Deaths from climate change

[JohnRoberts]

Poker has a lot to do with reading people (especially bluffing). Like I said before if you don't know who the sucker is in the game, you may be the sucker.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Would I leave my house if there was a 10% probability of it getting swept away in a flood? I hope so.

Who calculated the odds? I live on a hill. In CA I lived on high ground in the mountains. There could be a 90% chance of massive flooding in my immediate area and I would be quite safe. In the el nino winter of 2015-16 we had double the normal rainfall during the wet season (92" instead of 46" from Sept-May). Plenty of flash flooding, mud slides, etc. But my home was safe due to location. This is what I meant Local conditions are critical to accurate assessment of risk.

Note that for all of time water has flowed downhill. Don't live in a hole or beside watercourses.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

People usually credit lucky outcomes to their own abilities and unlucky ones to bad luck or bad third party actors. It's human nature. It's all in the book.

You missed my point entirely. Of course luck is unpredictable. Being mentally prepared to dodge adverse events and/or take advantage of good fortune is a major factor. Considering ahead of time what kinds of bad and good things might happen and planning your reaction does not require that much effort. Most people don't do that and it costs them over time. Contingency planning is a lost art. Used to be critical in logistics, engineering, etc.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I know people who have already done that.

The probability that he will do that could be much higher than 1%, unfortunately. But would it be live threatingly dangerous for us who live in the west of Germany? I don't think so.

I wouldn't be so sure. Response by neighboring states could escalate into yet another European war.

Strategic nukes are a different matter, and I do hope that probability is lower.

No running from that scenario.

A hurricane is more predictable than a rouge state, at least from my view. And limited in its duration, potential consequences etc.

"Rogue"

The duration of a hurricane may be short, but the consequences last for years.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Given the sheer amount of government subsidies for fossil fuels, I'm not sure why two standards are being applied.

both are massively subsidized, in an ideal world we would get the government's fat thumb out of all economic decisions.

In the US fossil fuel is subsidized roughly $70B, green energy roughly $25-30B, while green energy provides 12-19% of domestic energy production.

I never for a nanosecond thought I would convince anyone, however there were a lot of interesting tidbits:

+1

1) Proving that renewables (solar panels, wind turbines, etc) follow Wright's Law, with 40 years of data to back it up. Wright's Law is that cost of production is a power law of the function of the total cumulative manufacturing output of a thing.

while some date the invention of solar panels back to the 1880s, most credit Bell labs patent in 1939. Wright's law applies to cost of production. Exotic raw materials do not follow that same law.

2) Explaining why nuclear reactors don't follow this law (cost of nuclear reactors don't scale linearly with output, meaning a 1MW reactor is not 1000 times cheaper than a 1GW reactor).

Government regulation has throttled the nuclear energy industry. Modern technology could support modest sized nuclear generation placed closer to demand but a) NIMBY, and b) government regulation.

3) Adjusted for inflation, the cost of fossil fuels (notably crude oil and gasoline) has been roughly flat since 1918. Thus even with expanded output, they do not follow Wrights Law either (the cost of fossil fuels is not a function of the total amount pumped from the ground).

In fact we have seen massive reductions in the cost of finding and extracting fossil fuel (fracking anybody?). The issues with fossil fuel are largely infrastructure (like pipelines).

4) Fossil fuel prices exhibit massive price swings, whereas cost per kWh of renewables has steadily fallen since the mid 1970's.

Renewables are often highly regulated. We figured out during the 70s that we had to allow oil to respond to market forces. Right now slowing demand due to the recession (that politicians refuse to acknowledge), is causing fossil fuel prices to soften. Not to mention POTUS pumping down our SPR in an attempt to reduce pump prices before the mid term vote.

5) The IPCC and IEA renewable costs models are incredibly pessimistic: over the past 10 years, cost of renewables has punched through their "floor" of costs (the minimum costs assumed by the IPCC) at least 6 times.

6) Renewables are often charged the full cost of updating the transmission grid to supply more kWh, even though the grid would need to expand in exactly the same way with fossil fuel capacity (e.g. the transmission line doesn't care what made the energy, it still has to deliver it).

Huh? Utilities are often forced to buy renewable electricity at above market prices. The politicians have spread so much fudge on this it is hard to get a clear price/cost picture.

In one of the cites, there is an interesting report from AGL (an energy provider in Australia) noting that increasing transmission line costs and fuel costs finally surpassed the installation and equipment costs for photovoltaic systems in the home. Put another way, it would be cheaper for the electric company to install 6 kW of panels and equipment at a customers home, then it would be to expand their grid to accommodate those additional 6 kW of load. They also noted that ~80% of kWh's are consumed when the sun is shining anyways, so even with zero storage, they could supply nearly 3/4's of all demand with renewable sources.

