Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

... there appear to be a lot of CAGW believers who seem to think that the period at the end of the LIA was the perfect climate and we should try to return to it and maintain that climate unchanged for ever.

Names? Addresses? We can fix this ;-)

Seriously, that sort of response is just a smear attempt. It's not about "going back" it's about "stop f'ing it up more". And maybe let's make the resource last a bit longer.

Even if I am wrong about anthropogenic CO2 being a major climate driver, I do not see the evidence that the harmful effects of a couple of degrees of global warming will outweigh either the general benefits of a warmer climate and the societal benefits of access to cheap, plentiful energy in the developing world in the near future.

It's not a bipolar choice - all or nothing. Another fallacy propagated by the anti-AGW side. It's about what direction to move. There's 1000 other reasons besides AGW to be more frugal with the use of fossil fuel, and to seek out alternatives.

Anyway, for now it seems I'm on the losing side. You've been part of a very successful effort to block an inconvenient scientific finding. A coordinated, science-based, proactive response to AGW is still a long way off. Congratulations, I guess.

[newhaul]

CBS 58 - A Strong La Nina Pattern Could Be Following El Nino

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/product.../ensodisc.html
Next winter looks cold.

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Anyway, for now it seems I'm on the losing side.

i don't think there is anything to "win", especialy not on a cruiser forum, so you can not be on the losing side either.
a win is the decline of coal stripmining in my country since the 90's.
a win is 34% of germany's consumed energy beeing from renewable sources in 2015 (26% in 2014).
a win is advances in fusion science.
and a win is a sunny day on the sea, which we have, though it is way to cold to go sailing.

have a nice day

[StuM]

> a win is 34% of germany's consumed energy beeing from renewable sources in 2015 (26% in 2014).

A minor(?) correction.

That's electricity production, not consumed energy.
(And for the record, only about 15 of that 34% is from Wind and Photovoltaic)

Only 11.1% of Germany's consumed energy was from renewable sources in 2014.
(Of which , only 6.2% was wind and photovoltaic)

(Can't find figures for 2015)


And it's also perhaps worth noting Germany's electrical costs to household consumers are the 2nd highest in the EU, double the average. And 4th highest to industrial consumers, 50% above the average. hardly a win for Germans.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Contributing to thread drift but it's become all about worldview anyway... any cat/dog owner who isn't deliberately planning to breed the animal responsibly, but doesn't get the animal spayed/neutered... is an irresponsible jackass. If you don't understand why, go talk to a veterinarian.

You probably expected this viewpoint from me. There you go.

Hey.. I feel that way about some parents and their offspring..

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by StuM

... (Can't find figures for 2015) ...

Electricity production in Germany in week 08 2016, as of: 23 Feb, 2016, 06:14
➥ https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm
See: Usage Tips

[newhaul]

More new volcanic activity in the tropics Volcanoes Today, 23 Feb 2016: Dukono volcano, Sinabung, Nevado del Ruiz
This rise in activity will really mess with the gw models.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Hey.. I feel that way about some parents and their offspring..

if they have offspring it's too late

[rocma]

We can write all we want and some people here even pretend to know a little more than others.

Nobody knows jack **** about this and for certain, nobody has the answer either.

Let´s just wait and see and try to do our bit; let´s not waste too much energy (especially you silly americans), let´s not polute too much and be kind to our surroundings, for the next generations. Every little bit helps, as a lot of little bits are a lot.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Electricity production in Germany in week 08 2016, as of: 23 Feb, 2016, 06:14
➥ https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm
See: Usage Tips

Yep I've looked at that site a few times. It's only electricity production, not energy consumption. And I can't find consolidate annual figures there. But interesting nevertheless.

That graph had me confused at first. It appears to show solar working only at night. Then I realised that it knew where I was and was displaying my local time (+10).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

i don't think there is anything to "win", especialy not on a cruiser forum, so you can not be on the losing side either.
a win is the decline of coal stripmining in my country since the 90's.
a win is 34% of germany's consumed energy beeing from renewable sources in 2015 (26% in 2014).
a win is advances in fusion science.
and a win is a sunny day on the sea, which we have, though it is way to cold to go sailing.

have a nice day

I thought Germany invested heavily in renewables but then had to retreat due to heavy costs and lack of feasibility, returning primarily to fossil fuels, incl. coal. Am I mistaken?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect:
. . . any cat/dog owner who isn't deliberately planning to breed the animal responsibly, but doesn't get the animal spayed/neutered... is an irresponsible jackass. If you don't understand why, go talk to a veterinarian.

Originally Posted by boatman61

Hey.. I feel that way about some parents and their offspring..

