility company, there is only a marginal savings that are earned by switching. I agree that companies will continue to switch, but they're only going to do so when the overall cost is beneficial in the short term (cause in a capitalist society that focuses on quarterly projections, people care about the stock price today, and not the stock price 5 years from now). Companies aren't going to shutter old coal/natural gas plants until those plants are cheaper to replace than to continue running them. This is happening, but it will take time to finish the life cycle of all those power plants. Meanwhile, they're still spewing CO2 into the air.

Wind and solar are not disruptive technologies.


Something that was going to get built this year, but I don't know if the projects will end up on hold, is gravity storage. A large semi-underground cylinder with an extremely heavy piston is used in conjunction with a small water reservoir to use excess electricity generation to pump water under the piston. When demand exceeds production, then the piston is allowed to fall, pushing the water through turbines to generate electricity.

It has some significant benefits over lithium-ion, if the system can be engineered to work well. Lithium-ion has no direct scalability benefits. As demand for the batteries has grown, advancements have been made, but this is indirect, and there are limits to how good the batteries can be. In any short term period, where no major advances occur in lithium-ion design, building a bigger storage facility does not net you any sort of advantage just for being bigger. You can store more, but the rate of storage is the same regardless of size.

Gravity storage though does scale. Building pistons in a cylindrical shape is the most efficient, and if you double the diameter, the construction costs are effectively quadrupled, but the amount of gravitational force you can harness is multiplied by 16. Building one large piston is more efficient than building two smaller ones for the same cost.

In addition, the gravity storage uses things that are more readily available: steel, copper, water, and rocks.

Gravity storage will be relatively safe. The big thing that can leak out is water. There isn't really much to set fire to. The big questions are how efficient it can be in terms of electricity lost, the cost to build them, and how much energy can be stored. There were supposed to be some commercial testing of systems like this built in 2020. The most optimistic estimates I've seen suggest that it could as little as 25% what it costs to store the same amount in lithium-ion mass storage systems.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I kinda figured you'd move the goalposts to maintain your argument.

Goalposts? I was talking about baseball and you came in with this stuff about goalposts. You are 'disagreeing' with me on things that weren't even discussed... and you're still wrong.

The fact that auto sales decreased during the Great Depression does NOTHING to counter what I have said about the transition from horses to cars. It also doesn't support your statements that the total number of cars in the US decreased.

Irontruth wrote:
The car v. horse model is also a bad analogy. Even before roads improved, cars were a massive improvement in the cost of transportation.

...which is one of the things which makes it a very good analogy for the way EVs are going to massively decrease the cost of transportation compared to ICEs... and how this is going to drive a similar rapid technology transition.

Irontruth wrote:
EV's have none of these advantages.

You really haven't looked at or thought through this issue at all, have you?

Irontruth wrote:
The cost is relatively the same.

Right now the up front costs are relatively the same. A few years ago EVs cost a lot more up front. A few years from now they will cost a lot less.

Irontruth wrote:
Energy costs are lower, but only by about 1/4 ($2000 to fill up a gas car for a year, about $500 to charge an EV per year).

Some estimates go as low as 1/10th. Depends on where you are getting your electricity, what the current price of gasoline is, and whether you assume electricity rates will decrease in the future (they will).

Irontruth wrote:
But the performance capabilities are actually slightly worse. Sure, drag racing is better, but the limited range and time spent traveling when you need to charge midroute make trips longer.

Time not spent going to gas stations every week or two because you can charge up at home or work vastly outweighs any time lost charging during much rarer long trips. And again, charging rates are improving fast... they've gone from a few miles of charge per hour to a few miles per minute over a period of about 10 years.

Irontruth wrote:
EV's aren't actually that disruptive.

Some factors you overlooked;

EVs last longer. An ICE that makes it to 200,000 miles is impressive. EVs will last 500,000 easily and Tesla is promising a one million mile car in the next few years. So an EV might (currently) cost about the same as an ICEV... but it's worth more than twice as much because you won't have to replace it as often.

EVs have much lower maintenance costs. Electric motors are vastly simpler than ICEs. They break down less and cost less to repair when they do.

EVs pollute vastly less than ICEVs. That means lower health care and environmental costs.

Electric vehicles are every bit as disruptive to ICE vehicles as those were to horses. The cost of transportation is going to drop dramatically over the next decade.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Except of course that wind and solar aren't actually disruptive.

Ok, I thought you were being ridiculous before, but... seriously.

How can something which has grown from <0.01% of new market share to >70% of new market share be considered 'not actually disruptive'?

Irontruth wrote:
I think we've identified another problem, you don't know what a disruptive technology is.

I know what I, and I believe most other people, mean by the term. You apparently have some definition that is all your own (as is seeming to be a theme).

Irontruth wrote:
To the consumer, there is literally no difference in their experience of power consumption... except of course if they have a utility that charges them an extra $5 to use predominantly wind power. Otherwise the electricity shows up in their sockets exactly the same as before, and they are charged just as much as before. There is no change.

Irrelevant to whether it is a disruptive technology or not... and only true for a brief snapshot in time and space. There are places where the cost is already significantly less (e.g. Hawaii) and soon that will be the case everywhere.

Irontruth wrote:
Wind and solar are not disruptive technologies.

Do I even need to point out how many experts in the field disagree with you? Check Google.

Gravity storage: Yep, could well take the place of pumped hydro as the most efficient large scale energy storage method available.

Of course, it wouldn't be a thing at all if wind and solar weren't disrupting the energy industry. The old model was built around baseload power. You only need a lot of storage when you've got variable sources... like wind and solar.


CBDunkerson wrote:

It also doesn't support your statements that the total number of cars in the US decreased.

I literally provided evidence of this. But I guess it makes sense, you don't bother reading data if it doesn't support your conclusion.

The link, since you seemed to have missed it.

Or, since maybe you don't want to look at the raw data, since it disagrees with you:

Cars in the US:
1929: 23,060,421
1933: 20,586,284

So, 1929 happened BEFORE 1933, but the number of cars in 1929 was higher than the number of cars in 1933. Or to reword that, the number of cars on the road decreased between the years 1929 to 1933.

CBDunkerson wrote:
...which is one of the things which makes it a very good analogy for the way EVs are going to massively decrease the cost of transportation compared to ICEs... and how this is going to drive a similar rapid technology transition.

No, it isn't a good analogy. The cost savings on cars vs horses was by orders of magnitude larger. Cars were 10 times more productive than horses in the beginning, of course now they're closer to 30-40 times more productive.

A lot of those gains in productivity have to do with road construction, which EV's will never gain over ICE. A smooth road in good repair works equally well for both vehicles.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Time not spent going to gas stations every week or two because you can charge up at home or work vastly outweighs any time lost charging during much rarer long trips. And again, charging rates are improving fast... they've gone from a few miles of charge per hour to a few miles per minute over a period of about 10 years.

I agree for most daily consumers, but not for anyone who has to travel long distance. For commuters, yes this is true, but for a trailer truck hauling goods from LA to SLC, this is not true. Such a vehicle would have to stop regularly and slow the trip significantly. This is my point. I agree advances will be made, but when it comes to the transmission of electricity, development is not going to happen like it does with microchip processing power. It will not continue to be exponential every 5-10 years, there are physical limits to how fast we can transfer electricity between devices.

As for EV maintenance, there are a lot of problems in this regard. Sure, they have less problems overall but problems can still happen, and the most advanced EV company essentially doesn't give a flying f*%~ about repairing cars. And if you repair the car yourself, Tesla will actually turn off supercharging capabilities. And if you get into the system and turn supercharging back on, they will come after you with legal action.

In the end though, I do agree that EVs are going to replace ICE. I just don't see it being as fast purely on raw economic advantages without government intervention to solve the issue of CO2 emissions globally.

Tesla for example wants to keep selling cars, and doesn't really seem to give a s*%& about older models, because they want to sell their newer models. They routinely discontinue supercharging for old models, or old models that have had significant repairs. One anecdotal story, someone rebuilt a salvaged car, paid Tesla $12,000 to get it "supercharging certified", and 6 months later Tesla turned off supercharging on his car (cause they can turn it off remotely). They didn't refund him the $12,000 he paid to get it certified either.

This is important, because once you don't have access to the high end charging methods, charging starts to take 10-15 hours to fully charge a car, which makes long trips essentially impossible again. All because Tesla wants to focus on new car sales and not spend money supporting older cars.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

It also doesn't support your statements that the total number of cars in the US decreased.

Cars in the US:

1929: 23,060,421
1933: 20,586,284

So, 1929 happened BEFORE 1933, but the number of cars in 1929 was higher than the number of cars in 1933. Or to reword that, the number of cars on the road decreased between the years 1929 to 1933.

The data you are citing is on registrations. That is, "cars on the road" as you put it (though I imagine there were a fair number of UNregistered cars on the road during the Great Depression).

This is, again, different from the total number of cars. 2.5 million cars did not simply vanish from the face of the Earth. Rather, when a lot of people lost their jobs they also lost their cars. They no longer owned / drove them... but the cars still existed. The number of cars did not decrease... and this still wouldn't have anything to do with the trend (even the Great Depression only caused a blip for that)... which still wouldn't have anything to do with the transition away from horses that was the actual topic before you made up this other stuff to pretend you weren't completely wrong.

Irontruth wrote:
No, it isn't a good analogy. The cost savings on cars vs horses was by orders of magnitude larger. Cars were 10 times more productive than horses in the beginning, of course now they're closer to 30-40 times more productive.

