Human civilizaton will end around 2050

[Doug1029]

33 minutes ago, Harte said:

Nah.

Source

Harte

Thanks.

325 years is a lot lower than 600 years.  We lost 225 years of coal in just 53 years.

Doug

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Not by hist description,  it seems counter intuit nowdays to use coal to create wind turbines.  If that is your business, then it is more efficient and ecconomical to use wind turbines to produce the electricity.  This is what frustrates me most is that so many large industries are still in the dark ages when it comes to generating electricity.  The electric company in my area built a coal plant over 35 years ago in a state that at the time was the leader in solar and other alternative energy sources.  Now the company wants the state to bail them out of their existing debt for building that coal plant so they can "invest in alternative" sources of energy.!!!???  And the debt they have should have been paid off by now but isn't because it includes a million dollars that they had to pay in damages to the Navajo nation for destroying an ancient burial site.  Corporate greed at its worst, in my opinion.  It is always about the current bottom line and no concern for the future bottom line.  If all the consumers are dead where will they get more money?  (they got off easy only having to pay a million)

35 years ago both wind and solar were a lot less developed than they are now.  I don't recall quite when wind costs first fell below natural gas, but it wasn't 35 years ago.  Solar technology is just now becoming economically feasible.  I don't blame the CEO of that company.  He was doing the best he could with what he had at the time.  However, under capitalism, if you make a mistake, you go broke.  That's what should happen here.  But businessmen are all capitalists until they see an advantage to be had by chucking capitalism overboard.

If there are investment opportunities to be had in "alternative" energy and business is not willing to make them, then maybe govt should make them, cutting out the middle man.  But that is a dangerous road to start down.

Doug

[Harte]

47 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Regulation should not be a requirement.  If the CEO of the company had paid attention he would have realized he could take the company into the future and be a path leader making more money in the long run.  Instead he invested in a new coal plant and invested in the nuclear plant in Arizona.  He had access to all kinds of leading edge technology right here in a 100 mile radius of the headquarters of the company.  Short sightedness seems to be a corporate failing.

Investment depends on financing.

Financing depends on risk.

35 years ago there was no operating "clean" energy-producing technology that could be financed. That is, back then, even solar panels (basically the top of the game at the time) were woefully inadequate. So who would have financed such a project, and what is the alternative?

Walking away (virtue signaling wasn't a term back then) and then having some other company build a similar power plant instead of you?

That's not corporate greed man. That's Capitalism.

Harte

[Harte]

47 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Thanks.

325 years is a lot lower than 600 years.  We lost 225 years of coal in just 53 years.

Doug

Sorry.

I used it in my backyard grill.

Harte

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, Harte said:

Investment depends on financing.

Financing depends on risk.

35 years ago there was no operating "clean" energy-producing technology that could be financed. That is, back then, even solar panels (basically the top of the game at the time) were woefully inadequate. So who would have financed such a project, and what is the alternative?

Walking away (virtue signaling wasn't a term back then) and then having some other company build a similar power plant instead of you?

That's not corporate greed man. That's Capitalism.

Harte

In Albuquerque there were a lot of innovations in solar and wind technology 35 years ago.  Sandia Labs & Los Alamos Labs were not the only people testing and improving it.  If it wasn't for the local engineering companies back then the solar panels on your roof companies would not exist.  And until recently there have not been very many innovations in materials.  Yet, California, Texas and Massachusets all have established solar programs that are using solar and wind power to remove the need for more gas or coal plants.  The state of New Mexico hasn't even thought about that yet, maybe because gas and coal are still the biggest money makers in the state.   

[Harte]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

In Albuquerque there were a lot of innovations in solar and wind technology 35 years ago.  Sandia Labs & Los Alamos Labs were not the only people testing and improving it.  If it wasn't for the local engineering companies back then the solar panels on your roof companies would not exist.  And until recently there have not been very many innovations in materials.  Yet, California, Texas and Massachusets all have established solar programs that are using solar and wind power to remove the need for more gas or coal plants.  The state of New Mexico hasn't even thought about that yet, maybe because gas and coal are still the biggest money makers in the state.   

Maybe.

But no states 35 years ago had established alternate energy programs that were powering any grids. They were building coal, gas, and nuclear plants (with some hydroelectric, I suppose.)

Even current solar and wind programs cost more per KWh produced than coal, gas and nuclear.

Harte

[+Desertrat56]

8 minutes ago, Harte said:

Maybe.

But no states 35 years ago had established alternate energy programs that were powering any grids. They were building coal, gas, and nuclear plants (with some hydroelectric, I suppose.)

Even current solar and wind programs cost more per KWh produced than coal, gas and nuclear.

Harte

Right!  That is my point!  PNM could have been the leader but they chose to stay old school.  They had better access than anyone at that time because of the labs, the engineering firms and the university that were all involved in this more than 35 years ago.  And the state could have supported those engineers but didn't, instead supported uranium, coal and gas.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Desertrat56

[kobolds]

A simple solution . Time to Harvest Human Meat . 

with this, We solve problem of over populate and Food.

 

[Habitat]

35 minutes ago, kobolds said:

A simple solution . Time to Harvest Human Meat . 

with this, We solve problem of over populate and Food.

 

How would you like to be served, well done ?

[tmcom]

Problem already solved, it is harvested from Plankton, promise!

 

[Tatetopa]

On 6/6/2019 at 11:30 AM, Harte said:

Walking away (virtue signaling wasn't a term back then) and then having some other company build a similar power plant instead of you?

