mhaze

In the past I have written about Inuit communities needing to move, the latest example:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/leaving-ancestral-home-alaska-village-votes-move-due/story?id=41482755

Quote:

"And, since the 90s, the community had to move about 19 houses from one side of the island to the other because of coastal erosion, he said.

"My grandfather said the ice used to freeze in October when he was growing up and now this past winter we had to wait until late November, December, to safely go out on the ice," Sinnok said. He said his uncle passed away after he "fell through ice where it was usually thick enough" to walk over."

1. EV's are coming down in price, and a number of metal solutions and new chemistries are being experimented with. But yes, if we head into 100 Tesla gigafactories, then yes, there will be a problem in 17 years. But remember, lithium is recyclable.

2. But there’s another solution altogether. Boron powder. Yes, metal powder. It also is recyclable / de-rustable. It has about the same energy density as oil, and could easily run trucks and harvesters, and is infinitely recyclable.

And guess who also supports boron as a contender?
Yup. Dr James Hansen.

Also, a lot of the recycling could happen at night on off-peak power.

https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/

Once again, all of this can be run by just one invention — forever.
GE's S-PRISM. The EBR2 was the physics prototype, and passed every energy and passive safety test they tried. We have already invented the 'forever' machine.

S-PRISM + boron + some synfuels for airlines = sustainability.
For billions of years.

I *hope* and *pray* that we'll hit peak oil soon, and that it will at least force us into a Greater Depression, because NOTHING the peer-reviewed, real, solid science of climate change says seems to be able to convince the self-interested denialist dogma. So I actually hope you're right, and that there's a serious oil crisis soon. But sadly, I just don't think it's coming soon enough.

Max,

Regional v global. You say I'm wrong to say there's no evidence of an overall increase in extreme weather events because there may be, based on models, not data, an increase in regional extreme weather events.

Its the equivalent to saying its wrong to call the sky's blue because the clouds are white.

Is there a probability that regional weather has changed since some arbitrary earlier time? Yes. Climate changes, always has always will. Is there evidence that AGW has caused detrimental changes to global weather events? No. Ask the scientists in the IPCC. Don't you want to follow the science?

Peak oil.
= = =
There will be atime when the volume of oil extracted will peak. We may be already there although probably not. But its entirely beside the point.

The only issue is how the volume of oil extracted relates to the demand for that oil. We can see how that tracks based on the price. If the price of oil falls then it means that the supply is increasing vis a vis the demand for that oil.

Mankind has never run out of a resource. Never. And we'll never run out of oil (or coal, or wood or iced vo-vos). As we've seen, as the price of the resource increases, either new ways are found to get more of that resource or other resources are utilised to fulfill the demand for that resource eg gas picks up the slack.

The classic recent example is copper. In the 70s it was confidently asserted that we'd run out of copper wire and therefore the telecommunications revolution would stall. Then came fibre optics and now we have more copper vis a vis demand than ever before.

Long before we run out accessible oil, we'll have moved on to some other method to create the energy we need - maybe solar, or thorium or ultra-safe nuclear or gerbils running tread mills. Who knows?

There is an innate human need to foresee doom. History tells us to beware of the doomsayers.

mhaze
You keep going back to the IPCC; yet, whats happening in the natural world completely underlines how the SPM is right.
Where do 8, 500 year flooding events in the US alone for a little over a year fit into your IPCC interpretation? Those events have happened after the IPCC had published they're report.
There are lots of other examples elsewhere apart from the U, some references have been provided.

Mhaze,
*I* said nothing of the sort. The Working Group did. Remember the Working Group? That paper you cherry-picked and SAID you supported when you THOUGHT it supported NO extreme weather events? Yeah, that Working Group. *They* said it.

Run. Change the topic. Do anything you can to avoid admitting that YES, the IPCC Working Group admits there is an increase in Extreme Weather events!

What was it you said? “Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.”

So, do you always believe the peer reviewed science? Or do you just go with the self-interested assertion? Want to revise your statement that you accept the Working Group science now that you’re disagreeing with it, or would that be too much like admitting that you’re just a Denialist shill who copies and pastes without reading the documents for themselves?

Max,

All my original quotes on this were from the AR5. They concerned the level of low confidence and /or lack of evidence that there is a global trend in droughts, floods and other extreme weather events.

Do you think that what was said in AR5 was just plain wrong? On what basis do you think that?

As you've already done several times you take my fully sourced data and try to disavow it by going off at a tangent. I say current temperatures have been exceeded in 3000 or so of the last 11700 years. You've never sought to disprove that but seek to ignore it by saying firstly that temps are rising faster than previously and (when that was shown to be false) saying future temps will be higher than the last 11700 years. That may or may not be true but doesn't contradict my original point.

Same here. I show that AR5 points to the lack of evidence that extreme weather events are increasing globally, and, without trying in the slightest to disprove that, you simply seek to ignore it by reverting to regional models. They may or may not be right but either way my original point stands.

Oh and the sky is blue. :)

As to my comment about peer-reviewed science, I was sending up your attitude which you've continued to display. The science shows that temps aren't unusually high at present and you do your best to look the other way. The science shows that we have little information about global extreme weather patterns and you do your best to look the other way.

I don't mind if you want to argue that the data on current temps are immaterial in the scheme of things or that data on current global weather patterns don't matter, but that's entirely different to just pretending that the data isn't there.