...and I'm saying that EVs are going to be similarly superior to ICEVs.

Irontruth wrote:
A lot of those gains in productivity have to do with road construction, which EV's will never gain over ICE. A smooth road in good repair works equally well for both vehicles.

As they also did for horse carriages. If we're counting the impact of OTHER infrastructure/technology changes, then the transition to EVs is going to be much much MORE productive than the transition away from horses was.

Irontruth wrote:
I agree for most daily consumers, but not for anyone who has to travel long distance. For commuters, yes this is true, but for a trailer truck hauling goods from LA to SLC, this is not true.

All true, but we're talking about the overall picture here. Daily commuters accumulate about 10 times as many miles per year as trailer trucks do... because there are so many more of them. Thus, overall much less time will be consumed plugging in EVs and waiting around for them to charge than is currently spent refueling ICEVs.

Irontruth wrote:
I agree advances will be made, but when it comes to the transmission of electricity, development is not going to happen like it does with microchip processing power. It will not continue to be exponential every 5-10 years, there are physical limits to how fast we can transfer electricity between devices.

There are physical limits to everything. Microchip processing power is running up against that now. That said, if EV charging made as much progress in the next 10 years as it did in the past 10 we'd be looking at charging rates on the order of 5 miles per second... much faster than gasoline pumping. That won't happen, but charging times WILL continue to improve significantly... to the point that this is a non-issue. Especially since you only need to 'wait around' for charging when you are traveling very long distances... at which point you need to take a break anyway. After driving 4+ hours you need to get out of the car, stretch your legs, go to the bathroom, get something to eat/drink. If your car can be charged up enough for another 4+ hours in that time (and that will happen) then it's again less hassle than spending 5 minutes pumping gas in addition to those other things.

Irontruth wrote:
As for EV maintenance, there are a lot of problems in this regard. Sure, they have less problems overall but problems can still happen, and the most advanced EV company essentially doesn't give a flying f#+* about repairing cars. And if you repair the car yourself, Tesla will actually turn off supercharging capabilities. And if you get into the system and turn supercharging back on, they will come after you with legal action.

None of which changes the fact that electric motors cost less to maintain. Tesla sucks? Ok. Guess what? The engines still cost less to maintain. If people can't deal with Tesla, someone else will come along with better customer service and take business away from them.

Irontruth wrote:
In the end though, I do agree that EVs are going to replace ICE. I just don't see it being as fast purely on raw economic advantages without government intervention to solve the issue of CO2 emissions globally.

You don't see the transition being "as fast" as what? It certainly won't be 'as fast' as if the governments of the world all immediately dropped all support for ICEs. On the other hand, it will be roughly 'as fast' as we have seen it happening in early mover countries.


CBDunkerson wrote:


The data you are citing is on registrations. That is, "cars on the road" as you put it (though I imagine there were a fair number of UNregistered cars on the road during the Great Depression).

This is, again, different from the total number of cars. 2.5 million cars did not simply vanish from the face of the Earth. Rather, when a lot of people lost their jobs they also lost their cars. They no longer owned / drove them... but the cars still existed. The number of cars did not decrease... and this still wouldn't have anything to do with the trend (even the Great Depression only caused a blip for that)... which still wouldn't have anything to do with the transition away from horses that was the actual topic before you made up this other stuff to pretend you weren't completely wrong.

You claimed repeatedly that there was never a reduction in the usage of cars. You did it multiple times, and I've quoted where you've done in previous posts.

The number of cars being used did decrease, unless you have EVIDENCE to suggest otherwise. I don't care about the explanation you can come up with in your head. I care about what can be demonstrated with evidence.

Of course, the obvious rebuttal to what you've said though... is that ICE's don't last long, require a lot of maintenance to keep them running, so it is very conceivable that early versions of cars would break down after what we could consider very limited use. Remember, roads were very poorly constructed, carburetors didn't have filters, and even in GOOD circumstances, a model T engine had to be rebuilt after 10-20k miles.

If you want to claim that cars that are not being used still count, then it's going to be a REALLY long time until EV's take over, since they'll also have to outnumber all the cars in junkyards. Of course, as soon as it no longer suits you, you'll move the goalposts and say that those cars don't count. They count when you want them to, but don't count when you don't.

CBDunkerson wrote:
None of which changes the fact that electric motors cost less to maintain. Tesla sucks? Ok. Guess what? The engines still cost less to maintain. If people can't deal with Tesla, someone else will come along with better customer service and take business away from them.

Plenty of companies and industries have survived or even maintained dominance in markets while having s+@!ty customer service.

The thing is... I mostly agree with you. I just wish you'd stop staying stupid s$#! that you don't actually know, and then trying to justify it afterwards.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
You claimed repeatedly that there was never a reduction in the usage of cars. You did it multiple times, and I've quoted where you've done in previous posts.

Never happened. If you think it did you are basically redefining words to mean that instead of what they are commonly accepted to mean.


Sure, you can deny it if you like. I've already quoted you multiple times, so your denial is not convincing.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Renewables accounted for 72% of new electric capacity in 2019

Solar is about to surpass wind to become the second largest source of renewable power world wide, and it'll pass hydro to become the biggest before 2030.

Meanwhile, non-renewables last year added only half as much capacity as they did when they peaked back in 2010. They are reaching the point where more fossil fuel power is being shut down each year than is being added.


And is this replacement speed fast enough to reduce the consequences of global warming by 2100?


Irontruth wrote:
And is this replacement speed fast enough to reduce the consequences of global warming by 2100?

You could ask Germany how well it's gone ditching nuclear and pursuing solar and wind like sanity is optional.

Can you say, $0.30/kWH?

I knew that you could.
:D


Well now, after several pages of utterly pointless wrangling over (at best) tangential minutia I feel compelled to point out how a far bigger issue is the ongoing slowdown of the global economy and the concomitant major reduction in CO2 and other GHG emissions.

Up thread I helpfully prognosticated an emissions redux of 0.5 to 5.0 gigatons of CO2 for the year 2020. Then, as things keep turning out worse than official Chinese data would lead us to believe, I upgraded the floor estimate to a 3.0 gigaton reduction. In 10 to 15 days we ought to be able to see how much of the developing world is going to be impacted by this and, since they are the source of much raw material for the global economy ("Green" and otherwise), we may well scoot right on past my 5.0 gigaton max initial estimate.

If so, we may well reset the clock (so to speak) and give "green tech" the time needed to scale to practical prices and be built out to useful levels viz-a-viz AGW. Or is this hope countermanded by the mad dash to keep the global recession out of the depression category?

Does the current economic crisis crash the fracking industry? Or does it simply weed out the bit players and give a boost to the companies that have their ducks in a row? Does China burn the #### out of coal to try and climb out of the Coronavirus hole they've fell into? Does the EU 'relax' certain AGW standards/goals in order to do the same?

How 'bout we debate stuff like that?*

* Debate like actual adults that is. Just Say'n.


It's not a guarantee, but past reductions in CO2 emissions due to economic slow downs all resulted in increased emissions that were higher than before after the recovery.

So, it isn't possible to say that there actually was any CO2 benefit until afterwards.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
And is this replacement speed fast enough to reduce the consequences of global warming by 2100?

It already has.

The percentage of electricity generated by renewable sources has doubled. If that had not happened, 2100 would have been far worse.

Quark Blast wrote:
I feel compelled to point out how a far bigger issue is the ongoing slowdown of the global economy and the concomitant major reduction in CO2 and other GHG emissions.

It's an insignificant blip. Yes, emissions will go down this year along with economic activity. However, any impact on the long term trend will likely be too small to measure.

Quark Blast wrote:
Does the current economic crisis crash the fracking industry?

The price war between Russia and Saudi Arabia had already done that before the virus had any economic impact.

Quark Blast wrote:
Does China burn the #### out of coal to try and climb out of the Coronavirus hole they've fell into? Does the EU 'relax' certain AGW standards/goals in order to do the same?

I don't see how an increase in the use of more expensive technologies would be helpful in reversing an economic downturn.

Rather, the ongoing switch-over to renewable power sources will continue.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
And is this replacement speed fast enough to reduce the consequences of global warming by 2100?

It already has.

Has it really? The trend still looks upwards to me. In fact, the rate of increase seems higher than 30-50 years ago. Maybe we had more renewable energy back then that I didn't know about.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
And is this replacement speed fast enough to reduce the consequences of global warming by 2100?
It already has.
Has it really? The trend still looks upwards to me. In fact, the rate of increase seems higher than 30-50 years ago. Maybe we had more renewable energy back then that I didn't know about.

Once again, you are equating two completely different things.

Yes, atmospheric CO2 levels are still increasing. However, that doesn't change the fact that we are now getting a lower percentage of our electricity from fossil fuels due to the growth of renewables and that the results of global warming in 2100 would have been worse if that had not happened.

Two different things that in no way contradict each other.


I'm not equating two different things. I'm asking about the effect of renewables on CO2 emissions.

If we build an amount of wind power generation equal to the world's current power generation, but we did it in Anarctica, it wouldn't solve the problem. Sure, wind capacity would be the majority capacity in the world, but it would not produce energy that is being consumed. This is a stupid and ridiculous example to highlight an issue.

If you look at capacity, it is easy to see nice numbers of growth that seem promising. When you look at consumption numbers, and CO2 emissions totals, we do not see numbers that are promising. We see bad numbers that appear to suggest that 5-6 degrees of warming are quite possible.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I'm not equating two different things.

