Climate change and other predictions of Imminent Doom
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Another imminent doomsday scenario appears to be dissolving:
Ocean acidification happens all the time — naturally
[Note. pH is measured on a logarithmic scale]
Ocean acidification happens all the time — naturally
[Note. pH is measured on a logarithmic scale]
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models
![Image](http://s7.postimage.org/bcim5n7kr/fig3.jpg)
Bell | Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change
Abstract
We compare the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) to interpret the 20th century global surface temperature. The proposed astronomical empirical climate model assumes that the climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that, in previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the solar system planetary motion, which is mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn.
We show that the GCMs fail to reproduce the major decadal and multidecadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature record from 1850 to 2011. On the contrary, the proposed harmonic model (which herein uses cycles with 9.1, 10–10.5, 20–21, 60–62 year periods) is found to well reconstruct the observed climate oscillations from 1850 to 2011, and it is shown to be able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2011 using the data covering the period 1850–1950, and vice versa. The 9.1-year cycle is shown to be likely related to a decadal Soli/Lunar tidal oscillation, while the 10–10.5, 20–21 and 60–62 year cycles are synchronous to solar and heliospheric planetary oscillations.
We show that the IPCC GCM's claim that all warming observed from 1970 to 2000 has been anthropogenically induced is erroneous because of the GCM failure in reconstructing the quasi 20-year and 60-year climatic cycles. Finally, we show how the presence of these large natural cycles can be used to correct the IPCC projected anthropogenic warming trend for the 21st century. By combining this corrected trend with the natural cycles, we show that the temperature may not significantly increase during the next 30 years mostly because of the negative phase of the 60-year cycle. If multisecular natural cycles (which according to some authors have significantly contributed to the observed 1700–2010 warming and may contribute to an additional natural cooling by 2100) are ignored, the same IPCC projected anthropogenic emissions would imply a global warming by about 0.3–1.2 °C by 2100, contrary to the IPCC 1.0–3.6 °C projected warming.
The results of this paper reinforce previous claims that the relevant physical mechanisms that explain the detected climatic cycles are still missing in the current GCMs and that climate variations at the multidecadal scales are astronomically induced and, in first approximation, can be forecast.
![Image](http://s7.postimage.org/bcim5n7kr/fig3.jpg)
Bell | Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8470
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Carbizene, how are your post apocalyptic preparations progressing?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8470
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Col. Sun,
What is the summation of your personal argument for labeling climate research pseudoscientific?
I personally find it faulty on poor assumptions and vague conjectures which are constantly reinforced by positive feedback through vanity, money and political pressures. Even I can see the demerits of some of their less modest claims and think that most of the information out there has been rendered meaningless between the enormity of the climategate stuff; their inability to demonstrate most of their assumptions, and the cult-like pressure that governments, businesses and social groups are placing on people to conform to....but I am unsure if I personally go so far as to pass a judgment on its validity because I recognize they are attempting to construct a scientific way of predicting and controlling what is being defined as "climate" and the scope of the problem is so large that one can start anywhere only to be buried with conflicting information. And any further arguments I have are more on an anthropological/political grounds; so when I read the breadth of information for and against it, even if I may understand some of it, I am uncomfortable making an argument from "scientific" grounds.
Since you are more qualified to do such a thing; to be blunt, it bothers me that you've been going on about this for a very long time with what seems like more information dumping. Everyone is info-dumping on what is a very political issue that is often used as a shibboleth (by non-scientists especially) for who is and who isn't socially acceptable. And it seems as if the problem, when discussed in this manner gets lost beneath "for" and "against" I don't see anyone understanding what is going on.
So what is it that you have personally have you found that alerted you to look askance at climate research? What has attracted you to posting the work of "skeptics" for dissemination? And how is this supposed to relay to people like me a coherent message that displays a counter-argument to those on the other side who are doing the same thing?
What is the summation of your personal argument for labeling climate research pseudoscientific?
