Electric Cars and Solar Power Kills babies.

[MSimon]

The solar project was a kit supplied by Bell Labs to get kids interested in technology. It had cup cores for the L (it was an audio oscillator) and you had to wind the coil by hand. Real geek fun.

[jmc]

We have been having climate scares about every 30 years since the 1880s. Warming, cooling, warming, cooling, warming. Now the PDO changes sign about every 30 years. I wonder if it is just coincidence.

The PDO went negative (cooling phase) a few years back. Probably just a coincidence. Because, you know, the science is settled.

Was there a climate scare in the 1880's? Do you have any shred of proof for that? Was there another scare in the 1920s?

I don't think your statement that there is a climate scare 30 years and the Pacific Decadel Oscillation has the same period is a coincidence at all. Mainly because I think you've made up the fact that there's a climate scare every 30 years because you know that this is the period of the PDO.

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2 ... record.php

"But the warmest year globally remains 2005, followed by 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004. And the of the 12 hottest years on record, only one -- 1990 -- does not occur in the last 12 years."

From the graphs in this link:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

You would expect maximum recorded global temperatures to have occured in 1985 or 1990, you wouldn't expect 2005 to have record temperatures at all... but it has.

[jmc]

1)There could be a LOT more economically viable oil out there. The cheapest oil costs less than $5/bbl to extract, but it's so useful it's competitive at prices up to something like $250/bbl. When it gets over $200 and stays there for a decade, then it's time to worry.

2)Investment in oil infrastructure is tricky. OPEC does its best to keep the supply/price curve in what is a very unstable region. Because of this, price fluctuates wildly with demand/supply shifts. Investors don't want to get caught in 10-year projects that deliver $50/bbl oil when prices could drop close to the Saudi production costs again. Meanwhile, environmentalists do their best to make it difficult to produce oil anywhere but in very poor countries.

3)The same thing happened to uranium. We should be building nuke plants right and left, but again environmentalists have stopped any new plants from being built for decades. Now some mines have closed because only the highest-grade uranium is economically viable, but there's massively more available at higher cost.

4)Climate change, or "global warming" as it used to be called before proponents decided to rebrand it after people started noticing it wasn't getting warmer anymore, is a largely mythical nonproblem; the notion CO2 is driving anything more than a degree of temperature change looks increasingly unlikely,

5)and warmer temps have generally been a boon for mankind anyway.

6)It makes a convenient cause celebre (or perhaps I should say raison d'etre?) for environmentalists because there just isn't much else left to complain about in Western countries: water and air are cleaner than ever.

1)Electricity is already cheaper and comes from a greater number of different sources. The reason that oil is competitive up to $250 per barrel is because you can't use anything else for a wide number of transportation functions, this isn't a good thing. It would be nice if we could develop technologies that could replace oil consuming ones competitvely before we're forced to fork out $250 per barrel.

2) That's an interesting statement and one I'm not familiar with do you have links to any literature on this? (Having said that OPEC could not have achieved such control over global prices if there was such a "LOT" of cheap oil out there)

3) I agree with your point on Uranium though, but an increase in Uranium price is no big deal because its not the dominant cost in the production of nuclear energy. The price of oil is the dominant cost in many forms of transportation and so directly impacts the economy and inflation.

4)Not getting warmer anymore? 2005 was the warmest year on record!!! Temperature data is naturally volatile, we have a slight downward blip from the peak, lasting 3 years and "its not getting warmer anymore?" I don't think there's any indication that global warming looks increasingly unlikely, unless you've been reading an increasing number of climate sceptic literature. I'm not sure how much you can trust the models, but geological data does show a correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration and its more than 1 degree.

5) Firstly it doesn't sound to me your that sure temperaturees aren't going up. Secondly it depends how much, thirdly it depends how fast, there are a thousand and one subtle assumptions on the local climate incorporated into architecture, infrastructure (where roads and pilons are placed) farming methods etc. any change over a short enough timescale is disastrous. Similar assumptions are built into natural ecosystems.

6) The rate of animal extinction has never been higher. Many of the worlds underground acquifers are rapidly running out and when they do vast tracts of irrigated land will become barren. Honey bees are collapsing in population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder. Coral reefs are bleeching white and dying. I'm sure there are a lot of environmentalists who wish that global warming was not a problem so that they could py more attention to these other difficulties.

[kunkmiester]

Take a closer look at your CO2/temp graphs. One of the most convincing things I saw was the fact that CO2 trails temperature. You can even see this on Al Gore's "hockey stick" graph, though it's not very clear.

