Energy Discussion

[taxi1]

We can’t make models accurate enough to predict temperatures...

You bring up a good point on modeling and what we know.

We know that CO2 correlates with temperature. We know that we are dumping a absolutely huge pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere. We know that atmosphere is a complex nonlinear dynamic system with "fat tails" uncertainty distribution on how it will react to this pulse. Could be relatively proportional, but also could be catastrophic with an unacceptable probability.

And we lack the models to actually say with any certainty that a catastrophic, civilization-ending outcome isn't in the offing.

It's the lack of models that compels us to control CO2. We know we are going to cause something to happen, but we are flying blind otherwise.

 

[Hair Warrior]

If you believe global warming is mainly caused by humans, then you therefore by default must believe in advanced antediluvian civilizations… bc global warming has been ongoing for thousands of years.

Pick your poison. Just be ready for Brett and nittany to label you on their list of conspiracy theorists trafficking in debunked conspiracy theories.

 

[Jim123]

Shit... the medieval warm period was one of the factors that caused the great plagues of Europe.

The isthmus of Panama (and how it mucks things up and causes the gulfstream) is the root cause of why the Sahara Desert exists, but that's another discussion.

 

[taxi1]

If you believe global warming is mainly caused by humans...

I'm 100% sure the temperature and CO2 are tied together.

In going back through the climate record, 400 PPM of CO2 goes with much warmer climates than we have right now, so the system is not in equilibrium. We're on track to hit 1000 PPM about when my youngest is 80 years old, assuming we don't do something. The last time in the record that happened, tropical forests were at both poles. That was equilibrium, rain forests in Antarctica.

And even if the temps don't rise, ocean acidification is a bad thing too.

Again, we lack the models to say that this thing we are doing to the planet, that we know has an effect, won't send things fubar.

 

[Hair Warrior]

I'm 100% sure the temperature and CO2 are tied together.

In going back through the climate record, 400 PPM of CO2 goes with much warmer climates than we have right now, so the system is not in equilibrium. We're on track to hit 1000 PPM about when my youngest is 80 years old, assuming we don't do something. The last time in the record that happened, tropical forests were at both poles. That was equilibrium, rain forests in Antarctica.

And even if the temps don't rise, ocean acidification is a bad thing too.

Again, we lack the models to say that this thing we are doing to the planet, that we know has an effect, won't send things fubar.

So do you have an explanation for the global temp changes before the year 1700 or so? See charts in my earlier post.

 

[Hair Warrior]

but that's another discussion.

Why not this one?

 

[wink]

And we lack the models to actually say with any certainty that a catastrophic, civilization-ending outcome isn't in the offing.

Or, one could say with equal authority, that we lack the models to say with any certainty a catastrophic civilization ending outcome IS in the offing.

We are meeting our CO2 goals even when we ditch idiotic accords. Meanwhile major competitors don't give a shit about the so called global problem. Economically it is like competing with one armed tied behind your back. And we enthusiasticly do so knowing it won't help prevent or reverse any predicted bad outcomes becasue of the cheaters who will win in the end.

 

[ABMD]

Or, one could say with equal authority, that we lack the models to say with any certainty a catastrophic civilization ending outcome IS in the offing.

We are meeting our CO2 goals even when we ditch idiotic accords. Meanwhile major competitors don't give a shit about the so called global problem. Economically it is like competing with on armed tied behind your back. And we enthusiasticly do so knowing it won't help prevent or reverse any predicted bad outcomes becasue of the cheaters who will win in the end.

Amen

 

[scoolbubba]

Or, one could say with equal authority, that we lack the models to say with any certainty a catastrophic civilization ending outcome IS in the offing.

We are meeting our CO2 goals even when we ditch idiotic accords. Meanwhile major competitors don't give a shit about the so called global problem. Economically it is like competing with one armed tied behind your back. And we enthusiasticly do so knowing it won't help prevent or reverse any predicted bad outcomes becasue of the cheaters who will win in the end.

Apocalypse Never covers this pretty well.

 

[taxi1]

So do you have an explanation for the global temp changes before the year 1700 or so? See charts in my earlier post.

I don't.

What were the CO2 levels over that period? Were they relatively constant? Peak values?

We've raised the CO2 to levels not seen in a few million years. Whenever they've been this high, the planet has been way, way warmer. Like 3 degrees C warmer. Can you assure me that it won't happen this time? I don't think the climate record has ever shown as rapid a rise in CO2 as we are giving it.

Or, one could say with equal authority, that we lack the models to say with any certainty a catastrophic civilization ending outcome IS in the offing.

Well, that's been a key counter-argument to climate change...we lack reliable models. Flip it around. We would not go flying through the mountains, below the peaks, in the goo, strictly off GPS without maps or some kind of terrain-seeing radar.

We know the atmosphere responds to CO2 and we know we're giving it a monster pulse, we don't know what it is going to do but we know with an unacceptable level of probability that it may change in a way that will be catastrophic.

We're running a chemistry experiment on the planet while flying blind. Our policy decisions should assume our models are unreliable, are unable to confirm we won't hit the mountain, so to speak.

Meanwhile major competitors don't give a shit about the so called global problem...the cheaters who will win in the end.

The tragedy of the commons, yes.

 

[SlickAg]

 

[ABMD]

A Russian Pipeline Changes Direction, and Energy Politics Come to the Fore

Amid an energy crunch in Europe, one of Russia’s largest natural gas pipelines began pulling gas out of Western Europe back eastward, Russian news agencies reported.

www.nytimes.com

It would be nice if the US and Canada could be Europe’s LNG supplier of choice. Many EU and NATO member states seem a bit too beholden to Russia for their energy needs.

The US makes up about 7% of Europe's Nat Gas (via LNG) supply. If you remove Russia, US jumps to about 10%, so not insignificant.

 

[Randy Daytona]

The US makes up about 7% of Europe's Nat Gas (via LNG) supply. If you remove Russia, US jumps to about 10%, so not insignificant.

I believe most of our LNG within the EU goes to Poland, which for historical reasons doesnt trust either the Russians or the Germans and is willing to pay a premium for an independent supply source (LNG from the US).

Second LNG terminal in Poland | Central Europe Energy Partners

www.ceep.be

Ironic that while we are exporting large amounts of LNG, the northeast still imports some from Europe/Russia due to lack of pipeline infrastructure and the Jones Act.

 

[ABMD]

I believe most of our LNG within the EU goes to Poland, which for historical reasons doesnt trust either the Russians or the Germans and is willing to pay a premium for an independent supply source (LNG from the US).

Second LNG terminal in Poland | Central Europe Energy Partners

www.ceep.be

Ironic that while we are exporting large amounts of LNG, the northeast still imports some from Europe/Russia due to lack of pipeline infrastructure and the Jones Act.

Yup, New Englanders can thank NY for that.

That's how you end up with photos like this, a French flagged LNG tanker full of Russian LNG in Boston harbor, back in 2018.


Here is it's transit from Russia to the US.



Time to repeal or reform the Jones Act.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Yup, New Englanders can thank NY for that.

That's how you end up with photos like this, a French flagged LNG tanker full of Russian LNG in Boston harbor, back in 2018.
View attachment 33275

Here is it's transit from Russia to the US.

View attachment 33273

Time to repeal or reform the Jones Act.

Pipelines are bad. That is somehow greener because reasons.