I personally find it faulty on poor assumptions and vague conjectures which are constantly reinforced by positive feedback through vanity, money and political pressures. Even I can see the demerits of some of their less modest claims and think that most of the information out there has been rendered meaningless between the enormity of the climategate stuff; their inability to demonstrate most of their assumptions, and the cult-like pressure that governments, businesses and social groups are placing on people to conform to....but I am unsure if I personally go so far as to pass a judgment on its validity because I recognize they are attempting to construct a scientific way of predicting and controlling what is being defined as "climate" and the scope of the problem is so large that one can start anywhere only to be buried with conflicting information. And any further arguments I have are more on an anthropological/political grounds; so when I read the breadth of information for and against it, even if I may understand some of it, I am uncomfortable making an argument from "scientific" grounds.
Since you are more qualified to do such a thing; to be blunt, it bothers me that you've been going on about this for a very long time with what seems like more information dumping. Everyone is info-dumping on what is a very political issue that is often used as a shibboleth (by non-scientists especially) for who is and who isn't socially acceptable. And it seems as if the problem, when discussed in this manner gets lost beneath "for" and "against" I don't see anyone understanding what is going on.
So what is it that you have personally have you found that alerted you to look askance at climate research? What has attracted you to posting the work of "skeptics" for dissemination? And how is this supposed to relay to people like me a coherent message that displays a counter-argument to those on the other side who are doing the same thing?
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
NapLajoieonSteroids,
Excellent summary. While I am just an Engineer and not a "scientist," I have worked with enough scientists to know that as humans, they are just as capable of making flawed assumptions at the start and then may work as hard as anyone to rationalize their preferred interpretation of reality. They are also just as capable of choosing to pursue a paycheck, rather than discipline or morality as most humans. The highest bidder ususally wins. You are wise to not underestimate the political juggernaut.
From a socionomic viewpoint, my SM opinion since the getgo has been that belief in AGW is more a fad, a cult, or an excellent example of human herding. So many don't seem to realize that human perception of "climate," especially in summer, often depends on whether one chooses to paint the west side of the house in the morning or in the afternoon. One of those choices is often taken as "proof" of global warming by far too many people. Also don't underestimate that we are more influenced by air conditioning today than ever before.
I often tell people, if you think "climatologists" are capable of measuring the Earth's temperature as accurately as they claim, try this experiment. Get a few dozen of your friends to monitor the temperature of the Earth for 48 hours, within a half-mile radius of your front door. Assuming your don't live in the center of a large parking lot, I can probably effect a 3-10 degree change in many of your data points simply by moving 100 feet in the horizontal or veritical direction.
Most of the places I have lived on Earth, a 30 daily temperature swing or a 70 annual temperature swing is not unusual. AGW is concerned about a couple degrees over decades? Really.........
That is for recent measurements. Tree ring data is laughable.
A scientist who says "a couple degrees of warming over decades is how the data appears, but our ability to measure the Earth's temperature within 5 degrees at any given datapoint is very doubtful" is one who strikes me as an honest person.
Money and academia are often excellent insulators![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Excellent summary. While I am just an Engineer and not a "scientist," I have worked with enough scientists to know that as humans, they are just as capable of making flawed assumptions at the start and then may work as hard as anyone to rationalize their preferred interpretation of reality. They are also just as capable of choosing to pursue a paycheck, rather than discipline or morality as most humans. The highest bidder ususally wins. You are wise to not underestimate the political juggernaut.
From a socionomic viewpoint, my SM opinion since the getgo has been that belief in AGW is more a fad, a cult, or an excellent example of human herding. So many don't seem to realize that human perception of "climate," especially in summer, often depends on whether one chooses to paint the west side of the house in the morning or in the afternoon. One of those choices is often taken as "proof" of global warming by far too many people. Also don't underestimate that we are more influenced by air conditioning today than ever before.
