AGW +2C? +6C? It has happened before.

[lawrocket 3]

Thanks. I just reckoned that the demand for lithium will continue to increase. When that happens, human ability to access and exploit it will also increase.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,589]

So it's all the sellers' fault????? And the Europeans who went hunting and created the market in the first place had what exactly to do with it?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Anvilbrother 0]

If you have a product you will find a seller. Neither is innocent ,and your missing the point, just try to imagine the U.S. without ever having had any slaves. What would that look like now?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[billvon 3,120]

> just try to imagine the U.S. without ever having had any slaves. What would that look like now?

Depends. What would the US have looked like if it lost a big part of its economy between 1600-1860? The US would have grown more slowly, and its technology would have also grown more slowly (the cotton gin would have been almost useless without slave labor, for example, and there would have been less need for shipment of goods - thus less development of transportation infrastructure.)

[billvon 3,120]

>What the deniers have on their side is people's desire for climate change to not be happening. It helps people justify their disregard of the environment. It is selfishness pure and simple.

Great description of the job of a science writer from a Neal Stephenson book:

================
His job . . . was to explain science to the general public and, as such, to act as a lightning rod for people who could not accept all the things that science implied about their worldview and their way of life, and who showed a kind of harebrained ingenuity in finding ways to refute it.
=================

[Anvilbrother 0]

billvon

>What the deniers have on their side is people's desire for climate change to not be happening. It helps people justify their disregard of the environment. It is selfishness pure and simple.

Great description of the job of a science writer from a Neal Stephenson book:

================
His job . . . was to explain science to the general public and, as such, to act as a lightning rod for people who could not accept all the things that science implied about their worldview and their way of life, and who showed a kind of harebrained ingenuity in finding ways to refute it.
=================

On the flip side

Quote

For nearly four decades, we’ve increasingly been bombarded with global warming alarmism. What actually should alarm us is the corruption of science and, consequently, the undermining of knowledge-based authority.

“Global warming” began being called “climate change” about the time warming so obviously had tapered off that annual differences were essentially immeasurable, and well within the margin of error.

But warmists profit by scaring people to justify heavy-handed schemes for wealth transfer and control. To salvage their schemes, they substituted an unremarkable, meaningless expression – climate change – and claimed it had an innate, identical urgency.

In the immortal – or should we say, immoral – words of Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warming-651875-global-control.html

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[billvon 3,120]

"But warmists profit by scaring people to justify heavy-handed schemes for wealth transfer and control. To salvage their schemes, they substituted an unremarkable, meaningless expression – climate change – and claimed it had an innate, identical urgency."

Sounds like text from people who could not accept all the things that science implied about their worldview and their way of life, and who show a kind of harebrained ingenuity in finding ways to refute it.

[Anvilbrother 0]

billvon

"But warmists profit by scaring people to justify heavy-handed schemes for wealth transfer and control. To salvage their schemes, they substituted an unremarkable, meaningless expression – climate change – and claimed it had an innate, identical urgency."

Sounds like text from people who could not accept all the things that science implied about their worldview and their way of life, and who show a kind of harebrained ingenuity in finding ways to refute it.

Are you implying there are not alarmists making money hand over fist?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rushmc 23]

Anvilbrother

***"But warmists profit by scaring people to justify heavy-handed schemes for wealth transfer and control. To salvage their schemes, they substituted an unremarkable, meaningless expression – climate change – and claimed it had an innate, identical urgency."

Sounds like text from people who could not accept all the things that science implied about their worldview and their way of life, and who show a kind of harebrained ingenuity in finding ways to refute it.

Are you implying there are not alarmists making money hand over fist?

when alarmists make big money it is considered morally justifiable

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Seveneves? Just finished reading that the other day.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,120]

>Are you implying there are not alarmists making money hand over fist?

There, of course, are alarmists making money hand over fist. There are deniers making money hand over fist. There are Christians, atheists, Muslims, anti-vaxxers, creationists and white supremacists making money hand over fist.

But of the people who are USING alarmism or denial to make money hand over fist? The number of people making money off denial are several orders of magnitude greater than the people making money off alarmism. Ask anyone in the fossil fuel industry. Or the leisure boat industry. Or the RV industry. Heck, ask RushMC.

[Anvilbrother 0]

billvon

>Are you implying there are not alarmists making money hand over fist?

There, of course, are alarmists making money hand over fist. There are deniers making money hand over fist. There are Christians, atheists, Muslims, anti-vaxxers, creationists and white supremacists making money hand over fist.

