If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Department of Energy worried that climate change may disrupt our supply of cheap and abundant fossil fuels   (cbsnews.com) divider line 92
    More: Ironic, Energy Department, United States, Jonathan Pershing, Current sea level rise, energy sources, SciTech High, hydroelectric dams, Long Island Sound  
•       •       •

1130 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jul 2013 at 6:42 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-14 08:46:59 PM

clowncar on fire: angrymacface: Wouldn't it be funny if those oil eating microbes that rapidly grew after the Gulf Oil Spill somehow found their way into all the various oil reserves around the world?

Hysterical*

*does not apply to the top 2%


That might actually make for a decent movie plot. Mad scientist or terrorist group threatens to release said microbes into all known petroleum deposits on the planet.
 
2013-07-14 08:50:06 PM

COMALite J: clowncar on fire: angrymacface: Wouldn't it be funny if those oil eating microbes that rapidly grew after the Gulf Oil Spill somehow found their way into all the various oil reserves around the world?

Hysterical*

*does not apply to the top 2%

That might actually make for a decent movie plot. Mad scientist or terrorist group threatens to release said microbes into all known petroleum deposits on the planet.


Especially if eating all that oil made the microbes mutate into giant tar monsters.  Then, of course, the hero would lure the tar monster into a holding tank at a huge power plant and we would burn it for 10 years worth of nationwide electricity.
 
2013-07-14 08:51:53 PM

GeneralJim: "There is no strong evidence to support severe weather becoming stronger, more frequent or more widespread during the past 50 years in the United States as a result of climate change."AccuWeather.com
"No clear trend has been found in tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms at the global level. "World Meteorological Organization
"Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming."Nature Magazine
"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados" [sic]"The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"IPCC SREX
Even the warmer alarmist sources admit that there is no discernible connection between severe weather events and warmer temperatures, let alone AGW.  This is nothing but sensationalist journalism.  Give it a rest.


You may notice that everyone one of those articles states clearly that climate change is happening and will have severe consequences.
 
2013-07-14 08:52:42 PM

COMALite J: clowncar on fire: angrymacface: Wouldn't it be funny if those oil eating microbes that rapidly grew after the Gulf Oil Spill somehow found their way into all the various oil reserves around the world?

Hysterical*

*does not apply to the top 2%

That might actually make for a decent movie plot. Mad scientist or terrorist group threatens to release said microbes into all known petroleum deposits on the planet.


Jim Carrey doing Jerry Lewis?
 
2013-07-14 09:00:05 PM

Hollie Maea: Especially if eating all that oil made the microbes mutate into giant tar monsters. Then, of course, the hero would lure the tar monster into a holding tank at a huge power plant and we would burn it for 10 years worth of nationwide electricity.


No, no, that's not how that episode of Captain Planet went. Sly Sludge steals the formula and breaks a garbageman's strike in France, but the Planeteers have to stop him before the microbes go all Grey Goo on everything.

/Not even making this up.
 
2013-07-14 09:05:38 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Hollie Maea: Especially if eating all that oil made the microbes mutate into giant tar monsters. Then, of course, the hero would lure the tar monster into a holding tank at a huge power plant and we would burn it for 10 years worth of nationwide electricity.

No, no, that's not how that episode of Captain Planet went. Sly Sludge steals the formula and breaks a garbageman's strike in France, but the Planeteers have to stop him before the microbes go all Grey Goo on everything.

/Not even making this up.


Haha...that sounds like some high quality television.
 
2013-07-14 09:24:46 PM

ZAZ: It's negative feedback. It's a feature, not a bug.


Is this going in the file with Overzealous Staffer and Isolated Incident?
 
2013-07-14 09:28:46 PM
Climate Change should be in caps. It's that serous.
 
2013-07-14 09:57:58 PM

Martian_Astronomer: Kumana Wanalaia: We need to transition to renewables and nuclear while we have the convenience of fossil fuels.

It'll be a b*tch if we run out of fossil fuels before we build the alternative energy infrastructure that we need.

I've always said that this is a proper role of government interference in industry: Forward-looking investments in infrastructure before they are completely cost competitive, in order to avoid massive cratering of the economy when all of a sudden you need that infrastructure and it's too late to build it. I further suspect that as we deal with more climate-change related crap and the economy becomes more global there will be more need for this type of long-term planning, but with the current political climate and the fact that we're on a 2-year election cycle we're kind of boned, really.

/ I mean, if we can avoid setting off all the nukes humanity will survive, it just may suck for a lot of people


Indeed.  The smoother the transition is between fossil fuels and alternative energy the better.  Spikes in energy and gas prices tend to be bad for the economy.
 
2013-07-14 10:04:37 PM
Climate change disrupting cheap energy from fossil fuels?

Why I've carved the solution right here in this water bed mattress.
 
2013-07-14 10:05:28 PM

namatad: Kumana Wanalaia: We need to transition to renewables and nuclear while we have the convenience of fossil fuels. It'll be a b*tch if we run out of fossil fuels before we build the alternative energy infrastructure that we need.

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

1) we currently have ~ 100 years of NG reserves in the US.


I don't know when it will run out. I do know that it will run out.
 
2013-07-14 10:06:04 PM

Hollie Maea: potterydove: until we can drastically improve the power density of batteries, it may be the best we can do.

Power density is fine.  You can get Lithium Polymer batteries with power densities of more than 8kw/kg or about 5 HP/lb.  So a 200 pound pack can supply you with 1000 horsepower.


Your units are wrong. While watts are important for batteries in some respects, the real measure that matters is joules.

The power (in watts) tells you how many joules you can exert in one second. Think of the battery as a milk jug. The "joules" is the gallon of fluid in it. The wattage is the size of the hole you can pour the milk out through.

When it comes to energy storage density, a gallon of gas is 1.32x10^8 joules. That's a few
decimal points to the left of the energy contained in an equivalent battery.
 
2013-07-14 10:37:32 PM

namatad: Kumana Wanalaia: We need to transition to renewables and nuclear while we have the convenience of fossil fuels.

It'll be a b*tch if we run out of fossil fuels before we build the alternative energy infrastructure that we need.

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

1) we currently have ~ 100 years of NG reserves in the US. Pretend it is only 30 years. At the point where supplies start getting tight, we would still have 10 years to implement a crash fission power plant building program.

2) coal - wtf - do you have any  idea how much coal the US has? Go look it up in wiki or google or whatever. We'll wait here.

So yes, if we waited until we were completely out of EVERYTHING, then we would be farked.
In what universe do you live? Do you actually think that power companies plan the same way that you stock the TP in your bathroom?

The day that it becomes profitable to build fission plants, plants will start being built.
Until someone puts a massive surcharge on using oil/ng/coal we will not even begin planning to build fission plants. There is no money it anymore.

/yes yes global warming is the end of the world. just not happening fast enough to get DC to do anything about it.


You seem to have a lot of faith in the ability and desire of companies to favor long term planning over short term profits.  Somehow I don't think CEOs and stock holders are going to be concerned what happens 10 years down the line when they're taking losses (or just less profit) in the present.  We shouldn't assume that the market solution is the preferable solution.

Anyway, as Martian Astronomer pointed out, it's about forward thinking infrastructure.  Sure, more alt. energy will be produced as it becomes cheaper and energy companies will switch over, but what about that transition period?  How long will it take to build up those new plants, especially the nuke plants?  What do we do in the interim as conventional energy prices rise, but alt. energy isn't ready to step in?  There's a lot of inertia in the fossil fuel industry.  They have a lot of sway and a lot of power (lol).  What if the price signal to switch away from fossil fuels is delayed by politics, subsidies and companies desperate to keep their market share?  Why not spread the costs of the transition to alt. energy and the construction of new plants across 25 years instead of 5 or 10?

And yes, we should put a massive surcharge on fossil fuels to correct for the massive negative externalities which are not yet priced in.
 
2013-07-14 10:43:35 PM
What climate change?

www.woodfortrees.org


Cue all the geniuses to come in and point out how 16 years of declining global temperature trend really is warming.
 
2013-07-14 11:26:56 PM

Baryogenesis: You seem to have a lot of faith in the ability and desire of companies to favor long term planning over short term profits.


nope. I have no faith in companies doing anything other than worrying about profits. period.
But strangely enough, energy production companies think long term. They dont invest a penny of capital unless they think they will get it back, with interest.

The reason that they are spending billions building gas fired plants is that they expect to be able to use those plants long enough to recoup that investment, with interest. Will the same company invest money in fission plants? Nope. Not until it becomes a worthwhile investment.

Kumana Wanalaia: I don't know when it will run out. I do know that it will run out.


You do realize that there has never been a point in history where any civilization as invested in the next energy source until the current one had mostly run its course. right? wood, water, coal, steam, oil, NG, uranium.

Why invest money in uranium when there is a higher ROI with NG and oil?
Unless the government subsidizes it ...
Strangely enough, our government is subsidizing oil and NG.  If only we could get them to switch.
Yah, that will never happen.
 
2013-07-14 11:56:46 PM

namatad: Baryogenesis: You seem to have a lot of faith in the ability and desire of companies to favor long term planning over short term profits.

nope. I have no faith in companies doing anything other than worrying about profits. period.
But strangely enough, energy production companies think long term. They dont invest a penny of capital unless they think they will get it back, with interest.

The reason that they are spending billions building gas fired plants is that they expect to be able to use those plants long enough to recoup that investment, with interest. Will the same company invest money in fission plants? Nope. Not until it becomes a worthwhile investment.


That's exactly the problem.  They've got billions invested in fossil fuels AND it's going to cost billions to build up alt. energy.  They have plenty of reasons to milk every last penny out of fossil fuels before even considering a switch.  We can't just wait for them to finish milking it.  It's smarter and better for the economy to have a gradual shift.
 
2013-07-15 01:03:43 AM
www.skepticalscience.com

sigh
 
2013-07-15 01:14:27 AM

namatad: 1) we currently have ~ 100 years of NG reserves in the US. Pretend it is only 30 years. At the point where supplies start getting tight, we would still have 10 years to implement a crash fission power plant building program.

2) coal - wtf - do you have any  idea how much coal the US has? Go look it up in wiki or google or whatever. We'll wait here.


Actually, given the health risks from burning coal and the environmental damage caused by fracking, both non-renewable sources of energy should be phased out, not regaled to "waiting in the wings" status.

And frankly, both sources are going to come under a lot of pressure to be discontinued in the next 10 years alone in favor of existing renewable sources of energy.
 
2013-07-15 01:33:26 AM

whidbey: not regaled to "waiting in the wings" status


re·gale  (r
v. re·galed, re·gal·ing, re·gales v.tr.1. To provide with great enjoyment; entertain. See Synonyms at 2. To entertain sumptuously with food and drink; provide a feast for.v.intr.To feast.n.1. A great feast.2. A choice food; a delicacy.3. Refreshment.
Perhaps you mean relegated.

/education these days
 
2013-07-15 01:34:24 AM

SevenizGud: whidbey: not regaled to "waiting in the wings" status

re·gale  (r
v. re·galed, re·gal·ing, re·gales v.tr.1. To provide with great enjoyment; entertain. See Synonyms at 2. To entertain sumptuously with food and drink; provide a feast for.v.intr.To feast.n.1. A great feast.2. A choice food; a delicacy.3. Refreshment.
Perhaps you mean relegated.

/education these days


Like you've had any.
 
2013-07-15 01:34:38 AM
Shut up troll.
 
2013-07-15 01:40:38 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: Hollie Maea: potterydove: until we can drastically improve the power density of batteries, it may be the best we can do.

Power density is fine.  You can get Lithium Polymer batteries with power densities of more than 8kw/kg or about 5 HP/lb.  So a 200 pound pack can supply you with 1000 horsepower.

Your units are wrong. While watts are important for batteries in some respects, the real measure that matters is joules.

The power (in watts) tells you how many joules you can exert in one second. Think of the battery as a milk jug. The "joules" is the gallon of fluid in it. The wattage is the size of the hole you can pour the milk out through.

When it comes to energy storage density, a gallon of gas is 1.32x10^8 joules. That's a few
decimal points to the left of the energy contained in an equivalent battery.



Dude...I know the difference between Watts and Joules. Read what I was responding to: he said power density was too low. Not energy density. My units are not "wrong".
 
2013-07-15 02:59:28 AM
Old news is old.

/linked report was written in cooperation with DOE, and not even referenced in the new report
//they should reinvent those round things my car runs on
 
2013-07-15 05:27:11 AM

Evil Twin Skippy:

When it comes to energy storage density, a gallon of gas is 1.32x10^8 joules.
I did not know this number.  Holy shiat, that's a LOT of energy.
 
2013-07-15 08:17:43 AM

Kumana Wanalaia: We need to transition to renewables and nuclear while we have the convenience of fossil fuels.


There's no future in renewables.
 
2013-07-15 09:46:37 AM

GeneralJim: Evil Twin Skippy: When it comes to energy storage density, a gallon of gas is 1.32x10^8 joules.I did not know this number.  Holy shiat, that's a LOT of energy.


It's a lot, but not a mind blowing amount.  If you convert it into units that make more sense for vehicles, that comes out to about 37 kwh.  Again, that's quite a lot, but nothing to make you do a double take.  You also have to remember that even with the best engine, only 1/3 of the chemical energy is converted to mechanical work, while with batteries and an electric drive train that's around 80 percent.  A gallon of gas, then, is about equivalent to a 15kwh battery pack (that's slightly larger than the pack on a Chevy Volt which--sure enough--goes nearly as far in electric mode as a typical sedan gets on a gallon of gas.)

From a weight and volume perspective, you can currently fit about 100kwh battery pack in a sedan.  That's equivalent to a smallish gas tank, and when you take into account the somewhat higher weight, it leaves you with a 250-300 mile range.  Current R&D chemistries such as Lithium Sulfur will double that density, so we are within sight of being able to compare favorably with gasoline engines, in spite of the common notion that there has to be some kind of game changing orders of magnitude increase in battery energy density before they can compete.
 
2013-07-15 10:04:32 AM

COMALite J: clowncar on fire: angrymacface: Wouldn't it be funny if those oil eating microbes that rapidly grew after the Gulf Oil Spill somehow found their way into all the various oil reserves around the world?

Hysterical*

*does not apply to the top 2%

That might actually make for a decent movie plot. Mad scientist or terrorist group threatens to release said microbes into all known petroleum deposits on the planet.


There is a book called Ill Wind about such a thing.
 
2013-07-15 10:44:31 AM

SevenizGud: What climate change? [192 months of HadCRUT3 chart]


A brief overview of what's wrong with this idiocy, for anyone who may be wondering:

Global Warming is Much More Than Surface Temperature Warming

"Global Warming" is shorthand for one symptom of the human impact on the planet through our increase in greenhouse gases (principally CO2). The basic gist of the issue is fundamental physics- when you increase the amount of energy coming in or decrease the amount of energy going out of a planet's energy budget, you create an imbalance, which necessitates warming to a higher equilibrium temperature in the long run. Our emissions of greenhouse gases are decreasing the amount of energy leaving the system, i.e. we have created an energy imbalance.

Most of this increased energy is not manifested as surface temperature warming. Rather, the overwhelming majority is accumulating in the ocean.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

We tend to talk about "global warming" in terms of surface warming, because we live at the planet's surface and are necessarily interested in it, but the ocean is where most of the increased-greenhouse action is.

Global Warming Does Not Mean Every Year Should Be Hotter Than The One Before

The surface temperature is indeed expected to increase over the long run, but not monotonically (i.e. every year being warmer than the one before). This is because we have large, natural, pseudo-periodic exchanges of heat between the ocean and atmosphere irrespective of human influence, such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). When ENSO is positive, more heat than normal is released from the ocean to the atmosphere, increasing temperature in the short term. When ENSO is negative, more heat is sequestered in the ocean, decreasing temperature.

i.imgur.com

There are other influences on the surface temperature besides ENSO and greenhouse warming. Solar variability and aerosols (produced by volcanism as well as human activities) also play a large role in how warm or cool it is on year-to-year timescales. When you account for ENSO, solar variability, and aerosols, the underlying warming trend is much more readily apparent:

i.imgur.com

Apparent "pauses" in the surface temperature are a natural consequence of short-term variability (due to ENSO, solar, aerosols, etc.) super-imposed upon an upward trend (due to greenhouse warming). These "pauses" are seen not just in the surface instrumental record:
i.imgur.com

But also in individual runs from climate models:

i.imgur.com

These "pauses" in climate models are associated with periods of increased heat sequestration in the deeper ocean, and correspond to ENSO negative conditions. Over the past decade, we have seen predominantly ENSO negative conditions, and indeed we see an increase in deeper ocean warming at the expense of surface warming.

i.imgur.com

The fundamental lie of the "16 years no warming" graph is that it is nothing more than a "cherry-pick" of a pause in an otherwise upward trend. This can be seen by simply changing the length of the period being examined. If you look at 15 years instead of 16 years, the trend is positive:

i.imgur.com

If you look at 17 years instead of 16 years, the trend is positive.

i.imgur.com

The "pause" in warming is simply an artifact of the end points of the data, not a real cessation of warming.

An Imperfect Surface Instrumental Record

In addition to these problems, the data from the "16 years no warming" graph are from HadCRUT3. While this instrumental record was an admirable attempt to quantify the surface temperature of the planet, it was not perfect. Specifically, it suffered from very limited coverage of the higher latitudes (i.e. the poles), which are warming faster than the rest of the planet (a process called "arctic amplification"). Failing to capture this high latitude warming means the HadCRUT3 record is biased cool- something that has been demonstrated by reanalysis experiments:

i.imgur.com

The group that produces the HadCRUT3 data set was well aware of this problem and worked to overcome it. They have an updated dataset that partially addresses the problem, HadCRUT4. When you look at the same period of time (the last 192 months) in HadCRUT4, the trend is positive.

i.imgur.com

The "pause" in warming is not only a cherry-pick of end points to take advantage of variability, it is also not even robust to the choice of data set.

Cherrypicking Apparent "Pauses" in the Surface Instrumental Record Is a Bullshiat Distraction from Continued Global Warming

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-15 10:53:56 AM

Kanemano: Your reading for today How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction



TL;DR.
i1229.photobucket.com
and
i87.photobucket.com
First one, then the other.
/Either way, you get Heston
 
2013-07-15 11:21:59 AM

Hickory-smoked: GeneralJim: "There is no strong evidence to support severe weather becoming stronger, more frequent or more widespread during the past 50 years in the United States as a result of climate change."AccuWeather.com
"No clear trend has been found in tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms at the global level. "World Meteorological Organization
"Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming."Nature Magazine
"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados" [sic]"The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"IPCC SREX
Even the warmer alarmist sources admit that there is no discernible connection between severe weather events and warmer temperatures, let alone AGW.  This is nothing but sensationalist journalism.  Give it a rest.

You may notice that everyone one of those articles states clearly that climate change is happening and will have severe consequences.


Yup.  Specifically, the theme is that even when the trend is clear, it's difficult to say with precision that an individual storm was caused by anthropogenic climate change.

Simplified version: Let's say you would expect (50 +/- 30) storms above some severity threshold in a given time period without ACC.  But the ACC models are correct, and that time period you see 100.  You can say with high (but never perfect) certainty that the overall rate was changed, but if someone asked you "Was storm #37 caused by ACC?" you can't really say.

Attribution is a known problem.  If you read the Nature editorial that he linked, this is the scenario they're discussing:
"Whether there is a legal basis for such claims, such as that brought against the energy company ExxonMobil by the remote Alaskan community of Kivalina, which is facing coastal erosion and flooding as the sea ice retreats, is far from certain, however. So lawyers, insurers and climate negotiators are watching with interest the emerging ability, arising from improvements in climate models, to calculate how anthropogenic global warming will change, or has changed, the probability and magnitude of extreme weather and other climate-related events. But to make this emerging science of 'climate attribution' fit to inform legal and societal decisions will require enormous research effort."

ExxonMobil can/will take the stance that, sure, ACC causes worrisome trends in global erosion rates and sea level rise.  And sure, Exxon Mobil is one of several major companies that contribute significantly to that change.  But it's very hard to say that this region's coming problems were caused by Exxon's specific contributions to a degree that Exxon is legally liable.

Who pays what is a problem for the lawyers.  The scientists are very clear on their side of the issue.  Their job is to answer "What is happening?", "Why is this happening?", and "What options exist going forward?".  ("Is" questions.)  "What options should we pick?" or "Who should be held liable for damages?" ("Ought" questions) are questions for voters, politicians, and lawyers.
 
2013-07-15 11:26:34 AM

SevenizGud: What climate change?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue all the geniuses to come in and point out how 16 years of declining global temperature trend really is warming.


Thanks to Jon Snow among others, your BS is now even more busted than your story about how you and your friends all hit a hole-in-one on the same hole, but the last guy's ball bounced out of the cup because it was too full of hole-in-ones.  Please go back to running Worst Korea, and never post here again.
 
2013-07-15 11:34:53 AM

Hollie Maea: GeneralJim: Evil Twin Skippy: When it comes to energy storage density, a gallon of gas is 1.32x10^8 joules.I did not know this number.  Holy shiat, that's a LOT of energy.

It's a lot, but not a mind blowing amount.  If you convert it into units that make more sense for vehicles, that comes out to about 37 kwh.  Again, that's quite a lot, but nothing to make you do a double take.  You also have to remember that even with the best engine, only 1/3 of the chemical energy is converted to mechanical work, while with batteries and an electric drive train that's around 80 percent.  A gallon of gas, then, is about equivalent to a 15kwh battery pack (that's slightly larger than the pack on a Chevy Volt which--sure enough--goes nearly as far in electric mode as a typical sedan gets on a gallon of gas.)

From a weight and volume perspective, you can currently fit about 100kwh battery pack in a sedan.  That's equivalent to a smallish gas tank, and when you take into account the somewhat higher weight, it leaves you with a 250-300 mile range.  Current R&D chemistries such as Lithium Sulfur will double that density, so we are within sight of being able to compare favorably with gasoline engines, in spite of the common notion that there has to be some kind of game changing orders of magnitude increase in battery energy density before they can compete.


You're not talking to the most numerically literate guy in the world.  Bonus: GJ actually admits to completely screwing up his math.  Fark: But never mentions that the correct math destroys his previous assertion that it's impossible to get significant amounts of your electricity from wind.

If you really want to impress him, tell him there are 1.32x1015 ergs in a gallon of gasoline.  He can't convert units or do basic arithmetic, but HEY, LOOK, BIG NUMBERS.
 
2013-07-15 12:37:30 PM

chimp_ninja: SevenizGud: What climate change?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue all the geniuses to come in and point out how 16 years of declining global temperature trend really is warming.

Thanks to Jon Snow among others, your BS is now even more busted than your story about how you and your friends all hit a hole-in-one on the same hole, but the last guy's ball bounced out of the cup because it was too full of hole-in-ones.  Please go back to running Worst Korea, and never post here again.


My favorite part is where he thinks he's being clever by anticipating that people will object to his idiocy:

"Cue all the geniuses to come in and point out how 2 + 2 doesn't really equal 3."

Wow, you sure showed us, SevenizGud...
 
2013-07-15 05:36:54 PM

Jon Snow: chimp_ninja: SevenizGud: What climate change?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue all the geniuses to come in and point out how 16 years of declining global temperature trend really is warming.

Thanks to Jon Snow among others, your BS is now even more busted than your story about how you and your friends all hit a hole-in-one on the same hole, but the last guy's ball bounced out of the cup because it was too full of hole-in-ones.  Please go back to running Worst Korea, and never post here again.

My favorite part is where he thinks he's being clever by anticipating that people will object to his idiocy:

"Cue all the geniuses to come in and point out how 2 + 2 doesn't really equal 3."

Wow, you sure showed us, SevenizGud...


I liked him better as Brockway
 
2013-07-15 06:14:21 PM
DarwiOdrade

Remember the absolute zero temperature graph?  Cracked me right the hell up.
 
2013-07-15 08:00:32 PM

Zafler: DarwiOdrade

Remember the absolute zero temperature graph?  Cracked me right the hell up.


Wait, they're not really the same person, are they? Hard to imagine that there are two that dim....

