Can it be? Was Al Gores Climate Change scare a Scam?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by beanfield, Aug 24, 2014.

  1. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    I know you mean well, wygator, but I am not seeing the point of the above post. You seem to labor under a mistaken belief that NASA/GISS explaining adjustments to the data--not to mention documenting how and why they did it--is some kind of admission to some prior deceit or misbehavior is somehow a bad thing. Adjusting data is a regular and absolutely essential step in the process of organizing and preparing data for statistical modeling. If there are problems with their methodology, you don't provide.

    Maybe I am misreading your post, but perhaps you take issue with the upward trend adjustment?
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2014
  2. BastogneGator
    Offline

    BastogneGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +825
    You probably believe the Southern Poverty Law Center is a legitimate legal organization too...
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. BastogneGator
    Offline

    BastogneGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +825
    How are coal fired plants doing? I know Southern Company is converting
  4. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,650
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,384
    huh? I point out that the guy you quoted about the survey of gas and mining engineers in Alberta completely misrepresented it and that it isn't close to an example of a major scientific organization claiming global warming is a hoax (as you claimed) and your answer is about the SPLC? Is that supposed to make sense?
  5. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,684
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,125
    Considering that the second half of the 20th century is when you would expect the urban heat island effect to more dramatically impact temp stations located in urban areas, or at airports, it seems to me that the adjustments are headed in the wrong direction. Just my observation...the consensus in science has often been wrong.
  6. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,684
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,125
    See any irony in this statement on a global warming thread?
  7. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,153
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,070
    No. Vermont is but one small part of the globe. And February was but one part of the year. In fact, I find it a learning opportunity for those "confused" about the concept. Like how a snow storm blows minds.

    For example, in the US (also only a fraction of the globe, of course), these local records contributed to the month only being the 37th coldest February on record. The SW, Alaska and Florida didn't follow suit. Globally, these local records resulted in the 21st highest February temperature on record. December-February was the 8th warmest. It was the 29th consecutive February above the 20th century average, and 348th consecutive month. You have to go to 1985 to find a February below the 20th century average.

    And so on.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/2
  8. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,153
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,070
    Many are. AEP recently converted one in Dante, VA (Clinch River) just as Dominion opened up a monster "clean coal" facility 8 miles away (Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center). This happens more in the SE, where old coal plants (and old coal in general) are dominant. Mississippi Power and Alabama Power are converting several right now. True to the play book, they initially said all were shutting down because of Big Gov. Later, they announced some will switch to NG. Eventually, I predict that even more will go NG, although probably not all. Some antiquated facilities can't be economically converted. In those cases, you can bet that the facility itself was shockingly unsophisticated. But when NG prices fluctuate (rise), coal consumption increases, as it did in March of this year. Coal consumption is likely to rise this year because of NG prices.

    The converted facility mentioned above went on line in the 1950's. Typically 30 years is considered a plant's "lifespan" (although that's more for recovery of costs -- some consider a "useful" lifespan to be 40-60 years, although that also has some industry spin baked in). Nearly all facilities that are closing or converting are well beyond that. The Clinch River plant, at twice that figure, is far from the oldest plant still churning. There are about 1150 plants going. Around 350 are clearly outdated and inefficient. They average about 45 years old and 45% capacity factor, compared to closer to 70% for newer ones. They represent around 6% of the total US electricity supply. There are still 10+ facilities built in the 1920's going! Sure, they have upgraded here and there, but even a sympathetic assessment can't conclude that they're modern in any meaningful way. They are largely the same technological forms now as they were when they opened. A few dozen have come online since 2000.

    MATS (which I personally am a proponent of), relatively low NG prices, and demand trending down are pressuring coal. Increasing NG output from existing plants can offset the retirement of all 350 plants, although I personally would rather see a modest NG bump combined with renewables and efficiency improvements (easily the most cost-effective measure, but it gets little love because windfall profits are harder to capture).

