Google gives up on renewables

[niky]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Sense we have actual data showing periods in earth's past where the atmospheric CO2 level reached up to as high as ~7,000 ppm during the Cambrian area ... vs the ~400 ppm of today ... and even at ~7,000ppm there was not the magnitude of extinction event you describe.

High atmospheric CO2 doesn't cause the mass extinction of land vertebrates when there are no land vertebrates to go extinct, so it doesn't really tell as anything about the Triassic extinction.

Also... mass extinctions happened anyway... due to oxygen depletion in the oceans.

More cheerfully, it was a world with an average temperature of 45-46 degrees C and with 15% more ocean coverage than today. Lovely place to live.

[redneck]

.

Georgia Guidestones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








>

[NeilBlanchard]

The way we live now produces waste. My point is, if we changed the way we live, and instead of polluting and changing the climate, we stopped producing waste and fit into the cycle of life.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by niky

High atmospheric CO2 doesn't cause the mass extinction of land vertebrates when there are no land vertebrates to go extinct, so it doesn't really tell as anything about the Triassic extinction.

(I could be wrong) ... but ... I don't think the claim jamesqf made was some kind of suggestion about only vertebrate life in particular being effected ... It was my impression , that the reference to vertebrate life used in the described (unprecedented) level extinction event ... was instead used as a magnitude / scale indicator of the massiveness of the extinction event that jamesqf predicts in less than 1,000 years.

As such .. it is not a question of if there was specifically vertebrate life at a point being looked at ... or if it ever evolved ... but instead ... if there is a extinction level event of the kind of magnitude jamesqf predicts... and has listed CO2 as the primary cause of that magnitude of extinction event.

Jamesqf then referenced the Triassic extinction event as an example to support his predicted extinction event .. and suggested that it was the ~2,000 ppm CO2 of the Triassic that was the primary cause of that extinction event ... thus correlating it back to his CO2 based predicted extinction event.

If ... instead of the Cambrian ... you prefer ... my same point can also be made by looking at the historic record of CO2 ppm ... and looking for duplicate Triassic extinction events when there were other periods with 2,000 ppm or higher ... to see if jamesqf's expectation is supported by the record of what has actually happened ... and ... it turns out ... the record disagrees ... we don't see that kind of correlation with CO2 ppm and that kind of magnitude of extinction level events happening every time we see ~2,000 ppm.

File:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by niky

More cheerfully, it was a world with an average temperature of 45-46 degrees C and with 15% more ocean coverage than today. Lovely place to live.

It's description seems very unpleasant... for those and other reasons... Glad I don't live during that time.

[P-hack]

the "we don't really know" game re unrestrained population works for the effects of climate change too (which is a direct result of unrestrained population).

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

the "we don't really know" game re unrestrained population works for the effects of climate change too (which is a direct result of unrestrained population).

The 40+ years of declining growth rate seems to indicate it is likely not 100% unrestrained.

Although at this time , I can only speculate for what the source of restraint might be .. sense it is not AFAIK a deliberate conscious effort (no global police forcing people to breed less) ... and it started before significant resource shortages (given the wide spread amount of luxuries).

Intriguing

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Jamesqf then referenced the Triassic extinction event as an example to support his predicted extinction event .. and suggested that it was the ~2,000 ppm CO2 of the Triassic that was the primary cause of that extinction event ... thus correlating it back to his CO2 based predicted extinction event.

One thing you seem to be overlooking here is rate of change. Life can, given enough time, evolve to survive a wide range of conditions. Consider for instance those ocean floor hydrothermal vent communities, with animals living at temperatures up to 80C, and dependent on chemosynthetic bacteria for their food supply. So it seems quite possible (though I don't know of any conclusive evidence) that pre-Cambrian life had evolved, over tens to hundreds of millions of years, to live in a high-temperature, high CO2 environment. The Cambrian 'explosion' (which took some 40 million years - a pretty slow explosion :-)) might thus be in part a response to having to evolve to survive at lower temperatures.

You could look even further back in geological time, to the "great oxygenation event" (Great Oxygenation Event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) for a similar drastic change in atmospheric composition and hence temperature. But note that this 'event' took something like a billion years, giving life plenty of time to evolve adaptations to the new conditions.

By contrast, the changes causing the P-T extinction took something like a few hundred thousand years, and the current changes are happening within a few hundred. So how does life evolve to adapt in that short a time? Note also that what's relevant here is not absolute time, but reproductive generations. If you're a single-celled organism reproducing in a few hours, or even a insect producing several generations a year, you have a lot more evolutionary range than something that takes 10-20 years to reproduce.

[Grant-53]

There is a danger in trying to pick a ceiling number for human population. There is no easy or humane way determine or enforce a number. The Chinese one child policy broke down because it ignored the longer term feedback loops. Populations do not convert resources at a uniform or consistent rate. Culture and economics are dependent on climate and geography. Optimum fat consumption above the Arctic Circle is much different than at middle latitudes. Societies at the equator will consume more plants and spices that those in cooler climates. Fortunately farmers here are using less chemical intensive methods. A major cost is fuel for equipment so natural gas and biodiesel are getting more attention. The carbon dioxide fever has taken on a mind set akin the "The Emperor's New Clothes." Anyone not fully in tune with the ruling elite agenda is considered a witless fool or worse. That said heat pollution does need to be addressed in a thoughtful manner as part of a long term conserver economy. Improved distribution of food and water is a primary issue followed efficient housing and transportation. Each decision can be guided by value management and systems analysis methods rather than a "my rights trump your rights" mentality. A top down solution such as a monarchy or Socialism only works for children in a family unit with the parents as teachers and providers. A community of diverse adults requires lawful exchange of goods and services. A market economy does require long range planning including demographic and environmental trends. Most of us only think in annual or at best five year plans when we should be thinking of multi-generational plans.
If all this has your head spinning, try getting your house checked for improved insulation, add some house plants, look at your family budget, and try riding a bike for local trips.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

One thing you seem to be overlooking here is rate of change.

The quote of mine you reference was only meant as a summary ... I did not repeat word for word the entire conversation.

No , I'm not overlooking that detail ... you and I already started previously to talk about that as well ... it was just not included in that very short summary you just referenced.

- - - - -

But ... putting aside that basic summary.

If you like we can pick back up , at that point in our conversation:
How many more centuries into this 1,000 years do you expect before peak fossil fuels ... oil , coal , etc ??

As I commented to you last time when we were discussing this ... The Peak Oil ,Peak Coal, etc ... predictions That I've read do not put them several centuries into the future ... and the ~400ppm of today is still a very long way off from the ~2,000 ppm seen in these other extinction events ... events that also had other contributing factors ... and events that were not to the magnitude of the event you predict.

- - - - - -

By the way ... before we get side tracked ... have you decided what specific things (I have claimed) that you want me to provide reasons , etc for ? ... Sense I have never claimed 'that miracles thing'... that you got the impression of somehow.

- - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by Grant-53

There is a danger in trying to pick a ceiling number for human population. There is no easy or humane way determine or enforce a number.

Which is why ... my own PoV ... that no one has asked for so I'll just say .. it is more like a bell curve than a single hard number.

[Arragonis]

Given my history on this kind of thread I have refrained from commenting, and will do from this point forward except to state that this from page 1 of this thread :

Originally Posted by Nigel_S

As far as the UK is concerned, practice appears to be proving them wrong.

RenewableUK | RenewableUK News - New record high: 22% of UK electricity from wind

That's only electricity generation and also the best rather than average 24 hour period but the technology keeps developing and costs keep reducing.

as an example of "success" is, to quote Professor Brian Cox on Twitter - "total bollocks".

If you don't believe me, maybe you should watch a professor from Oxford University describe just how cr@p the UK energy policy, which favours renewables, actually is here.

For more info the actual real hour by hour UK grid status with history is here

U.K. National Grid status

Yes you can cherry pick times and periods when renewables go as high as 20+%, but in the cold snap of 2010/11 renewables produced something between feck and begorrah all when we really needed it - no wind, and solar covered in snow - and we burned coal, loads and loads of it, as well as gas which we imported from the middle east or Russia.

Like "Nuclear free" and "wants out of CO2 committments" Germany is doing - right now.