Smoke and Mirrors

[iNow]

Meanwhile iNow's data seem to support my approach, will wonders never cease?

Is your assertion that we should do nothing to prevent it from getting worse since it's already really bad and will already last for a very long time? If so, then you'll find the data says the opposite, actually.

[Harold Squared]

In what mad universe is a projected expenditure by a government supposed to have made a retroactive difference in a current problem?

Precisely! The arguably deranged German government has committed itself to "renewables" in an effort to stem the tide which Mauna Loa measurements and iNow's sources indicate is futile.

 

One estimate for the cost of such folly is a TRILLION EUROS. In return for their investment to date they have higher retail electric rates and increased reliance on lignite coal.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

 

 

Precisely! The arguably deranged German government has committed itself to "renewables" in an effort to stem the tide which Mauna Loa measurements and iNow's sources indicate is futile.

Your argument for futility was based on projecting from a claimed lack of effect so far, from actions not yet performed.

 

 

One estimate for the cost of such folly is a TRILLION EUROS.

And you believe that. Why? Other estimates show net savings of considerable monies - what's wrong with them?

[Harold Squared]

Demonstrated lack of effect, but yes. Do you imagine things will suddenly about face? For what reason? I suppose the Germans could switch from lignite to natural gas to supplement their incomprehensible "renewable" fetish, but that is about the limit as far as I can see.

 

Let's ask the German consumers and their French neighbors that next one.

 

Nuclear is cheaper plus more reliable and a clear winner.

 

Look guys, it has been fun and all but we're really going off topic here.

 

If slamming on the brakes on carbon dioxide emissions is not affordable, or effective in the near term, what is?

Edited July 10, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

Demonstrated lack of effect, but yes. Do you imagine things will suddenly about face? For what reason?

I imagine that actually taking actions would be more likely to produce effects, yes. It's kind of a general principle of analysis, called "cause and effect" (see Wiki), that I have found useful in the past.

 

 

 

 

I suppose the Germans could switch from lignite to natural gas to supplement their incomprehensible "renewable" fetish, but that is about the limit as far as I can see.

Or contract with Spain for thermal solar - can you see Spain, from Houston?

 

 

 

 

Nuclear is cheaper plus more reliable and a clear winner.

Nothing except the status quo is more expensive than nuclear. Even PV solar is cheaper than nukes.

 

 

 

 

If slamming on the brakes on carbon dioxide emissions is not affordable, or effective in the near term, what is?

Failing to slam on the CO2 brakes probably will cost more than any other option.

Edited July 11, 2015 by overtone

[swansont]

How so? Recall that on another thread recently that the German government is prepared to spend a trillion euros for their switch to "renewables" (excluding nuclear). This was biased, perhaps, but you sir are living proof that biased guys can be clever and possess a certain degree of integrity.

 

"prepared to" is future tense and your claim was past tense. Also, "zero impact" was part of the claim. Any bit of that being wrong makes the claim false. You could, of course, simply lay this to rest by providing a link to some credible evidence, or possibly by providing some analysis.

One estimate for the cost of such folly is a TRILLION EUROS. In return for their investment to date they have higher retail electric rates and increased reliance on lignite coal.

 

 

Yours? Provide a link to back this up. Otherwise I am going to assume you just made it up, or got someone else to. An estimate by a passerby on the street isn't particularly credible.

[Harold Squared]

 

"prepared to" is future tense and your claim was past tense. Also, "zero impact" was part of the claim. Any bit of that being wrong makes the claim false. You could, of course, simply lay this to rest by providing a link to some credible evidence, or possibly by providing some analysis.

 

 

 

Yours? Provide a link to back this up. Otherwise I am going to assume you just made it up, or got someone else to. An estimate by a passerby on the street isn't particularly credible.

We are really off topic here but I will accommodate you as best I can.

 

The trillion euro figure is a (presumably German) "government estimate" as quoted in the World Nuclear Association Profile on Germany, third bullet point from the top. The confusion over tenses stems from my own uncertainty regarding how much of this sum remains to be squandered.

 

Go to world-nuclear.org and check out the country profiles, grouped in oops, FIVE sections. Germany leads the second section, voilà, you are there.

 

Lots of history, politics, and hideously expensive lawsuits, plus the pitiful capacity factors of wind and solar and the systemic threat they represent to the national distribution network. Enjoy.

I imagine that actually taking actions would be more likely to produce effects, yes. It's kind of a general principle of analysis, called "cause and effect" (see Wiki), that I have found useful in the past.

 

 

 

 

Or contract with Spain for thermal solar - can you see Spain, from Houston?

 

 

 

 

Nothing except the status quo is more expensive than nuclear. Even PV solar is cheaper than nukes.

 

 

 

 

Failing to slam on the CO2 brakes probably will cost more than any other option.