    So to answer your question more concisely, coal plants are trending down although not as fast as logic would suggest considering their ancient technology and a supposed war on them. There will continue to be hundreds in the US alone, probably for the rest of the 21st century, unless a storage breakthrough occurs. Only a handful haven't already recovered all costs and gone on to be money makers for investors. Of the ones that haven't, it's a virtual certainty that they will, right on schedule.

    While fake news channels try to manipulate our emotions with War On Coal rhetoric, the real enemy of coal is storage. Once we can store electricity, it's game over for the dinosaurs.
  9. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,146
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,359
    Meanwhile many millions on this planet are energy starved as well as starving themselves, that desperately need a form of cheap energy to have any sort of economy and try to save lives and raise a standard of living.
    At present coal seems to be the only viable answer.
    Are we so concerned about global warming, that may or may not be caused by man, to shut down all coal production?
  10. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Perhaps, but it is an empirical question that has already largely been answered. I believe the BEST study helps explain or put to rest the uhi effect conundrum pretty clearly; that is, the uhi effect is real, but has minimal effect on overall temperatures.

    The focus should be on their methodological choices in adjusting the raw data. It's these procedures which are most crucial in determining validity and reliability. I don't know about you, but I don't have time review their references or to retrace their steps, but suffice it to say that given their openness about their methods and the availability of information:

    1) anyone can check their work if they have the time and skills and thus

    2) absent any valid criticisms of their methods, I think we can/should work off the data as being valid and reliable in reflecting temperature reality, which isn't to say we should have 100% confidence in it/shouldn't retain some skepticism, just that the data can be treated as good data until proven otherwise.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2014
  11. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,153
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,070
    The same ones who have been energy starved forever and are often disproportionally affected by climate change. It is heart warming to see Big Coal suddenly so concerned about them. Why now? Get them on the pipe, before it's too late! Especially considering Africa's solar potential. Benevolent King Coal. Why not just let them eat cake while we're at it.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/judecle...frica-and-save-hundreds-of-millions-of-lives/

    Developing countries, if they have even a modicum of wisdom, will leapfrog medieval technologies. Now that's certainly not a guarantee, given their "management" to this point. Coal is cheap where infrastructure exists, supply is more or less local and it's subsidized, like in the US. In Africa, these things aren't true. They need to go distributed and renewable, with fossil fuels providing a minimum base load. Power Up Gambia and Energy For Opportunity are already on the scene, running schools and hospitals, among other things, with renewables.

    No one credible says "shut down all coal production", not even me, unless you project out several decades. But as usual in these situations, the scare tactics are just part of the playbook. The World Bank will end up financing coal in a big way in Africa, after years of pretending they wouldn't.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-05/world-bank-may-support-african-coal-power-kim-says.html

    This is an entirely predictable situation. There will be high-profile projects to provide renewable, independent energy in pockets of rural populations while the urban areas will be powered with the same Big Pollution sources the developing world is moving away from. Meaning those countries will be entirely dependent on fossil fuels and the handful of interests that control them. It's an insidious strategy, coming from those who shriek "neo-colonialism" at the mere mention of a solar panel.
  12. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,684
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,125
    Have a sense of humor. I called it irony...not proof:) I understand the difference between weather and climate which is often lost on the alarmists. Of course it is weather that, cumulatively over time, becomes climate:)

    As I said before, we've been in a slow and steady warming that started at the end of the little ice age. The modern temp record only began in the late 1800's. That means that most temps in recent years will be above the 20th century average. Especially when NASA/GISS keeps adjusting the raw temps upward:)
  13. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,684
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,125
    It's hard for us to imagine what the energy situation is like in Africa. My daughter has been working full time in Uganda since 2006. Coal would be a huge improvement in reliability, a reduction in pollution, and much better health for the population.

    Why? Because most of the people there use kerosene, wood, or dung for home heating and cooking. They actually breathe all these fumes directly.

    There is a hydroelectric dam on the Nile not too far from where they live. Energy (and pretty much everything else) is so poorly managed that they only have electricity about half the time. The level of corruption is almost incomprehensible, even to us!