That's not corporate greed man. That's Capitalism.

Agreed.  Capitalism is not guided by the same imperatives as a human or even a generation of humans.  If the world was guaranteed to end in a hundred years and corporations were causing it, they would be motivated to make as much profit as they could in the next century to prevent their competitors from getting a bigger market share.   It is their mandate.

Capitalism is a poor guide to direct our future but a great tool to create it. 

[Harte]

30 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Agreed.  Capitalism is not guided by the same imperatives as a human or even a generation of humans.  If the world was guaranteed to end in a hundred years and corporations were causing it, they would be motivated to make as much profit as they could in the next century to prevent their competitors from getting a bigger market share.   It is their mandate.

Capitalism is a poor guide to direct our future but a great tool to create it. 

Unless they could figure out a way to make money to prevent the world's end.

Otherwise, yes. Corporations tend to want to avoid shareholder lawsuits.

Harte

[Tatetopa]

Just now, Harte said:

Unless they could figure out a way to make money to prevent the world's end.

Yes indeed.  You have hit on it.

I(s it a matter of advertising?

[Harte]

New and IMPROVED!

Now with 5 TIMES AS MUCH WORLD-SAVING POWER!

Harte

[tortugabob]

The AGW crowd keep kicking the sky-is-falling can down the road. We should be dead according to the Algoreans. AOC tells us we have 12 years.  These kooks tell us we have 31.  I guess the hucksters have not made enough money from the climate snowflakes and poor taxpayers.

[tmcom]

4 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

The AGW crowd keep kicking the sky-is-falling can down the road. We should be dead according to the Algoreans. AOC tells us we have 12 years.  These kooks tell us we have 31.  I guess the hucksters have not made enough money from the climate snowflakes and poor taxpayers.

Geesh, don't you watch Gore, we are all dead, the world ended three years ago,...this is a recording!

[Doug1029]

On 6/8/2019 at 11:10 AM, tortugabob said:

The AGW crowd keep kicking the sky-is-falling can down the road. We should be dead according to the Algoreans. AOC tells us we have 12 years.  These kooks tell us we have 31.  I guess the hucksters have not made enough money from the climate snowflakes and poor taxpayers.

Don't go by dates; go by temps.

When warming reaches +2.0 degrees C we can expect an acceleration of ecosystem damage.  At +4 degrees C, irreversible ecosystem damage becomes common and at +9 degrees C. extinctions become a major problem, possibly including our own.

AOC's 2030 date is based on an estimate of when we will reach +2 degrees.  But that estimate actually runs from 2026 to 2038.  So 2030 will be a bit early to say we didn't reach it.  Forecasts of reaching a particular temp will not be accurate to the year, anyway.

LS will argue that it can't get as warm as +9 degrees.  But it did at the Permian-Triassic extinction when earth lost 95% of its land species.  You can argue that volcanoes had a lot to do with that and it's probably true.  Volcanoes release huge amounts of CO2.

SO:  +2 = increasing ecosystem damage.

+4 = irreversible ecosystem damage.

+9 = extinctions, possible including us.

THAT's your time table.

Doug

[Farmer77]

On 6/5/2019 at 12:26 AM, tmcom said:

No, we need the green nutters to run rampant and children try to shame us.

Perhaps if you didnt behave in such a manner it would be necessary ?

[+Desertrat56]

I read an article years ago that claimed that the 24 hours that no planes were allowed to fly in the U.S. caused the temperature to drop 1 degree across the country.  It was a long time ago but I think scientists were quoted (some of you really like that).  It seemed relevant to climate change back then.

[Duke Wellington]

On ‎04‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 3:14 PM, Eldorado said:

"According to a new analysis by an Australian think-tank, the crossover point for climate change will be here by 2050, writing that the “extremely serious outcomes” have been ignored because they “fall outside the human experience of the last thousand years.”

"The Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration describes our current climate change status as dire, writing that “planetary and human systems reaching a ‘point of no return’ by mid-century, in which the prospect of a largely uninhabitable Earth leads to the breakdown of nations and the international order.”"

Full short news report at the Big Smoke (Aus): https://www.thebigsmoke.com.au/2019/06/04/we-now-have-a-date-for-our-climate-apocalypse/

At Vice tech mag: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597kpd/new-report-suggests-high-likelihood-of-human-civilization-coming-to-an-end-in-2050

The Paper: https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/papers

Its not conclusive that it is real or to the extent claimed yet.

Nothing remarkable that stands out in the above graph. It could be normal warming.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by RabidMongoose

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

I read an article years ago that claimed that the 24 hours that no planes were allowed to fly in the U.S. caused the temperature to drop 1 degree across the country.  It was a long time ago but I think scientists were quoted (some of you really like that).  It seemed relevant to climate change back then.

It was an unprecedented opportunity to measure the atmosphere's opacity.  And planes put out a lot of particulates that raise the earth's temp.  I vaguely remember reading that same article.

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Its not conclusive that it is real or to the extent claimed yet.

Nothing remarkable that stands out in the above graph. It could be normal warming.

 

 

Ups and downs in earth's mean temps are normal.  Whether the Roman Warm Period was warmer than current is up for grabs, especially if you mean land surface temps.  Sediment cores shore it warmer than today.  The Little Ice Age, as shown on this graph is a little confusing.  The graph shows considerable cooling before the Little Ice Age even began (1257).  Even 1257 is debated as being too early.

What is important is what has been the cause of warming since about 1850.

Doug