The dumping of us pertro reserves or fabled US capacity and a bunch of exotic tech like hot fusion as a portable commercial product announced by Locheed Martin coming into the light of day indicate something serious has changed. The flooding of Manhattan was the first sign of a pending ice age it seems, or has at least triggered policy. This response is greater than would accompany simple climate change. Look at the change of attitude in China on coal.
Wait, what happened to global warming? I thought experts from the UN were calling for moar $$$ for their fight against CO2?
China never changed its attitude on coal. It’s cheap and good. Better filters and technologies are necessary to limit damages from its pollutants.
Lima accord (?), would be very new with regard to China, or I misread. Triggering a new Ice Age is the presummed worst case outcome for warming and for climate change.
That new Stone Henge type monument that purporting a nwo population goal of 500m globally may be a function of the projected carrying capacity of the equator in Ice age. Its been said the Pentagon expects climate change to drive people up from the South hence their wanting to build a wall. But it may be that jetsetters would like to keep people from a freezing north from crowding a still viable South.
They’ve reached break even with fusion, issues with sustaining the reaction seem to be of a much lower order. One of the problems for oil I think is that it wont be able to follow solar down the cost scale. Also stuff like the StoreDot tech looks like its solved the energy storage problem of cheap solid state stabile storage that can charge and discharge a good amount of power very quickly. I suspect the liquid transport infrastructure simply wont remain competitive with decenttalized solar. Oil has to haul around the weight of the nuculus.
The Chinese wont cave on their cheap panels- they need the Himalayas to continue to catch water for them.
I read analyses that said Chinese gov’t gave away very little.
In any case there’s nothing to worry about. It’s all zero impact.
That would be the best. But even Freeman Dyson who is a critic suggested we have to find out if our approach is helping or harming relative to climate change. If we become less energetic we have to become more efficient, but I dont see how we could be less energetic in the face of possible radical climate change. We need more energy and hardened less toll road prone decentralized energy.
The Locheed idea is speaking to that. Would have to drive down cost/centtalization on deterium & tritium.
But the green extremists (the loudest part of those who believe in global warming that’s supposedly caused by humans and that supposedly can be mitigated in a cost effective way - notice that all of these assumptions, not just one, have to be satisfied to justify the enormous waste of money that’s going on in this “fight” against CO2) have been against nuclear energy.
Reasonable greens have recognized the potential of fusion and some are even supportive of fission.
I think new gen nuclear technologies are great because they’re much safer and in some cases don’t create any pollution at all. Evidence doesn’t show that CO2 emissions matter, but if they do, nuclear energy takes care of that too.
Economic analyses show that regardless of the approach, non-nuclear solutions cannot possibly bring CO2 levels to the target that the extremists want while costing less than their worst estimates of damages caused by global warming (or, as they say now, climate changes, because global warming isn’t happening).
Well unless NY/NJ Katrina etc. were HAARP jobs it does look like climate is getting worse. but flooding of costal bread baskets and ice age (which looks to cycle) are more concerning. It doesnt seem certain that renewables save for nuclear are impotent. Economist Jeoffry Sachs figured the US could be taken off oil all together for an investment equal to the initial claimed cost of the Iraq war- 40 billion. Makes it sound like the world could come off for a trillion.
But I do think the Greens need to be more honest and argue directly for an end to oil profit and oil power, through nationalization if need be with a redirection of any proceeds to a replacement for carbon energy. They dont like the people behind oil, argue for the removal of their power and social demotion.
Also stuff like vacuum devices look like they too have at least equal to nuclear potential, but in both cases these are systems that harnese energy from the sub atomic realm.
Venezuela did it and after a few years on heavy partying they’re on verge of bankruptcy (hit a 91% probability this week). Can’t work and in this case they didn’t even need to be subverted by the US of A.
Oh I think it can work, when the point is to get rid of the target industry. All Venezula had was oil, and the point wasnt to be rid of it. Its like price control. It works as long as you can ambush an industry.
And how would people go about their life?
On a bicycle (collapsing BDP)?
How would they go to the hospital (people dropping like flies from easily curable diseases)?
Well this is where I was thinking that Steady State seems scary from some angles. It such a transition. Growth seem like a much more natural strategy. Steady state and attempts to create equilibrium or stasis seem almost like suspended animation.It may not have to be an over planned rationing situation but it could be pretty tight on managing externalities and not able to use much debt or leverage type strategies. It might be more vice less regulation but that regulation might be easier to follow as there would be such clearly focused goal. Notice that many of the icy rock societies are pretty socialist, if people don’t cooperate in those societies the elements will kill them off pretty quickly. Its obvious and it impacts cultural outlook.
Can you provide the evidence that you state exists, that CO2 emissions do not matter please…seeing as though you are labelling as “extremist” the vast majority of climate scientists that blame the anthropogenic causes for climate change and the role in that of CO2 emissions.
Like you already don’t know that there’s nothing catastrophic happening?
Atmospheric CO2 level is in the background (pale yellow). Where’s the correlation (let alone causation)?
The pale yellow part isn’t coming through. This seem to run against the consensus or data sets from others. Have these been replicated?
What do you mean? CO2 touched 400ppm recently and the curved yellow line shows what. The trend line is straight and now just below 400ppm.
In any case computer models that were predicting catastrophic raise in temperatures were off by so much that it’s clear that their authors have no clue what’s going on.
I think CO2 has been as high in the records (ice core or other evidence) as 700ppm and its though that this higher rate coincided with an ice age. I don’t think climate scientists associate warming the experience of warming everywhere. Apparently some areas will get colder but weather in general more adverse. There is also an issue with the oxygenation of the oceans and the life it will support and apparent spike in CO2 as opposed to oxygen content in air. CO2 in air above about 1000 ppm starts to create issues for people even in terms of indoor air quality.