    Most renewables are more expensive, which makes them somewhat impractical in a country where the median income is around $500 USD, per YEAR.
  14. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,153
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,070
    I can agree with you almost entirely here. I did work for a company in Sierra Leone in 2008/9, although I didn't go there. Corruption is indeed the biggest problem in nearly all of Africa. Unemployment in SL among youth is in the 70's. The one part I would disagree is the cost of renewables. It's only more expensive when certain factors are externalized, as they are even in developed countries. Even ignoring the environmental externalities, it isn't credible to come up with $.04 kwh coal in countries with no or minimal infrastructure. I'll concede that it is likely still cheaper than renewables, minus the obvious externalities that for some reason have become acceptable to ignore everywhere. But I also contend that ignoring those externalities is an exercise in agenda-pushing, which is a gradation of corruption. A country that isn't captured by these interests should resist them, IMO.

    Speaking of Uganda, I was on a conference call with oil industry execs and certain invitees from the University of Houston, who were ostensibly there to validate (or not) oil exploration in Uganda. They have already drilled many wells and now need pipelines to transport it (which they'll get, of course.) One of the energy professors made some profound statements. Among others, she said that there is "no way" hippos could ever be endangered, because she had personally seen a number of them at a river they took here to. Also, she informed us all that Disney was "donating spare black rhinos" that they were getting ready to "put out to pasture", so there was no need to worry about that either. I don't want to get off on a tangent about threatened or endangered animals and the accompanying problems. I hope that the statements and your own knowledge provide enough background. What was worrying is that I don't think this professor is your typical industry shill. She truly believes what she said. Additionally, this is the type of "science" that becomes official.

    I'm not for keeping Africa in the dark. I'm not even against a role for coal. I'm against rampant destruction and waste of resources, which Africa has in abundance, and the dependence inherent in fossil fuels. I'll also not admit that this sudden philanthropy (FF industry, not you per se) is anything more than an attempt to lock another billion people into a self-defeating cycle that takes decades to escape, conveniently as the traditional footholds erode. I can't say I'm bullish on the likelihood. But it's certainly what I'll continue to advocate for, until more compelling evidence convinces me otherwise.
  15. baygator1
    Offline

    baygator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    1,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,276
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-10000-year-old-arrowhead-on-beach/14551073/

    I was reading this article earlier about a boy finding a rare arrow head on a NJ beach. The family contacted the Archaeological Society of New Jersey to check it out and there was an interesting tidbit in there about climate change.

    If my math serves, that means over the past 10,000 years the sea level has moved about one mile 'inland' every one hundred years. Now that is climate change...just not quite the brand Al's been selling.
  16. tegator80
    Online

    tegator80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    6,372
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +2,977
  17. BastogneGator
    Offline

    BastogneGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +825
    So you agree that you can have a war on coal without going after the miners directly
  18. BastogneGator
    Offline

    BastogneGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +825
  19. BastogneGator
    Offline

    BastogneGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +825
    That cycle called Industrialization? We went through a bit of that. If implemented ideas like these are sure to keep poor countries poor
  20. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,153
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,070
    Sure. I just don't agree that it's happening. In fact, to this point, I'd say there has been a war on miners and not on coal for a few decades, starting around 1980, 1950 if you want to go back further. Look at production versus employment, and wages and benefits for the ones who have managed to remain employed. There has been an increase in employment in the past few years, but not enough to change the trend.

    And coal itself has waged, and won, a war on every community it has ever invaded. Go to West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Virginia, and any other place where trillions of dollars of wealth has been mined. Don't bother packing, you won't want to stay.

    You can find all sorts of different charts and methodologies, but they all tell the same general story. Increasing production, decreasing employment, wages, and benefits. The switch from deep mines to strip mines, the neutering of the UMWA in the 80's, and mechanization are all factors. But to say there has ever been a war on coal is outlandish. And to say O started one is beyond absurd.

    If there were a war on coal I'd have a uni. O is no different from the rest, except that he pretends that he understands how coal ravages a society. In fact, he appears worse than most of our recent leaders.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

Share This Page