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

if they have offspring it's too late

Quite possibly two of the more astute posts of this entire thread.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM:
... there appear to be a lot of CAGW believers who seem to think that the period at the end of the LIA was the perfect climate and we should try to return to it and maintain that climate unchanged for ever.

Originally posted by Lake-Effect:
Names? Addresses? We can fix this ;-)

Seriously, that sort of response is just a smear attempt. It's not about "going back" it's about "stop f'ing it up more". And maybe let's make the resource last a bit longer.

I thought what Stu was referring to described a condition where people are resistant to accepting that the only "constant" in just about every facet of our existence on the planet is in fact "change." I thought the correct word for it was "statism," but when I looked it up I didn't think this was what Stu was referring to. Or was he?

statism |ˈstādˌizəm|
noun
a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs: the rise of authoritarian statism.

Originally Posted by StuM:
Even if I am wrong about anthropogenic CO2 being a major climate driver, I do not see the evidence that the harmful effects of a couple of degrees of global warming will outweigh either the general benefits of a warmer climate and the societal benefits of access to cheap, plentiful energy in the developing world in the near future.

Originally posted by Lake-Effect:
It's not a bipolar choice - all or nothing. Another fallacy propagated by the anti-AGW side. It's about what direction to move. There's 1000 other reasons besides AGW to be more frugal with the use of fossil fuel, and to seek out alternatives.

Another fallacy from the anti-AGW side? I don't know about "1000" other reasons, but it seems there's a pretty broad consensus from both sides for reducing consumption based on reasons other than AGW. Have you been skipping posts again?

Btw, according to the World Bank and many others, the collapse of oil prices has had little to do with reduced demand, and mostly with over-supply. Here's a report from March 2015 when prices were still at $60/barrel:

"Notwithstanding concerns about geopolitical risk, oil supply has repeatedly surprised on the upside, especially in the United States, while oil demand has surprised on the downside, partly reflecting weaker-than-expected global growth."

http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam...Oil_Prices.pdf (p.12)

So much for a carbon or other taxes on fossil fuels influencing demand. As a worldwide commodity, the relationship of demand to oil prices is more about the rate of worldwide economic growth than it is about individual consumer choices at the gas pump. Most people do not have much discretion about how much fossil fuel they consume driving to work, getting groceries, and heating their homes, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the collapse in oil prices has motivated consumers to increase their demand.

Instead, it's more akin to taxes on food. Is it any wonder that two of the poorest states in the U.S. -- Alabama & Mississippi -- are the only ones who fully tax food purchases? Which States Tax the Sale of Food for Home Consumption in 2009? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In Kansas, for example, not only do certain taxes on groceries disproportionately hurt the poor, but "[35] of the state's 105 counties share a border with a neighboring state that does not impose a sales tax on food or has a lower rate." So especially with the availability of cheaper fuel, "it's relatively easy for many residents to cross the state line for groceries," and even "drive to neighboring counties with a lower sales tax." http://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxe...-study-n499746 In other words, reduced tax revenues for the state and local municipalities, and more emissions! Necessities like food and energy are even more subject to the law of unintended consequences than tax schemes on other, more discretionary goods & services.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Anyway, for now it seems I'm on the losing side. You've been part of a very successful effort to block an inconvenient scientific finding. A coordinated, science-based, proactive response to AGW is still a long way off. Congratulations, I guess.

The only "losing side" is the one comprised of citizens eligible to vote who are not properly educated on important scientific, social, economic, and political issues, and who therefore give carte blanche to their govt's. desire to make decisions for them.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by marco@onyva

We can write all we want and some people here even pretend to know a little more than others.

Nobody knows jack **** about this and for certain, nobody has the answer either.

Let´s just wait and see and try to do our bit; let´s not waste too much energy (especially you silly americans), let´s not polute too much and be kind to our surroundings, for the next generations. Every little bit helps, as a lot of little bits are a lot.

points I have to make
1) if you feel that strongly about the " futility" of this thread don't read it
2) if you would actually look you would see that posters are from all over the globe many from European countries a few from Canada a few from Australia a couple are even from the united states.
3) it gives us northern hemisphere types something to do to keep the mind sharp until spring splash. The Aussies its just fun for them

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Exile

I thought Germany invested heavily in renewables but then had to retreat due to heavy costs and lack of feasibility, returning primarily to fossil fuels, incl. coal. Am I mistaken?

yes, sorry
the goal for renewables for 2020 was reached last year.
the required update of the redistribution network is stalling (confed. power poker)
there was only 1 new coal plant approved in the last decade and nobody knows why, it's in the centre of the booming wind industry (Hamburg) and not capable of balancing the wind/solar output variation. that is mainly done using gas and water.
there was some turmoil beause the big energy providers (owned by towns and states, one of the reason energy prices are so high, it's their revenue) failed to take part in the change, but they are catching up now.