As for the heating, where I am at we’ve had record temperatures to the point that it seems we have half a year of summer and little rain. It will start to impact real estate values and a serious drought seems to have set in. In other places like Texas rivers have dried up and farms have failed. If you combine these things in the states with Katrina and the flooding of Manhattan its looking like a destabilizing climate. In the states we also have issues with increasing methane releases which were associated with at least one ice age as a trigger. Instead of spreading manure across soil so it processes aerobically we dump it into toxic lagoons where it ferments and releases masses of methane anerobically.
The acidificiation of oceans has been a threat for so many years now and yet I don’t remember any proven example where “models” and “predictions” came true. In fact even the EPA agrees it’s not provable:
CO2 above a certain level would be bad, but it’s illusory to expect that it could get to 1000ppm when virtually everyone wants - as soon as their economic situation allows them - wants to switch to gas or nuclear or renewable. Noone is getting their energy from coal because it’s fun. Given a choice between two sources of energy that cost almost the same (once you get prosperous enough), everyone will choose the cleaner one. The only case where this is less likely to happen is when the State mandates that you can’t choose (like they do in the EU where you’re either gonna pay through your nose or freeze to death).
Climate changes are among last concerns of 99% of people and rightly so. I’d rather save $100 (maybe buy some Safecoins) than spend it on completely unnecessary and ridiculously expensive sources of energy or “invest” it in climate change prevention and renewables.
Ok so what you’re suggesting is that if we are moving toward gas as a stepping stone we are getting a 50% CO2 reduction and that’s the worse of the new alternatives and even in the case of increasing demand this is the stronger trend and the planet would naturally consume or naturally recycle/sequester any cumulative CO2 if the charge has any correlation with reality. I like that. You put up data on the heating of the planet. That data might be contested. To me it seems anecdotally the hottest by a large measure and increasing. .If that data were wrong the planet could be heating for other reasons, solar output or a change in the engine behind Earth’s vulcanism. Newer theory suggests Earth’s core temp is maintained by the steady decay of Thorium and other radio active elements such that the Earth seems to be a big reactor- which may impart the energy to petroleum. Maybe its subject to temp fluctuations. Regardless, as above I think people want to get away from the power dynamics of carbon energy and warming has become a way, possibly a manipulative way for people to get behind that without outright admitting they want to right size the power of some people. There is a feeling that there could be for instance peace in the Mid East if this were possible.
Just read the replies……thanks for giving the source too Janitor. I’m not exactly sure what you are claiming though, or of the veracity of the source (I’ve not heard of it, but it does appear to be dedicated to climate change denial at first glance – I need to research the claims further though and see if anything can be inferred).
So, are you saying that it’s not that CO2 levels don’t matter, but that they will never reach the dangerous levels at which they would matter? Ah, just read that you do – I can’t say that I’m convinced by your reasoning though. You basically state that this will never happen because given the choice people will choose cleaner fuels……. only given the conditions that a) They are the same price. b) Their economic situation allows them to, and c) They are prosperous enough. Well, sorry but this does not allay any of my fears. Also, are you claiming that climate change is not affected/caused by Human activity, ie it is just part of a natural cycle or that climate change just isn’t happening at all?
Could you tell me what study this was from please – I couldn’t automatically infer the author’s had “no clue what was going on” , from the stated wrong prediction: Who did the study/computer model, what were the parameters/algorithms/inputs, what were the predictions or quality/level of study etc? What I probably would tentatively conclude is that making predictions about the effects of climate change are extremely difficult, given the many contributing factors, causes and effects….particularly the butterfly effect.
Warren made a number of good points and I don’t really think that things like acidification (disintegration of Coral reefs for example) or melting poles can be denied……can it? It is about much more than simple warmng of the planet though……weather patterns are also changing and extreme events more common.
There are basically the interests of 2 very different groups at play here – the oil/power industries etc on one side and the Environmentalists on the other. There is a lot of dis-information/web-sites out there representing these interests. I would sift carefully where information is gathered from bearing in mind the special interests and money involved - I intend to do this myself.
What I would say is that when I weigh the potentially disastrous impacts of continuing to pollute our fragile environment and seriously disrupt eco-systems and cause species to become extinct at an alarming rate, against the benefits of continuing to burn fossil fuels etc…….it’s a no brainer.
You don’t shit on your own doorstep.
It’s been 20 years since the so-called experts told us about these catastrophic trends that will materialize as soon as 2007, then 2010, then 2012, and every time it turned out to be a complete joke, so there’s no reason to “believe” or “expect” that they might eventually be right: we already know that their “models” are complete garbage and I don’t care about their “studies”. They are completely discredited.
Now some of them say they now have better models so if we keep paying them 20 years later they’ll be proven right.
Imagine if MaidSafe devs told you to keep paying them to play with the code for 2 more years. But you’re completely okay with the climatic lunacy, despite the fact that you’ve been lied to for 20 years. But 97% of all climate scientists agree…
The above graph is from http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/, but it doesn’t show any “study” (and neither it should), it just shows the expensive garbage theories for which you’ve been taxed for 20 years vs. the free reality. I don’t need to know why the models are wrong, I just need to know they aren’t right.
I don’t know how you got there from the completely separate discussion about these 3 points:
a) Humans’ generation of CO2 is the main cause of raising temperatures
b) Raising temperatures are catastrophic and must be tamed
c) It is possible to cost effectively tame them (that is, it cots less to eliminate the bulk of CO2 emissions than to adjust to its consequences)
And from that discussion you jumped to a completely unrelated topic about pollution from fossil fuels (well, at least you got a (heart) from Warren, that must be worth something…