Some truth to people who think we can be 100% renewable

[Music Lover]

When people argue against debate in science, they aren't really talking about science any more.

I agree. But the reality is that the only people who argue against debate are the alarmists.

 

[HFWR]

I agree. But the reality is that the only people who argue against debate are the alarmists.

In all fairness, some are still “debating” whether the earth is flat. At some point, debate is just a continuing circle jerk...

 

[Music Lover]

In all fairness, some are still “debating” whether the earth is flat. At some point, debate is just a continuing circle jerk...

I've never met a flat earther...do they still exist?

Have you ever noticed that climate is the only "science" where debate (or uncomfortable questions) is actively discouraged?

 

[ERD50]

In all fairness, some are still “debating” whether the earth is flat. ...

Yes, but I don't think you'll find any serious, credentialed person debating that. Big difference.

Having to declare the debate is over, is evidence that the debate is not over. If it was over, no one would (seriously) be debating it, so there would be no need to call it out. It's like standing up and saying the debate is over on whether 2 + 2 = 4 (base 10 for the pedantic!). There's no need, because there is no serious debate. It's kind of like that old joke about waving a flag to keep elephants away (in an area with no elephants) - punch line, "see, it works!".

Now, I agree with some earlier posts, it would be nice to have any global warming debate moved to a new thread. I think this thread was most useful as an analysis of the logistics of going 100% RE, and avoid the "should we" angle. Each are a full subject on their own.

Pretty please?

-ERD50

 

[HFWR]

Okay, first list some credentialed, serious info from the “other” side. Then, if it’s convincing enough, it will render this thread moot, because why go to all the trouble and expense...

 

[Whisper66]

Okay, first list some credentialed, serious info from the “other” side. Then, if it’s convincing enough, it will render this thread moot, because why go to all the trouble and expense...

This is as silly as saying the topic is "settled and beyond debate". Anyone that cares to explore both sides of this issue can do so with ease and find out that many people challenge the current climate change narrative. It was challenged from day 1 and continues to be challenged. And it's not just by kooks or people blabbing on social media. It can be an interesting topic to explore if one keeps an open mind and doesn't just accept one side or the other as gospel.


I for one don't plan to do your research for you as I went through this when the early IPCC reports came out. However, if you wish to go search credentials of scientists that are on the opposite side as you apparently are, here's just one of many starting points ....


https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-...t-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

 

[AnonEMouse]

I think people do a real disservice when they say "save the earth" "fight global warming" or somesuch nonsense.

The earth doesn't need "saving" - it has been much hotter before. Who cares if the earth heats up by a few degrees. The earth doesn't mind, the solar system doesn't care, and heck if the universe even notices.

Environmental activism is just so condescending and selfish. What they really mean is "save the humans" or "save our grandchildren." What about the crocodiles? Does anyone think about them? They really want to be able to live in the artic again. (I know, because I asked them. Yes I care, no crocodile tears here.)

Besides, you're all so short-sighted, quibbling over a few degrees. In a few billion years (+-5) the sun is going to become a red giant and engulf the earth anyway. Talk about warming - about 8,500F worth. Problem over - nothing left to "save."


/sarcasm for those who didn't get it. Humanity will suffer greatly - the earth doesn't care - dinosaurs, humans, whatever.

It basically comes down to:

1) The earth is warming. You can't argue with a thermometer. Well I mean you could, but it still won't change the temperature.

2) You have a decision to make - a) try and make things better for future (human) generations or b) live life as usual.

3a) Look your grandchild(ren) in the eyes and explain your decision.

3b) If you have no progeny - you get a free pass. Yeah! Burn that coal! Frack that shale! Pour more gas on the fire! Who cares, you don't have any skin in the game. (Or you could be a good steward for future humans anyway, up to you.)

 

[explanade]

How many of those on the "other" side are not taking any money from the fossil fuels industry?

As for a few degrees, it's the effects of those "few degrees." Rising sea levels wiping out trillions of coastal infrastructure, disruption of long-term weather patterns, causing problems with agriculture, availability of water supplies (see Australian drought).

Insurers are citing increased claims in recent years from unusual weather-related events and they expect such claims will continue to increase.