But of the people who are USING alarmism or denial to make money hand over fist? The number of people making money off denial are several orders of magnitude greater than the people making money off alarmism. Ask anyone in the fossil fuel industry. Or the leisure boat industry. Or the RV industry. Heck, ask RushMC.

Saying a company is bad because it is making money off an existing commodity is not the same as someone profiting off of a panic they induced themselves.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[brenthutch 444]

lawrocket

******Think of the mess we would be in if we did not have: oil, natural gas, coal, copper, iron, aluminum etc.

Of course, the Superfund does add to the debt.

True. Good thing we're moving towards batteries. Everyone knows that they are great for groundwater once they're used up. And that cobalt used in production of them? It's far from pleasant.

Bill: you've mentioned peak oil many times in the past. Assuming we get a massive number of EVs on the road, will "peak lithium" start to become a concern?

I would like Bill to give us a refresher on the notion of "peak oil". There is at least a half a century supply of oil in current reserves, with current technology. Much more than that if one considers new discoveries and new technologies. (Think fracking ). Once oil does become more scarce, we still have nothing to worry about. There is a magical rainbow unicorn power that will intervene and save us by slowly making oil less attractive and alternative energy sources more attractive. This magical potion is called "the market".

[billvon 3,120]

>Saying a company is bad because it is making money off an existing commodity is not
>the same as someone profiting off of a panic they induced themselves.

A company that denies climate change in order to enrich themselves is every bit as bad as someone who exaggerates the risks in order to enrich themselves. Both are committing fraud.

[billvon 3,120]

>I would like Bill to give us a refresher on the notion of "peak oil".

That's the concept that at some point there is no amount of development, or technology, or drilling that will get you the same amounts of cheap oil that the world once enjoyed. At that point you have to either accept the decline or switch to alternatives (tight oil via fracking, synthetic fuels, tar sands etc.)

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>I would like Bill to give us a refresher on the notion of "peak oil".

That's the concept that at some point there is no amount of development, or technology, or drilling that will get you the same amounts of cheap oil that the world once enjoyed. At that point you have to either accept the decline or switch to alternatives (tight oil via fracking, synthetic fuels, tar sands etc.)

We are currently in the process switching to alternatives (fracking, and tight oil), and the price of oil is going DOWN, production is going UP, and last year, the worlds recoverable reserves WENT UP!!!! It would seem that we are no where near "peak oil"

[lawrocket 3]

brenthutch

***>I would like Bill to give us a refresher on the notion of "peak oil".

That's the concept that at some point there is no amount of development, or technology, or drilling that will get you the same amounts of cheap oil that the world once enjoyed. At that point you have to either accept the decline or switch to alternatives (tight oil via fracking, synthetic fuels, tar sands etc.)

We are currently in the process switching to alternatives (fracking, and tight oil), and the price of oil is going DOWN, production is going UP, and last year, the worlds recoverable reserves WENT UP!!!! It would seem that we are no where near "peak oil"

The low hanging fruit has been used. That's why we are using shale oil and the like.

Bill on: regarding the statement about companies making money off of overstating or understating risks. What about scientists or politicians who make money off of overstating or understanding the risks? I'm talking about those who are Paul Ehrlich level. Those who make a career out of alarmism or denialism.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>We are currently in the process switching to alternatives (fracking, and tight oil), and
>the price of oil is going DOWN

Well, it has been going up since March. This is very good news for US oil suppliers, because most tight oil operations are not profitable below about $60-$70 a barrel. When it was at $50 a lot of them were looking at shutting down operations. Look for it to stabilize around $80-$90 within about a year, which is the point at which almost all tight-oil operations are profitable. Then, as tight oil supplies decline, this will rise again.

> It would seem that we are no where near "peak oil"

We are now pretty much out of cheap oil. Oil prices will rise as the last of the cheap oil is pumped and we switch to tight oil supplies.

[kallend 2,150]

billvon

We are now pretty much out of cheap oil. Oil prices will rise as the last of the cheap oil is pumped and we switch to tight oil supplies.

When I bought my first car oil was $21/barrel.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

kallend

***

We are now pretty much out of cheap oil. Oil prices will rise as the last of the cheap oil is pumped and we switch to tight oil supplies.

When I bought my first car oil was $21/barrel.

When you bought your first car, Henry ford was still building his assembly line.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 23]

Continuing the OP

The point? It HAS happened before

Quote

I wonder what caused a shift in ‘radiative forcing’ 9,000 years ago? Good thing that it happened though, or we would likely not have the civilization we have today.