There are quite a few correlations with solar output too. Most of these indicate that the drop in solar activity recently will correlate with a drop in global temperature, as has happened before.

Here's a good place to look up your stuff:
http://www.climateaudit.org/

As for oil, most of the problem is political, not geological. The way the environmental laws are written groups like greenpeace can sue over and over again for years to stop a well. This has a significant impact on economics, and has led to the drop in the number of wells drilled in the U.S. This was one reason the democrats could let the offshore drilling ban be repealed with minimal fuss--the drilling would never happen anyway.

Geologically, peak oil is quite a ways away, but the politics have forced us into it early.

[MSimon]

We have been having climate scares about every 30 years since the 1880s. Warming, cooling, warming, cooling, warming. Now the PDO changes sign about every 30 years. I wonder if it is just coincidence.

The PDO went negative (cooling phase) a few years back. Probably just a coincidence. Because, you know, the science is settled.

Was there a climate scare in the 1880's? Do you have any shred of proof for that? Was there another scare in the 1920s?

I don't think your statement that there is a climate scare 30 years and the Pacific Decadel Oscillation has the same period is a coincidence at all. Mainly because I think you've made up the fact that there's a climate scare every 30 years because you know that this is the period of the PDO.

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2 ... record.php

"But the warmest year globally remains 2005, followed by 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004. And the of the 12 hottest years on record, only one -- 1990 -- does not occur in the last 12 years."

From the graphs in this link:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

You would expect maximum recorded global temperatures to have occured in 1985 or 1990, you wouldn't expect 2005 to have record temperatures at all... but it has.

Dude. You should be ashamed of yourself. Accusing me of making stuff up. You know I have been wildly in error from time to time but inventing facts is not my style. I have a reputation for honesty. I intend to keep it:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/special ... andice.asp

I was in error about the earliest date. It was 1895. And the average PDO full cycle is about 66 years. A half cycle is 33 years.

And those pesky IPCC guys are now saying cooling until 2020 with CO2 rising. I guess CO2 is not as forcing as it once was. Really dude. You should keep up. Otherwise you make yourself look like a fool. And that would be most unfortunate.

BTW scientists other than the IPCC are saying that based on the PDO that cooling will continue until 2030.

BTW this plan for continuing the climate scam might interest you:

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/w ... s/wp58.pdf

Or you might like this from a Nobel Economist:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/20/q ... e-week-15/

#2 It’s a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious.
…
#3 But I tend to be rather pessimistic. I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

He worries that not enough horrid things are happening in the world. A real stand up guy.

A real nice feller. Huh?

[TallDave]

The reason that oil is competitive up to $250 per barrel is because you can't use anything else for a wide number of transportation functions, this isn't a good thing.

1) There's just nothing that competes with liquid-fueled internal combustion engines for power/mass ratio, safety, cost, and convenience. It's hard to see how we could ever engineer around all those advantages at once. Maybe it will happen someday, but at the moment it looks like ICE is going to be around for a long time.

2) Sure, pick up some oil trade publications. I used to own Exxon/Mobil stock, there was always a lot of this kind of talk.

As for OPEC, it isn't easy. Remember, there was a very long period where they lost control of the market and oil was around $20. But it's a double-edged sword -- that period also killed off all the oil development projects that could only deliver oil at $30/bbl or more.

3) Yes, which is something I keep bringing up re fusion power pricing. Cost-effective fission fuel is going to last somewhere between 1,000 and 100,000 years, so fusion has to be competitive tp have any relevance.

4) Depends who you believe; that's a GISS number. I'm very distrustful of the GISS data, which is administered by a man who calls for war crimes trials for skeptics, says coal trains are the equivalent of Auschwitz, and gets arrested at coal plants. If that weren't enough, 80% of the GISS stations don't meet their own standards.

UAH suggests temperatures are fairly flat, with one anomalous year in 1998.



Not much of a trend there.

[MSimon]

Here is a nice long article by a geologist friend of mine (yes I know his real name) about political oil from a geologist's perspective:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... tlook.html

He is a fan of Polywell.

Here is his blog:

http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/

The search engine there is rather good. Look stuff up. Be warned he is rather long winded.

[MSimon]

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... l-sun.html

Nice video about cloud experiments with lots of links to other good stuff:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... s-not.html

One I particularly like:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... mbers.html

Here is a good one about chaos theory and climate models:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ctors.html

I like this quote:

Back to Lorenz. Complex deterministic systems suffer not only from sensitive dependence on initial conditions but also from possible sensitive dependence on the differences between Nature and the models employed in representing it. The apparent linear response of the current generation of climate models to radiative forcing is likely caused by inadvertent shortcomings in the parameterization schemes employed. Karl Popper wrote (see my essay on his views):

"The method of science depends on our attempts to describe the world with simple models. Theories that are complex may become untestable, even if they happen to be true. Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification, the art of discerning what we may with advantage omit."