I am surely repeating myself, if renewables actually are cheaper (and adequately reliable) they will win in a free market. My local "clean" coal plant has been burning NG for years because it's cheaper (than clean coal). I don't know if NG is cleaner than "clean" coal, it is cleaner than oil and regular coal.

I predict we will use different sources of energy a century from now or sooner, I also expect to be dead a century from now, or sooner (likely much sooner).

We should pursue an all of the above energy policy including nuclear (especially nuclear) to generate all the inexpensive energy we need meet current energy demands and to get us to a cleaner future.

JR

PS: I've been watching the EU from a distance as they made massive investments in renewable energy. How is that working out? Seriously good luck to all our EU friends dealing with energy insecurity caused by too much dependance on Russian gas. Don't think Putin won't play that card.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

More probabilistic input for your risk assessment.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9881256/authors#authors

 

[JohnRoberts]

OPEC+ (the one including Russia) have announced intent to cut production more than 1M barrels a day, to support oil prices in light of sagging demand.

JR

 

[user 41968]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...king-guns-reasons-manmade-climate-change-lie/
I couldn't have said it better:

Since the COVID-19 scam has been revealed as the prelude to the Great Reset, many people now realize the extent to which science has been corrupted to serve the interest of politicians. This includes climate “science”.

Climate scam = covid scam = Great Reset = depopulation.
Follow "the science" to your demise.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Opec+ actually cut production 2M barrels, while Iran is reluctant to cut (they need the money to keep their people from revolting).

POTUS has publicly announced that there will be consequences for their production cuts... He was lobbying them to delay cuts for just another month.

JR

 

[user 37518]

In 1995 Thomas Sowell wrote:

"In a series of crusading movements among the intelligentsia during the twentieth century, several key elements have been common to most of them:

1. Assertions of a great danger to the whole society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
2. An urgent need for action to advert impending catastrophe.
3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.
4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes."

 

[crazydoc]

A good description of conspiracy theories.

 

[JohnRoberts]

In 1995 Thomas Sowell wrote:

"In a series of crusading movements among the intelligentsia during the twentieth century, several key elements have been common to most of them:

1. Assertions of a great danger to the whole society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
2. An urgent need for action to advert impending catastrophe.
3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.
4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes."

The typical authoritarian playbook... So many countries consider america the great evil...

A good description of conspiracy theories.

I suspect conspiracy theories are fueled by human paranoia. How does that old quip go? "Just Because You're Paranoid Doesn't Mean They Aren't Out to Get You."

JR

 

[user 41968]

crazydoc et al seem to think that Weather Modification is "tin foil hat" material.

This video opens with LBJ talking about weather modification and weaponization in 1962. (LBJ is wearing a square hat.)

"Who controls the weather will control the world." (LBJ, 1962.)

Weather Weaponization and Hurricane Ian​

https://banned.video/watch?id=6346b217fae3cc4ddba338a0
There are newspaper articles and Congressional hearings about it dating back to the 1940s and 1950s. Duh...

Thanks for the avatar crazydoc.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

A good description of conspiracy theories.

Or actual conspiracies to manipulate the masses for the purpose of making them afraid and gaining more power over them. Of course doc knows there is no evidence of that crazy stuff anywhere in human history. Never happens.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Again stop poking other forum members personally trying to start arguments, this is literally trolling

JR

crazydoc et al seem to think that Weather Modification is "tin foil hat" material.

clipp---

Thanks for the avatar crazydoc.

 

[user 41968]

Again stop poking other forum members personally trying to start arguments, this is literally trolling

JR

Oh?
Post 157 Deaths from climate change
"Quoted" here:

View attachment 97506

I believe i was the poke-ee.
And you regard thanking him for using the image he posted - immediately after my post 156 - as trolling.
I thought it was funny. I wear the hat as a badge of honor..

JR with the threads you start here in order to sh*t-stir you may be the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[JohnRoberts]

excuuuse me.....

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

In order to share something nice about green energy in south FL a communiy powered by rooftop solar panels with residential battery backup did not lose power from the hurricane.

===

Georgia Power announced it has begun loading fuel into the nuclear reactor core of its Vogtle Unit 3 reactor in Georgia, a major milestone toward bringing online the nation’s first newly built commercial nuclear reactor in more than 30 years.

The announcement puts the Unit 3 reactor on track to come online in the first quarter of 2023. Unit 4 is expected to come online roughly six months after that, sometime in late 2023.

JR

 

[scott2000]

Exciting about the nuclear reactor. Fingers crossed it is a success and more robust than some of those food processing plants.....

 

[JohnRoberts]

Even Greta Thunberg has warmed up to nuclear power, criticizing Germany for using coal instead of nuclear power generation.

I hope we see more common sense applied to this area.

JR