The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

All crime legal.
Seriously how many people are ready for a grid down all crime legal situation?

Want to see what life with out fossil fuels is going to be like?
Go switch your main panel breaker to off and see how long you can last.
Probably should turn off the water too because the six inch 100hp utility water pumps are powered by evil fossil fuel too.

Made it a decade without a main breaker.We had no utility service out here.
We did bootstrap onto electric power from a farm house and barn for our 5-hp submersible water well,which was part of the original 80-acres,just outside the gate to the property.With 10,000-gallons water storage,the well pump runs intermittently,with a jet-pump for line pressurization.
We later liquidated the farmhouse and brought in electric Coop power available to the entire community.It was a mix of hydro,coal,gas.
It's now hydro,gas,solar,and wind.We still have some active wind and PV,with battery storage,inverters and such.
Clear Creek borders two sides of the property.It runs almost year round.If we had to,we could carry water from there.
I subscribe to a wind-power option,which costs an extra penny/kWh.
The community could put the well on the wind option,but even old hippies can be a bunch of tight ---stards.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

CO2 emissions on the rise again.
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...r-seven-years/
.

Last night,PBS NEWS HOUR mentioned that from the the climate meeting in Poland,that they think we've basically lost any chance of holding things to 3-degrees C,by 2100,and we're more likely looking at 3.6-degrees C instead.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

If renewable technology is expected to get cheaper in the near future nobody will invest in it now. As that investment will depreciate in value faster than its earnings, at least in the first few years.
'Old' technologies don't evolve that fast, so they don't depreciate in value as fast either.

That is - as long as renewables don't get much cheaper than non-renewables, because then the gains get too big to worry about depreciation.
We're not there, not yet, maybe never.
If we want to go green we may need to pay for it all the way.

I don't follow.Money's being made right now on renewables.The systems aren't going up because of a green agenda either.It's profitable.
Consumers have an expectation for paying a certain price for service.If you can produce at lower cost,then you've just improved your profit margin.
Up front capital expense may be high,but at some point,you've recovered your entire investment,with the remaining service life of the equipment operating on 'free' fuel.For the long game,you can't beat it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Hah, same argument I'm having on the Chevy Bolt forum, with a similar graph. I've basically stated that given current technology, the only 2 ways to drastically reduce CO2 is:

1. Reduce global wealth
2. Reduce global population

Neither sounds particularly appealing, though both are likely inevitable.

There's a chance that future technologies can be leveraged to soften the blow to reduced fossil fuel consumption, but it's still a blow, not energy so cheap that we profit from it like the Greenies want you to believe.

As I've said, and NOBODY has countered; my utility allows me to pay extra to support renewable energy. If it were cheaper, they would invite me to pay less for it. How then is renewables cheaper if it's not? If you can't counter this simple criticism, the proclamation of renewables being cheaper is misinformation/ignorance at best, and a lie at worst.

Best case scenario: technology makes extremely cheap and green energy available to all. Now resources can be extracted at nearly zero marginal cost. An even worse problem then exists in that there are practically no controls to mineral extraction and consumption of physical resources. Consumerism goes on steroids compared to the fantastic spending we're already seeing today.

So the best case scenario is merely creating a Frankenstein monster more pernicious than the one it solved.

Alright, I'm an optimist at heart, so I don't actually believe it will be as terrible as this, but the solutions are nowhere that I can see on the horizon. The human species will need to continue their extremely good fortune going forward, as the problems only become more challenging as time goes on.

I recommend a minimum B.S. in mechanical engineering,then see if you can say that twice.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I'm like the United states most of the believers fall about where Europe or canada is.
How many believers drive electric vehicle, provide almost all their home heating with wood stoves and plant trees?

Certainly,Nate Hagens already has that information in his database.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by jakobnev

Why would reducing the population not be appealing?

I think that the notion of another 2.5-billion consumers is appealing to the chamber of commerce.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Weather channel says the for the lower 48 states this was the most snow coverer November since the first long term picture taking weather satellite went up 50 years ago. Snowiest November that we know of, probably going back to the 1950s.
This is perfectly in line with what the old timers are saying, that this is the worst fall they have seen since at least the 1950s or 1960s.

I was told that snowy winters would soon be a thing of the past because of man made global warming.

You were told wrong.

[redneck]

.

USGS Announces Largest Continuous Oil Assessment in Texas and New Mexico

https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-annou...and-new-mexico

WASHINGTON - Today, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced the Wolfcamp Shale and overlying Bone Spring Formation in the Delaware Basin portion of Texas and New Mexico’s Permian Basin province contain an estimated mean of 46.3 billion barrels of oil, 281 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 20 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, according to an assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This estimate is for continuous (unconventional) oil, and consists of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources.

"Christmas came a few weeks early this year," said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. "American strength flows from American energy, and as it turns out, we have a lot of American energy. Before this assessment came down, I was bullish on oil and gas production in the United States. Now, I know for a fact that American energy dominance is within our grasp as a nation."

Doesn’t look like we’re going to run out of oil any time soon...




>

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

You were told wrong.

You got that right.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

We are not talking a few warm days.
This is the bulk of the United states, for a month with something never before observed from satellite.

All I can say is the EU is doing their part.

Yes, but the main contributers to the surge in emissions in the EU are Spain and Greece, who are recovering from financial woes, and the recent new member states who are still recovering from soviet oppression.
Our company has a Romanian office. Romania is on the rise right now. Still quite poor, but we see changes for the better every time we visit them.
With that comes increased consumption. It becomes harder and harder to hire qualified personnel unless for 'western' wages. They have money to burn now, and they do.

One very important reason for the surge is the support and subsidies they receive from the EU. If the EU did not do that then CO2 emissions would increase less fast. And more people would live in poverty.


Oh, and by the way...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...re-of-co2.html
The per capita emission of carbon dioxide of the US (and Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, ...) is twice that of EU members like Germany and the UK.

Would you blame us for polluting 50% LESS than you do?

More than half of our energy bill consists of taxes.
We spend about the same amount of money on energy as you do, but we pollute only half - because we get only half the carbon for that money.
We don't spend more, we burn less. I have not seen a single F150 this year, but over a 1000 Teslas, easy.
Tax money flows to the government to spend on roads, welfare and reducing the deficit. And subsidies for green projects.

You're not pulling your weight. Not like we do.