If Popper had known of the predictability problems caused by the Lorenz paradigm, he could easily have expanded on this statement. He might have added that simple models are unlikely to represent adequately the nonlinear details of the response of the system, and are therefore unlikely to show a realistic response to threshold crossings hidden in its microstructure. Popper knew, of course, that complex models (such as General Circulation Models) face another dilemma.

I quote him again: "The question arises: how good does the model have to be in order to allow us to calculate the approximation required by accountability? (…) The complexity of the system can be assessed only if an approximate model is at hand."

From this perspective, those that advocate the idea that the response of the real climate to radiative forcing is adequately represented in climate models have an obligation to prove that they have not overlooked a single nonlinear, possibly chaotic feedback mechanism that Nature itself employs.

And not only do they have to prove nothing has been left out (see statistical sun above) they have to prove that they have the numbers to sufficient accuracy. Both initial conditions and all the factors (even the climate guys say their models are not good with clouds and that UV radiation is not well done). How is that going to work?

OK. How about the accuracy of the instrument record:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -into.html

Climate "scientists" cooking the books:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... t-out.html

Stuff left out of climate models:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... mazon.html

Had enough?

[MSimon]

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... lieve.html

explains the chart i.e. all the models go one way the data goes the other.

[MSimon]

Surface Station problems:

An editorial -

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 3153272209

A scientific look -

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/20/a ... record-is/

it explains how the GISS temp record is corrected. It is real ugly.

[TallDave]

Here's my new favorite graph:



So you can see, even if you believe the instrumental record tacked on to the end of this, it's been about this warm before relatively recently, and much warmer longer ago.

[MSimon]

TDave,

Where did that come from?

[jmc]

A scientific look -

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/20/a ... record-is/

it explains how the GISS temp record is corrected. It is real ugly.

"In particular, I have wondered how the current global average can even be compared with that of 1987, which was produced using between six and seven times more stations than today."

Why would there be more weather stations around in 1987 then there are today when interest in climate change has increased?

[MSimon]

A scientific look -

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/20/a ... record-is/

it explains how the GISS temp record is corrected. It is real ugly.

"In particular, I have wondered how the current global average can even be compared with that of 1987, which was produced using between six and seven times more stations than today."

Why would there be more weather stations around in 1987 then there are today when interest in climate change has increased?

Very good question. I think it wasa pointed out in the comments that the number of stations does not meet the Nyquist Criteria for spatial resolution.

[jmc]

1) There's just nothing that competes with liquid-fueled internal combustion engines for power/mass ratio, safety, cost, and convenience. It's hard to see how we could ever engineer around all those advantages at once. Maybe it will happen someday, but at the moment it looks like ICE is going to be around for a long time.

Not quite sure how important power to mass ratio is considering you don't actually want to release all that energy in the shortest possible time in anycase (i.e. by exploding to fuel in the tank of your car) electric cars can reach 50 mph easily and soon 70 or 80 mph should be routinely attainable. That is enough for many applications.

The energy to mass ratio is a different issue and I agree with you that batteries don't come close. However in terms of range there's a case to be had that commuter cars and urban delivery vans are over designed for the use they are actually put to. For 90% of driving you don't need a range of 600-1000 miles. A range of 50-100 miles is sufficient for a wide variety of uses and this is something batteries can attain.

I don't think we will replace all the uses of internal combustuion engines anytime soon, especially with long-haul freight, air transport and transport in remote areas. But if we could displace 50-70% of transport related oil consumption that would put existing oil reserves under less stress as they would only be used for their indispensable applications. It would also do alot for air quality.

There is nothing intrinsically safe about an internal combustion engine, any safety is a result of over a century of development. Any dangers to do with battery fires are simply a result of them being further down the learning curve I see every reason to believe the batteries will soon surpass IECs in terms of safety.

Electricity is likely to cost less with time as its sources of production are so diverse and there is practically an infinite possibility to cut costs through technological innovation (fission , fusion, solar etc.) oil is more limited geographicaly and costs more, I doubt that will change anytime soon. An electric engine is also simpler than an IEC the main cost is the battery. Electric cars could well be a cheaper means of transportation within a decade.

In terms of convenience, the electricity infrastructure is everywhere, what could be more convenient than plugging your car in after coming back from work. Electricity is probably one of the most convenient forms of energy.