tuxnharley

toddalin

Agreed! Do you really think that Mad Max is going to let Humungus let our gas from our offshore refineries get through to the other states?

out2kayak

Personally, the engines and car work I do today are alcohol compatible. At worse, making grain alcohol is not all that difficult and the vehicles will run on it.

The whole laughable thing about this is that really they are running fossil fuel (coal or natural gas) powered cars. They don't want nuclear power plants (which, IMHO, is the safest solution). They don't want mining, which is where copper comes from (and what those bird blenders are made from). Sure, some power is hydro-electric, but there are many reports that Montana and other states are thinking of reducing the California portion of water and removing dams, etc. which will have a direct impact on west coast life.

Solar simply cannot provide the solution -- insufficient KWH per square inch, even if you cover the bulk of the US, given the current population growth.

Hydrogen is generated using energy (it's more of a container of energy, so to speak).

So... Either we go back to horse and buggy era (and deal with the methane emissions), simply live in caves or come to terms with modern societies require energy.

Many things grow in manure that can be fermented, which then can be burned. We get plenty of manure from various sources already, so...

Besides, does anyone ever read the Constitution? No where does it say the Federal government has the authority. I expect states will end up fighting it when they are on the brink of financial ruin or the US will end up having significant civil strife (or both).

Out of curiosity, can the California grid keep up with the present electrical demands? How do they propose to handle the vast increase if everyone uses electricity? What happens during / after Earth quakes?



-- Joe

LouieM

Actually, that is exactly backwards, based on geological evidence, which is my field. Variations in the output of the sun over long time intervals cause the earth's climate to cool down or warm up. If the sun's output increases, the earth gets warmer. Eight hundred years later, on average, CO2 levels increase; thus, CO2 levels follow climate change, not the other way around as you hear in the media. Complexities abound in climate research, but there are no data that show that people change the climate of the globe.

This forum certainly is an appropriate place to address this topic. None of us should feel guilty over bogus anthropogenic climate change propaganda.

TCracingCA

SDVette

Your theory is not compatible with mainstream scientific thinking.
Many factors control global warming/cooling. You've listed one. The data from the last 50 years cannot be explained by the traditional models unless you add in human activity.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html#.W5ntYOhKiUk

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

SI67

So I gotta grow a big beard if want to keep driving my Corvette?

AZDoug

"Mainstream" thinking used to have the sun revolving around the flat earth.

The earth was much warmer several hundred years ago than it is now. I guess the medieval warming period was due to horse poop decomposing into CO2 from hauling carts around in Europe? Greenland used to be fairly ice free, compared to now.
Doug

pop23235

Drothgeb

64luke

AZDoug

Greenland temps, reconstructed from ice core data. Lots warmer in the past following teh last ice age which ended ~11000 years ago. Long term trend is toward another ice age..

SDVette

That graph ends in 1950.
Modern analysis and debate on the Greenland data: https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

domenic tallarita

What I am afraid of is "who is paying the gas bill for the sun". what if they stop and the sun runs out of gas? Ask Gore!

Dom

toddalin

Actually, contrary to the old TV commercials, the oil is primarily decomposed plant matter, and not animal. There was a heck of a lot more plant material for a much longer period.

I have a scene on my garden railroad of a dinosaur dig next to a tar pit. The scene depicts a diplotocus in the tar, like the mammoth figure at the La Brea Tar Pits. Everybody enjoys the scene and very few pick up on the fact that there has never been a dinosaur found in a tar pit.

63 340HP

The Scientists should be a little embarrassed with the excessive simplicity and omission of scientific analysis in your blog references, but I understand that editorial by omission to dumb down a complex issue like climate science is good enough to sell an unproven theory. Many theories, and observations, and valid analysis reviews of mainstream climate science, are in opposition to the fashionable magical jump to attribute the majority of recent global warming to anthropogenic CO2. You may want to read some of the skeptical analysis papers, to recognize the science is not as definitive as the fashionable propaganda belief.

If you have a background in physics and mathematics the link below may be enlightening, but even a reasonable layman can wade through the advanced math to gain some insight as to where the "magic occurs" in the mainstream science of catastrophic man made climate change. Some of the questions and analysis exposes the jumps from real science to speculative climate science.

http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

If you do take the time to read this series of posts about climate science for an educated audience, you will note that the author follows the mainstream science up to exposing the error when the "magic occurs." The author even recognizes and resolves the science to calculate the range of climate forcing from CO2, with the error analysis that is omitted in mainstream science. There is no denial of greenhouse gas warming effect, or CO2's greenhouse effect, but the question of magnitude and significance of CO2 is called into question. An interesting anecdote is that since this series was authored (along with other independent science) the IPCC made two significant revision changes in their assumptions for CO2's climate forcing. One was to discount the 95% assured agreed to magnitude of CO2's potential climate forcing by 67% (they missed a 95% by 67%), The second was to broaden the range of error for CO2's climate forcing downward to the edge of insignificance (establishing a new range with potential error greater than the revised forcing value). You may have read about the discount during the Paris Agreement, when the mainstream science was faced with agreement rejection based on a 2.5dC warming per a doubling of CO2, they revised the projection down to 1.5dC (without an accompanying scientific analysis to explain or validate the revision, or the potential error that grew to +/- 3dC, but understandable when you recognize the IPCC is a political body).

An easier to read contrary blog is https://www.therightclimatestuff.com/home.html

The point to recognize is that mainstream climate science is not a mature settled field of science.

I expect many of the participants in C2 here have a background in advanced science (physics, engineering, math, etc,) or experience and certifications in fields where they may relate the concepts in the linked Post series (some, like me, enjoy the challenge of a refresh of the physics involved). While a healthy dose of skepticism regarding CO2's significance in climate change is good, the skepticism should no stop with CO2 or the concerns with the solar radiance theory of your blog post, because cyclical heat transfer in the oceans and atmosphere's water cycle remain a growing field of climate science that is questioning many of the assumptions of the past fifty years,

CorvetteMikeB

Are you going to have gasoline in CA in 25 years for your Corvettes?

The question should be will there be enough drivers who drive in 25-35 years?? With self driving cars and the % of new teenage drivers getting their driving license each year is an all time low. The price $$$ of new cars/trucks is only one of the reasons they do not get their driver's license. Lack of a desire to own a vehicle is another factor. They would rather take a bus or train to work then drive. Having a driver's licence might be a novelty someday.

sstonebreaker

Green Oil: Scientists Turn Algae Into Petroleum In 30 Minutes

So gasoline will be renewable too.

SDVette

63_340HP:

Thanks for posting that (seriously!). It is an interesting read.

We agree on this: Climate science is not a mature field.

We don't know (and we can't know, I would argue) how the complex system will respond to input. We can only model it with ever-improving models, based on observation and the laws of science. And certainly, the early "doomsday" climate change scenarios were wrong, painting the term "climate change" with a bad brush.

But even the model you reference points to 20% of recent measured warming to be caused by humans.

Given that much of the world (India, China) is on the brink of massive industrial development.. and that it takes DECADES to reform existing infrastructure, it seems pretty crazy to me to keep our heads buried in the sand.

I won't post further on this thread. I prefer to discuss Corvettes with you guys..

Fred

Drothgeb