I often tell people, if you think "climatologists" are capable of measuring the Earth's temperature as accurately as they claim, try this experiment. Get a few dozen of your friends to monitor the temperature of the Earth for 48 hours, within a half-mile radius of your front door. Assuming your don't live in the center of a large parking lot, I can probably effect a 3-10 degree change in many of your data points simply by moving 100 feet in the horizontal or veritical direction.
Most of the places I have lived on Earth, a 30 daily temperature swing or a 70 annual temperature swing is not unusual. AGW is concerned about a couple degrees over decades? Really.........
That is for recent measurements. Tree ring data is laughable.
A scientist who says "a couple degrees of warming over decades is how the data appears, but our ability to measure the Earth's temperature within 5 degrees at any given datapoint is very doubtful" is one who strikes me as an honest person.
Money and academia are often excellent insulators
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Once upon a time I had assumed that MMGW was real.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Col. Sun,
What is the summation of your personal argument for labeling climate research pseudoscientific?
. . .
Since you are more qualified to do such a thing; to be blunt, it bothers me that you've been going on about this for a very long time with what seems like more information dumping. Everyone is info-dumping on what is a very political issue that is often used as a shibboleth (by non-scientists especially) for who is and who isn't socially acceptable. And it seems as if the problem, when discussed in this manner gets lost beneath "for" and "against" I don't see anyone understanding what is going on.
So what is it that you have personally have you found that alerted you to look askance at climate research? What has attracted you to posting the work of "skeptics" for dissemination? And how is this supposed to relay to people like me a coherent message that displays a counter-argument to those on the other side who are doing the same thing?
By chance, I read a journal article that made me wonder is the evidence was as overwhelming as claimed.
0/ Reconstructions of the earth's temperatures on a geological scale indicate that there are periods when the earth was much warmer than it is today and also periods when CO2 levels were far far higher. Yet life not only survived but thrived. Much of our organic fossils fuels today come from those times. Also there is little if any correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature on the geological time scale.
1/ The Mann "hockey stick" plot of historical temperatures. It went against literally hundreds of other studies [and historical records] that found that the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] was both real, and probably warmer than today. In such a situation, one would think that the onus of proof would be the outlier result, but it was accepted and promoted without criticism. Futhermore the statistical analysis was found to be flawed: inputing a random series will give a hockey stick shaped output. Then there is the issue of very aggressive data selection and the fundamental problem of using tree rings as a proxy for temperature: ignoring dominant confounding factors such as precipitation and the non-linear response of tree rings to their environment.
2/ Trying to reconstruct the global temperature based on only terrestrial measurements, as opposed to satellite data, is a futile exercise [as the climategate e-mails revealed].
Arbitrary ad hoc fudge factors are used to adjust for effects such as UHI. Extrapolations are made across huge distances where stations are lacking - these extrapolations are treated as real temperature values in those regions. The temperature fit as actual measurement sites is allowed to float - deviate from measured values to satisfy a global fit. About 70% of our planet is ocean.
3/ Trying to extract a tiny signal from time series data with large fluctuations [relative to the signal] is always challenging and typically involves assumptions about underlying models.
4/ Ice core data. Further analysis found that CO2 levels lag temperatures by about 600 years, rather than lead as had been originally claimed.
So it would appear that temperature drives CO2 levels, not vice versa.
5/ There is still a great deal that is unknown about the dynamical system that is the earth's climate: even now new interactions between the sun and the earth are being discovered.
Climate [GCM] models are thus incomplete from the start. The models also make assumptions such as a positive feedback between CO2 and water vapour. They do not reproduce the historical data. Most of the algorithms are not derived from first principles [physics], but are empirical fits to data. GIGO.
6/ The climategate e-mails reveal a rather sordid state of affairs in the so-called climate research community. If this was about ingrown toenails, then it would not be a problem, science is self-correcting . . . eventually. However, people are advocating that we effectively deindustrialize and prevent other from industrializing condemning billions to further poverty based on nothing more than junk pseudoscience.
