• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

How do you come to that conclusion..is it bacause Africa (as a whole) has been hindered in their oil,natural gas exploration and distribution of said product? Gee, I’m no economist but I can imagine near innumerable ways to get a population to comply via an edict purportedly for “the best for all” — Bernard De Mandeville “Fable of the Bees”

You are depending on laws,provisions,and prohibitions which are placed on one technology in favor of another. Yet you still refuse to reflect these arbitrary constraints in the pricing model.

You know good and well the cost of “renewable” — either you are lying or you are complicit.. Ignorance is no longer an excuse . Either way,you are championing a lie.

I came to that conclusion because the price is cheaper, even when you include subsidies from both sides. They run auctions for renewable energy power producers that are independent of state-owned Eskom, which literally receives billions of dollars in state subsidies. Mismanagement, bad load forecasting, and increasing competition from renewables has made Eskom fail, and the state kept pouring loan guarantees in. When you guarantee a loan that can't be paid back, because your plants aren't getting finished and your power isn't being bought, then you fall into danger of default.

They got there, and they got bailed out by China. So tell me, which method leads to colonialism? The failing fossil fuel industry, or the independent renewable power producers?
 
I came to that conclusion because the price is cheaper, even when you include subsidies from both sides. They run auctions for renewable energy power producers that are independent of state-owned Eskom, which literally receives billions of dollars in state subsidies. Mismanagement, bad load forecasting, and increasing competition from renewables has made Eskom fail, and the state kept pouring loan guarantees in. When you guarantee a loan that can't be paid back, because your plants aren't getting finished and your power isn't being bought, then you fall into danger of default.

They got there, and they got bailed out by China. So tell me, which method leads to colonialism? The failing fossil fuel industry, or the independent renewable power producers?

I’ve found that the best way to debate Lectro on climate change is to say “you’re wrong” in all caps.
 
I appreciate the reasoned responses.

It’s fascinating, and sort of sad, to try and understand from where comes the rage against the existing near consensus.

Although it’s generally good to question what we think we know, and contrarians can be really helpful sometimes.

A lot of this highlights the challenges involved in disseminating complex concepts. And even greater political challenges involved in acting collectively. Many folks seem to want everything they believe to be simple, or all wrapped up in black and white certainty. Maybe that’s just our nature.
 
it's fun that you had to use the internet archive site to dig up a paper from 15 years ago
 
here is yet another article that people interested in the topic might want to read:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070828232605/http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/climatechange.pdf

I’ve never said that there wasn’t uncertainty. The issue is how is that uncertainty treated first in the analysis stage and then in a decision making context. Using uncertainty as a reason to do nothing is a common political ploy that seeks to use scientist’s proclivity for transparency against them. In this case, oil companies are using the remaining uncertainty, that some small percent of the recent observed warming is attributable to non-human activities but we are not certain how much, to delay action on clean energy initiatives that would make their ~120 year old product obsolete. The highlighted uncertainties are about Exxon, Shell, etc. eking out the last bit of profit that they can, and many people have fallen for it.
 
Well then Africa could just use the green energy tech once it’s been developed and scaled and bypass the centuries of dirty fossil fuel consumption phase the West had to go through.

Or we could continue on our current path and burn oil until it’s extremely scarce, in which case only the richest nations could afford it thereby sentencing Africa to permanent third world status, as you so crudely put it.

You are a ridiculous buffoon. Without fossil fuel technologies you would not have a pot to piss in. All of modernity as you know it. And stop with the peak oil bs. It is bad as the CO2 mythology
 
A 1.4 degree rise in temperature over 120 years epitomizes natural variability. It has been so since The Ice Age 12,000 years ago.

You certainly don’t impoverish and bankrupt the world to chase a chimera
 
Oh god, that load of crap. About half of those papers are from the same journal, and the other half interpret any adjustment in the models as "skeptical" of climate change.
 
You are a ridiculous buffoon. Without fossil fuel technologies you would not have a pot to piss in. All of modernity as you know it. And stop with the peak oil bs. It is bad as the CO2 mythology

Yes I know modernity was built on fossil fuels, the best fuel sources at the time. That doesn’t mean they always will or should be. It’s great that you believe there’s an indefinite supply of oil that’s cost effective to extract. Good luck with that.
 
It’s Official: 2018 Was the Fourth-Warmest Year on Record

Read on site for embedded links and graphics.

NASA scientists announced Wednesday that the Earth’s average surface temperature in 2018 was the fourth highest in nearly 140 years of record-keeping and a continuation of an unmistakable warming trend.

“The five warmest years have, in fact, been the last five years,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the NASA group that conducted the analysis. “We’re no longer talking about a situation where global warming is something in the future. It’s here. It’s now.”

Over all, 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2001.

The results of this warming, Dr. Schmidt said, can be seen from the heat waves in Australia and extended droughts to coastal flooding in the United States, in disappearing Arctic ice and shrinking glaciers. Scientists have linked climate change to more destructive hurricanes like Michael and Florence last year, and have found links to such phenomena as the polar vortex, which last week delivered bone-chilling blasts to the American Midwest and Northeast.

While this planet has seen hotter days, and colder ones, what sets recent warming apart in the sweep of history is the relative suddenness of the rise in temperatures and its clear correlation with increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane produced by human activity over the same period.

The Earth’s temperature in 2018 was more than 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, above the average temperature of the late 19th century, when humans started pumping large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Scientists say that if the world is to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, global temperatures must not rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels.

It appears highly likely, at least from today’s perspective, that that line will be crossed, despite the fact that 190 nations have signed the Paris climate agreement. (The United States is still technically a party to the accord, though President Trump has pledged to withdraw.)

Even an increase of 1.5 degrees will have dire consequences, according to the United Nations science panel on climate change.

Dr. Schmidt spoke of these lines not as cliffs that the world would plunge over, however, but part of a continuing slide toward increasing levels of harm. “Symbolically, it’s important,” he said.

With concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide, scientists say, a slide could be slowed or even, eventually, reversed.

The warmest year was 2016, its record-setting temperature amplified by the Pacific Ocean phenomenon known as El Niño. In 2018, the world experienced the opposite phenomenon, a cooling La Niña, with a weak El Niño toward the end of the year.

The effects of the El Niño late last year are likely to be felt in 2019, said Zeke Hausfather, an analyst with Berkeley Earth, an independent climate research group. He said that 2019 would probably be the second-warmest year on record. Last month, Mr. Hausfather issued figures correctly ranking 2018 as the fourth-warmest.

The publication of the NASA temperature data came in tandem with a similar announcement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which uses a slightly different methodology to determine overall changes in the planet’s temperature but also ranked 2018 as the fourth-warmest year.

The two federal agencies, while broadly consistent, have disagreed on the relative rankings for some years; NASA called 2017 the second-warmest year, while NOAA said it was the third, after 2016 and 2015.

Dr. Schmidt of NASA said that the new figures helped to validate the scientific models that have predicted such warming over time.

People say, ‘How do we know the science is any good? How do we trust the models? They’re so complex!’ ” But, he said: “That’s the essence of science. You think you understand how something works, you make models and you make predictions and see if they come true. Unfortunately, we’re in a situation where we see it’s come true. And while that’s intellectually pleasing, it totally sucks.”

The annual global temperature ranking is usually announced in mid-January, but it was delayed when the government shutdown prevented federal scientists from completing the analysis.
 
A 1.4 degree rise in temperature over 120 years epitomizes natural variability. It has been so since The Ice Age 12,000 years ago.

You certainly don’t impoverish and bankrupt the world to chase a chimera

Quick question, do you know what a time series regression model is and how to determine if a data set show and increasing, decreasing or no trend over time?
 
Quick question, do you know what a time series regression model is and how to determine if a data set show and increasing, decreasing or no trend over time?

If I may, let me help a bit. Here are two different randomized time series that show the difference from 0 under two different generating models. The blue data points exhibit variation but no trend over time, the red data show an increasing trend, though subject to substantial uncertainty. The solid line estimates the trend for the blue data which exhibits no positive or (significant) negative trend over time. The dashed line shows a positive trend with an estimated annual increase of 0.013 degrees per unit of time, which is approximately what it would take to increase 1.4 degrees over 120 years. Notice how even some of the red data points are below the 0 line even near the end of the time series demonstrating how we can still measure a positive trend in something even when there is uncertainty in the data and counterintuitive data points. In short, the blue data are what the data would look like under natural variation but with no trend and the red data are what the data might look like with variation but under and increasing trend. Using statistics we can measure and decipher the difference between these data.

b37034d14c5f705a147ae7faa1d1150a.jpg
 
I see a megaphone making noise.

This was a Rorschach Test, wasn't it?
 
It was only the 4th warmest, you guys are losing your minds over a nothingburger
 
Back
Top