Well, that didn't turn out like we planned....it's cold outside

[realshelby]

I remember in the early 70's being told we would be out of oil by 1980. I also remember claims of another ice age coming. Seems they can by cyclical and we are due. 

 

Might be hard to prove exactly when the next ice age is coming based on facts. Facts clearly show us there is a lot of oil left. 

 

Global warming does show up factually. You don't even have to believe it, but you cannot deny the earth has warmed significantly since the industrial revolution. I say that based on two facts. Temperature measurement and C02 measurement in ice samples. They seem to correlate directly. 

 

Global warmings most significant impact may be the increase in large storms. Not just hurricanes, but indeed winter storms like we are seeing now. So while we can joke about global warming when we are setting low temperature records here in Texas, the science of this has said all along this would happen. 

[BrianM]

1 hour ago, Rougarou said:

  

Yep, per the happy engineering and climatologist graphs, it certainly shows a rise.  With all the doomsday point of no return folks, and the current slow transcend to more green energy, it'll be quite different scale in a few thousand years.  Green energy will come, not as fast as some want, but it's on the way in, I don't doubt that, but I also don't see the extinction of fossil fuels by 2050.

At this point the short term (100 years or so) would be adoption of zero carbon where ever possible. In addition removing co2 is viewed as also needed short term. Scientists would like to see co2 back to around 300ppm ( currently little over 400ppm). Long term humans will need to devise a carbon neutral energy system that does not use human carbon capture. CO2 capture by humans is not a sustainable long term strategy. 
 

[BrianM]

39 minutes ago, realshelby said:

I remember in the early 70's being told we would be out of oil by 1980. I also remember claims of another ice age coming. Seems they can by cyclical and we are due. 

 

Might be hard to prove exactly when the next ice age is coming based on facts. Facts clearly show us there is a lot of oil left. 

 

Global warming does show up factually. You don't even have to believe it, but you cannot deny the earth has warmed significantly since the industrial revolution. I say that based on two facts. Temperature measurement and C02 measurement in ice samples. They seem to correlate directly. 

 

Global warmings most significant impact may be the increase in large storms. Not just hurricanes, but indeed winter storms like we are seeing now. So while we can joke about global warming when we are setting low temperature records here in Texas, the science of this has said all along this would happen. 

The majority of the idea about a coming ice age in the 70s was primarily in main stream media. The vast majority of published scientific papers were calling for warming.

 

Reason we have not run out of oil has much to do with technology and being able to extract oil today that could not be done in the 70s.

 

Unfortunately what you are experiencing in Texas may become more common. 

[ESokoloff]

14 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

Perhaps, the most even-handed presentation re: climate change, causes, potential solutions and how the best intentions fail.

 

 

Or perhaps Jeff & Michael got a lot right & a lot wrong.  
 

Rebuttal......

 

[realshelby]

6 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

Isn't the recent TX experience a lesson in solar/wind dependence even if the operators might have been derelict in protecting the infrastructure?  
 

No, not at all. There was a singular fault in both cases. Operators of both wind and solar chose to NOT spend the money to winterize the equipment. 

States up north have wind and solar. They work during even worse conditions. 

Texas companies chose to take the cheap way out, knowing there was a chance there would be an event that shut them down to some degree. They of course will tell you they didn't think THIS would happen. But if you study history it will tell you there WILL be temperature swings just like this. 

They were not responsible business planners. Texas "trusted", wink wink, them to do the right thing. No Texas regulations about public utility providers meeting any kind of winterization standard.

[BrianM]

6 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

What strikes me about both is the that "biomass" = "burning".  How does that advance environmental efforts?

http://biomassmagazine.com/plants/listplants/biomass/US/

Isn't the recent TX experience a lesson in solar/wind dependence even if the operators might have been derelict in protecting the infrastructure?  

The lesson IMO in both is "we cannot continue to engage in our lifestyle practices indefinitely".  Just in our area, we're building thousands of 3k sq' homes enabled by cheap electric and gas costs to house two people.  There's no way, advances in solar, storage, wind will keep up.  I wonder what the carbon footprint is for a new, conventionally-built natural gas-heated 3k sq' house might be over the first ten years.

 

 

 

Biomass has problems. On the surface it seems like it could work, but there can be issues with the time for payback.

Here is a quick read on the subject - https://physicsworld.com/a/biomass-energy-green-or-dirty/

 

Solar is our future (technically fossil fuels are a form of stored solar energy). Solar energy strikes Earth a rate of about 10,000 times what we (entire planet) currently use. It is a matter of figuring out how to best harness and store the energy (hydrogen is a possible form of storage). Of course being more efficient is not a bad thing either.

 

Solar and wind are in their infancy. We have a long way to go. What happened in Texas in no way indicates that solar and wind cannot be made to work. Mainly I saw an energy system that was ill prepared for the temperatures. Virtually all forms of electrical production had issues. It gets cold where I live (-33F, wind chills in the -60sF are the coldest I have personally experienced) and our electrical system had no problems.

[ESokoloff]

19 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

No wonder Bill Gates is buying up farmland and is currently the largest single individual landowner.  

Yep, Bill’s EVIL

[ESokoloff]

3 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

I didn't infer he's evil.  In fact, he's very shrewd.  Gobbling up an asset that's limited in supply is way smart. 

I disagree.  
It’s my belief that you are showing Bill in a bad light.

 

Its Smart to gobble up limited assets for ones own good but it’s Wise to secure imperative assists for the good of Humanity. 

[John Ranalletta]

1 hour ago, ESokoloff said:

I disagree.  
It’s my belief that you are showing Bill in a bad light.

 

Its Smart to gobble up limited assets for ones own good but it’s Wise to secure imperative assists for the good of Humanity. 

 

You're a mind reader, too.  That' must be very useful.

[ESokoloff]

3 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

 

You're a mind reader, too.  That' must be very useful.

Naaa, we’re far to predictable for such rhetorics. 

[John Ranalletta]

On 2/10/2021 at 11:26 AM, John Ranalletta said:

 

Not without nukes.  Solar, wind, batteries are supplemental, not primary.  They could shutdown foundries and factories 'til the sun shines, the snow melts and the wind blows.  That'd serve two purposes for the greens.

 

 

Who would have guessed?  Nukes = green.  Finally, common sense makes an appearance.

 

Doomberg

 

“A group of ten EU countries, led by France, have asked the European Commission to recognise nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source that should be part of the bloc's decades-long transition towards climate neutrality.

Tapping into Europe's ongoing energy crunch, the countries make the case for nuclear energy as a ‘key affordable, stable and independent energy source’ that could protect EU consumers from being ‘exposed to the volatility of prices.’

The letter, which was initiated by France, has been sent to the Commission with the signature of nine other EU countries, most of which already count nuclear as part of their national energy mix: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.”

[John Ranalletta]

On 10/16/2021 at 8:05 AM, John Ranalletta said:

 

Who would have guessed?  Nukes = green.  Finally, common sense makes an appearance.

 

Doomberg

 

“A group of ten EU countries, led by France, have asked the European Commission to recognise nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source that should be part of the bloc's decades-long transition towards climate neutrality.

Tapping into Europe's ongoing energy crunch, the countries make the case for nuclear energy as a ‘key affordable, stable and independent energy source’ that could protect EU consumers from being ‘exposed to the volatility of prices.’

The letter, which was initiated by France, has been sent to the Commission with the signature of nine other EU countries, most of which already count nuclear as part of their national energy mix: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.”

 

I see a trend developing..

 

[Hosstage]

Super clean. Until it isn't.

Clean and green energy are feel-good words that aren't really a thing.

[John Ranalletta]

Bothersome facts to be ignored as we disassemble legacy energy systems.

 

https://doomberg.substack.com/p/herbie-spoils-the-party?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy

[9Mary7]

Wow those people are stupid....