So you concede my point about the growth of renewable electricity having already made the impact of global warming in 2100 less severe?

Your "Has it really?" response with the link to a graph of rising atmospheric CO2 levels was just a random irrelevant tangent in no way meant to contradict my point?

Great!

Irontruth wrote:
I'm asking about the effect of renewables on CO2 emissions.

Annual human CO2 emissions are lower than they would have been without the rise of wind and solar power. That is "the effect of renewables on CO2 emissions".


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm not equating two different things.

So you concede my point about the growth of renewable electricity having already made the impact of global warming in 2100 less severe?

Your "Has it really?" response with the link to a graph of rising atmospheric CO2 levels was just a random irrelevant tangent in no way meant to contradict my point?

Great!

Irontruth wrote:
I'm asking about the effect of renewables on CO2 emissions.
Annual human CO2 emissions are lower than they would have been without the rise of wind and solar power. That is "the effect of renewables on CO2 emissions".

Without trying to argue with me about it, can you rephrase the concern I've been trying to raise? Steel-man my argument, ie, present what I was just asking in the best light possible.

This isn't a "gotcha" strategy, I'm trying to see if I've communicated myself well.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Without trying to argue with me about it, can you rephrase the concern I've been trying to raise?

No. I literally have no idea what you are on about.

I'd think that it was obvious and indisputable that renewable power growing from ~15% to ~30% of world electricity production capacity means that global warming in 2100 will not be as bad as it would have been had that not happened.

Yet... you seem to be 'disputing' this... by pointing out that atmospheric CO2 emissions are increasing. Which... is true... but in no way relevant. It does nothing to change or contradict my position.


I'm asking "how bad" will it be.

All you say is "less".

If only 5.9 billion people die due to AGW by 2100, but if we had not built some wind/solar energy, 5.95 billion people would have died, you are technically correct, that we did "lessen" the effect of AGW. I would still consider that a failure to have enacted sufficient change.

The amount of CO2 we are emitting does matter.

CBDunkerson wrote:


by pointing out that atmospheric CO2 emissions are increasing. Which... is true... but in no way relevant.

This is extremely relevant. In fact, I think this is the primary thing we've been discussing in this thread for 79 pages. The amount of CO2 we emit IS the problem.

I remain unconvinced that we will reduce emissions soon enough.

I am also unconvinced that we won't reduce emissions soon enough.

I think the evidence for either claim's certainty is poor.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I'm asking "how bad" will it be.

What you actually wrote was: "And is this replacement speed fast enough to reduce the consequences of global warming by 2100?"

The answer to that question is unequivocally, "yes". Renewable sources replacing fossil fuels not only will reduce the impact of global warming in 2100, they already have done so.

Irontruth wrote:
If only 5.9 billion people die due to AGW by 2100, but if we had not built some wind/solar energy, 5.95 billion people would have died, you are technically correct, that we did "lessen" the effect of AGW. I would still consider that a failure to have enacted sufficient change.

I'd agree.

However, global warming was never going to cause either of those things on its own. The only way casualty counts that high could be ascribed to global warming would be if it were a contributing factor that helped set off something like a global war of extermination.

Irontruth wrote:
This is extremely relevant.

Not to the point you were supposedly disputing.

Irontruth wrote:
In fact, I think this is the primary thing we've been discussing in this thread for 79 pages. The amount of CO2 we emit IS the problem.

Absolutely. It just doesn't change the fact that renewable sources replacing fossil fuels means that atmospheric CO2 levels in 2100 will be lower than they would have been if that hadn't happened.

Irontruth wrote:

I remain unconvinced that we will reduce emissions soon enough.

I am also unconvinced that we won't reduce emissions soon enough.

I think the evidence for either claim's certainty is poor.

I can neither agree nor disagree with these statements as they are effectively meaningless until you define what "soon enough" means.

'Soon enough' to prevent global warming from killing a single person? Already too late.

'Soon enough' to avoid more than 5 billion human deaths from direct effects of global warming (e.g. hunger, fire, heat exposure, etc)? Yes, this is not even possible by 2100.

'Soon enough' to prevent global warming from wiping out the human race? Yes, as this is highly implausible for any point in the future.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm asking "how bad" will it be.

What you actually wrote was: "And is this replacement speed fast enough to reduce the consequences of global warming by 2100?"

The answer to that question is unequivocally, "yes". Renewable sources replacing fossil fuels not only will reduce the impact of global warming in 2100, they already have done so.

You spent so much time b@**$ing about me making semantic arguments... and then you do this. You are making nothing but a pedantic and semantic argument here. Instead of discussing this issue with me, you want to ensure that semantically, you've already won.

CBDunkerson wrote:
'Soon enough' to avoid more than 5 billion human deaths from direct effects of global warming (e.g. hunger, fire, heat exposure, etc)? Yes, this is not even possible by 2100.

I don't think you have any clue what is and isn't possible by 2100. Feel free to provide any sort of evidence you have to support this claim.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
You spent so much time b&$~&ing about me making semantic arguments... and then you do this. You are making nothing but a pedantic and semantic argument here. Instead of discussing this issue with me, you want to ensure that semantically, you've already won.

My argument is that I answered the question you actually asked. Not the different, and still not clearly defined, question you now say you meant.

There is nothing semantic about that.

Irontruth wrote:
I don't think you have any clue what is and isn't possible by 2100. Feel free to provide any sort of evidence you have to support this claim.

Let me Google that for you

Note how none of the projections, even when they include secondary effects like wars, add up to 5 billion deaths by 2100.


Which projection specifically models out to 2100?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Which projection specifically models out to 2100?

Pick one. Here, let me help;

Even after accounting for adaptation, an additional 1.5 million people die per year from climate change by 2100 if past emissions trends continue.

So, they've calculated out through 2100 and estimate by that point global warming deaths may have risen to 1.5 million people per year if we don't reduce emissions. They don't calculate the total up to that point, but we know it would be less than 120 million (1.5 million per year * 80 years)... nowhere near 5 billion.


That model doesn't seem to account for food insecurity, water insecurity, and it relies on the assumption that poor countries will grow wealthier and increase their access to things like air-conditioning.

It's been covered in this thread before, maybe you missed it, but in Africa, the majority of new energy construction is fossil fuel based. The money to pay for it is coming from China. The UN expects natural gas production will double or triple, while wind/solar will grow by 5% by 2040 under current policies.

Some very prominent climatologists disagree with the assessment you linked. They estimate that if we hit 4C increase, less than a billion people will survive.

A nice paper on why scientists have underestimated the problem.

Quote:

For example, the projected sea-level rise in the 2007

report was well below the subsequent observations.
This occurred because scientists compiling the
report could not agree on how much would
be added to sea-level rise by melting polar ice
sheets, and so left out the data altogether to reach
“consensus”. Science historian Naomi Oreskes calls
this “consensus by omission”.

Just in the past 15 years we've failed to make accurate predictions on the effects of climate change because scientists omitted data that they couldn't agree on.

This economist predicts four times as many deaths as the one you linked. Of course, it's probably hyperbolic alarmism from noted liberal-rag Forbes.

A National Geographic estimate that climate change could kill 3 out of 4 people. I wonder what the math on that looks like.

7.8*0.75=5.8

Huh, their estimate is 5.8 billion people could die from climate change.

A billion people could die just in Africa.

1.5 million people will die each year... in India.

It seems you've chosen one of the most conservative estimates in order to make your point, but you excluded all the ones that had higher totals. Also, you seemed to have missed the point about the numbers I was making. Note that the two totals I gave originally were high (intentionally, to grab attention), but the real point was the difference between them.

If the current rate of construction of renewables changes the death total from 120.5 million, to 120 million, do you think we should be satisfied with that result?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Some very prominent climatologists disagree with the assessment you linked. They estimate that if we hit 4C increase, less than a billion people will survive.

If we hit 4C warming by 2055, not 2100. Rate of warming matters. That was a highly implausible absolute worst case scenario when they made those estimates back in 2009. Now it's just outright fiction... and, in any case, a radically different scenario than we were discussing.

Irontruth wrote:
A nice paper on why scientists have underestimated the problem.

More accurately, why summaries of scientific 'consensus' have underestimated the problem. Individual studies and models have covered a wider range of possibilities, but things like IPCC reports tend to exclude areas of significant dispute.

Irontruth wrote:
This economist predicts four times as many deaths as the one you linked.

So... still an order of magnitude below your 5 billion figure.

Irontruth wrote:
A National Geographic estimate that climate change could kill 3 out of 4 people.

You should actually read articles before drawing conclusions about them.

They cite a study projecting that heat waves could "threaten" nearly 3 out of 4. Threaten. Not kill. That is, the portion of the globe subject to potentially deadly heat waves could grow to cover areas where 74% of the human population live. Even the most extreme heat waves don't kill 1% of the population... let alone 100%.

Irontruth wrote:
A billion people could die just in Africa.

In a section saying that the "worst-case scenario should consider all reasonably possible catastrophic outcomes that might be caused directly or indirectly by AGW". I've been saying that indirect deaths from war and other things AGW might trigger could greatly increase the death toll. That said, the global 'worst case including indirect effects' figure in that study is 3 billion over the course of a "century or two"... so still shy of your 5 billion by 2100 figure.

Irontruth wrote:
1.5 million people will die each year... in India.

If we ignore the fact that India has a below average standard of living and is already warmer than most of the planet, we might extrapolate that 1.5 million to ~8.5 million globally (i.e. 1.5 / 17.7% of global population)... and then multiply by 80 years to get... 680 million deaths world wide by 2100. Which is... again well below your 5 billion figure.

Irontruth wrote:
It seems you've chosen one of the most conservative estimates in order to make your point, but you excluded all the ones that had higher totals.

I picked one at random... but thank you for providing so many additional sources confirming my position.

Irontruth wrote:
Also, you seemed to have missed the point about the numbers I was making. Note that the two totals I gave originally were high (intentionally, to grab attention), but the real point was the difference between them.

I considered that might be the case... until you disputed my claim that both values were outside the range of plausible estimates.

Irontruth wrote:
If the current rate of construction of renewables changes the death total from 120.5 million, to 120 million, do you think we should be satisfied with that result?

We should not be satisfied. The AGW deaths we have NOW are unacceptable.

However, worst case scenario we could hit maybe 450 ppm over pre-industrial by 2100 if renewable energy deployments and electric vehicle sales stopped at current rates. That's down from the ~750 ppm increase we were on track for before the rise of wind and solar power. The percentage change in atmospheric CO2 increase (i.e. down ~40%) is two orders of magnitude greater than your suggested percentage reduction in fatalities (i.e. ~0.4%). There is no logical reason that there would be such a huge disconnect between cause and effect.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Some very prominent climatologists disagree with the assessment you linked. They estimate that if we hit 4C increase, less than a billion people will survive.

If we hit 4C warming by 2055, not 2100.

Are you arguing that they'll have come back to life by 2100? Or will they still be dead?

I'm really not tied to the 5 billion number. In fact, the exact amount was the least important part of that statement. I'm happy if you want to talk about a figure around 150 million. In fact, you give me the number you find most probably, and I will rewrite my point for you using that number.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
If we hit 4C warming by 2055, not 2100.
Are you arguing that they'll have come back to life by 2100? Or will they still be dead?

I'm saying that 4C warming by 2055 is a different, and vastly worse, scenario than 4C by 2100. The faster the warming, the more people would die. 4C warming by 2055 is also outside the realm of possibility.

Irontruth wrote:
I'm really not tied to the 5 billion number. In fact, the exact amount was the least important part of that statement. I'm happy if you want to talk about a figure around 150 million. In fact, you give me the number you find most probably, and I will rewrite my point for you using that number.

You already did that with 120.5 million and 120 million, and I already explained why it still made no sense.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
It's been covered in this thread before, maybe you missed it, but in Africa, the majority of new energy construction is fossil fuel based.

Out of date. 52% of new African electric capacity added in 2019 was renewable

Irontruth wrote:
The UN expects natural gas production will double or triple, while wind/solar will grow by 5% by 2040 under current policies.

Source? Wind and solar are growing more than 5% per year.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
If we hit 4C warming by 2055, not 2100.
Are you arguing that they'll have come back to life by 2100? Or will they still be dead?

I'm saying that 4C warming by 2055 is a different, and vastly worse, scenario than 4C by 2100. The faster the warming, the more people would die. 4C warming by 2055 is also outside the realm of possibility.

Except several sources are saying it is a possibility. They're well researched sources who are recognized experts in the field. That doesn't mean that it will happen, but their models say it is possible.

Considering you've consistently posted sources at the extreme end of whatever point you happen to be arguing (and ignore any source that doesn't agree with you), I don't find your statement that 4C by mid-century being impossible to be convincing.

I don't necessarily think that we will see 4C by 2055, but your claim of impossibility has not been demonstrated.

Lastly, if we want to talk about orders of magnitude, my wild swing at 5 billion is closer to multiple estimates (in terms of orders of magnitude) than yours. If a billion people die, you're off by a factor of 10, and I was off by a factor of 5. And I still don't trust capitalism to solve this issue for us.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Except several sources are saying it is a possibility. They're well researched sources who are recognized experts in the field.

No, they aren't. James Lovelock and a handful of others have made such claims without any published research to back them. They're well outside the range considered plausible by most climate scientists.

Irontruth wrote:
Considering you've consistently posted sources at the extreme end of whatever point you happen to be arguing (and ignore any source that doesn't agree with you)

Actually, my views on climate impacts and mitigating factors are fairly mainstream... and your claim that I 'consistently ignore' any source I disagree with is even more ridiculous. Your entire ongoing diatribe was sparked by me daring to explain the flaws in the analysis of one of your sources. I don't ignore bad sources, I explain why they are wrong.

You, on the other hand, DO routinely drop / ignore evidence against your position, questions, data, sources, etc.

Irontruth wrote:
Lastly, if we want to talk about orders of magnitude, my wild swing at 5 billion is closer to multiple estimates (in terms of orders of magnitude) than yours. If a billion people die, you're off by a factor of 10, and I was off by a factor of 5.

Funny. I wasn't aware I'd even made an estimate.

Irontruth wrote:
And I still don't trust capitalism to solve this issue for us.