 

[HFWR]

This is as silly as saying the topic is "settled and beyond debate". Anyone that cares to explore both sides of this issue can do so with ease and find out that many people challenge the current climate change narrative. It was challenged from day 1 and continues to be challenged. And it's not just by kooks or people blabbing on social media. It can be an interesting topic to explore if one keeps an open mind and doesn't just accept one side or the other as gospel.


I for one don't plan to do your research for you as I went through this when the early IPCC reports came out. However, if you wish to go search credentials of scientists that are on the opposite side as you apparently are, here's just one of many starting points ....


https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-...t-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

Guess you told me...

I HAVE done a fair amount of reading, including some of the link provided. The use of terms like “Climategate” and “left wing” something or other definitely shows a non-biased leaning, right? Weren’t we saying that bias is bad?

I worked in research (not climate) for 30+ years, around lots of PhD-types. They mostly didn’t seem like mindless lemmings, all falling in lockstep. In fact, the opposite was often true; they could be very competitive... So, I may not support every claim made about AGW, or its consequences, but I’ll give them better than even odds. Certainly not zero, as many seem to opine. In the words of Dave Berry, “They’re not making this up...”

 

[HFWR]

Back on topic, I’ve been reading a bit about “flow batteries”, which might be a good option for grid storage.


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...-eventually-sustain-grid-powered-sun-and-wind

Batteries already power electronics, tools, and cars; soon, they could help sustain the entire electric grid. With the rise of wind and solar power, energy companies are looking for ways to keep electrons flowing when the sun doesn't shine and the wind ebbs. Giant devices called flow batteries, using tanks of electrolytes capable of storing enough electricity to power thousands of homes for many hours, could be the answer. But most flow batteries rely on vanadium, a somewhat rare and expensive metal, and alternatives are short-lived and toxic.

 

[Music Lover]

How many of those on the "other" side are not taking any money from the fossil fuels industry?

The government spends several thousand times more than the fossil fuel industry and 100% of that funding only goes to one side of the debate.

 

[timo2]

The government spends several thousand times more than the fossil fuel industry and 100% of that funding only goes to one side of the debate.

I've been reading along, but this quote made me respond. Did you really mean to imply that the government funded research starts out with the conclusion in mind before doing the research?

 

[mpeirce]

As for a few degrees, it's the effects of those "few degrees." Rising sea levels wiping out trillions of coastal infrastructure, disruption of long-term weather patterns...

Um, you do know that we're in what is know as an interglacial period.

Not that "long ago" there was a glacier where I live. During that time sea levels were low enough that people could walk to this continent (see bering land bridge). You know what else? It melted? Do we understand why? Not really, though there are a couple of interesting theories.

What if people had never existed? The sea levels would continue to rise anyway. Until they didn't and glaciers returned - unless we're really at the end of the larger ice age. Now one really knows if we are.

People seem to think climate is static. And that any variation is bad. Get over it. Climate varies. People are very good at adapting to those changes. I expect our progeny will be good at it too.

 

[NW-Bound]

Back on topic, I’ve been reading a bit about “flow batteries”, which might be a good option for grid storage.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...-eventually-sustain-grid-powered-sun-and-wind

Someone brought this up earlier in the thread. Still just promises, and nothing for immediate applications.

 

[timo2]

The Oxford Word of the Year 2019 is climate emergency.

The Oxford Word of the Year is a word or expression shown through usage evidence to reflect the ethos, mood, or preoccupations of the passing year, and have lasting potential as a term of cultural significance.

Climate emergency is defined as ‘a situation in which urgent action is required to reduce or halt climate change and avoid potentially irreversible environmental damage resulting from it.’

This year, heightened public awareness of climate science and the myriad implications for communities around the world has generated enormous discussion of what the UN Secretary-General has called ‘the defining issue of our time’.

But it is not just this upsurge in conversation that has caught our attention. Our research reveals a demonstrable escalation in the language people are using to articulate information and ideas concerning the climate. This is most clearly encapsulated by the rise of climate emergency in 2019.

https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2019/

 

[Music Lover]

I've been reading along, but this quote made me respond. Did you really mean to imply that the government funded research starts out with the conclusion in mind before doing the research?

I don't remember extensive research to determine if there actually is a problem, or anyone explaining why it was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period, or explaining how much of the warming today can be attributed to us coming out of an ice age. And, conveniently raw weather data from the past is being erased.

Environment Canada recently erased 100 years of weather data and has replaced it with computer models/simulations.

Also:

"Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation."

 

[HFWR]

Someone brought this up earlier in the thread. Still just promises, and nothing for immediate applications.

No need to discuss it further, then. Oh wait, weren’t we just complaining about that...

 

[timo2]

I don't remember extensive research to determine if there actually is a problem, or anyone explaining why it was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period, or explaining how much of the warming today can be attributed to us coming out of an ice age. And, conveniently raw weather data from the past is being erased.

Environment Canada recently erased 100 years of weather data and has replaced it with computer models/simulations.

Also:

"Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation."

Or you could just be describing symptoms of Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[NW-Bound]

No need to discuss it further, then. Oh wait, weren’t we just complaining about that...

We certainly can discuss it, if somebody makes fresh new promises about this technology.

 

[HFWR]

We certainly can discuss it, if somebody makes fresh new promises about this technology.

Actually working is definitely a plus...

And if it works, it seems more adapted/adaptable to the task at hand (grid storage) than li-based tech. Perhaps we can transfer some of that misappropriated grant money away from climate research... [emoji51]

 

[NW-Bound]

I don't know a whole lot about the flow battery, but think that they do have working prototypes. The problem is always about making something economical. It is always about the cost.

Money, money, money... It's always about the cost, after the science, and people tend to forget that.

PS. The Crescent Dunes that cost $1B and never comes on-line that I posted about earlier was not a pipe-dream, and had successful predecessors. But its energy output simply cannot compete at the price of $0.135/kWh.

 

[Texas Proud]

It has been awhile since I have been on... kinda surprised that this had gone to the climate change discussion as it was meant to be on the problems with renewable energy... but there is always thread drift....


BTW, even if we were to be able to wave a magic wand and get to carbon neutral tomorrow the seas are still going to rise a good amount and coastal towns will be under water. Some reality needs to come into the proposed solutions that people are going to be moved no matter what.


As to renewables.... funny story... a house had 6 or 8 panels put on their steep roof down the street about a year ago... I told my daughter they are stupid as they have two big trees in their front yard blocking the sun and they probably only get 1 to 2 hours of good sun on them... Well, 2 or 3 months ago I was driving by and the tree man was cutting down BOTH trees...



SOOO, now they do not have the beautiful trees in their front yard and look a bit out of place as every other house has big trees... and what do they now have... panels that get 4 or so hours in the winter and maybe 6 to 7 in the summer... not a good use of solar panels....

 

[explanade]

Um, you do know that we're in what is know as an interglacial period.

Not that "long ago" there was a glacier where I live. During that time sea levels were low enough that people could walk to this continent (see bering land bridge). You know what else? It melted? Do we understand why? Not really, though there are a couple of interesting theories.

What if people had never existed? The sea levels would continue to rise anyway. Until they didn't and glaciers returned - unless we're really at the end of the larger ice age. Now one really knows if we are.

People seem to think climate is static. And that any variation is bad. Get over it. Climate varies. People are very good at adapting to those changes. I expect our progeny will be good at it too.

Doesn't matter what happened thousands or millions of years ago.

We're dealing with now.

We didn't have coastal cities with millions of people living in them when the ancestors to the Indians walked across from Asia to North America.

We're talking about what kind of consequences those who will be alive a several decades from now.

 

[mpeirce]

We're talking about what kind of consequences those who will be alive a several decades from now.

Like I said, we'll adapt as we always do. If the real estate is valuable, we'll apply technology like dikes and levee's and so on (think Holland). If it's not worth saving it won't be and people will move somewhere else.

 

[HI Bill]

3b) If you have no progeny - you get a free pass. Yeah! Burn that coal! Frack that shale! Pour more gas on the fire! Who cares, you don't have any skin in the game. (Or you could be a good steward for future humans anyway, up to you.)

I have no progeny, mostly because of my desire to be a good steward for future non-human inhabitants of earth. The idea for me started in a science class in high school where we were studying global population growth.

P.S. As a geologist who never studied climate change other than in Geology 101, I do believe the earth is warming (as are far more glaciers than are growing); part is anthropogenic, and part is not. But I'll also say that one singular catestrauphic event such as a supervolcano eruption could eclipse the anthropogenic impact. But that doesn't mean we should just stand here.