General energy news

[RGR]

AGW is what we control.

Thinking humans "control" the climate is hubris at its worst.

Maybe we effect it, maybe our presence causes it to be different in certain ways, but we no more "control" climate than we can "destroy" the planet.

We're doing it and we can stop doing it.

You first. Please. Because only if you can do it, do you get to insist that everyone else do the same. And obviously, if you succeed, you won't be able to do that. Call it a win-win!

We can put all of the carbon that nature sequestered for us back into the atmosphere and recreate the hostile climate that existed then, then move to sustainable energy sources, or we can move more rapidly to sustainable and spend less on adaptation to a new climate.

You miss the point. You are already IN a new climate, and are now arguing about adapting from a position that you have adapted to quite well. Do you consider yourself poor from having been forced to adapt? Certainly the global standard of living has changed as we've adapted, and I have news, it hasn't been for the worse.

I choose the less expensive route, you, the more costly.

Yes, the solar panels putting fuel in the tank of my car says I have certainly spent more than my neighbors on their ICE powered machines. Silly me, taking the much more expensive route of a much more expensive car than they drive and those panels on the roof. Goodness knows your way is so much cheaper than mine. What are you advocating that is so cheap again, versus my expensive methods of solar panels and the electrification of personal transport?

The only reason that I can imagine that you'd do that is to kick the can down the road to our grandchildren.

Maybe not yours, if I can get you to try out your position of not emitting CO2, at the personal level.

 

[PMZ]

AGW is what we control.

Thinking humans "control" the climate is hubris at its worst.

Maybe we effect it, maybe our presence causes it to be different in certain ways, but we no more "control" climate than we can "destroy" the planet.

We're doing it and we can stop doing it.

You first. Please. Because only if you can do it, do you get to insist that everyone else do the same. And obviously, if you succeed, you won't be able to do that. Call it a win-win!



You miss the point. You are already IN a new climate, and are now arguing about adapting from a position that you have adapted to quite well. Do you consider yourself poor from having been forced to adapt? Certainly the global standard of living has changed as we've adapted, and I have news, it hasn't been for the worse.

I choose the less expensive route, you, the more costly.

Yes, the solar panels putting fuel in the tank of my car says I have certainly spent more than my neighbors on their ICE powered machines. Silly me, taking the much more expensive route of a much more expensive car than they drive and those panels on the roof. Goodness knows your way is so much cheaper than mine. What are you advocating that is so cheap again, versus my expensive methods of solar panels and the electrification of personal transport?

The only reason that I can imagine that you'd do that is to kick the can down the road to our grandchildren.

Maybe not yours, if I can get you to try out your position of not emitting CO2, at the personal level.

AGW is 100% man caused. And that's what's changing and that's the only cause of the current climate change. The climate that we're experiencing now has not caught up to the GHG concentrations in the atmosphere today. We don't know how long that takes. Could be decades. And by the time the climate change stabilizes from this load of GHGs we'll be well beyond.

 

[RGR]

AGW is 100% man caused.

That is because it is DEFINED that way. Give me a break, the folks making the all human, all the time claims having been having a difficult time as of late.

First they claim to know the system well enough to predict temperature, and then get cranky when others noticed that the past decade hasn't gone quite as hoped, others decide that temperature is still within the bounds of natural variability within the system and could stay that way for the rest of the century (Kobashi, et al 2011) and when folks make the most basic of requests, say, please show me how well your model works over the known ice ages and other warm periods (like the one we are naturally in now) ..and the models can't…well…getting a wee bit difficult to accept the definition PMZ.

If you can't even define what is, or is not, natural, then you don't get to whine about how much is manmade without admitting that of the possible range of answers, one in that solution set might be NONE.

I recommend doing the science first, drawing the conclusions second.

And that's what's changing and that's the only cause of the current climate change.

Yes, I understand that religions require belief in things. And that there are more than a few missionaries out there. Go knock on someone else's door please.

The climate that we're experiencing now has not caught up to the GHG concentrations in the atmosphere today. We don't know how long that takes. Could be decades. And by the time the climate change stabilizes from this load of GHGs we'll be well beyond.

Humans, doing everything from breathing to combusting stuff certainly creates CO2 as a byproduct. What appears to be in question is the amount of hysteria people think this should generate.

 

[PMZ]

I

Originally posted by janeeng
Well, I wasn't with the Canadians either when they sent that damn SARS here and claimed of no dangers of it there, and that travel should continue there, regardless of the outbreak of SARS there, and no one can tell me no. A student of mine brought SARS back from Canada after they were told NOT to go, but refused to listen!

It was confined to 3 hospitals, not to the community, not to the airport or any other community place. But you seem to have your head so far up your right-wing ass that you're willing to believe whatever you want to believe. So are you saying this "student" of yours went to a hospital and brought back SARS to New Jersey?

Besides, according to the CDC, only one person in New Jersey had SARS. They were 40 years old and didn't die from it. Are you saying that that person was your student? And btw, they don't even know where that person got SARS from. I suspect, no, I KNOW you're lying. As a supposed teacher, you should know better, sweetheart.

AGW is easily and precisely defined. It's the consequence of changeable human activities that put GHGs into the atmosphere. They inexorably change planet earth's energy balance such that warming is required to restore a stable climate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

100% Of New Power Capacity In US Came From Renewable Energy In November (2nd Month This Year)
Read more at 100% Of New Power Capacity In US Came From Renewable Energy In November (2nd Month This Year) | CleanTechnica

 

[RGR]

100% Of New Power Capacity In US Came From Renewable Energy In November (2nd Month This Year)
Read more at 100% Of New Power Capacity In US Came From Renewable Energy In November (2nd Month This Year) | CleanTechnica

and what percent of power was generated by natural gas, nukes and coal last month? 90%+? 95%+?

Let us know when loads of capacity actually becomes generation.

 

[flacaltenn]

100% Of New Power Capacity In US Came From Renewable Energy In November (2nd Month This Year)
Read more at 100% Of New Power Capacity In US Came From Renewable Energy In November (2nd Month This Year) | CleanTechnica

Do you really lack the critical thinking to evaluate propaganda such as this? Thats a shame really.. Detracts from all the hard blogging you attempt to do here... That and your unfounded political commentaries make all your work subject to skepticism...

 

[PMZ]

100% Of New Power Capacity In US Came From Renewable Energy In November (2nd Month This Year)
Read more at 100% Of New Power Capacity In US Came From Renewable Energy In November (2nd Month This Year) | CleanTechnica

Do you really lack the critical thinking to evaluate propaganda such as this? Thats a shame really.. Detracts from all the hard blogging you attempt to do here... That and your unfounded political commentaries make all your work subject to skepticism...

Fear of change is an awful affliction in a world constantly on the move.

 

[flacaltenn]

100% Of New Power Capacity In US Came From Renewable Energy In November (2nd Month This Year)
Read more at 100% Of New Power Capacity In US Came From Renewable Energy In November (2nd Month This Year) | CleanTechnica

Do you really lack the critical thinking to evaluate propaganda such as this? Thats a shame really.. Detracts from all the hard blogging you attempt to do here... That and your unfounded political commentaries make all your work subject to skepticism...

Fear of change is an awful affliction in a world constantly on the move.

I've finally figured you out PMZ. The only thing youve read in the pasr 30 yrs are Chinese Fortune cookies. I got your last post with Mu Shu Pork just last week...

 

[PMZ]

Do you really lack the critical thinking to evaluate propaganda such as this? Thats a shame really.. Detracts from all the hard blogging you attempt to do here... That and your unfounded political commentaries make all your work subject to skepticism...

Fear of change is an awful affliction in a world constantly on the move.

I've finally figured you out PMZ. The only thing youve read in the pasr 30 yrs are Chinese Fortune cookies. I got your last post with Mu Shu Pork just last week...

Now we know where your education came from. Chinese fortune cookies.

Ask for your money back. It turns out that you are not educated at all.

 

[RGR]

Fear of change is an awful affliction in a world constantly on the move.

I've finally figured you out PMZ. The only thing youve read in the pasr 30 yrs are Chinese Fortune cookies. I got your last post with Mu Shu Pork just last week...

Now we know where your education came from. Chinese fortune cookies.

Ask for your money back. It turns out that you are not educated at all.

You know, one of the things you learn throughout life is that whether you agree with folks or not, it is important to recognize the difference between quality opinions (whether you agree with them or not) and those based on hope or an ignorance of reality.

I don't agree with flacaltenn all that much, but when I read what he says, and the information he provides, and I think about it, it is my estimate that his opinions are firmly grounded in the same sort of engineering reality that I am familiar with. Education, no education, his writing reflects an understanding of reality.

It might be a limited reality, but engineers are not known for being wildly creative, other than within the confines of their problem solving specialty.

flacaltenn has ably explained and demonstrated that there is quite a difference between capacity and what might called EFFECTIVE capacity, loosely defined as that capacity that can meet contractual power delivery requirements.

It does not matter what his education is, your opinion of it, or him. The reality of his point can not be dismissed that way. Trying to substitute name calling for refuting the reality of how power distribution works is nothing more than an admission that you aren't smart enough to work around the real world problem he has outlined.

This is the mark of the pie in the sky true believer types, those who have never been held accountable for real world results. Project managers MUST know when to recognize the reality that will prevent their pie in the sky idea from becoming reality, solve that problem, estimate the cost, and deliver those kwh on time, and on target.

Those who have never worked in that kind of environment, or those who cannot think well enough to recognize real world constraints, are free to rely on hopium and unicorn farts to power their fantasy world any way they'd wish. Matthew falls for this one every time.

But engineers aren't paid to hope and dream and then NOT provide what is required. It isn't their job to specialize in whining and name calling and pretending that this is an acceptable replacement for getting the job done.

Your opinion on flacaltenn's education is irrelevant in light of what he knows and can explain, versus what you obviously do not.

Don't whine and moan and name call like Matthew does when it becomes obvious he is pitching uniform farts and hopium, square up against the problem and SOLVE it already. And that includes telling us all what it will cost, because from an economists point of view I can GUARANTEE you that the answer to that question is just as important as meeting the power generation requirement itself.

 

[PMZ]

I've finally figured you out PMZ. The only thing youve read in the pasr 30 yrs are Chinese Fortune cookies. I got your last post with Mu Shu Pork just last week...

Now we know where your education came from. Chinese fortune cookies.

Ask for your money back. It turns out that you are not educated at all.

You know, one of the things you learn throughout life is that whether you agree with folks or not, it is important to recognize the difference between quality opinions (whether you agree with them or not) and those based on hope or an ignorance of reality.

I don't agree with flacaltenn all that much, but when I read what he says, and the information he provides, and I think about it, it is my estimate that his opinions are firmly grounded in the same sort of engineering reality that I am familiar with. Education, no education, his writing reflects an understanding of reality.

It might be a limited reality, but engineers are not known for being wildly creative, other than within the confines of their problem solving specialty.

flacaltenn has ably explained and demonstrated that there is quite a difference between capacity and what might called EFFECTIVE capacity, loosely defined as that capacity that can meet contractual power delivery requirements.

It does not matter what his education is, your opinion of it, or him. The reality of his point can not be dismissed that way. Trying to substitute name calling for refuting the reality of how power distribution works is nothing more than an admission that you aren't smart enough to work around the real world problem he has outlined.

This is the mark of the pie in the sky true believer types, those who have never been held accountable for real world results. Project managers MUST know when to recognize the reality that will prevent their pie in the sky idea from becoming reality, solve that problem, estimate the cost, and deliver those kwh on time, and on target.

Those who have never worked in that kind of environment, or those who cannot think well enough to recognize real world constraints, are free to rely on hopium and unicorn farts to power their fantasy world any way they'd wish. Matthew falls for this one every time.

But engineers aren't paid to hope and dream and then NOT provide what is required. It isn't their job to specialize in whining and name calling and pretending that this is an acceptable replacement for getting the job done.

Your opinion on flacaltenn's education is irrelevant in light of what he knows and can explain, versus what you obviously do not.

Don't whine and moan and name call like Matthew does when it becomes obvious he is pitching uniform farts and hopium, square up against the problem and SOLVE it already. And that includes telling us all what it will cost, because from an economists point of view I can GUARANTEE you that the answer to that question is just as important as meeting the power generation requirement itself.

I am first, a scientist and second, an engineer. My experience is diametrically different than yours in "but engineers are not known for being wildly creative". I'm not much of a politician.

The science is very clear on AGW. It's indisputable. That, however, is inconvenient to the politics of many people.

We have long past peak oil. We are close to peak natural gas and coal. That is also indisputable and inconvenient for the entire human race.

Mankind was very fortunate to have been bequeathed the gift of cheap abundant energy from past suns. However, inconveniently, the time has come when Christmas is over. Over the short time left that we have to accomplish the largest project by far in human history, we will have to get all of our energy from the current sun.

None of this is my opinion.

No matter other people's opinions, educations, preferences, race, color or creed, doing nothing now is unaffordable.

Perhaps that can be said in more effective ways for and by some other people, but it has to be said as loudly and compellingly as possible by those who have invested in the background necessary to understand the science.

It really is that black and white. Denial is not an option.

 

[RGR]

I am first, a scientist and second, an engineer. My experience is diametrically different than yours in "but engineers are not known for being wildly creative". I'm not much of a politician.

To hell with being a politician, how about demonstrating that you can THINK to the standards your claimed profession would imply.

The science is very clear on AGW. It's indisputable. That, however, is inconvenient to the politics of many people.

As far as I am concerned, a scientist who says that something as disputable as the claims of "only we can explain warming" gang has just convinced me that they know NOTHING about how science works. A scientist/engineer who says this immediately implies they also know NOTHING about signal to noise ratio, let alone something about natural variability in systems not fully understood.

So do me a favor, you want to be taken seriously arenas how about you act as though you have experience in these those fields and the capability to understand why those who are so certain on this topic are probably the least likely to be right.

We have long past peak oil. We are close to peak natural gas and coal. That is also indisputable and inconvenient for the entire human race.

How much ignorance do you want to display at once? Long past peak oil is ridiculous, and solidifies my impression that whatever science or engineering you are involved in, it certainly has nothing to do with the geosciences. You don't have a clue about natural gas either, because certainly only a fool confuses the available estimates of the CH4 molecule around the globe, with expected future usage, and thinks that means "close to peak".

So what science and engineering are you familiar with that doesn't understand signal to noise issues? Doesn't know anything about the geosciences? Isn't familiar with geology or climatology? Doesn't understand natural variability in systems? Certainly your expertise isn't in physics, those guys deal with probability all the time, and you are way too absolute to be in that game.

Computer science?

Mankind was very fortunate to have been bequeathed the gift of cheap abundant energy from past suns.

Cheap oil disappeared during the late 60's, early 70's and has been trending upwards ever since. And as of today, is more abundant than at any time in human history. Learn your facts before introducing chicken little propaganda into the conversation. So scratch economics from the list of things you have no experience in. And it isn't a GIFT, it does not spring from the ground in three grades of unleaded, it takes technology, CapEx, ingenuity, brilliant chemical engineers, and is then MANUFACTURED.

Would be nice if the sun handed us 3 grades of unleaded. It doesn't. So this rules out you being a chemical engineer. You want to keep talking and I'll keep eliminating specialties just based on what you reveal you don't know?

No matter other people's opinions, educations, preferences, race, color or creed, doing nothing now is unaffordable.

You don't have to prove you don't understand economics again. How about you even TRY to define "unaffordable".

Perhaps that can be said in more effective ways for and by some other people, but it has to be said as loudly and compellingly as possible by those who have invested in the background necessary to understand the science.

It really is that black and white. Denial is not an option.

Platitudes. Generalizations. Grandiose PR statements. Hopes and dreams.

I need 120 MW delivered at 10PM on Thursday night. Tell me the plan for building out your favorite renewable to meet that need, at a competitive price. Square up and face the problem and tell us your solution because if you ARE an engineer, you should know better than to try and skate by on platitudes and generalizations. If you ARE a scientist, dear lord let you stay in your lab around only things you might know something about, because so far it isn't the geosciences, economics, physics, statistics or probability, chemical engineering and obviously nothing to do with power generation or distribution.

Comp Sci is about the only thing I can think of right off the top of my head that would allow you to not know anything about all these items and still claim what you do.

 

[PMZ]

I am first, a scientist and second, an engineer. My experience is diametrically different than yours in "but engineers are not known for being wildly creative". I'm not much of a politician.

To hell with being a politician, how about demonstrating that you can THINK to the standards your claimed profession would imply.

The science is very clear on AGW. It's indisputable. That, however, is inconvenient to the politics of many people.

As far as I am concerned, a scientist who says that something as disputable as the claims of "only we can explain warming" gang has just convinced me that they know NOTHING about how science works. A scientist/engineer who says this immediately implies they also know NOTHING about signal to noise ratio, let alone something about natural variability in systems not fully understood.