I still don't consider capitalism a relevant issue. Fundamental economic laws are already 'solving' this problem... in that wind and solar power are replacing fossil fuels, because they cost less.

This transition is happening all over the world. It started in 'developed' countries. Then moved to 'developing' ones (e.g. China and India)... and has now reached majority status in 'impoverished' countries (e.g. most of Africa). Only a few fossil fuel based economies, mostly in the Middle East, haven't reached majority renewable power for new electric capacity yet... and even those will get there in just a few more years.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Irontruth wrote:
Lastly, if we want to talk about orders of magnitude, my wild swing at 5 billion is closer to multiple estimates (in terms of orders of magnitude) than yours. If a billion people die, you're off by a factor of 10, and I was off by a factor of 5.

Funny. I wasn't aware I'd even made an estimate.

If you want to play that game, I never made an estimate either.


I've mentioned before that given the relative lack of scientific understanding that the East Antarctic glaciers might not be as stable or slow to melt as is currently assumed. Now it seems the science of glaciology is finally catching up to my prescience.

Antarctic Glacier Has Retreated 3 Miles in 22 Years

SA wrote:

At Denman it poses a greater danger than in other places. The ground beneath Denman has an unusually steep slope. And on the western side of the glacier, in particular, it’s not broken up by ridges or other physical characteristics that might stop the ice from sliding backward.

As a result, the glacier may have an above-average risk of unstoppable retreat once the ice really gets moving.

That risk likely depends on how far the warm water manages to creep beneath the glacier and how quickly the glacier melts in response, the researchers said. And that’s a question they haven’t answered yet. The new study reveals how much ice Denman is losing but not exactly how the water is interacting with the ice or how those interactions might change in the future.

But the study does flag Denman as a previously overlooked threat to global sea-level rise—one that should be closely monitored in the coming years. And it reaffirms scientists’ growing perspective that East Antarctica is more vulnerable than they used to believe.

We conclude that the potential exists for a rapid retreat along the Denman trough in the future,” the researchers write. “These observations challenge the view of glacier stability in East Antarctica.”


The downside of an empirical method is that it's hard to say things conclusively without evidence. On the plus side, when that evidence does show itself without ambiguity, that method allows you to more easily incorporate it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
I've mentioned before that given the relative lack of scientific understanding that the East Antarctic glaciers might not be as stable or slow to melt as is currently assumed. Now it seems the science of glaciology is finally catching up to my prescience.

Prescience?

Yes, you made a prediction about Antarctic ice;
People who think the Antarctic ice cannot be significantly destroyed by 2030 don't understand glaciology.

Unfortunately, that remains complete nonsense. Nothing in the research you cite comes close to supporting your prediction.

Antarctica will likely contribute much more to sea level rise over the next few hundred years than has been projected by most climate models to date. The total volume of Antarctic ice, on the other hand, will only decrease a few percent over the next thousand years. Let alone the next ten.


Are you making a semantic argument about what constitutes "significant destruction"?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Are you making a semantic argument about what constitutes "significant destruction"?

So far as I know, QB and I both understand his claim in roughly the same way (i.e. a reduction in the ice on Antarctica of at least several percent), and thus the argument is over the likelihood of his prediction to be true rather than semantics.

Certainly, nothing I said above suggests that there is a dispute about definitions at hand here... which makes me wonder if you haven't just gone out of your way to start a semantic argument over what "semantic argument" means.


From his earlier post... which you linked.

Quark Blast wrote:


People who think the Antarctic ice cannot be significantly destroyed by 2030 don't understand glaciology.*

Then you say this.

CBDunkerson wrote:


Unfortunately, that remains complete nonsense. Nothing in the research you cite comes close to supporting your prediction.

Antarctica will likely contribute much more to sea level rise over the next few hundred years than has been projected by most climate models to date. The total volume of Antarctic ice, on the other hand, will only decrease a few percent over the next thousand years. Let alone the next ten.

You seem to be arguing that there has to a certain % of Antarctica melting for it to be considered "significant damage".

I can only engage with you using the words you write. That post seems to be making a semantic argument that "significant damage" is measured as a % of Antarctic ice. If you want to rephrase your argument more clearly, this would be a good point to do that.

From the article posted recently:

Quote:
That could be a threat to people living in coastal areas all over the world. If Denman were to collapse, it could raise global sea levels by nearly 5 feet.

The article goes on to say that we have no idea how fast this could happen, or how likely it is to happen. The key point is that it does appear to be happening, and it is happening significantly faster than anyone would have predicted 10 years ago.

I think any loss of Antarctic ice that results in 5 feet of sea level rise qualifies as "significant". These scientists say that this is something we should be concerned about, but they don't have a good answer for us. Do you have evidence that contradicts these scientists?

3,901 to 3,950 of 4,052 << first < prev | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.