But which Friday?
Not next Friday—there’d be pitchforks in parliament.
Not next month—the riots would have spread to every town.
Not next year—not with markets collapsed, trade destroyed, the country in chaos, permanent departures through the roof and condemnation universal.
It wouldn’t happen in five years, ten years, twenty, nor even forty—not to do the job for everyone. There is simply nothing to replace the convenience, affordability, energy density or infrastructure that we have built up around hydrocarbons. Dr Mike Kelly says it would take a minimum of forty years in a developed society to achieve that infrastructure. I would suggest at least twice that in developing countries and a century or more for backward countries.
They’re big, they’re expensive, we have a powerful need for them — close the refineries at your peril.
In the meantime, it’s unthinkable that you might expect us to make do with firewood, candles, scythes, hammers, manpower and horses for everything.
Undeveloped countries still lack reliable electrical power and petrol distribution networks, yet it’s 130 years since electrical power and petrol engines became available for general use.
The dream scenario of sudden replacement of hydrocarbons is unimaginable in any reasonable view of the world. To replace Mother Nature’s scarcely credible gift of hydrocarbon energy you must, to avoid utter dereliction of our present commercial structure, replace hydrocarbons with energy of comparable utility, which at present just does not exist. Nothing competes with hydrocarbons except nuclear power but that’s not ready for small machines.
The alternative is to induce suffering through greater expense, more laborious work, much less income and inferior health care. The result will be misery.
The warmsters who cackle on about denying science and destroying the world, if they’re serious, should fully justify a retreat from the increasing prosperity of the last century, then find an acceptable, science-based alternative and start a real conversation. The campaign of aggressive bullying we’ve seen for 30 years, the slander of “denier”, the lies about settled science, the deceptions over temperature records, putting climate sceptics out of a job and misrepresentations by the government-driven (not science-driven) IPCC isn’t really working, is it? Not to mention that neither temperature nor sea level is rising as predicted.
Computer models couldn’t predict Christmas so kindly stop hectoring us to change our ways when you don’t give any practical alternative to destroying our prosperity. Look at the numbers, come back to the real world.
The BP Statistical Review of World Energy (pdf, 6.5 MB) released last month reports that 85.2% of total global energy consumption last year was provided by oil (34%), natural gas (23.4%) and coal (27.6%). Coal and gas together generate 61% of global electrical power. It’s perfectly futile to claim that renewables (3.6% of total global energy) might challenge any of these sectors soon or ever.
Views: 380
Carbon neutrality does not mean banning burning of hydrocarbons.
The greenhouse effect is well understood. Temperatures will continue to increase with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration. The cost of adaption exceeds the cost of mitigation. Net zero greenhouse gas emissions has to occur at some point.
There are no deceptions over temperature records.
The IPCC does not misrepresent established climate science.
Temperature and sea levels are rising.
Anyone who denies these facts is, by definition, a ‘denier’.
Blah blah blah Same old same old. If you keep repeating something often enough it must be true.
I do not deny that’s sea levels and temperatures have increased over the last 150 years, not does anyone else here as far as I know
So by definition, none of us is a “denier’
I do not deny that I am not a denier so why claim that I am a denier when by you’re own definition I am not a denier? Denying this is denialist rhetoric
No one denies the climate including deniers
Denier denier denier blah blah blah
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=Maxwell%27s+Theory+of+Heat
All one should know is in the above. Please keep increasing the plant food gas. So we can live in peace and plenty.
A new paper suggests we can emit no more than 300-400 Gt of CO2e to keep warming below 2C. That is still doable providing emission reductions start now. Yes, there is uncertainty, but uncertainty cuts both ways.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/07/08/zero-emissions-2/
First you need validated Models, which is unlikely to ever happen. Before making any sort of scientific prediction. Scenarios and Projections are just emetic jokes. CAGW has nothing else. Just illusions, like calling steam plumes out as “toxic pollution”.
“CO2 Emissions Hit 67-Year Low In Trump’s America, As Rest-Of-World Rises”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-08/co2-emissions-hit-67-year-low-trumps-america-rest-world-rises
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2018-07-10.gif?w=500&h=247
Andy, it is great how such things come back to bite the purveyors of lies. The lovely blue flame of Methane, nature’s gift.
Brett,
The graph is of global surface temperature anomalies, yet you mention methane; I’m easily confused. What did you mean?
Richard, it is refering to Andy’s post.