The new official climate change thread

[JohnLarue]

I googled it, went through 5 links on the first google result page, then read the summaries for the next 5 pages (did not visit the site, just read the title and small paragraph that google results gives you), there is no negativity related to the deal. Everyone seems to report it as a matter of fact and there is no hint that something might be rotten about the deal.

Fair enough, you did the leg work, however the absence of reported news does not 100% negate the possibility of subsidies that the Saudis just prefer not to speak about. (e.g. the deal they did with Nixon 40 years ago)
Time will tell

Was that 0.03 operating cost or all in costs including the cost of cells ?

If this 3 cents per kwhr is true, I would be as shocked as you would be. I am not trying to convince you that 3 cents per kwhr is true, but I am just telling you what I see when I did a google on the deal.

That is fine, lets go with 3 cents in the absence of another number

Trust me, the last thing I want to do is to compliment Frank or owe him anything, you can do a search for my posts in AGW threads; you will see that I am not his friend, but this news is the biggest news to me this century if true and if because of Frank that i found out about this maybe a few weeks or months sooner, then I gotta thank him.

Solar does not need to make up 100MM barrels a day worth of energy, if we just had 20% of the energy that we use today; our life styles do not need to change dramatically.

Frankenfool insisted we must completely eliminate all fossil fuels, yet can not explain how that would replaced

I just want to avoid a future where I am forced to suck cock for a gallon of gasoline,

Personally I would just walk

which is quite an inescapable future if we march down the AGW is true path and cheap solar is not available, made even worse if in the future we realized that it was false to begin with.

if someone else can generate solar for 0.03 then all the power to you

I am accutely aware of the energy storage issue as demonstrated in the post you quoted. Even if there was no way to store electricity, with cheap solar; you will have maybe 6-8 hours a day where you can be civilized, eat 2 hot meals, bathe in hot water, make some ice or a pot of coffee for when it gets dark and really hot or really cold, that is worth something to me.

Saudi solar power @ 0.03 is one thing
Canadian solar power will be far more expensive ( not as sunny) and achieving scale to have a measurable impact will be an issue
It will be interesting to how this plays out

I am not against renewables, or conservation or reducing emissions. Its my planet too and I do not want to see it cooked. perhaps as you say a reasonable achievable goal is worth the effort
I do get concerned when a loonie lefty start demanding unachievable goals and wants to spend trillions of tax dollars trying
Especially when there are some questions about the time reference of the studies
the earth has had many warming and cooling periods over its 5 B years, this may be a nature path along its cycle

 

[Frankfooter]

How many years are on record ?
The earth is 5 Billion years old
When was the last time CO2 hit ppm?
1 X, 100 X , 10,000 X in the history of the planet ?

Just because the planet has had thermal maximums and ice ages before doesn't mean you want to have one of those start up now.

Did Exxon factually state that observed climate change was caused by man-kind?
It may well be a dangerous path, however did 97% factually state it is caused by man-kind?

Exxon specifically found that their products would cause climate change.

If it is the natural cycle of the planet then, what you demand will not make a difference & the effort and resources you demand will need to be applied differently
If it is driven by man-kind then doing nothing would be the biggest sin man-kind ever committed

Its not the natural cycle, that's what the scientists of this planet have figured out.
Which means it would be the 'biggest sin'.

 

[Frankfooter]

Barely at all, in fact. Try looking up the meaning of the word "stagnant."

Stagnant?
Not according to you.

Furthermore, even if February 2016 was 2ºC warmer than the average February temperature from 200 years ago, so what? That doesn't prove that something unusual or unprecedented has occurred.

 

[Frankfooter]

We're not talking about whether the Earth has gotten a tad warmer over the past 135 years or the meaning of the word "climate." We're talking about the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change.

A tad?

Furthermore, even if February 2016 was 2ºC warmer than the average February temperature from 200 years ago, so what? That doesn't prove that something unusual or unprecedented has occurred.

 

[Frankfooter]

I am not against renewables, or conservation or reducing emissions. Its my planet too and I do not want to see it cooked. perhaps as you say a reasonable achievable goal is worth the effort
I do get concerned when a loonie lefty start demanding unachievable goals and wants to spend trillions of tax dollars trying
Especially when there are some questions about the time reference of the studies
the earth has had many warming and cooling periods over its 5 B years, this may be a nature path along its cycle

Look at it this way, as we invest more in solar and wind those costs will only go down.
In contrast, fossil fuel prices will only go up. We've picked the low hanging fruit and now rely on deep sea oil, tar sands and fracking, which will only get more expensive as we aim for less profitable resources.

And while the planet has warmed up before, the last time it came anywhere close to warming this fast before was the last thermal maximum.
That's the age when dinosaurs went extinct.

Carbon is pouring into the atmosphere faster than at any time in the past 66 million years—since the dinosaurs went extinct—according to a new analysis of the geologic record. The study underscores just how profoundly humans are changing Earth’s history.

The carbon emissions rate is ten times greater today than during the prehistoric hot period that is the closest precedent for today's greenhouse warming.

That period, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), was marked by a massive release of the Earth's natural carbon stores into the atmosphere. (It’s not clear what caused the PETM, but volcanic eruptions and methane gas release are suspects.) The excess carbon triggered a 5°C (9°F) temperature increase, along with drought, floods, insect plagues, and extinctions. (Read more about this period of “Hothouse Earth.”)

The new analysis of the sediment record concludes that the carbon rush at the start of the PETM extended over at least 4,000 years. That translates to about 1.1 additional gigatons of carbon per year. Today, fossil fuel burning and other human activity release 10 gigatons of carbon annually.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...nge-petm-global-warming-carbon-emission-rate/

That's not really something we'd like to repeat, is it?

 

[JohnLarue]

Look at it this way, as we invest more in solar and wind those costs will only go down.
In contrast, fossil fuel prices will only go up. We've picked the low hanging fruit and now rely on deep sea oil, tar sands and fracking, which will only get more expensive as we aim for less profitable resources.

I think you are to one who needs to move off their unachievable position
So lets hear it

And while the planet has warmed up before, the last time it came anywhere close to warming this fast before was the last thermal maximum.
That's the age when dinosaurs went extinct.

How can you say that based on 10, 100 or even one thousand years of data
Besides if the cycle killed the dinos, then all your efforts are likely a waste of time

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...nge-petm-global-warming-carbon-emission-rate/

That's not really something we'd like to repeat, is it?

It may not be within our control

 

[Frankfooter]

I think you are to one who needs to move off their unachievable position
So lets hear it

Straw man.
This 'unachievable position' claim is a straw man argument, its something that you made up and not something that anyone else has argued.
What I've given you is 'achievable'.

How can you say that based on 10, 100 or even one thousand years of data
Besides if the cycle killed the dinos, then all your efforts are likely a waste of time

Its not based on 1000 years of data, you are way off.
And once again, just because volcanoes or asteroids brought on what you call 'natural' cycles doesn't mean you want to produce similar 'man made' actions.

It may not be within our control

Or:

If it is driven by man-kind then doing nothing would be the biggest sin man-kind ever committed

97% of scientists claiming 95% certainty isn't good enough for you, eh larue?

 

[fuji]

In my post I am not saying there is no way to store energy. What I am saying is that even without storage, so long as solar is cheap, the worse case scenario is that we all have 6-8 hours of day to use electricity, which to me is not the end of the world. The worse case scenario without cheap solar is a Mad Max style future, this future is IMHO a realistic scenario regardless if global warming is real or not, and only depends on if we believe AGW to be real.

Now that I know Mad max is not on table due to cheap solar, I still have the same position on AGW; it is probable but not defensible as a scientific theory WRT other accepted scientific theories. It still rubs me the wrong way that a pesudo science is magically turned into a science by a popularity vote but this is mostly an academic excercise to me now and I do not want to waste time on it. I am not going to argue against AGW with the same vigor as I argued before, this will probably be my last post in any AGW thread.

AGW has been experimentally confirmed by hard scientific direct observation.

 

[fuji]

We're not talking about whether the Earth has gotten a tad warmer over the past 135 years or the meaning of the word "climate." We're talking about the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change.

The leading climate researchers have said that 15 to 17 years of little or no warming was sufficient to determine there is a problem with the hypothesis.

Meanwhile, I didn't see your response to my question: Do you believe water vapour feedback leads to warming or cooling?

Testing some particular model is a different question. We are talking about Conway's prediction that the climate would cool. Instead it has warmed. He was wrong.

And if YOU or anybody else wants to say that there has or hasn't been warming , you need to use 30 year averages or else you are talking about the weather, not the climate.

BTW, only deniers talk about "the AGW hypothesis", rational people talk about many different hypotheses some of which are now proven. For example, it's proven that human produced CO2 has warmed and is warming the climate.

 

[Moviefan-2]

A tad?

You're citing a month-over-month figure with a 200-year spread (and a rather dubious figure, since researchers have no certainty about the temperature 200 years ago).

The Earth's overall temperature has increased about 1ºC -- for the entire planet -- from 135 years earlier. So, yes, it's a tad warmer.

 

[Moviefan-2]

We are talking about Conway's prediction that the climate would cool.

No, this specific debate was started when K Douglas said the planet hadn't warmed in any significant way for 15 years.

A scientific hypothesis is supported when the predictions that have been made are supported by the observed data.

The predictions about AGW remain spectacularly wrong, and the leading climate researchers have said 15 to 17 years was a sufficient amount of time to determine whether there are problems with the hypothesis.

 

[fuji]

No, this specific debate was started when K Douglas said the planet hadn't warmed in any significant way for 15 years.

He referenced Conway in post 1, asking me to comment, so I did. That is what we are discussing. Conway's prediction that we would see cooling was wrong.

The statement that the climate hasn't warmed is also wrong. You are talking about the weather.

 

[Moviefan-2]

He referenced Conway in post 1.

My comment -- the one you challenged -- was specifically about the absence of any statistically significant warming in the 21st century prior to the super El Nino in late 2015.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...hange-thread&p=5556823&viewfull=1#post5556823

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...hange-thread&p=5556886&viewfull=1#post5556886

My post had nothing to do with Conway.

And the long stretch of stagnant temperatures shows there are enormous problems with the AGW hypothesis.

 

[FAST]

We're not talking about whether the Earth has gotten a tad warmer over the past 135 years or the meaning of the word "climate." We're talking about the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change.

The leading climate researchers have said that 15 to 17 years of little or no warming was sufficient to determine there is a problem with the hypothesis.

Meanwhile, I didn't see your response to my question: Do you believe water vapour feedback leads to warming or cooling?

They don't like to talk about the green house gas that has by far the largest effect on global temps.

Because, as with other effects they have no clue about, they do NOT know what the water vapour content was in the atmosphere beyond 10 years ago.
But 10 years is a really long time, isn't it, when they have no clue.

So they run and hide when that is brought up.

FAST

 

[fuji]

My comment -- the one you challenged -- was specifically about the absence of any statistically significant warming in the 21st century prior to the super El Nino in late 2015.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...hange-thread&p=5556823&viewfull=1#post5556823

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...hange-thread&p=5556886&viewfull=1#post5556886

My post had nothing to do with Conway.

And the long stretch of stagnant temperatures shows there are enormous problems with the AGW hypothesis.

Please post the thirty year rolling averages.

There's a reason why the El Ninos are getting hotter.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here's some interesting news that everyone will enjoy. Political pundit Mark Steyn has filed papers to try to speed up his legal fight with fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann.

http://www.steynonline.com/documents/7531.pdf

One aspect that we've discussed before but is worth is looking at again is the level of support for each side.

Those supporting Steyn (as determined through amicus briefs filed):

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Advance Publications, Inc., Alibritton Communications Company, American Society of News Editors, Association of Alternative Newsmedia, The Association of American Publishers, Inc., Dow Jones & Company, Inc., First Amendment Coalition, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Gannett Co., Inc., Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, The McClatchy Company, MediaNews Group. Inc., d/b/a Digital First Media. The National Press Club, National Press Photographers Association. National Public Radio, Inc., NBCUniversal Media. LLC, The New York Times Company, News Corp. Newspaper Association of America. North Jersey Media Group Inc.. Online News Association, POLITICO LLC, Reuters America LLC, The Seattle Times Company, Society of Professional Journalists, Students Press Law Center, Time Inc., The Washington Post.

Those supporting Mann:

No one.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Please post the thirty year rolling averages.

No need. The leading climate researchers who support AGW said 15 to 17 years is a sufficient period to determine if there are problems with the hypothesis.

I've posted the results plenty of time before, but since you insist on a reminder: http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

In the 21st century, the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong (that will remain true in 2016, as El Nino has clearly ended).

 

[fuji]

No need. The leading climate researchers who support AGW said 15 to 17 years is a sufficient period to determine if there are problems with the hypothesis.

Again, you're off topic. Your claim was there has been no warming. Not that there was or wasn't a problem with some hypothesis -- your specific claim: no warming. Your claim is wrong, totally proven false by the data, you are even more wrong than Conway. Just wrong.

Here's the 30 year (360 month) rolling averages of the Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, LOTI) averaging the 360 months ending April 1980, through the 360 months ending April 2016:

1980 -0.9
1981 0.8
1982 1.3
1983 2.0
1984 2.9
1985 3.7
1986 4.8
1987 5.9
1988 6.8
1989 7.8
1990 9.1
1991 10.3
1992 11.5
1993 12.3
1994 12.9
1995 14.9
1996 16.5
1997 17.8
1998 19.8
1999 21.8
2000 22.9
2001 24.5
2002 26.8
2003 28.3
2004 30.3
2005 32.2
2006 34.6
2007 37.0
2008 38.3
2009 40.1
2010 41.7
2011 42.8
2012 44.1
2013 45.5
2014 47.0
2015 49.2
2016 51.9

It's a clear straight line warming trend with no real setbacks when looked at from a climate perspective. 30 years is long enough in each case to average multiple El Nino's eliminating any short term weather effects and highlighting the long term climate trend.

Every single 30 year interval has been warmer than the prior one. Every single one without fail, through the 80's, 90's, 2000's and 2010's: A consistent warming trend. There has been no pause in warming since the 360 month interval ending 1975. From the 1935-1965 set to the 1945-1975 set there's a pause in warming, then it resumes. Before and after that it's been clear, unambiguous warming.

Data from here, averaged in Excel -- try it yourself: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

 

[Frankfooter]

No, this specific debate was started when K Douglas said the planet hadn't warmed in any significant way for 15 years.

Kirk was wrong.
No surprise.

3 of the 4 warmest years ever recorded happened since 2013.
1 2015 0.90
2 2014 0.74
3 2010 0.70
4 2013 0.66
That's according to NOAA
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

Only a total moron would still try to claim that there isn't any warming going on with these records.

The predictions about AGW remain spectacularly wrong

No, the wrong predictions came from you:

We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC

You were spectacularly wrong, NOAA and the IPCC were quite accurate.

Which is of course why all you can do is accuse them of fraud.

 

[Frankfooter]

Here's some interesting news that everyone will enjoy. Political pundit Mark Steyn has filed papers to try to speed up his legal fight with fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann.

http://www.steynonline.com/documents/7531.pdf

One aspect that we've discussed before but is worth is looking at again is the level of support for each side.

Those supporting Steyn (as determined through amicus briefs filed):

I had a quick look, best quote:

Many of Steyn's expert witnesses are emeritus professors and
comparatively advanced in years, being of an age and eminence
that enables them to stand against the bullying and intimidation
that prevails in climate science. Therefore, the passage of
time is not an unimportant thing. Indeed, one of Steyn's
proposed witnesses has, in fact, died while this interlocutory
appeal has been with the appellate court.

Poor Steyn, all his witnesses are nearly dead old crocks.
Its hard to find a non-alzheimer ridden denier these days.