So do me a favor, you want to be taken seriously arenas how about you act as though you have experience in these those fields and the capability to understand why those who are so certain on this topic are probably the least likely to be right.



How much ignorance do you want to display at once? Long past peak oil is ridiculous, and solidifies my impression that whatever science or engineering you are involved in, it certainly has nothing to do with the geosciences. You don't have a clue about natural gas either, because certainly only a fool confuses the available estimates of the CH4 molecule around the globe, with expected future usage, and thinks that means "close to peak".

So what science and engineering are you familiar with that doesn't understand signal to noise issues? Doesn't know anything about the geosciences? Isn't familiar with geology or climatology? Doesn't understand natural variability in systems? Certainly your expertise isn't in physics, those guys deal with probability all the time, and you are way too absolute to be in that game.

Computer science?



Cheap oil disappeared during the late 60's, early 70's and has been trending upwards ever since. And as of today, is more abundant than at any time in human history. Learn your facts before introducing chicken little propaganda into the conversation. So scratch economics from the list of things you have no experience in. And it isn't a GIFT, it does not spring from the ground in three grades of unleaded, it takes technology, CapEx, ingenuity, brilliant chemical engineers, and is then MANUFACTURED.

Would be nice if the sun handed us 3 grades of unleaded. It doesn't. So this rules out you being a chemical engineer. You want to keep talking and I'll keep eliminating specialties just based on what you reveal you don't know?

No matter other people's opinions, educations, preferences, race, color or creed, doing nothing now is unaffordable.

You don't have to prove you don't understand economics again. How about you even TRY to define "unaffordable".

Perhaps that can be said in more effective ways for and by some other people, but it has to be said as loudly and compellingly as possible by those who have invested in the background necessary to understand the science.

It really is that black and white. Denial is not an option.

Platitudes. Generalizations. Grandiose PR statements. Hopes and dreams.

I need 120 MW delivered at 10PM on Thursday night. Tell me the plan for building out your favorite renewable to meet that need, at a competitive price. Square up and face the problem and tell us your solution because if you ARE an engineer, you should know better than to try and skate by on platitudes and generalizations. If you ARE a scientist, dear lord let you stay in your lab around only things you might know something about, because so far it isn't the geosciences, economics, physics, statistics or probability, chemical engineering and obviously nothing to do with power generation or distribution.

Comp Sci is about the only thing I can think of right off the top of my head that would allow you to not know anything about all these items and still claim what you do.

I see a lot of what you wish was true as it would be convenient to your politics. There is not even a scrap of science by anybody that supports it.

How can any intelligent professional fall for zero scientific evidence in support of trying to stop progress on the most essential project mankind has ever been required to pull off?

I am a mechanical eng but spent most of my life in process control, and project management in service of some of the most complex manufacturing processes the world has seen.

If you disagree, don't whine about me, show the science. Show me any science that denies AGW as a consequence of putting fossil fuel carbon sequestered in the ground for millions of years back into the atmosphere.

Show me any engineering that says the we are not past peak oil.

Show me any source that shows more than 100 years of proven fossil fuel reserves more economical than nuclear.

Show me a plan as to how we are going to replace all of the energy presently supplied by oil for transportation in less than 100 years with electricity, the only viable option.

Show me the economics of the world competing for declining supplies of fossil fuels because people like you prevented them from preparing.

 

[RGR]

How can any intelligent professional fall for zero scientific evidence in support of trying to stop progress on the most essential project mankind has ever been required to pull off?

Zero scientific evidence? I would volunteer you are not familiar with the evidence, to make such a ridiculous statement.

I am a mechanical eng but spent most of my life in process control, and project management in service of some of the most complex manufacturing processes the world has seen.

Excellent. Then why in the world would you ignore the obvious requirements of power distribution as they have been laid out by flacaltenn? Why is it when he mentions perfectly valid considerations for how power is made, bought and sold, do you reply by calling him names rather than explaining how your solution provides something as simple as the base load requirements in the US?

If you disagree, don't whine about me, show the science. Show me any science that denies AGW as a consequence of putting fossil fuel carbon sequestered in the ground for millions of years back into the atmosphere.

disagree with you about what? You aren't claiming, that I have seen anyway, that you know of any way to generate power requirements with renewables. You certainly aren't familiar with the geologic basics involved with climate change and usually ignored by those who claim "the science is settled" when speaking of it, proving they know as little about science as Matthew.

As far as putting carbon in the ground, in the air, that is exactly what would have happened in due time with natural geologic processes. Are we doing it faster? Sure. Does that automatically correlate to climate change of the kind predicted by, inaccurately, Hansen and his ilk? Well, that would depend on on well the same folks making the prediction understand the natural variation in the system, and to date? They can only prove that they DON'T understand such variation.

Process engineer you say? Fine…then you know about the resolution of sensors. Tell me, when the resolution of a given censor is only +/- 1 units, and the full range of the sensor is from 10-20 units, and some dumbass puts a digital readout on this thing, and it spends all day swinging between 4.2 and 4.4 units, what do you do to the new control room technician who wakes you up at night when he suddenly sees the gauge jump to 4.5? OMG!!!! What do we do!! Do you begin plotting the trend thinking it has meaning? Do you rush to the office to investigate? Or do you tell the newby to wake you when it hits either 3, or 5?

Climate works this way to. And folks don't understand it near as well as a process engineer can trust his equipment, sensors and machinery. Climate modelers doing so poorly with their predictions are trying to use 37 seconds of day somewhere within a 24 hour day to model the future. Try it sometime, hell I'll send you the data, and you can apply all the analytic scientificness you want and I'll send you $100 if you can even tell me the time of day I collected the data, and I'll send you $200 if you can predict the high and low from the day using it.

Show me any engineering that says the we are not past peak oil.

Sure. How about a graph showing the peaks claimed for 2005 and 2008 that weren't peak oil, but as usually were claimed to be, as we made our way to the current high today?

Show me any source that shows more than 100 years of proven fossil fuel reserves more economical than nuclear.

That I can't do, mostly because folks don't predict much of anything out that far, and the cost curve can change to fast with nothing more than government loan guarantees and insurance on nuke generation. Can you explain why you think this even matters? Certainly the fossil fuels themselves, or the uranium supply isn't a concern for the next 100 years.

Show me a plan as to how we are going to replace all of the energy presently supplied by oil for transportation in less than 100 years with electricity, the only viable option.

What plan? You want to try and predict the way the market works now? Sure..you come up with someone who can predict the stock market tomorrow, and we'll use that algorithm for the entire species. In the meantime, we have 100 years of liquid fuels, so we don't need to replace it all, certainly those of us already driving EVs know exactly how well they work for us and could care less if the rest of the fools want to contribute to jihadists, and sure, nuke plants would be great for generating the additional electricity I need to fuel my EV besides my local generation capacity.

And a clue…the species isn't going to STOP doing something one afternoon, and do something else, based on some PLAN.

Show me the economics of the world competing for declining supplies of fossil fuels because people like you prevented them from preparing.

What declining supplies, we are at all time production highs (again), and can stay there for under $150/bbl in 2008 dollars for all of this century. Go sell peak oil pablum to the oil-ignorant.

 

[PMZ]

How can any intelligent professional fall for zero scientific evidence in support of trying to stop progress on the most essential project mankind has ever been required to pull off?

Zero scientific evidence? I would volunteer you are not familiar with the evidence, to make such a ridiculous statement.

I am a mechanical eng but spent most of my life in process control, and project management in service of some of the most complex manufacturing processes the world has seen.

Excellent. Then why in the world would you ignore the obvious requirements of power distribution as they have been laid out by flacaltenn? Why is it when he mentions perfectly valid considerations for how power is made, bought and sold, do you reply by calling him names rather than explaining how your solution provides something as simple as the base load requirements in the US?



disagree with you about what? You aren't claiming, that I have seen anyway, that you know of any way to generate power requirements with renewables. You certainly aren't familiar with the geologic basics involved with climate change and usually ignored by those who claim "the science is settled" when speaking of it, proving they know as little about science as Matthew.

As far as putting carbon in the ground, in the air, that is exactly what would have happened in due time with natural geologic processes. Are we doing it faster? Sure. Does that automatically correlate to climate change of the kind predicted by, inaccurately, Hansen and his ilk? Well, that would depend on on well the same folks making the prediction understand the natural variation in the system, and to date? They can only prove that they DON'T understand such variation.

Process engineer you say? Fine…then you know about the resolution of sensors. Tell me, when the resolution of a given censor is only +/- 1 units, and the full range of the sensor is from 10-20 units, and some dumbass puts a digital readout on this thing, and it spends all day swinging between 4.2 and 4.4 units, what do you do to the new control room technician who wakes you up at night when he suddenly sees the gauge jump to 4.5? OMG!!!! What do we do!! Do you begin plotting the trend thinking it has meaning? Do you rush to the office to investigate? Or do you tell the newby to wake you when it hits either 3, or 5?

Climate works this way to. And folks don't understand it near as well as a process engineer can trust his equipment, sensors and machinery. Climate modelers doing so poorly with their predictions are trying to use 37 seconds of day somewhere within a 24 hour day to model the future. Try it sometime, hell I'll send you the data, and you can apply all the analytic scientificness you want and I'll send you $100 if you can even tell me the time of day I collected the data, and I'll send you $200 if you can predict the high and low from the day using it.



Sure. How about a graph showing the peaks claimed for 2005 and 2008 that weren't peak oil, but as usually were claimed to be, as we made our way to the current high today?

That I can't do, mostly because folks don't predict much of anything out that far, and the cost curve can change to fast with nothing more than government loan guarantees and insurance on nuke generation. Can you explain why you think this even matters? Certainly the fossil fuels themselves, or the uranium supply isn't a concern for the next 100 years.

Show me a plan as to how we are going to replace all of the energy presently supplied by oil for transportation in less than 100 years with electricity, the only viable option.

What plan? You want to try and predict the way the market works now? Sure..you come up with someone who can predict the stock market tomorrow, and we'll use that algorithm for the entire species. In the meantime, we have 100 years of liquid fuels, so we don't need to replace it all, certainly those of us already driving EVs know exactly how well they work for us and could care less if the rest of the fools want to contribute to jihadists, and sure, nuke plants would be great for generating the additional electricity I need to fuel my EV besides my local generation capacity.

And a clue…the species isn't going to STOP doing something one afternoon, and do something else, based on some PLAN.

Show me the economics of the world competing for declining supplies of fossil fuels because people like you prevented them from preparing.

What declining supplies, we are at all time production highs (again), and can stay there for under $150/bbl in 2008 dollars for all of this century. Go sell peak oil pablum to the oil-ignorant.

Do you believe that carbon dioxide and water are the main products of combustion from fossil fuels?

 

[RGR]

Do you believe that carbon dioxide and water are the main products of combustion from fossil fuels?

My "beliefs" have nothing to do with the equations involving the combustion of stuff.

CH4(g) + 2O2(g) → CO2(g) + 2H2O(g)

My beliefs also have nothing to do with people breathing doing about the same thing. No reason to be specific to just combustion.

 

[PMZ]

Do you believe that carbon dioxide and water are the main products of combustion from fossil fuels?

My "beliefs" have nothing to do with the equations involving the combustion of stuff.

CH4(g) + 2O2(g) → CO2(g) + 2H2O(g)

My beliefs also have nothing to do with people breathing doing about the same thing. No reason to be specific to just combustion.

Do you believe that co2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you accept the laboratory and theoretical explanation of what makes a gas a greenhouse gas?

 

[RGR]

Do you believe that co2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you accept the laboratory and theoretical explanation of what makes a gas a greenhouse gas?

Again, it doesn't matter what I believe. Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Nearly inconsequential when compared to, say, water vapor, but it doesn't matter what I believe, CO2 is certainly a trace greenhouse gas like CH4 and NO2.

Do you accept that the laboratory and theoretical explanation of what is a greenhouse gas has nothing to do with climate change, and only provides some basis for the folks who model climate change...and fail?

 

[PMZ]

Do you believe that co2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you accept the laboratory and theoretical explanation of what makes a gas a greenhouse gas?

Again, it doesn't matter what I believe. Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Nearly inconsequential when compared to, say, water vapor, but it doesn't matter what I believe, CO2 is certainly a trace greenhouse gas like CH4 and NO2.

Do you accept that the laboratory and theoretical explanation of what is a greenhouse gas has nothing to do with climate change, and only provides some basis for the folks who model climate change...and fail?

"Do you accept that the laboratory and theoretical explanation of what is a greenhouse gas has nothing to do with climate change, and only provides some basis for the folks who model climate change...and fail?"

You hit the nail right on the head. This is what I've never seen. Here's your opportunity to educate me.

Post it.