(but that zero temp graph was very very funny)
 
2013-07-15 09:09:26 PM

HighZoolander: Zafler: DarwiOdrade

Remember the absolute zero temperature graph?  Cracked me right the hell up.

Wait, they're not really the same person, are they? Hard to imagine that there are two that dim....

(but that zero temp graph was very very funny)


I don't think so, but can't verify for sure.  His posting style is more in the line of  Spitzer Wannabe I think.  Isn't an exact match there either from what I recall.  So he may be his own very special version of dim.
 
2013-07-15 09:29:41 PM
What was the absolute zero temperature graph? Sounds like fun...
 
2013-07-15 10:08:06 PM

Hollie Maea: What was the absolute zero temperature graph? Sounds like fun...


He would post a bar graph of global warming in Kelvins, with the Y-axis running down to absolute zero and up to something crazy like 600K.  Needless to say, it was difficult to detect the ACC signal at that scale.

He was generally as tired/old/busted as SevenIzGud, but he at least had one moment of funny in him.
 
2013-07-16 01:23:35 AM

Hollie Maea:

Current R&D chemistries such as Lithium Sulfur will double that density, so we are within sight of being able to compare favorably with gasoline engines, in spite of the common notion that there has to be some kind of game changing orders of magnitude increase in battery energy density before they can compete.

Cars are one thing...  Backing up the power grid is another.  The problems with electric cars are more that there are few places to charge them, and that charging takes a long time.  Obviously, larger capacity batteries at the same weight would go a long way towards ameliorating those problems.

But, the idea that "free" energy will take the place of the grid, powered by fossil fuel and nuclear energy, is simply naive -- every type of widely-used "green" power, with the exception of hydro and geothermal, is subject to long periods of greatly lowered, or no production.  A storm system can bring photovoltaic energy production to a standstill, and an inversion layer can similarly stop wind generation.  Before either of those, or even a combination of them, can take over, there will need to be a way to store a staggering amount of power -- normal power usage for probably over a week.  I agree with the critics here -- a new generation of electrical power storage will be needed.

 
2013-07-16 01:32:58 AM

chimp_ninja:

You're not talking to the most numerically literate guy in the world. Bonus: GJ actually admits to completely screwing up his math. Fark: But never mentions that the correct math destroys his previous assertion that it's impossible to get significant amounts of your electricity from wind.
Really?   Okay, Monkey Boy -- tell us again how greenhouses work by blocking convection.  That's my favorite bedtime story.
 
2013-07-16 02:36:01 AM

Jon Snow:

The "pause" in warming is simply an artifact of the end points of the data, not a real cessation of warming.

I love it when scienticians point this out...   Because the warming itself is simply an artifact of the end points of the data, not real warming.  Yes, it is warming -- and it has been warming consistently since about A.D. 1700.  This warming, in other words, was going on over a century BEFORE the industrial revolution, and, hence, was not caused by it.  This is part of the so-called 1600-year cycle.  If you factor out the 1600-year cycle, we are, in fact, cooling, and have been for 8,000 years.  It is ironic that in the middle of cherry-picking the last 150 years, you are complaining about someone cherry-picking the last 16.  What YOU are doing is no more "honest" than looking at the last 16 years.

And you warmer alarmists always seem to forget that even a short 16-year period of no warming during a time of AWESOME increases in carbon dioxide is supposed to be impossible, according to the AGW hypothesis.  You are hoist by your own petard; if the warming "caused by carbon dioxide" is so weak that the 60-year and ENSO/PDO over-ride it -- it's NOT warm enough to do what the alarmists are claiming.  If your claims of carbon dioxide being the primary controller of temperature were true, we'd NOT be seeing anything that even remotely looked like a 16-year pause, with increasing amounts of carbon dioxide stomping on the accelerator.

This is just yet ANOTHER falsification of AGW.  And, since only one falsification is needed, there's no need to discuss the fact that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature, or that the century-long model predictions of 2007 are about to break through their 95% certainty bars as we speak, a mere 6 years after the predictions.  Keep in mind -- unless you cherry-pick, we are COOLING off as our long-term trend.


www.globalwarmingart.com
 
Displayed 42 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report