Anyways, I post new climate research results of interest as they are published.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Excellent post Col. much better than my clumsy opinions voiced via my unsophisticated hick lexicon.Typhoon wrote: Once upon a time I had assumed that MMGW was real.
By chance, I read a journal article that made me wonder is the evidence was as overwhelming as claimed.
0/ Reconstructions of the earth's temperatures on a geological scale indicate that there are periods when the earth was much warmer than it is today and also periods when CO2 levels were far far higher. Yet life not only survived but thrived. Much of our organic fossils fuels today come from those times. Also there is little if any correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature on the geological time scale.
1/ The Mann "hockey stick" plot of historical temperatures. It went against literally hundreds of other studies [and historical records] that found that the MWP was both real, and probably warmer than today. In such a situation, one would think that the onus of proof would be the outlier result, but it was accepted and promoted without criticism. Futhermore the statistical analysis was found to be flawed: inputing a random series will give a hockey stick shaped output. Then there is the issue of very aggressive data selection and the fundamental problem of using tree rings as a proxy for temperature: ignoring dominant confounding factors such as precipitation and the non-linear response of tree rings to their environment.
2/ Trying to reconstruct the global temperature based on only terrestrial measurements, as opposed to satellite data, is a futile exercise [as the climategate e-mails revealed].
Arbitrary ad hoc fudge factors are used to adjust for effects such as UHI. Extrapolations are made across huge distances where stations are lacking - these extrapolations are treated as real temperature values in those regions. The temperature fit as actual measurement sites is allowed to float - deviate from measured values to satisfy a global fit. About 70% of our planet is ocean.
3/Trying to extract a tiny signal from time series data with large fluctuations [relative to the signal] is always challenging and typically involves assumptions about underlying models.
4/ Ice core data. Further analysis found that CO2 levels lag temperatures by about 600 years, rather than lead as had been originally claimed.
So it would appear that temperature drives CO2 levels, not vice versa.
5/ There is still a great deal that is unknown about the dynamical system that is the earth's climate: even now new interactions between the sun and the earth are being discovered.
Climate [GCM] models are thus incomplete from the start. The models also make assumptions such as a positive feedback between CO2 and water vapour. They do not reproduce the historical data. Most of the algorithms are not derived from first principles [physics], but are empirical fits to data. GIGO.
6/ The climategate e-mails reveal a rather sordid state of affairs in the so-called climate research community. If this was about ingrown toenails, then it would not be a problem, science is self-correcting . . . eventually. However, people are advocating that we effectively deindustrialize and prevent other from industrializing condemning billions to further poverty based on nothing more than junk pseudoscience.
Anyways, I post new climate research results of interest as they are published.
I salute you and recommend immediate promotion to either "General Sun" or "Man Made Global Superstorm," whichever you prefer.
The text above in red reminds me of apocolyptic claims the oceans are rising at x millimeters per year. Measured in the presence of waves, tides, and the wakes of fish? Really? All of them?
Never underestimate the influence of assumptions.
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
The ARGO project completed instrumentation of the oceans in 2007Simple Minded wrote:. . .Typhoon wrote: Once upon a time I had assumed that MMGW was real.
By chance, I read a journal article that made me wonder is the evidence was as overwhelming as claimed.
0/ Reconstructions of the earth's temperatures on a geological scale indicate that there are periods when the earth was much warmer than it is today and also periods when CO2 levels were far far higher. Yet life not only survived but thrived. Much of our organic fossils fuels today come from those times. Also there is little if any correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature on the geological time scale.
1/ The Mann "hockey stick" plot of historical temperatures. It went against literally hundreds of other studies [and historical records] that found that the MWP was both real, and probably warmer than today. In such a situation, one would think that the onus of proof would be the outlier result, but it was accepted and promoted without criticism. Futhermore the statistical analysis was found to be flawed: inputing a random series will give a hockey stick shaped output. Then there is the issue of very aggressive data selection and the fundamental problem of using tree rings as a proxy for temperature: ignoring dominant confounding factors such as precipitation and the non-linear response of tree rings to their environment.
2/ Trying to reconstruct the global temperature based on only terrestrial measurements, as opposed to satellite data, is a futile exercise [as the climategate e-mails revealed].
Arbitrary ad hoc fudge factors are used to adjust for effects such as UHI. Extrapolations are made across huge distances where stations are lacking - these extrapolations are treated as real temperature values in those regions. The temperature fit as actual measurement sites is allowed to float - deviate from measured values to satisfy a global fit. About 70% of our planet is ocean.
3/Trying to extract a tiny signal from time series data with large fluctuations [relative to the signal] is always challenging and typically involves assumptions about underlying models.
4/ Ice core data. Further analysis found that CO2 levels lag temperatures by about 600 years, rather than lead as had been originally claimed.
So it would appear that temperature drives CO2 levels, not vice versa.
5/ There is still a great deal that is unknown about the dynamical system that is the earth's climate: even now new interactions between the sun and the earth are being discovered.
Climate [GCM] models are thus incomplete from the start. The models also make assumptions such as a positive feedback between CO2 and water vapour. They do not reproduce the historical data. Most of the algorithms are not derived from first principles [physics], but are empirical fits to data. GIGO.
6/ The climategate e-mails reveal a rather sordid state of affairs in the so-called climate research community. If this was about ingrown toenails, then it would not be a problem, science is self-correcting . . . eventually. However, people are advocating that we effectively deindustrialize and prevent other from industrializing condemning billions to further poverty based on nothing more than junk pseudoscience.
Anyways, I post new climate research results of interest as they are published.
The text above in red reminds me of apocolyptic claims the oceans are rising at x millimeters per year. Measured in the presence of waves, tides, and the wakes of fish? Really? All of them?
Never underestimate the influence of assumptions.
![Image](http://s18.postimage.org/va5o9rgx5/100521192533_large.jpg)
Ocean temperature measurements before this time point can be discounted, just as pre-satellite terrestrial data can be. Both due to lack of coverage and systematic bias.
Since that time ocean temperatures have found to be effectively constant with no significant trend.
Since the models predict that ocean heat content should be increasing, backwards reasoning has lead to the so-called missing heat problem.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Thank you for a knowledgable thread.Typhoon wrote:
4/ Ice core data. Further analysis found that CO2 levels lag temperatures by about 600 years, rather than lead as had been originally claimed.
So it would appear that temperature drives CO2 levels, not vice versa.
5/
Climate [GCM] models are thus incomplete from the start. The models also make assumptions such as a positive feedback between CO2 and water vapour. They do not reproduce the historical data. Most of the algorithms are not derived from first principles [physics], but are empirical fits to data. GIGO.
Anyways, I post new climate research results of interest as they are published.
I recall seeing a video of Al Gore, at some college presenting a timeline of a several hundred years, and that clearly showed increased CO2 lags higher temperature. Gore's interpretation was exactly backwards, he claimed increased temperature lagged higher CO2 levels.
He had a small bit of "evidence" right in front of him, yet he still could not interpret it correctly. Needless to say, none of The True Believers in his audience or the MSM pointed out his error.
Herding is a fascinating phenomena. One expects to find it in the social sciences, media, fads, etc. Unfortunately it is also present in the hard sciences.
- Zack Morris
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Bayside High School
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
A model based on the zodiac? Empirical models = worthless.Typhoon wrote:Abstract
We compare the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) to interpret the 20th century global surface temperature. The proposed astronomical empirical climate model assumes that the climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that, in previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the solar system planetary motion, which is mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn.
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Most advances start out as empirical observations. Mechanism typically follow.Zack Morris wrote:A model based on the zodiac? Empirical models = worthless.Typhoon wrote:Abstract
We compare the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) to interpret the 20th century global surface temperature. The proposed astronomical empirical climate model assumes that the climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that, in previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the solar system planetary motion, which is mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn.
Milankovitch cycles are now relatively well established as a long scale driver of the earth's climate.
Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray seeding of clouds is a controversial hypothesis that is currently a very active area of research including the CLOUD experiment at CERN.
Correlation is not causation, but it can be a first clue.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
- Yukon Cornelius
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:06 pm
North Pacific Ocelot...
This is my 12th winter back in Alaska, and they're just getting consistently colder. The HIGH temp this week was -22C. Some more global warming over the last 12 years would have been nice. Maybe it would only be -21C.
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Reuters | Pressure mounts on German government over energy shift
BERLIN, Jan 19 (Reuters) - Having signalled that Germany is getting out of nuclear, the government needs to map out further steps to make the switch work, energy executives said on Thursday.
"The energy shift is a political decision without a technical concept behind it," said Stephan Reimelt, chief executive of GE Energy Germany. "I am very worried about time running out."
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Wired | How the clean [energy] tech boom went bust
Perhaps the biggest force working against not just Solyndra but clean energy in general is this: Because natural gas has gotten so cheap, there is no longer a financial incentive to go with renewables. Technical advances in natural gas extraction from shale—including the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—have opened up reserves so massive that the US has surpassed Russia as the world’s largest natural gas supplier.
The price of natural gas peaked at nearly $13 per thousand cubic feet in 2008. It now stands at around $3. A decade ago, shale gas accounted for less than 2 percent of America’s natural gas supply; it is now approaching one-third, and industry officials predict that the total reserves will last a century. Because 24 percent of electricity comes from power plants that run on natural gas, that has helped keep costs down to just 10 cents per kilowatt-hour—and from a source that creates only half the CO2 pollution of coal. Put all that together and you’ve undone some of the financial models that say it makes sense to shift to wind and solar. And in a time of economic uncertainty, the relatively modest carbon footprint of natural gas gets close enough on the environmental front for a lot of people to feel just fine turning up the air-conditioning.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
- Nonc Hilaire
- Posts: 6233
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
I believe the main reason NG is so cheap is because once you tap into it you have to use it. Oil can be "shut in" and left for another time, but once NG reserves are disturbed they have a tendency to migrate.Typhoon wrote:Wired | How the clean [energy] tech boom went bust
Perhaps the biggest force working against not just Solyndra but clean energy in general is this: Because natural gas has gotten so cheap, there is no longer a financial incentive to go with renewables. Technical advances in natural gas extraction from shale—including the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—have opened up reserves so massive that the US has surpassed Russia as the world’s largest natural gas supplier.
The price of natural gas peaked at nearly $13 per thousand cubic feet in 2008. It now stands at around $3. A decade ago, shale gas accounted for less than 2 percent of America’s natural gas supply; it is now approaching one-third, and industry officials predict that the total reserves will last a century. Because 24 percent of electricity comes from power plants that run on natural gas, that has helped keep costs down to just 10 cents per kilowatt-hour—and from a source that creates only half the CO2 pollution of coal. Put all that together and you’ve undone some of the financial models that say it makes sense to shift to wind and solar. And in a time of economic uncertainty, the relatively modest carbon footprint of natural gas gets close enough on the environmental front for a lot of people to feel just fine turning up the air-conditioning.
For NG, it's use it or lose it. Oil is much more stable, so the market is more controllable.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”
Teresa of Ávila
Teresa of Ávila
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Nonc Hilaire wrote:Typhoon wrote:Wired | How the clean [energy] tech boom went bust
Perhaps the biggest force working against not just Solyndra but clean energy in general is this: Because natural gas has gotten so cheap, there is no longer a financial incentive to go with renewables. Technical advances in natural gas extraction from shale—including the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—have opened up reserves so massive that the US has surpassed Russia as the world’s largest natural gas supplier.
