Why the AGW Science is Irrelevant

The irony and stupidity of Republicans that support the coal industry that's one of the most ecologically damaging industries ever conceived becomes more apparent as time goes by.

Within the very near future coal becomes 100% obsolete as an energy source as it's about to be replaced by compact nuclear fusion reactors. The Lockheed Skunk Works is well into the development program on just such a reactor.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...nuclear-fusion-generator-investment/83870398/

The only sad side is that just because technology will make the burning of coal obsolete that's just a small pebble in the destruction of the planet that the Republicans are attempting. They won't be happy until the planet is completely uninhabitable for humans because nothing is going to stop them until extinction of the human species kills them all off.

 

So this is an interesting post, mostly because it gets one factual thing correct. Temps have risen less than 1C over the preceding 150 or so years. This is remarkable mostly because the definition of AGW or man induced warming is by definition that warming which is greater than 2C per century. The assumption is that natural warming towards a median temp range is 1.5-2C per century is normal, any additional warming would then be attributable to man's influence. So, given your temp data, man hasn't actually influenced much, if anything. The problem with the current ability to articulate impact, we simply cannot to that level of granularity define what if any impact our economies produce.

 

The only reason that coal is "cheap" is because the producers and users are all but exempted from financial liability for the damaging effects.

By way of example in 2014 Duke Energy discharged tens of thousands tons of coal ash and about 27 million gallons of contaminated water into the Dan River coating the bottom of the river with heavy metals and radioactive waste contained in the coal ask. Ultimately Duke Energy only recovered about 3000 tons of the coal ash, or about 5%, and paid a $102 million fine, while the Dan River remains highly polluted to the point that people are still advised to not eat the fish. While different levels of clean-up costs have been estimate to actually remove ALL of the coal ash from the Dan River would cost trillions of dollars. If those costs would have been rolled into the cost of the electrical production using coal then the price of electricity from coal would dwarf the cost of electricity from any other source.

We can't even get the coal industry to use the "clean coal" technology they claim would reduce atmospheric pollution by up to 40%. The EPA, under the Obama Administration, issued regulations that would have required the industry to reduce emissions by only 30%, or 75% of what the coal industry claims it can do, not later than 2030... so of course Republicans wanted to eliminate the regulation that only required 75% of what the coal industry stated it could do to stop the pollution it creates.

Republicans apparently want pollution just for the sake of pollution because the coal industry itself has established that up to 40% of the pollution it creates is completely unnecessary while Republicans oppose reducing the pollution at all.

 

Production of coal is going up due to the developing countries use of it. China and India drive that market. The price of coal in developed countries does not translate into cheaper energy production and the Paris accords have effectively attempted to prevent third world and developing countries from using coal by refusing to finance those plants via the World Bank. Fortunately the third world and developing countries are ignoring the Paris accords for the good of their economies and peoples.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/06/the-world-bank-notices-the-asian-coal-rush/

 

It's always interesting when the word "assumption" is used because it invariably begs the questions "who's making the assumption and what is the assumption based upon?"

One thing that science is unable to determine from past warming and cooling cycles is the "rate of change" in the temperatures. Science can determine a relatively accurate "temperature" of a period in Earth's past but how quickly it changed from one temperature to another isn't contained in any natural record. Other factors related to the temperatures are for example PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere can be determined by several different natural sources.

The climatologists have relatively good information on all of the natural factors as well has the manmade factors that effect global temperatures and they've repeatedly attempted to reproduce the actual global temperature changes based upon natural factors alone and natural factors alone are unable to account for the change. It's only when deforestation and increased CO2 emissions, both a result of human activity, are included in the model does it match up with the actual measurements starting in 1880.

So your "argument" based upon "assumption" becomes moot because we know that natural factors alone would not account for the increased global temperatures.

But like I said, AGW isn't really my concern. I'll be dead in the next 30 years and I don't have any children to worry about. My issue is with the fact that the coal companies, as well as other companies, are violating both Natural Law and the Natural Right of the People/Person because NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO POLLUTE OR DESTROY NATURE.

Like I mentioned earlier I care about the Natural Rights of People and even though the United States was founded based upon the ideology of Natural Rights it's not something that Republicans seem to care about at all because they don't really believe in the Constitution or the Intent of the Founders of the United States. They have one focus and one focus alone and that's what the Republicans want to believe and to hell with everyone else. The GOP in Congress is ready to prove that today because they're saying "We have a Mandate" and it's the "Republican Mandate" as opposed to being an American Mandate.

 

People are advised not to eat the fish in many areas. No news there. There was a release and clean up.

The coal generation plants meet all standards. The phony fine particulate matter standards are based on data which the EPA refuses to disclose and which has never been repeated. Additionally the real world data does not match the predictions made by the EPA using this data. This is all a political attempt by the Obama administration to shut down the coal industry.

Your last sentence is absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

And no one has the right to kill people based on speculation from computer models which cannot predict the historical record.

 

If developing economies are still using coal
who is getting killed by not being able to use coal

 

Sure, after the little ice age ended, it warmed up 7/8ths of one degree over a following 132 year period. Big Whup!

 

The developed western countries who embrace the Paris accords would deny the use of coal to developing and third world countries. That is immoral.

 

No it isn't. People in desperately poor countries have had the same opportunity. You're just talking nonsense.

 

But CO2 is not a pollutant, as it is harmless in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

 

And also far from possible with any foreseeable scenario.

These are not compatible with human existence. 10C is. In fact, people evolved to live in a warm climate, and our ancestors of several million years ago, who were anatomically not very different from us, lived in a world several C warmer than the current one.

As there is no possibility of even getting close to 10C, which we know was quite salubrious for our ancestors, it's irrelevant. In any case, there's a safety valve in the oceans: evaporation increases very rapidly as water temperature increases above about 30C, so cloud cover would increase, raising the earth's albedo. This is the mechanism that places the ceiling on temperature observed in the paleoclimate record.

Their ancestors also dealt with it just fine.

 

What part of "average" are you not understanding because it seems to be a problem here

AVERAGE - means some warmed faster and higher some slower and lower. But it is the destabilisation of the climate by that differential that is the problem

Unless you think we can protect every farm in ever country in the world?

 

Yes but not all of us are adapted to hot climates any more. An example of that is our indigenous patients here who become cold when they have a fever instead of hot - Europeans are more likely to cook themselves in the tropics

And your "safety valve" does not really exist - please please look at the people who have actually RESEARCHED this

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441

But this is a research paper so you may need to expand your knowledge on concepts like "positive feedback"

 

The paper is nothing but speculation. The lower limit of climate sensitivity to CO2 in AR5 is 1.5 which is based on real world data. Higher values are generated by computer models which assume positive feedbacks which the data do not support.

- - - Updated - - -

What destabilization ?? Where is the data that show that the min and max now is any different than it was in the past ??

 

I'm not sure what your rant is addressing. 7/8th of a degree, over a 132 years, since the end of the little ice age, is a welcome change, not the end of the frkn world.

 

Huh? Run that one by me again.

I guess that's why they almost always prefer warm climates for their vacations....

Yes, of course it does, don't be absurd. The obvious temperature ceiling in the paleoclimate record proves it.

And, based on "researching" their inaccurate MODELS, have concocted conclusions not supported by actual empirical data...

<yawn> water vapor-albedo feedback is negative. If it were positive, the earth would long ago have become an oven like Venus, instead of showing an iron-clad temperature ceiling in the paleoclimate record. Ice-albedo feedback, by contrast, is positive. So the real danger is another Ice Age, not global warming.

 

The destabilization is something AGW screamers have made up. There is no evidence whatever that climate is less stable now than in the past.

We can't, never could, and should not imagine we ought to.