Global climate change
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-10-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Global climate change
(25-10-2013 10:22 AM)I and I Wrote:  FOSSIL FUEL... what the fuck is that?

According to science, oil (and the other shit we extract for energy) are not fossil fuels.

http://principia-scientific.org/14-edito...fable.html

http://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterio...y-oil.html

http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/abiotic...iotic.html

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...study-says

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...123032.htm


Drinking Beverage

No, that's not what is being said.
Quote:A new study demonstrates how high hydrocarbons could be formed from methane deep within the Earth, aside from the compression and heating of ancient animal remains over the eons. Fused-methane oil would be far less common than your typical petroleum, of course, but the study shows abiogenic hydrocarbons could conceivably occur in some of the planet's high-pressure and high-temperature zones.

Do you even read the shit you post?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 10:35 AM
Global climate change
(25-10-2013 10:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 10:22 AM)I and I Wrote:  FOSSIL FUEL... what the fuck is that?

According to science, oil (and the other shit we extract for energy) are not fossil fuels.

http://principia-scientific.org/14-edito...fable.html

http://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterio...y-oil.html

http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/abiotic...iotic.html

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...study-says

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...123032.htm


Drinking Beverage

No, that's not what is being said.
Quote:A new study demonstrates how high hydrocarbons could be formed from methane deep within the Earth, aside from the compression and heating of ancient animal remains over the eons. Fused-methane oil would be far less common than your typical petroleum, of course, but the study shows abiogenic hydrocarbons could conceivably occur in some of the planet's high-pressure and high-temperature zones.

Do you even read the shit you post?

Do you read the links or link?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 10:45 AM
RE: Global climate change
(25-10-2013 10:35 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 10:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, that's not what is being said.

Do you even read the shit you post?

Do you read the links or link?

Yes - that quote is from one of them and is typical.

Some small amount of petroleum may have formed from non-biological processes.

This is not earth-shaking.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 11:22 AM
RE: Global climate change
(25-10-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 11:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I thought that was just oil that was supposedly running out until they discovered enormous amounts of the shit all over the world?
I know we (New Zealand) have reserves off shore that we don't drill for environmental reasons and because Kiwi's as a general rule of thumb are mindless idiots when it comes to the economy.
Unless I'm wrong on the whole "we aren't really running out of oil" thing, I can't even remember where I read that so probably.

No one ever used the claim "we'll never find any more oil". That is a misunderstanding (or a deliberate obfuscation by opponents - take your pick).

The issue is not and never has been "there will not be one single drop of oil left in the ground". The problems will start long before we could get to that point.

(24-10-2013 11:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  But what about coal? I didn't know we were running out of coal. And what's to stop coal plants just switching to charcoal? That is created from trees which are renewable. Sure it's probably a lot less efficient but if there's no more coal it's probably a viable alternative.

We are running out of coal. The alternatives running out first will only make it run out that much faster. Assuming all else is constant (and keeping in mind that all else is not constant, and that virtually any change in parameters will mean an increase in consumption) it is the difference between a twenty-year problem and a sixty-year problem.

(24-10-2013 11:22 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  It's what they use in places like Brazil, illegally, people come along, wack down the rainforest a bit, burn up all the wood to make charcoal and sell it to local iron smelting plants. All because it's cheaper than coal. But if it can melt iron in huge blast furnaces I'm sure it could light a few lightbulbs.

Yes. At the cost of not only catastrophic ecological devastation (above and beyond what we already do), but that the process itself is incredibly inefficient.

The last time society was primarily dependent on wood-based fuel was the mid-1700s. It's not like we'd have to go all the way back to that, but we sure as hell couldn't keep this up.

...

There are a couple foundational premises on which the above rests. The most important is that on a short timescale (ie several human generations) the amount of fossil fuels on the planet is finite. More is produced through natural means, but only the looniest of loonies (or the shillingest of shills) would contend that this can occur within a couple years.

There are several exponential curves to consider. Basic human intuition is woefully inadequate to comprehend exponential patterns, let alone their intersection. And yet a combination of politics and denial lead people to believe that mathematics can be countermanded by fiat conviction...

The population is increasing exponentially. This will continue for the foreseeable future (global population may plateau within the next century). The consumption of resources per capita is increasing concomitantly. This will continue for the foreseeable future.