1.and2.) In Germany the effects so far include increased reliance on lignite coal rather than electricity from sunny Spain, which of course I cannot see from Houston, and Spain does not appear to be one of the countries Germany has as electricity trading partners, though France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, Poland and Czech Republic are all potential trading partners. Interestingly, Spain is pretty much isolated from the rest of Europe's electricity grid apart from exports to Portugal(even more insular, evidently) and trade with Morocco and France. Even in sunny Spain, "renewables" cannot compete, as the Spanish government can no longer afford to subsidize them and is turning to nuclear power.

 

3.) In this case, it would very much appear otherwise.

 

4.) iNow has provided evidence that it is already too late for this to have an effect. We're doomed, man, DOOMED!

Edited July 11, 2015 by Harold Squared

[Strange]

The trillion euro figure is a (presumably German) "government estimate" as quoted in the World Nuclear Association Profile on Germany, third bullet point from the top.

 

Apparently, copying and pasting a link is advanced technology, not available to all so allow me to help....

 

Here we go, it took me a few hours, but I managed it:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Germany/

[Harold Squared]

 

Apparently, copying and pasting a link is advanced technology, not available to all so allow me to help....

 

Here we go, it took me a few hours, but I managed it:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Germany/

"...a few hours", now, was it?

 

I think a person of your formidable abilities would have much less trouble tracking it down than that.

 

Thanks for the link, and enjoy a fine weekend. I plan to return Monday.

 

Thanks to all for their participation and time expended on this discussion, I am honored and wish you all the best life has to offer.

[swansont]

We are really off topic here but I will accommodate you as best I can.

 

The trillion euro figure is a (presumably German) "government estimate" as quoted in the World Nuclear Association Profile on Germany, third bullet point from the top. The confusion over tenses stems from my own uncertainty regarding how much of this sum remains to be squandered.

 

Go to world-nuclear.org and check out the country profiles, grouped in oops, FIVE sections. Germany leads the second section, voilà, you are there.

Almost a link! So close. You couldn't even add a "www." to it to at least take one to the front page.

 

Bu that's an estimate of future spending, not past, so your claim was false. And no attempt to buttress the bald assertion that efforts have done zero to reduce CO2, another part of the false claim.

[Strange]

"...a few hours", now, was it?

 

I think a person of your formidable abilities would have much less trouble tracking it down than that.

 

Sarcasm. You might have heard of it. I was just pointing out the ludicrousness of your inability to master the simple process of copying and pasting a URL. As it is so simple, I can only assume you do it (or don't do it) deliberately to annoy people. Which would fit with your generally trollish approach.

[Harold Squared]

 

Sarcasm. You might have heard of it. I was just pointing out the ludicrousness of your inability to master the simple process of copying and pasting a URL. As it is so simple, I can only assume you do it (or don't do it) deliberately to annoy people. Which would fit with your generally trollish approach.

Sir I am completely sincere. I truly do respect you all for your constructive criticism and am having fun. Unfortunately I have other plans for the remainder of the weekend and as previously stated hope to find you all well on Monday.

 

Again, many thanks and best wishes all around.

Almost a link! So close. You couldn't even add a "www." to it to at least take one to the front page.

 

Bu that's an estimate of future spending, not past, so your claim was false. And no attempt to buttress the bald assertion that efforts have done zero to reduce CO2, another part of the false claim.

I apologize again for the limitations of my hardware.

 

In response I point to the fact that Germany depends upon coal for about half of its electricity needs and that the curve of the measured CO2 at Mauna Loa does not seem to be affected to date.

 

Again, thank you all, I must go.

[swansont]

In response I point to the fact that Germany depends upon coal for about half of its electricity needs and that the curve of the measured CO2 at Mauna Loa does not seem to be affected to date.

 

"Seem to be affected"? You haven't compared anything, so how can you tell?

[overtone]

In Germany the effects so far include increased reliance on lignite coal rather than electricity from sunny Spain

But we were talking about possible responses to AGW. Clearly contracting for thermal solar from Spain is one such possibility, right? You were drawing a blank, so I provided that one.

 

 

 

 

Even in sunny Spain, "renewables" cannot compete, as the Spanish government can no longer afford to subsidize them and is turning to nuclear power.

You have been misinformed. The Spanish government put a moratorium on nuclear power plant construction in 1983, and it remains in effect. Meanwhile, the government has been recently "turning to" wind and solar in replacement of fossil fuel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_Production_in_Spain.svg

 

Clearly with a German market and associated economies of scale, the "turning to" could be accelerated.

 

All large scale power sources require government subsidy - nuclear power, in particular, requires a great deal of government support in areas such as security and waste management and fuel acquisition that other forms do not.

Edited July 12, 2015 by overtone

[swansont]

Where I live it has been raining for two goddam days like a cow pissing on a flat rock. I am an old fart and have been listening to renewable energy types singing the same song since the fucking OPEC embargo and Three Mile Island. Well, guess what? All those assholes were wrong, they are still wrong, and nothing they have produced yet has the reliability or output of fucking TMI. A fact California dingbats like Gov. Brown seem to be blind to. The lame Solar One(late and unlamented), the infamous Solyndra, SEGS, they are all losers, look at the data.

 

 

 

Wanted to update this with the note that installed solar PV in the US has passed 20 GW (up from ~1 GW in 2008), and about an equal amount to that is expected to be installed by the end of 2016. 40 GW would be around a 4000% increase since just before the economic collapse and the stimulus, which kick-started solar.

 

Such failure.

 

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-solar-market-prepares-for-biggest-quarter-in-history

[Phi for All]

 

 

Wanted to update this with the note that installed solar PV in the US has passed 20 GW (up from ~1 GW in 2008), and about an equal amount to that is expected to be installed by the end of 2016. 40 GW would be around a 4000% increase since just before the economic collapse and the stimulus, which kick-started solar.

 

Such failure.

 

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-solar-market-prepares-for-biggest-quarter-in-history

 

Some people can't see the forest for the tree-huggers. Bias like HaroldSquared spreads is like a poison.

[Ken Fabian]

No mentions of ocean acidification and how space shades/mirrors allowing CO2 emissions to continue unabated would stil leave that problem unaddressed? Whilst it's not directly a climate problem it is an excess burning of fossil carbon problem of global scale of great seriousness.

 

I'm new here but not new to these kinds of debates. I tend to be bemused by the extraordinary optimism for some kinds of solutions that are combined with extraordinary pessimism for others. We can build a whole space launch infrastructure of types never before tried, at very large scale - some that can only be built and proven feasible at large scale, like space elevators - but better, cheaper, energy storage, that seems to me a key technology that will allow full displacement of fossil fuels by intermittent renewables is fairy dust?

 

Harold Squared - I don't think you have offerred any substantive, feasible solutions to the climate problem - certainly not compared to the many serious studies and proposals that are already out there. I'm not entirely convinced you really accept the mainstream science on climate - but I am only going by what's written in this thread. It's a question that matters; a real depth of commitment to the fundamental goal looks to me like an absolute prerequisite for taking any solutions, let alone the speculative ones through to implementation. I wouldn't like to see people who's optimism and desire for space enterprise is boundless use the depth of concern for the climate problem to mislead the world into supporting speculative climate fixes in order to further their desired investments in expansion into space.

 

My own view is that real depth of commitment is fundamental and essential to both effective policy and it's implementation and I think 'failures' to date are far more down to it's lack than any inadequacies or inappropriateness of the technological approaches that are available. Even now, with a global climate agreement I suspect the governments of most nations remain more concerned with avoiding the inconveniences and costs of doing the minimum necessary than doing the minimum necessary. What may trigger an avalanche of change is the continuing cost falls for renewable energy technologies taking it below that of fossil fuels; that may be as crucial to broad acceptance of the fundamental 'fix the climate problem' goal as the strength of the science on climate.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Ken Fabian

[puppypower]

A question about the greenhouse affect and CO2 came to me yesterday. If you look at the picture below, it is a picture of the sun in terms of an IR image.

 

 

It turns out that 50% of the energy from the surface of the sun is in the IR. The question becomes since CO2 is a warm fuzzy blanket that keeps the earth's IR based heat from escaping, shouldn't this warm fuzzy CO2 blanket also impact the solar IR that is trying to reach the earth? Shouldn't CO2 and other greenhouse gases reflect solar IR back into space so does not reach the surface of the earth?

Edited December 30, 2015 by puppypower

[Strange]

Because, as you say, a lot of the Sun's energy is not in the infra-red range. That energy heats the Earth which then re-radiates it as infra-red (because the Earth is not as hot as the Sun)

http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

[swansont]

A question about the greenhouse affect and CO2 came to me yesterday. If you look at the picture below, it is a picture of the sun in terms of an IR image.

 

 

It turns out that 50% of the energy from the surface of the sun is in the IR. The question becomes since CO2 is a warm fuzzy blanket that keeps the earth's IR based heat from escaping, shouldn't this warm fuzzy CO2 blanket also impact the solar IR that is trying to reach the earth? Shouldn't CO2 and other greenhouse gases reflect solar IR back into space so does not reach the surface of the earth?

 

Some of it, sure. Scientists already know this. As Strange has pointed out, what gets trapped is the stuff outside of the IR, that gets re-radiated in the IR. The solar spectrum is pretty much that of a blackbody at ~6000 K. The earth's is at ~300 K. Their spectra are not the same.