Damn coal burners

Notice WHO this is from!

Quote

From OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY:

CORVALLIS, Ore. — A new study has found that the massive Laurentide ice sheet that covered Canada during the last ice age initially began shrinking through calving of icebergs, and then abruptly shifted into a new regime where melting on the continent took precedence, ultimately leading to the sheet’s demise.

Researchers say a shift in ‘radiative forcing’ began prior to 9,000 years ago and kicked the deglaciation into overdrive. The results are important, scientists say, because they may provide a clue to how ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica may respond to a warming climate.

Results of the study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation with support from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are being published this week in Nature Geoscience.

David Ullman, a postdoctoral researcher at Oregon State University and lead author on the study, said there are two mechanisms through which ice sheets diminish — dynamically, from the jettisoning of icebergs at the fringes, or by a negative ‘surface mass balance,’ which compares the amount of snow accumulation relative to melting. When more snow accumulates than melts, the surface mass balance is positive.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/23/a-shift-in-climate-forcing-led-to-demise-of-laurentide-ice-sheet-9000-years-ago/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

***

We are now pretty much out of cheap oil. Oil prices will rise as the last of the cheap oil is pumped and we switch to tight oil supplies.

When I bought my first car oil was $21/barrel.

Adjusted for inflation a barrel of oil is less now than when you bought your first car.

[rushmc 23]

brenthutch

***April 9, Brenthutch: "Chevy halts production of the Volt . . . . Car of the Year, my ass."

May 29th, Cleantechnica: "2016 Chevy Volt Ordering In California Has Begun!"

June 16, Brenthutch: "Oh, and Tesla will be bankrupt within five years."

From greencarreports.com "We don't have confirmed numbers on what today's Volt costs to build, but Akerson himself admitted last May that GM loses money on each one."

Only a lefty would define that as success.

Just another way of showing what you have been saying

Quote

A Gas Guzzler May Be Greener Than an Electric Car

By Dan Gilmore

Quote

The National Bureau of Economic Research released a report recently that found electric vehicles do more to harm the environment, on average, than their gasoline counterparts. The electricity to make the cars go has to come somewhere, and it’s most likely to come from a power plant, most likely a coal-fired one. “In monetary terms, electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile for the environment than gas-powered cars, on average,” The Washington Examiner reports. “This means that if a government wants to tax a car based on how much it pollutes, electric cars should be taxed half of one cent more per mile driven than gasoline cars.” Instead, the government pours a $7,500 subsidy into every electric vehicle that hits the road. Environmentalists think nothing of regulating society — dictating what we drive, how we wash clothes, where our electricity comes from. But when it comes to the cars of the treasured few, the die-hard environmentalists who exercise their beliefs with their wallets, it all boils down to alleviating their personal scruples, with some “encouragement” through government payouts, of course

this is hardly any kind of surprise


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-study-electric-cars-may-be-worse-for-the-environment-than-gas-powered/article/2566847

Quote

Electric cars are worse for the environment per mile than comparable gasoline-powered cars, according to a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This contradicts the common assumption that electric cars are cleaner. In spite of this, the federal government still pays $7,500 for every electric car purchased — a subsidy the nation would be better off without, say the authors.

The study was authored by four economics and business professors: Stephen Holland (University of North Carolina, Greensboro), Erin Mansur (Dartmouth College), Nicholas Muller (Middlebury College) and Andrew Yates (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).

In monetary terms, electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile for the environment than gas-powered cars, on average. This means that if a government wants to tax a car based on how much it pollutes, electric cars should be taxed half of one cent more per mile driven than gasoline cars.

all said however
They do have their place

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The electricity to make the cars go has to come somewhere, and it’s most likely to come from a power plant, most likely a coal-fired one.

So really those coal fired plants are bad for the environment is what thata rticle is saying.

Which is at odds, with what you have been saying for quite some time, that coal fired plants are not bad for the environment.

Once again you post something that contradicts what you have claimed in the past.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

The electricity to make the cars go has to come somewhere, and it’s most likely to come from a power plant, most likely a coal-fired one.

So really those coal fired plants are bad for the environment is what thata rticle is saying.

Which is at odds, with what you have been saying for quite some time, that coal fired plants are not bad for the environment.

Once again you post something that contradicts what you have claimed in the past.

Ya
You go wherever the hell you wish to twist it
It is either fun for you or some kind of other issue

BTW
The point is
One has to run to other more expensive energy sources to make the electric car pay
So that is why the demonization of coal fired plants

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln