Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Likely will ask me that in turn so I will tell ya mine the fuel I purchase comes from.
Gasoline. The local. APP refinery refined from Alaska sweet from the north slope.
Biodiesel . The second largest production plant in america owned by pettit oil in Aberdeen. Wa
Produced from used and new vegetable oil

When two biodiesel stations opened up in my city some years ago I was all over it as well. But then I was told from the service manager of my local dealership that they were seeing a lot of problems with deteriorating fuel lines, etc. so I decided to avoid. I was always told that the VW TDI diesel could and does handle it, so I guess it's viable so long as your vehicle is set up for it.

I also avoid it on the boat for the same reason. In fact I recently had to replace a fuel tank -- went with fiberglass but unknowingly used a coating that is not compatible with bio. I wouldn't want to take a chance with the engine & genset anyway.

Fwiw, I learned at that time that, in the U.S. anyway, suppliers and distributors can add put to 5% bio to diesel without being required to disclose it on the pump. Since it all seems to funnel through the same pipelines and other means of transport, it is plausible and probably likely that it is also what's at marine fuel docks. Probably not harmful at 5% or less, but a bit worrisome.

How can one determine where the fuel they are purchasing comes from? We don't seem to have any coops or indpt. vendors around where I live, but maybe worth checking around. I have no illusions of it not making any difference for the environment, but I like the idea of not sending money to the sheiks if avoidable.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That does sound reasonable. Let's see them. It is your assertion that they exist.

Or are you just JAQing off?

No, I have a steady girlfriend. But it does sound like you're having a tough time these days not being "right" all the time.

So you're saying that UAH, RSS, and the other 3-4 surface station based data sets do not publish their data??? We've seen such direct sat vs. surface comparos before, but I was hoping you could easily provide an update since you "accept" both. Maybe there's another reason you're choosing not to share??

No matter, I'll look it up and try to figure out how to post something. I'm only used to using copy & paste to support an analysis, after all, not to substitute it for an analysis.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

No, I have a steady girlfriend. But it does sound like you're having a tough time these days not being "right" all the time.

If you are going to participate in an Internet discussion, you had better know what the acronyms are.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Regarding your comment on the uncertainties in the sinks: you are correct there are large uncertainties on all of the natural sources and sinks. These are difficult things to measure globally and to separate into constituent components.

But there is relatively low uncertainty on the current atmospheric CO2 concentration and rate of change.

We would have to be off by off by 50% on our estimates of our emissions for the net natural contribution to be increasing atmospheric CO2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at around half the rate that we are emitting. The uncertainties in our emission rates are simply not that large.

transmiterdams point about non-linearities in the system is well taken, but not particularly relevant to this calculation. It is however very relevant to understanding how the natural sources and sinks are changing, their relative importance, etc.

As you point out, several processes may increase net emissions in the future due to warming, (increased soil respiration, reduce solubility in the ocean). If we cause warming, we may reduce the ability for the natural system to offset our emissions.



Perhaps Delfin can say where he got those numbers. The most widely reported numbers are that the Paris agreements (if fully implemented) may limit warming to somewhere around 3 degrees over pre-industrial levels. (Which is generally considered inadequate.) The IPCC projections if we do nothing are around 4 to 5 degrees warming.

Last time I checked, 4 - 3 does not equal 0.05

Fair enough. Can't speak to the numbers but at least I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. Newhaul's post about the modeling study that assumes reforestation in south & central America seems to show just how "off" the calculations about the potential for carbon sinking may be. But I take it we can assume that modern CO2 concentration measurements at least are beyond refute? I know there is criticism of historic measurements using ice core & tree ring data, but not sure how "settled" those techniques really are.

With regard to your para. which I bolded, if the earth has been generally warming since the LIA as many scientists seem to believe, then wouldn't this be limiting the capacity and rate of the sinks? It doesn't seem like it's just future warming that would reduce this effect.

But again, it seems like the more relevant issue is not whether we "should" try and do something about it, but "what" we should do when balancing the potential harm with the known uncertainties, and at what cost to modern society. That's where more certainty may be needed on the projections/numbers.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

If you are going to participate in an Internet discussion, you had better know what the acronyms are.

An off-topic internet discussion on a sailing forum? Really?? My, my, we are taking ourselves rather seriously today. I figured it was an acronym but had no idea what it meant so thought I'd have a little fun. You know about "fun," right? It's closely associated with "sailing."

So are you going to kindly bestow your obviously superior knowledge of all things CC-related, including acronyms, or like different data-set info shall I go look it up? Your choice, but more importantly do have a cocktail or something. It's 5 o'clock somewhere as sailors like to say.

So you never answered, what is the source of the warming data you just posted? Might be nice to know if we're going to do any updated comparos.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Exile

Fair enough. Can't speak to the numbers but at least I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. Newhaul's post about the modeling study that assumes reforestation in south & central America seems to show just how "off" the calculations about the potential for carbon sinking may be. But I take it we can assume that modern CO2 concentration measurements at least are beyond refute? I know there is criticism of historic measurements using ice core & tree ring data, but not sure how "settled" those techniques really are.

I want to be cautious in my wording here so that someone doesn't jump all over a misstatement. The modern CO2 measurements of course have some uncertainty. But that uncertainty is small compared to the measured value and the trend.

Originally Posted by Exile

With regard to your para. which I bolded, if the earth has been generally warming since the LIA as many scientists seem to believe, then wouldn't this be limiting the capacity and rate of the sinks? It doesn't seem like it's just future warming that would reduce this effect.

Yes, you are correct. Those processes have of course been impacted by the warming trend that already exists. My point is simply that we know the sum of those processes is a net absorption of atmospheric CO2 over the recent past. This goes directly to transmiterdam's point about the non-linear complexity of many of these processes. We know with relatively high certainty that the natural systems are absorbing roughly half of our emissions. We know much less about exactly where it is going, by what process, and how those processes are changing. That is not to say we know nothing. We know more about the net exchange with the ocean than we do about those on land. And both have a large body of established research and ongoing improvements, including the paper that newhaul posted about secondary forest regrowth.

A note about that paper: If they are correct that previous estimates of the contribution of secondary forests were too low, that does not mean that the natural systems are absorbing more CO2 that previously thought. It means that we had the wrong process explaining the uptake (since the current atmospheric total still needs to add up to the same value we have measured). It gives us new information on what mitigation strategies could be effective. And it potentially helps us better understand the other sinks, and therefore how they may be changing.

If it was found that recovering secondary forests are a large fraction of the current land sink, that potentially is bad news. Forests can only recover so much, especially in the context of expanding land-use, so that particular sink may be reduced in the future, and our emissions would have even greater impact on atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Originally Posted by Exile

But again, it seems like the more relevant issue is not whether we "should" try and do something about it, but "what" we should do when balancing the potential harm with the known uncertainties, and at what cost to modern society. That's where more certainty may be needed on the projections/numbers.

I think it is important to note that uncertainty works both ways. Our actions could cause less warming than projected, or they may cause more. (And the uncertainty is not evenly distributed: there is a long tail on the "might be worse" end. There may be very low probability of it being much worse than anticipated, but cumulatively there is a greater chance of it being worse than better.)

Combine that with the fact that, as previously noted, the best information we have says any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration we cause today will remain for a long time.

We are making a decision either way. Either we decide to do something or we decide not to do something. Do we have sufficient certainty to choose to do nothing?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

An off-topic internet discussion on a sailing forum? Really?? My, my, we are taking ourselves rather seriously today. I figured it was an acronym but had no idea what it meant so thought I'd have a little fun. You know about "fun," right? It's closely associated with "sailing."

So are you going to kindly bestow your obviously superior knowledge of all things CC-related, including acronyms, or like different data-set info shall I go look it up? Your choice, but more importantly do have a cocktail or something. It's 5 o'clock somewhere as sailors like to say.

So you never answered, what is the source of the warming data you just posted? Might be nice to know if we're going to do any updated comparos.

Did you miss the reference to GISS?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Exile

When two biodiesel stations opened up in my city some years ago I was all over it as well. But then I was told from the service manager of my local dealership that they were seeing a lot of problems with deteriorating fuel lines, etc. so I decided to avoid. I was always told that the VW TDI diesel could and does handle it, so I guess it's viable so long as your vehicle is set up for it.

I also avoid it on the boat for the same reason. In fact I recently had to replace a fuel tank -- went with fiberglass but unknowingly used a coating that is not compatible with bio. I wouldn't want to take a chance with the engine & genset anyway.

Fwiw, I learned at that time that, in the U.S. anyway, suppliers and distributors can add put to 5% bio to diesel without being required to disclose it on the pump. Since it all seems to funnel through the same pipelines and other means of transport, it is plausible and probably likely that it is also what's at marine fuel docks. Probably not harmful at 5% or less, but a bit worrisome.

How can one determine where the fuel they are purchasing comes from? We don't seem to have any coops or indpt. vendors around where I live, but maybe worth checking around. I have no illusions of it not making any difference for the environment, but I like the idea of not sending money to the sheiks if avoidable.

Sooooo....... that explains why my Bobcat smells like McDonalds.

[Delfin]

One of the canards warmists like to use to justify the hideous costs associated with their meme in the face of so little to show for it is that these costs are "investments". I think that is how Lake Effect characterized them. For an example of such an investment, one can turn to the Ivanpah solar facility in California. It is in the news because it set itself on fire so is out of commission and producing no energy at all right now, but that isn't what caught my eye. What caught my attention from the news story about the fire was that the facility produced "enough energy to power 14,000 homes." Sounds pretty good, but I wondered what the cost of the facility was to produce that energy. Answer - $2.2 billion, which comes to a capital cost per home of $157,000. Hmmm, that seems like a lot of money and as it turns out, the average home in the U.S. uses around 11,000 kwh per year, so at a cost of $.10/kwh you could write a check to each of those homes for $1,100/year for 157 years before the cost/benefit turned neutral.

Yep, a real investment and a classic example of why the whole enterprise is a thorough going scam.

The World’s Largest Solar Plant Just Torched Itself

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Delfin

One of the canards warmists like to use to justify the hideous costs associated with their meme in the face of so little to show for it is that these costs are "investments". I think that is how Lake Effect characterized them. For an example of such an investment, one can turn to the Ivanpah solar facility in California. It is in the news because it set itself on fire so is out of commission and producing no energy at all right now, but that isn't what caught my eye. What caught my attention from the news story about the fire was that the facility produced "enough energy to power 14,000 homes." Sounds pretty good, but I wondered what the cost of the facility was to produce that energy. Answer - $2.2 billion, which comes to a capital cost per home of $157,000. Hmmm, that seems like a lot of money and as it turns out, the average home in the U.S. uses around 11,000 kwh per year, so at a cost of $.10/kwh you could write a check to each of those homes for $1,100/year for 157 years before the cost/benefit turned neutral.

Yep, a real investment and a classic example of why the whole enterprise is a thorough going scam.

The World’s Largest Solar Plant Just Torched Itself

Small correction..... 140,000 homes, not 14,000 homes according to the article.

But right now it's producing electricity for zero homes. It's been a loser since day one, that's why the investors (Google I believe) are asking for a government bailout, to rid themselves of this broiled turkey.

They've been asking the Federal government to cancel their two billion dollar loan.

Or maybe.... Colonel Sanders might be interested?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Small correction..... 140,000 homes, not 14,000 homes according to the article.

But right now it's producing electricity for zero homes. It's been a loser since day one, that's why the investors (Google I believe) are asking for a government bailout, to rid themselves of this broiled turkey.

They've been asking the Federal government to cancel their two billion dollar loan.

Or maybe.... Colonel Sanders might be interested?

You are quite right, my mistake. This puts it into the realm of the cost of a nuclear plant. Except for the only producing power half the time and catching on fire part. By Green energy standards that is a model of efficiency with only half the money wasted, so thank you for the correction.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

One of the canards warmists like to use to justify the hideous costs associated with their meme in the face of so little to show for it is that these costs are "investments". I think that is how Lake Effect characterized them. For an example of such an investment, one can turn to the Ivanpah solar facility in California. It is in the news because it set itself on fire so is out of commission and producing no energy at all right now, but that isn't what caught my eye. What caught my attention from the news story about the fire was that the facility produced "enough energy to power 14,000 homes." Sounds pretty good, but I wondered what the cost of the facility was to produce that energy. Answer - $2.2 billion, which comes to a capital cost per home of $157,000. Hmmm, that seems like a lot of money and as it turns out, the average home in the U.S. uses around 11,000 kwh per year, so at a cost of $.10/kwh you could write a check to each of those homes for $1,100/year for 157 years before the cost/benefit turned neutral.

Yep, a real investment and a classic example of why the whole enterprise is a thorough going scam.

The World’s Largest Solar Plant Just Torched Itself

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Small correction..... 140,000 homes, not 14,000 homes according to the article.

Kenomac noted one of your (many) errors. A second error is that Ivanpah is NOT "producing no energy", but is working at 1/3 capacity, because the 2nd of 3 towers is down for scheduled maintenance. If you are so sloppy with facts and figures that are right in front of all of our noses, why should we trust you to be honest about the assertions that you make that are harder to double check?

[transmitterdan]

The story is misleading. Only one of 3 towers is running but none of the Ivanpah towers have ever produced the "rated" KWH/day. The money being lost there is an embarrassment.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile

I propose a new hypothesis based on the graph is clearly showing that any worldwar is followed by a period of cooling...

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Exile

... the 3% anthropogenic gross number ...

I've seen this number before. To be honest it looks like the "97% of the barrier reef is bleached" forceful (mis)interpretation of data.

I would be interested to see how they arrived at this number.