The price of natural gas peaked at nearly $13 per thousand cubic feet in 2008. It now stands at around $3. A decade ago, shale gas accounted for less than 2 percent of America’s natural gas supply; it is now approaching one-third, and industry officials predict that the total reserves will last a century. Because 24 percent of electricity comes from power plants that run on natural gas, that has helped keep costs down to just 10 cents per kilowatt-hour—and from a source that creates only half the CO2 pollution of coal. Put all that together and you’ve undone some of the financial models that say it makes sense to shift to wind and solar. And in a time of economic uncertainty, the relatively modest carbon footprint of natural gas gets close enough on the environmental front for a lot of people to feel just fine turning up the air-conditioning.
NG doesn't have "a modest carbon footprint" or other footprint by any but the most silly comparisons, either in exploration, extraction, or use, as CO2 is one of the largest byproducts of burning many of the highly varied components of natural gas.
And supply is up due to decisions made years ago, which recent decisions will correct. So crank up that AC and enjoy that Jevon's Paradox as long as it's cheap!
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/us-natu ... on-4699654
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasland
Other than that, I don't think you're too far off base.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
WB | How To Cheat, Or Fool Yourself, With Time Series: Climate Example
The lesson is, of course, that straight lines should not be fit to time series.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:26 pm
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
I am not an expert in any of this, so forgive me if I sound like an ignoramus, but if we have no idea what caused past ice ages and warming trends when there weren't people around, how can we know that the slight uptick in global warming for the past century is man-made (and hasn't it changed to a cooling trend recently anyway)? I don't get how we can know the causes of this climate change when we have no idea what caused past climate change.
- Yukon Cornelius
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:06 pm
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Probably the best question to ask is why will the environmentalist movement endorse scientific idiocy like ethanol? When did thermodynamics and grade-school addition become expendable in the race to save the planet?
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
add to that hybrids ![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
producing two motors is more efficient and less resource hungry than producing 1 motor![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
even more benefits are to be had from using the petrol motor to charge the electric one, you gain energy every time you transform it![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
producing two motors is more efficient and less resource hungry than producing 1 motor
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
even more benefits are to be had from using the petrol motor to charge the electric one, you gain energy every time you transform it
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
ultracrepidarian
- Nonc Hilaire
- Posts: 6233
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Is ethanol really a bad concept? I think if they used sugar cane instead of corn it might be workable in the tropics. No need for cultivation - grows in otherwise useless land- just cut and harvest every year with greater alcohol output.Yukon Cornelius wrote:Probably the best question to ask is why will the environmentalist movement endorse scientific idiocy like ethanol? When did thermodynamics and grade-school addition become expendable in the race to save the planet?
Plus, we could call the cars rum runners.
![Image](http://www.aslimasti.com/images/fun/it_happens/heavy_load_on_truck_cranes_sugarcane_india.jpg)
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”
Teresa of Ávila
Teresa of Ávila
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
I don't know about rum runners but lots of cachaça cars.Nonc Hilaire wrote:Is ethanol really a bad concept? I think if they used sugar cane instead of corn it might be workable in the tropics. No need for cultivation - grows in otherwise useless land- just cut and harvest every year with greater alcohol output.Yukon Cornelius wrote:Probably the best question to ask is why will the environmentalist movement endorse scientific idiocy like ethanol? When did thermodynamics and grade-school addition become expendable in the race to save the planet?
Plus, we could call the cars rum runners.
WP |Ethanol fuel in Brazil
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Regarding alternative fuels and sources of energy:
![Image](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Energy_density.svg/1000px-Energy_density.svg.png)
[MJ = MegaJoules]
![Image](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Energy_density.svg/1000px-Energy_density.svg.png)
[MJ = MegaJoules]
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.