Global Warming is over.

[nando]

ah, back in 2011, when the entire west coast wasn't on fire all summer long, it rained more than 0.20" from June to September, and 88 degrees was considered a hot streak in the PNW..

But don't worry. No warming here!

[2mAn]

Nice.

[m3clutch]

lol, the best part of this argument is that in 10 years im going to say i told you so.

:P

i can bide my time.

It's been 10 years since this comment was made. Does it still stand ?

[cale]

about the only response you post on this blog is getting in my shit.
seriously, how but an intelligent rebuttal sometime cale, perhaps read up on the subject and post an original thought? at least others like phillipj try to make an informed response, even if they're wrong. :)

I wasted enough time picking apart the crap you posted, nothing has changed, you're still scientifically illiterate and probably still cannot read a simple graph. You're a walking denier stereotype in that you're old, a textbook Dunning-Kruger case and have at some point tried to sell every cookie-cutter argument that can be picked apart by someone who did well in middle school.

Pass.

[phillipj]

So I read the link you posted. I looked into him-- Michael Shellenberger. I read a couple reviews of his book "Apocolypse Never" your link and his major viewpoints is about.

He is characterized as a "lukewarmer." I had never heard that term. He thinks we should go 100% Nuclear, (ugh! disagree) He isn't friendly to the idea of solar and wind being more than a fringe energy source. I think you mischaracterized him as some big "hero to the left" and he truly hasn't made any about-face in how he sees climate change. He does have a different viewpoint though on these things, and, sure, that was interesting to read about.

Just from a quick review, I think he's correct in saying that the world should invest more in at-risk populations to make them more resilient to the changing climate. He's certainly correct to assert that the climate-change impacts will continue to grow over the coming decades, threatening lives and economic stability all over the world. Pretty standard. He certainly believes in man made climate change and that it is destructive.

But a major thing of his is that environmentalists and certain politicians are way too alarmist. I do get that, but the consequences are so gradual and delayed and cascading that, to me, anyway, it's very hard to draw a line on this, especially when people don't want to act meaningfully until it's way too late and everything is a complete disaster. From what I read, he makes it sound easier and cheaper to correct course? He gives sort of excuses (the costs of extreme weather are rising because, quite simply, we're living more and more near vulnerable areas), but that doesn't change that fact that it is happening. And you can't change that so easy.

I personally do not like his advocation for 100% Nuclear, and I don't get what's behind his fervor for it? Seeing who and what he has advocated for lately made me wonder if he has developed some ties to the Nuclear Power industry? idk.

When it comes to renewables, ok, he is right that we can't currently, perfectly store energy affordably on an enormous scale on our electricity grid, and yes, renewables are intermittent, but I think this obviously evades bigger picture thinking as far as developing the technology.



Anyway, my .02 response that isn't dismissive or demeaning. Gwb72tii: Why did you post that anyway? You said "at least one climate activist is following the science" -- this guy Michael Shellenberger. So you agree with his viewpoints?

[gwb72tii]

Sorry after all these years you're still confused about my position, or perhaps you're conflating the real me with your strawman.

I've never said the reaction to scientific truth is reasonable, it's an overreaction like anything because politics is involved. But hey, this article substantiates your years of bogus claims and scientific stupidity huh?

about the only response you post on this blog is getting in my shit.
seriously, how but an intelligent rebuttal sometime cale, perhaps read up on the subject and post an original thought? at least others like phillipj try to make an informed response, even if they're wrong. :)

i thought it might be surprising to you and others here to read up on one of the climate alarmists, a well informed guy, time magazine award winner, well regarded and a hero of the left as to WHY he has changed his position on global warming.
maybe if you stepped back a bit and put your adult hat on and read the article, you might learn something.

[cale]

He doesn't know, he just reads something which contradicts the narrative which he's concocted in his head and confuses it as a nail in the coffin. Dementia is a bitch.

[dadsbmw]

With apologies to Cale for making his head explode, at least one climate activist is following the science

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1277611390195216390?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1277611390195216390&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.com%2F2020%2F06%2F29%2Fschellenberger-on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare%2F

and here is the entire article

http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare

we are making progress although a lot on this blog will now dismiss one of their own

I'd be super curious to understand what this progress is though? Like were you to prove climate change was all a huge hoax, what would you be gaining or how is your life better?

[cale]

Sorry after all these years you're still confused about my position, or perhaps you're conflating the real me with your strawman.

I've never said the reaction to scientific truth is reasonable, it's an overreaction like anything because politics is involved. But hey, this article substantiates your years of bogus claims and scientific stupidity huh?

[gwb72tii]

With apologies to Cale for making his head explode, at least one climate activist is following the science

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1277611390195216390?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1277611390195216390&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.com%2F2020%2F06%2F29%2Fschellenberger-on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare%2F

and here is the entire article

http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare

we are making progress although a lot on this blog will now dismiss one of their own

[bradmer]

in my time as a devops engineer, i've learned that single points of failure are a bad thing

redundancy is a good thing

we need a power grid that utilizes both of those renewable resources, because neither of them is available or reliable everywhere

6 or 7 years ago we were contracted by PGE to create a micro grid at their Portrero plant (near Candlestick Park, with the tall brick chimney). We installed 20 kW of pv, 3 pallets of salt water medium batteries (lead plates) and connected it through various switchgear so they could select 240/single phase, 208/3phase or 480/3 phase. PGE had some of their brightest minds working on creating micro grids for residential subdivisions, do not know what happened to that project.
Batteries do suck, don't like working with them. However, there are some coming out that do not act like a runaway train that needs reining in (Tesla resi system), the safer li-io in the Enphase battery system just coming out is 1/3 more cost for 1/3 less power than the Tesla battery puts out, so it has been a hard sell even though it is technologically better and safer, but people are drinking the Tesla Koolaid and appear to be willing to follow that guy off a cliff.

[decay]

in my time as a devops engineer, i've learned that single points of failure are a bad thing

redundancy is a good thing

we need a power grid that utilizes both of those renewable resources, because neither of them is available or reliable everywhere

[digger]

Photovoltaics and batteries the most over rated techs for global energy production

[bradmer]

They already are though, because of the economics of it. It's gotten that cheap. The tech does exist, it's advanced so much. Solar used to be a joke as far as being cost effective! It was like 20x the cost of coal in the 90's. Now it is cheaper than coal. And wind is right there too. And it makes up something like 2% of the US energy source (wind a bit more) -- so there's only room for growth. And as adoption increases prices will only go down. Huge businesses and governments, etc., they want to save money -- they won't do this because they care about the environment.

And imagine if you took out our subsidies for fossil fuels -- $20 Billion + per year -- and you level the playing field, made it a true free market. It'd happen even faster.

Solar must have an 'annual net energy metering' agreement with the local electrical utility allowing their client to back feed the grid with solar. If that agreement did not exist on an annual basis solar would not be viable on a daily, weekly or monthly schedule even with all of the tax credits (and utility rebates that have long sice dried up). Utility companies are constantly looking for ways to bone their solar rate payers for using the utility infrastructure as a battery. That same infrastructure which has been paid for a long time that now needs upgrading, like being buried underground which is not cheap.

We have installed 7 li-io Tesla batteries in a residential system combined with 50kW of solar so the client can be tied to the grid if need be, but will produce all of his own energy on site. All it takes is money (@$380k), the tech is here. He can load shift from his smart phone. For reference the house is @ 9000 sq ft with 2 pools.

In 15 years solar panel output has tripled within the same 18 sq ft foot print, 360 watts from 120. No moving parts so they don't ever seem to break, it's the inverter that converts dc to ac that fails on systems, but even they have gotten much better recently. Also in that time pricing has come down to $3/watt from $8-9/watt for a much better product acheiving close to 21% in efficiency up from 15% with web viewing on every system from your smart phone.

Hydro is the answer, @ .11 cents/kWh and no toxic after life. #works at night

[phillipj]

is economic impact going to be what it takes for us to acknowledge this? maybe. but that may be too late

Yes! 100%! Because in that way it becomes most tangible. It's not about believing in (even proven) science anymore, eventually it hits the pocketbook. It's highly about economics. Take our pandemic for example. In some ways it became "real" only then.

The only exception to this might be firsthand personal experience. In my life, I've seen the reef where I have dove and fished over 40 years get measurably warmer, as well as a healthy amount of pollution coming from us. The coral dies and much of the fish and sealife continues to disappear. It's super sad to witness, and it is not an immediate thing, it's just a gradual death. I can only imagine what it'll look like in another 40 years.