Production of fossil fuels cannot be taken as one single curve. Oil largely superseded coal (and yet high-quality coal is long gone!), and so coal production has grown much slower. But reserves are finite. As demand increases, and prices increase, this drives production to increase, and with increasing capability this extends production to previously inaccessible or economically non-viable areas. And yet reserves are finite.

Exponentially increasing consumption of finite reserves. Of course that'll end well.

But let's do some math: assume 100 units of resources. Assume an initial population of 1 (and 1 population consumes 1 resource unit per cycle). Assume a growth rate of 3% per cycle. How many cycles to consume everything? About 155. How many cycles to consume the first 50% of the resource? 145. How many for the second 50%? 10. Now, 3% growth is much greater than the actual rate of global population growth (which is now down to ~1.2% and consistently, if slowly, declining). But compared to global economic growth (the best proxy for resource consumption) it is an underestimate.

tldr: we're fucked.

It could be a good thing. Initially maybe not, but in the long run it could.

I mean like you say, as demand goes up (and it will) and production goes down or doesn't keep up or stops all together, the price will go up.
Suddenly it's not viable to power our homes with coal anymore and so people look to cheaper alternatives. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, nuclear, inmates on a giant hamster wheel etc.. And so suddenly our homes are powered by clean, free(ish) renewable energy and our energy bills drop.
The technology behind solar and wind and all that green shit is rapidly advancing as demand for it increases.

When cars were first invented there was three types. Steam (lol), combustion and electric. Combustion won out and so that's what has been developed for 100+ years until we have hyper cars that can go 300+mph.
But if oil get's ridiculously expensive suddenly electric demand increases and so the technology get's developed for the electric energy instead.

Suddenly we create electricity from sun light which we than use to power our cars. An entirely clean, cheap (I imagine) chain.

What I'm saying is, I don't think "we're fucked". I think initially we'll be fucked, but I think it could be a new clean green era that would make all these green hipy bastards today cream their pants.
This is what I think will happen anyway, it's inevitable.

200years from now they'll be looking back at this time period like how we look back at the Industrial revolution thinking "look at those silly tossers, burning all those fossil fuels, damaging the earth and shit".

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 02:22 PM
RE: Global climate change
(26-10-2013 11:22 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  It could be a good thing. Initially maybe not, but in the long run it could.

I mean like you say, as demand goes up (and it will) and production goes down or doesn't keep up or stops all together, the price will go up.
Suddenly it's not viable to power our homes with coal anymore and so people look to cheaper alternatives. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, nuclear, inmates on a giant hamster wheel etc.. And so suddenly our homes are powered by clean, free(ish) renewable energy and our energy bills drop.
The technology behind solar and wind and all that green shit is rapidly advancing as demand for it increases.

"Suddenly".

I don't think that word means what you're using it to mean...

Modern society is so utterly and overwhelmingly dependent on coal, oil, and gas that it's wildly trivialising and woefully simplistic to merely say "well I guess we'll just use something else when it runs out".

(26-10-2013 11:22 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  When cars were first invented there was three types. Steam (lol), combustion and electric. Combustion won out and so that's what has been developed for 100+ years until we have hyper cars that can go 300+mph.
But if oil get's ridiculously expensive suddenly electric demand increases and so the technology get's developed for the electric energy instead.

"Technology will magically make everything work out" is not a very good contingency plan.

So far as early automobiles are concerned, steam is also dependent on combustion at point-of-use, and is in fact less efficient. Batteries require charge, which was and is (universally so at the time, merely overwhelmingly so now) drawn from fossil fuel derived mains electricity...

There's that "suddenly" again.

(26-10-2013 11:22 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  What I'm saying is, I don't think "we're fucked". I think initially we'll be fucked, but I think it could be a new clean green era that would make all these green hipy bastards today cream their pants.
This is what I think will happen anyway, it's inevitable.

200years from now they'll be looking back at this time period like how we look back at the Industrial revolution thinking "look at those silly tossers, burning all those fossil fuels, damaging the earth and shit".

Eventually there will be a more stable system. Obviously and necessarily so.

It is the intervening time one might worry about. You seem to be stuck on a technological-utopian best case scenario. I can't say I see such optimism as warranted...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
26-10-2013, 07:35 PM
RE: Global climate change
(26-10-2013 02:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You seem to be stuck on a technological-utopian best case scenario. I can't say I see such optimism as warranted...

Milton Friedman lecture:

I want to start this talk on energy by reading to you a quotation of something that was written some time ago by an eminent expert on energy, and here it goes:


Day by day it becomes more evident that the oil we happily possess in excellent
quality and abundance is the mainspring of modern material civilization … Oil in
truth stands not beside but entirely above all other commodities. It is the material
source of the energy of the country, the universal aid, the factor in everything we
do … It can be no matter of surprise that year by year we make larger draughts
upon a material of such myriad qualities––of such miraculous powers …
The question concerning the duration of our present cheap supplies of oil cannot
but excite deep interest and anxiety wherever or whenever it is mentioned: for a
little reflection will show that oil is almost the sole necessary basis of our material
power …

The constant tendency of discovery is to render oil a more and more efficient
agent, while there is no probability that when our oil is used up any more
powerful substitute will be forthcoming … We cannot make up for a future want
of oil by importation from other countries … Considering how greatly our
manufactures and navigation depend upon oil and how vast is our consumption of
it compared with that of other nations, it cannot be supposed that we shall do
without oil more than a fraction of what we do with it …
It is then simply inferred that we cannot long continue our present rate of
progress …

All things considered, it is not reasonable to suppose or expect that the power of
oil will ever be superseded by anything better. It is the naturally best source of
power, as air and water and gold and iron are, each for its own purposes, the most
useful of substances, and such as will never be superseded … I draw the
conclusion … that we cannot long maintain our present rate of increase of
consumption, … that the cost of fuel must rise … to a rate injurious to our
commercial and manufacturing supremacy; and the conclusion is inevitable that
our present happy progressive condition is a thing of limited duration …
The alternatives before us are simple … We have to make the momentous choice
between brief but true greatness and longer continued mediocrity.


Now if I were to ask you questions about who wrote that and when, I suspect most of you would say, “Well, that must have been written about five or six years ago by a very, very prescient man, a man who really saw the future very well.” Well, truth to tell, those words, with one exception where I have taken liberty with it that I’ll come back to, were written in a book first published in 1865. The one exception is that everywhere I read the word “oil” the original had the word “coal,” and it dealt with Great Britain and not with the United States. The excerpts I have read to you are from a book called The Coal Question written by a great English economist, W. Stanley Jevons, and published in 1865. He at that time in writing about the coal question said exactly the same thing, as you can see, that our supposed experts have been saying about the oil question in these recent years.

...

What conclusion do we draw from that? Jevons was a very eminent and able man; he was no charlatan. He was one of the great economists of the nineteenth century but he was dead wrong. Should we draw the conclusion that therefore no problem will arise? Not at all.

The fact is that we cannot get out of the problem by being able to predict things that are not predictable. The right conclusion is that the crystal ball is inevitably cloudy, that that is the nature of the world we live in, that all specific predictions about the precise amount of this, that or the other deserve skepticism, that what we need is not the kind of specific detailed blueprint for the future that Hoffman and Nehring would like to produce but what we need is an adjustment mechanism that will enable us to adapt to what happens as it develops. And of course, as everybody in this room knows, there is such a system, namely the price mechanism, which successfully steered us over several centuries from wood to coal to whale oil to petroleum
to natural gas. That is a mechanism in which it is in the self-interest of hundreds and thousands and millions of people to make their best guesses about the future, in which it’s unnecessary to have a single blueprint, in which you have an automatic adjustable mechanism as things develop.

If we have a problem today in the energy area, as we do, it is solely in my opinion because that system has not been allowed to work. The price mechanism has not been allowed to work by the U.S. at home; it has not been allowed to work by the OPEC cartel abroad which has created a monopoly and has raised drastically the price and reduced the availability of oil.

My paraphrasing: Even the 'experts' cannot predict what will happen or what innovations will free us from our dependency on oil. The best we can do is clear a path to allow that innovation to occur. And that means the government needs to stop forcing us to be dependent on oil. US regulators should never have dismantled the all-electric mass transit system of the 1920's that handled 90% of our trips. The US shouldn't have subsidized the gas-burning internal combustion automobile, such as by forcing all taxpayers to pay for the infrastructure (roads, etc.) it required. The US shouldn't have overthrown Iran to take their oil at artificially low prices. The US shouldn't have enacted a treaty with Saudi Arabia to defend them at all cost if OPEC sold all their oil only in US dollars and invested the proceeds in US treasuries. The US shouldn't be subsidizing the corn industry with ethanol. The US shouldn't have a patent system that rewards trolls, such as big oil companies who buy up all the patents on breakthrough alternative fuel technology so that they can block that technology from making it to the market. And on and on. And _IF_ the US stopped fucking with the system, there would be new innovations that we can't predict right now which would free us from our dependency on oil.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 08:32 AM
RE: Global climate change
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed; faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
-Tim Minchin

Do failed predictions of catastrophic global warming count as "observations" for purposes of determining whether belief in CAGW has become a religion?

Of the giant piles of Climate FUD I have to admit I'm drawn to the failed predictions because they're really easy to understand and directly applicable. They're also the only thing a layperson really has to go on. Consider:

"Weather isn't climate", yet both the skeptics and warmists break that rule whenever the weather changes.

So can I measure the greenhouse effect's apocalyptic potential by looking out the window? No. Can I trust that tomorrow's hot weather will be any more proof of CAGW than today's cold weather? Not if weather isn't climate.

Both sides accuse the other of bad faith. Both oil and environmentalism are big money; naturally no debate over competing fantasy climate models is complete without enough acrimony to heat the planet. Can I follow the dirty money to find out who's lying? My options are either yes to both or no to both, so really the answer is "no". There's no conspiracy theory that's going to get me out of this one.

Normally I accept on faith -- yes, I know -- the expertise behind the credential. Outside my field a thing is "settled science" if a plurality of scientists say it is probably so. Except climate science appears to have gone the way of phrenology: its practitioners throw the full weight of their credentials behind wave after wave of failed predictions using the same old assumptions that failed last time. Not only do the predictions fail, but they all fail in exactly the same way. Instead of failing ~50% high and ~50% low as should be reasonably expected of an uncertain science, climate science predictions consistently fail high. That suggests to me that bias, specifically cognitive dissonance, has completely perverted what was once a respectable theory into something more like Creationism, a predetermined conclusion for which data is cherry-picked to support.

I don't have a personal climate model, a spreadsheet full of ice core data and CO2 forcing values that perfectly explain the Medieval Warm Period and prove beyond a doubt CAGW is or is not, but if my theory is that "Climate Science" has become a religion my observations on the practices of those who hold the credential become scientifically valid, do they not? My theory even passes Popper's test of falsifiability: I'll believe "Climate Science" isn't a religion when climate scientists make accurate predictions which fail on average as much downward as upward.

Until then, absent a garage full of ice cores and my own supercomputer to check up on claims of climate catastrophe why should I not trust my observations of the people making the claims?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: Global climate change
(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  So can I measure the greenhouse effect's apocalyptic potential by looking out the window? No. Can I trust that tomorrow's hot weather will be any more proof of CAGW than today's cold weather? Not if weather isn't climate.

I'd settle for one single citation by reputable climate scientists wherein weather is misconstrued as climate. Thanks.

(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Both sides accuse the other of bad faith. Both oil and environmentalism are big money; naturally no debate over competing fantasy climate models is complete without enough acrimony to heat the planet. Can I follow the dirty money to find out who's lying? My options are either yes to both or no to both, so really the answer is "no". There's no conspiracy theory that's going to get me out of this one.

False equivalence.

(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Normally I accept on faith -- yes, I know -- the expertise behind the credential. Outside my field a thing is "settled science" if a plurality of scientists say it is probably so. Except climate science appears to have gone the way of phrenology: its practitioners throw the full weight of their credentials behind wave after wave of failed predictions using the same old assumptions that failed last time. Not only do the predictions fail, but they all fail in exactly the same way. Instead of failing ~50% high and ~50% low as should be reasonably expected of an uncertain science, climate science predictions consistently fail high. That suggests to me that bias, specifically cognitive dissonance, has completely perverted what was once a respectable theory into something more like Creationism, a predetermined conclusion for which data is cherry-picked to support.

Citation needed.

(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  I don't have a personal climate model, a spreadsheet full of ice core data and CO2 forcing values that perfectly explain the Medieval Warm Period and prove beyond a doubt CAGW is or is not, but if my theory is that "Climate Science" has become a religion my observations on the practices of those who hold the credential become scientifically valid, do they not? My theory even passes Popper's test of falsifiability: I'll believe "Climate Science" isn't a religion when climate scientists make accurate predictions which fail on average as much downward as upward.

Citation needed.


(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Until then, absent a garage full of ice cores and my own supercomputer to check up on claims of climate catastrophe why should I not trust my observations of the people making the claims?

Because you appear to have convinced yourself that you know better than 98% of global climate scientists, despite freely admitting to being uneducated on the subject?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
26-01-2014, 03:20 PM
RE: Global climate change
(26-01-2014 02:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  So can I measure the greenhouse effect's apocalyptic potential by looking out the window? No. Can I trust that tomorrow's hot weather will be any more proof of CAGW than today's cold weather? Not if weather isn't climate.

I'd settle for one single citation by reputable climate scientists wherein weather is misconstrued as climate. Thanks.

(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Both sides accuse the other of bad faith. Both oil and environmentalism are big money; naturally no debate over competing fantasy climate models is complete without enough acrimony to heat the planet. Can I follow the dirty money to find out who's lying? My options are either yes to both or no to both, so really the answer is "no". There's no conspiracy theory that's going to get me out of this one.

False equivalence.

(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Normally I accept on faith -- yes, I know -- the expertise behind the credential. Outside my field a thing is "settled science" if a plurality of scientists say it is probably so. Except climate science appears to have gone the way of phrenology: its practitioners throw the full weight of their credentials behind wave after wave of failed predictions using the same old assumptions that failed last time. Not only do the predictions fail, but they all fail in exactly the same way. Instead of failing ~50% high and ~50% low as should be reasonably expected of an uncertain science, climate science predictions consistently fail high. That suggests to me that bias, specifically cognitive dissonance, has completely perverted what was once a respectable theory into something more like Creationism, a predetermined conclusion for which data is cherry-picked to support.

Citation needed.

(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  I don't have a personal climate model, a spreadsheet full of ice core data and CO2 forcing values that perfectly explain the Medieval Warm Period and prove beyond a doubt CAGW is or is not, but if my theory is that "Climate Science" has become a religion my observations on the practices of those who hold the credential become scientifically valid, do they not? My theory even passes Popper's test of falsifiability: I'll believe "Climate Science" isn't a religion when climate scientists make accurate predictions which fail on average as much downward as upward.

Citation needed.


(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Until then, absent a garage full of ice cores and my own supercomputer to check up on claims of climate catastrophe why should I not trust my observations of the people making the claims?

Because you appear to have convinced yourself that you know better than 98% of global climate scientists, despite freely admitting to being uneducated on the subject?

Damn, you beat me to it.

I would like to see a list of those failed predictions. Drinking Beverage

With citations, of course.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: Global climate change
So what is the solution to climate change? Tax private sector and let government spend the money on scientific solutions? Private sector such as McDonald's, one of the greatest producers of beef (out of government-subsidized corn) which is one of the greatest producers of methane on the planet?

Nevermind methane, war is another great source of pollution.
http://costsofwar.org/article/environmental-costs
Who wages wars? The government. The government is like Sauron's ring, it makes all rings more powerful and all elves prettier, but it's not worth the Nazgüls and orcs raiding countless lands.
Governments print money to pay for the war, which makes taxing the money again rather pointless, because the money are worthless. Most of the money are generated also by speculation, which does not increase our physical resources that can only be used to fight global warming.

In the end, resources are the only thing that matters, the only thing that nature works with. Global warming will not be stopped with dead trees. And it will not be stopped by using the resources at the rate that we can turn around the green papers.
Scientists discovered global warming and climate change. All right, got that. But I haven't seen any scientists among those who invented government and money. We need to start treating the economics as a scientific problem and a human behavior management as well. If NASA was tasked with creating a Mars colony, I doubt they'd include money or government into the design. They'd include a computer database that can keep track of all resources and people and suggest assignments of these based on preferences... It's all data.
Systems such as the new Amazon's anticipatory delivery truly work with economic information, not counting your money at the end of the week to see which product sells the most. Money contain only minimum economic information, they are an obsolete information technology. As a motivation, they are more like a narcotic than a legitimate incentive.

What do you think about that? Do you trust science enough to use it as a more than just a useful appendage of society? Think of this, as long as money and governments are around, how will we choose the technical projects that are the best to save us from global warming? Contracts are sure to be overpriced and delegated to companies who bribed the right people. This will cause public outrage and another politician gets elected who will do the same, or drop the program altogether, by promising to lower taxes also, which he won't actually do. There is very little difference between government and mafia. Would you trust mafia to save us from global warming?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: