Coal Boom in Asia is Real and a Long Trend

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/15/climate-crisis-coal-asia-power-generation-fossil-fuels

 

Hopes for climate progress falter with coal still king across Asia

A depressing picture of global power generation has coal still firmly on top. And in a vicious cycle, the very heatwaves and winter freezes high carbon emissions cause seem to be increasing them

Jillian Ambrose

Sat 15 Jun 2019 11.00 EDT

•  

 

 

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

19 hours ago, ronwagn said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/15/climate-crisis-coal-asia-power-generation-fossil-fuels

 

Hopes for climate progress falter with coal still king across Asia

A depressing picture of global power generation has coal still firmly on top. And in a vicious cycle, the very heatwaves and winter freezes high carbon emissions cause seem to be increasing them

Jillian Ambrose

Sat 15 Jun 2019 11.00 EDT

•  

 

 

 

As it turns out, Asian culture is rather conservative and doesn't buy into the leftist hogwash Western culture suffers from. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

10 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

As it turns out, Asian culture is rather conservative and doesn't buy into the leftist hogwash Western culture suffers from. 

Asian culture is a very wide term. 

try to research what is happening in the power markets in Taiwan, Japan and Korea... Probably China, too, but I don't know that much about that. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Asian culture is a very wide term. 

try to research what is happening in the power markets in Taiwan, Japan and Korea... Probably China, too, but I don't know that much about that.  

I made a broad statement, and I stand by it:
- Japan briefly ended nuclear, but conservative pressures have led them to restart their reactors.  This is in contrast with liberal Westerners, who continue to attack nuclear.  Japan also burned far more fossil fuels to cover the gap left by nuclear.  I.e. Japan is making conservative decisions. 
- South Korea is a leader in nuclear power and continues to build reactors.  Their reliance on nuclear over coal/NG is driven by their competitive nuclear industry and a desire to reduce imports.  I.e. South Korea is making conservative decisions. 
- China paid lip service to reducing CO2, but they continue to burn coal.  Some plans for future coal plants were scrapped - but then again, so were solar subsidies.  This has more to do with the economics of new generation than with reducing CO2.  China is also quickly increasing nuclear generation.  I.e. China is making conservative decisions. 
- The rest of SE Asia continues to build coal power plants and burn coal when it is economical to do so.  Last I read, US suppliers of coal and builders of coal power plants were banking on SE Asia to keep their businesses afloat, and projections for US coal production expect SE Asian coal consumption to keep US coal production steady even as US consumption decreases. 

There's been a trend away from coal in some countries, but this has more to do with cheap NG than it does with a desire to save the planet.  I.e. the switch to NG is a conservative decision. 

There's been a trend towards renewables, but most nations are incorporating them in small percentages.  They're using renewables in niche applications and small enough quantities that their grids aren't disrupted.  I.e. in most nations, renewables are being installed conservatively. 

It's only in Western nations that we see irrational, reckless drives towards expensive technologies.  Only Western nations intentionally de-industrialize, destroying the economies that made them great.  Asian culture is more conservative; they don't fall into those ideological traps. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I made a broad statement, and I stand by it:
- Japan briefly ended nuclear, but conservative pressures have led them to restart their reactors.  This is in contrast with liberal Westerners, who continue to attack nuclear.  Japan also burned far more fossil fuels to cover the gap left by nuclear.  I.e. Japan is making conservative decisions. 
- South Korea is a leader in nuclear power and continues to build reactors.  Their reliance on nuclear over coal/NG is driven by their competitive nuclear industry and a desire to reduce imports.  I.e. South Korea is making conservative decisions. 
- China paid lip service to reducing CO2, but they continue to burn coal.  Some plans for future coal plants were scrapped - but then again, so were solar subsidies.  This has more to do with the economics of new generation than with reducing CO2.  China is also quickly increasing nuclear generation.  I.e. China is making conservative decisions. 
- The rest of SE Asia continues to build coal power plants and burn coal when it is economical to do so.  Last I read, US suppliers of coal and builders of coal power plants were banking on SE Asia to keep their businesses afloat, and projections for US coal production expect SE Asian coal consumption to keep US coal production steady even as US consumption decreases. 

There's been a trend away from coal in some countries, but this has more to do with cheap NG than it does with a desire to save the planet.  I.e. the switch to NG is a conservative decision. 

There's been a trend towards renewables, but most nations are incorporating them in small percentages.  They're using renewables in niche applications and small enough quantities that their grids aren't disrupted.  I.e. in most nations, renewables are being installed conservatively. 

It's only in Western nations that we see irrational, reckless drives towards expensive technologies.  Only Western nations intentionally de-industrialize, destroying the economies that made them great.  Asian culture is more conservative; they don't fall into those ideological traps. 

You appear to omit the other major driver to move away from Coal - local air pollution. Coal is horrendous as a fuel source.

Pollutant	Hard coal	Brown coal	Fuel oil	Other oil	Gas
CO2 (g/GJ)	94,600	101,000	77,400	74,100	56,100
SO2 (g/GJ)	765	1,361	1,350	228	0.68
NOx (g/GJ)	292	183	195	129	93.3
CO (g/GJ)	89.1	89.1	15.7	15.7	14.5
Non methane organic compounds (g/GJ)	4.92	7.78	3.70	3.24	1.58
Particulate matter (g/GJ)	1,203	3,254	16	1.91	0.1
Flue gas volume total (m3/GJ)	360	444	279	276	2

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

This article provides a more balanced assessment. While there is new build the actual amount of new build has shrunk. A proportion of this new build is simply replacing older less efficient plant so the overall effect there will be a reduction in coal use. It also appears that load factors for coal plants are falling which suggests they are being used as a plant of last resort for peaking rather than baseload which was their traditional place in the energy mix.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

You appear to omit the other major driver to move away from Coal - local air pollution. Coal is horrendous as a fuel source.

Pollutant	Hard coal	Brown coal	Fuel oil	Other oil	Gas
CO2 (g/GJ)	94,600	101,000	77,400	74,100	56,100
SO2 (g/GJ)	765	1,361	1,350	228	0.68
NOx (g/GJ)	292	183	195	129	93.3
CO (g/GJ)	89.1	89.1	15.7	15.7	14.5
Non methane organic compounds (g/GJ)	4.92	7.78	3.70	3.24	1.58
Particulate matter (g/GJ)	1,203	3,254	16	1.91	0.1
Flue gas volume total (m3/GJ)	360	444	279	276	2

I would guess you're describing old coal power plants.  New power plants control their pollution just fine - a fact I confirmed by asking a coal power plant engineer responsible for those emissions.  He didn't seem worried about it, so neither am I. 

It's remarkable what people conflate when complaining about coal.  It wasn't until a decade or so ago that the US passed the MATS, effectively forcing old, grandfathered coal plants to shut down.  These were the source of most pollution in the US.  China and India have rampant pollution because, like the old US plants, theirs lack pollution controls.  Once these countries are sufficiently wealthy and grid power is sufficiently plentiful, they'll insist that pollution controls be installed.  Those who can't afford it will close; the remainder will continue as usual. 

A consequence of pollution controls is that it's only economical to operate newer, larger power plants.  Many of the closures in the US were 50-60 year old plants with <500MW nameplate operating at <30% thermal efficiency.  The remaining closures were areas where electricity demand had decreased, stranding generation assets.  New plants are a different story.  They produce little air pollution (I don't consider CO2 a pollutant), operate at 45-50% thermal efficiency, and produce 600-1100MW.  They're surprisingly cheap and safe to operate. 

The only thing stopping new coal construction is competition from cheap natural gas - a condition that's far from guaranteed.  The US once thought oil would be cheap forever and installed oil-fired power across the country.  After the oil crises, laws were enacted to wean electrical power off volatile energy sources.  I.e. coal was actively promoted.  The same could easily happen with natural gas; we'll have to wait and see. 

It's noteworthy that NG is defeating coal because new NG technologies came to market.  Combined cycle plants allow 60+% thermal efficiency at low capital costs, which compensates for NGs higher cost/BTU.  Now that an existential threat has been presented, the coal industry will be forced to innovate.  The Allam cycle is being developed for NG, but it could just as easily be used for coal.  Or coal plants could finally migrate away from steam as a working fluid, using CO2 instead.  Or other things I'm not aware of.  Incredibly competent people rely on the coal industry for their livelihood; I doubt they'll let it pass away without a fight. 

In summary: SE Asia won't abandon coal power over alleged pollution.  They'll install the same pollution controls the US and Europe have and carry on.  Construction of new coal plants will depend on technological innovation; we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I would guess you're describing old coal power plants.  New power plants control their pollution just fine - a fact I confirmed by asking a coal power plant engineer responsible for those emissions.  He didn't seem worried about it, so neither am I. 

It's remarkable what people conflate when complaining about coal.  It wasn't until a decade or so ago that the US passed the MATS, effectively forcing old, grandfathered coal plants to shut down.  These were the source of most pollution in the US.  China and India have rampant pollution because, like the old US plants, theirs lack pollution controls.  Once these countries are sufficiently wealthy and grid power is sufficiently plentiful, they'll insist that pollution controls be installed.  Those who can't afford it will close; the remainder will continue as usual. 

A consequence of pollution controls is that it's only economical to operate newer, larger power plants.  Many of the closures in the US were 50-60 year old plants with <500MW nameplate operating at <30% thermal efficiency.  The remaining closures were areas where electricity demand had decreased, stranding generation assets.  New plants are a different story.  They produce little air pollution (I don't consider CO2 a pollutant), operate at 45-50% thermal efficiency, and produce 600-1100MW.  They're surprisingly cheap and safe to operate. 

The only thing stopping new coal construction is competition from cheap natural gas - a condition that's far from guaranteed.  The US once thought oil would be cheap forever and installed oil-fired power across the country.  After the oil crises, laws were enacted to wean electrical power off volatile energy sources.  I.e. coal was actively promoted.  The same could easily happen with natural gas; we'll have to wait and see. 

It's noteworthy that NG is defeating coal because new NG technologies came to market.  Combined cycle plants allow 60+% thermal efficiency at low capital costs, which compensates for NGs higher cost/BTU.  Now that an existential threat has been presented, the coal industry will be forced to innovate.  The Allam cycle is being developed for NG, but it could just as easily be used for coal.  Or coal plants could finally migrate away from steam as a working fluid, using CO2 instead.  Or other things I'm not aware of.  Incredibly competent people rely on the coal industry for their livelihood; I doubt they'll let it pass away without a fight. 

In summary: SE Asia won't abandon coal power over alleged pollution.  They'll install the same pollution controls the US and Europe have and carry on.  Construction of new coal plants will depend on technological innovation; we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. 

Even with modern standards the pollution output from coal fired stations dwarfs the output from Gas. 

These are the emission limits for PM 2.5 from Coal. They are negligible from Gas and furthermore gas particulates are far less toxic than those from Coal 

Emission limit	Country
10 mg/Nm3 per day	EU
5 mg/Nm3 per day.	China
4 mg/Nm3 per day	Japan
3 mg/Nm3 per day	EU New*

Also:

NOX

180 mg/Nm3	EU
30 to 50 mg/Nm3	China
40 mg/Nm3	EU New*

S02

Emission limit	Country
20 to 60 mg/Nm3	EU
5 to 15 mg/Nm3	USA (some plants)
20 mg/Nm3	EU New*

 

 

 

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

52 minutes ago, NickW said:

Even with modern standards the pollution output from coal fired stations dwarfs the output from Gas. 

These are the emission limits for PM 2.5 from Coal. They are negligible from Gas and furthermore gas particulates are far less toxic than those from Coal 

Emission limit	Country
10 mg/Nm3 per day	EU
5 mg/Nm3 per day.	China
4 mg/Nm3 per day	Japan
3 mg/Nm3 per day	EU New*

Also:

NOX

180 mg/Nm3	EU
30 to 50 mg/Nm3	China
40 mg/Nm3	EU New*

S02

Emission limit	Country
20 to 60 mg/Nm3	EU
5 to 15 mg/Nm3	USA (some plants)
20 mg/Nm3	EU New*

You've framed the problem incorrectly because it suits your narrative to do so.  The question is not how coal compares to NG; the question is whether coal emissions are low enough to be irrelevant. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

23 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

You've framed the problem incorrectly because it suits your narrative to do so.  The question is not how coal compares to NG; the question is whether coal emissions are low enough to be irrelevant. 

Coal power plant owners and operators are in the picture for the long run and not going anywhere anytime in terms of shutting down or losing $$$. CHina and India along with other developing nations in Africa, Asia and LatAm are heavily reliant on coal and will continue to do so. Not only that coal will become less polluting with new techs and the emissions will become next to nothing.

Coal fired power plants using upgraded coal that literally have no emissions, and the plants operating on a closed loop system will still be providing the world with a safe and low cost energy.

[NickW + 2,714]

56 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

You've framed the problem incorrectly because it suits your narrative to do so.  The question is not how coal compares to NG; the question is whether coal emissions are low enough to be irrelevant. 

At what level is a particulate emission deemed to be safe? 

[NickW + 2,714]

31 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Coal power plant owners and operators are in the picture for the long run and not going anywhere anytime in terms of shutting down or losing $$$. CHina and India along with other developing nations in Africa, Asia and LatAm are heavily reliant on coal and will continue to do so. Not only that coal will become less polluting with new techs and the emissions will become next to nothing.

Coal fired power plants using upgraded coal that literally have no emissions, and the plants operating on a closed loop system will still be providing the world with a safe and low cost energy.

Care to explain that one?

Every with state of the art scrubbing and electrostatic precipitation modern coal plants still emit sizeable quantities of SO2, NOX and particulate

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

6 minutes ago, NickW said:

Care to explain that one?

Every with state of the art scrubbing and electrostatic precipitation modern coal plants still emit sizeable quantities of SO2, NOX and particulate

I will elaborate further however for now in short, there isnt going to be any SO2 and NOX emissions and no particulates because the coal is upgraded from a lump of coal to an efficient condensed fuel that has majority of the pollutants/contaminants removed and segregated and collected as separate resources that are marketable to various industries.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, ceo_energemsier said:

I will elaborate further however for now in short, there isnt going to be any SO2 and NOX emissions and no particulates because the coal is upgraded from a lump of coal to an efficient condensed fuel that has majority of the pollutants/contaminants removed and segregated and collected as separate resources that are marketable to various industries.

Coke

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

56 minutes ago, NickW said:

At what level is a particulate emission deemed to be safe? 

You tell me.  Personally, I'm satisfied that:
1)  Emissions are far below historical levels and falling. 
2)  The engineer I spoke to - a father of 6 - expressed no concern. 
3)  New coal plants are being located far from population centers. 
4)  Modern plants send exhaust up a tall smokestack, forcing pollutants to dissipate before they can contact human beings. 

Basically, the problems of coal pollution were solved in modern designs.  The people complaining about coal have no clue what has already been done to reduce pollution; they only whine about the past. 

It's the same with ICEs.  Emissions regulations were enacted and, because it takes time to replace vehicle fleets, will those regulations will continue to reduce pollution for another 15 years.  Environmentalists, despite their near complete ignorance of the technical details, continue to complain about vehicle pollution.  They marry the bullheaded persistence of a religious fundamentalist with the rational prowess of an irate six year old.  It's become tiresome. 

I recall studies being done on the health of people downwind of coal power plants.  The problem is that those studies were done on old plants.  Find me studies performed by unbiased researchers on a statistically significant number of modern plants with up-to-date emissions controls, and I'll take their conclusions seriously. 

[tldpdb1 + 24]

On 6/16/2019 at 8:01 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

As it turns out, Asian culture is rather conservative and doesn't buy into the leftist hogwash Western culture suffers from. 

Yeah you said it,  Peer reviewed Science is Hogwash....where's your Data?

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

16 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I made a broad statement, and I stand by it:
- Japan briefly ended nuclear, but conservative pressures have led them to restart their reactors.  This is in contrast with liberal Westerners, who continue to attack nuclear.  Japan also burned far more fossil fuels to cover the gap left by nuclear.  I.e. Japan is making conservative decisions. 
- South Korea is a leader in nuclear power and continues to build reactors.  Their reliance on nuclear over coal/NG is driven by their competitive nuclear industry and a desire to reduce imports.  I.e. South Korea is making conservative decisions. 
- China paid lip service to reducing CO2, but they continue to burn coal.  Some plans for future coal plants were scrapped - but then again, so were solar subsidies.  This has more to do with the economics of new generation than with reducing CO2.  China is also quickly increasing nuclear generation.  I.e. China is making conservative decisions. 
- The rest of SE Asia continues to build coal power plants and burn coal when it is economical to do so.  Last I read, US suppliers of coal and builders of coal power plants were banking on SE Asia to keep their businesses afloat, and projections for US coal production expect SE Asian coal consumption to keep US coal production steady even as US consumption decreases. 

 

I don't think any of the things you are describing has anything to do with conservative or liberal. Japan shut their nukes because of Fukushima; and are restarting them out of neccessity. As for China - I personally think that they have an insatiable demand for energy and will use various sources to cover this... 

I agree that coal are not going away tomorrow, but some of the plants that are being retired will be replaced by renewables and some by more efficient coal fired powerplants. I don't know enough about the coal trading market, but US coal production staying steady doesn't mean that the worlds coal consumption will increase (or increase as much as general energy consumption). 

13 hours ago, NickW said:

There's been a trend towards renewables, but most nations are incorporating them in small percentages.  They're using renewables in niche applications and small enough quantities that their grids aren't disrupted.  I.e. in most nations, renewables are being installed conservatively. 

slow and steady wins the race.

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, tldpdb1 said:

Yeah you said it,  Peer reviewed Science is Hogwash....where's your Data? 

I've worked in academic labs.  About 75% of peer reviewed literature is garbage.  Climate research is no different; it's been making wild predictions for decades.  IIRC, the ice caps were supposed to have melted by now.  Or were we supposed to be in an ice age?  It's hard to tell; the climate "scientists" can't keep their story straight.

If you want trillions of dollars to be spent, the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate it's worth spending.  Make a climate model that accurately matches all climate data from all history.  Then use it to make a non-trivial predictions 20-30 years out.  If a statistically significant number of those predictions come true, I'll take your model seriously.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I don't think any of the things you are describing has anything to do with conservative or liberal. Japan shut their nukes because of Fukushima; and are restarting them out of neccessity. As for China - I personally think that they have an insatiable demand for energy and will use various sources to cover this... 

That's the definition of conservatism.  Western leftists ignore necessity, which is why everything they touch turns to destitution. 

4 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I agree that coal are not going away tomorrow, but some of the plants that are being retired will be replaced by renewables and some by more efficient coal fired powerplants. I don't know enough about the coal trading market, but US coal production staying steady doesn't mean that the worlds coal consumption will increase (or increase as much as general energy consumption).  

Read about all the coal plants being built in SE Asia.  US coal production is expected to stay steady in the face of declining domestic consumption; that can only happen if there are exports. 

Why is SE Asia burning coal?  Because it's cheap.  NG is $2.37/MMbtu in the US.  The most expensive US coal is $2.00/MMbtu.  Meanwhile, the lowest NG price in SE Asia is $6/MMbtu.  $10/MMbtu has been seen regularly.  The cost of liquefying and transporting LNG puts a $6/MMbtu lower bound on its price.  I'd bet it's far cheaper to transport coal than LNG, which means coal will always be cheaper than NG in these markets.  Meanwhile, new coal plants are approaching 50% thermal efficiency, improving the economics of coal power. 

SE Asia will continue to burn coal. 

4 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

slow and steady wins the race.

That phrase sounds nice, but it doesn't apply to this scenario.  Above some percentage of generation, renewables hit a brick wall of additional costs.  That's where your "slow and steady" will grind to a halt. 

High energy costs in Europe are contributing to a conservative political swing, Chinese renewable installations suddenly decelerated when government support was removed, US production tax credits were allowed to expire, and much of the developing world simply can't afford renewables.  The political steam behind their "slow and steady" rise is gone.  Moving forward, they'll continue to fill the niche applications where they make sense - but they won't replace base-load generation.

[NickW + 2,714]

19 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I've worked in academic labs.  About 75% of peer reviewed literature is garbage.  Climate research is no different; it's been making wild predictions for decades.  IIRC, the ice caps were supposed to have melted by now.  Or were we supposed to be in an ice age?  It's hard to tell; the climate "scientists" can't keep their story straight.

If you want trillions of dollars to be spent, the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate it's worth spending.  Make a climate model that accurately matches all climate data from all history.  Then use it to make a non-trivial predictions 20-30 years out.  If a statistically significant number of those predictions come true, I'll take your model seriously.

The second highlighted point is  complete garbage IMO,  however  I stand to be corrected so lets see the peer reviewed research that supports these claims. I'm happy to be proven wrong but lets see the evidence.

What were you actually working as in those labs?

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

50 minutes ago, NickW said:

The second highlighted point is  complete garbage IMO,  however  I stand to be corrected so lets see the peer reviewed research that supports these claims. I'm happy to be proven wrong but lets see the evidence.

What were you actually working as in those labs? 

The burden of proof lies on you.  Show me your validated model. 

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

The burden of proof lies on you.  Show me your validated model. 

Not on this matter. Don't change the subject to try and avoid showing you have posted a load of false cr4p - prima facie

You made the claim that peer reviewed science is a load of crock. You furthered this by stating that there are peer reviewed research papers claiming that by now the ice caps would have melted by now / or that the Earth would be in an ice age.

You made the claim - its incumbent upon you to provide evidence to support this in the face of a challenge. This is how basic scrutiny of evidence works.

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 minutes ago, NickW said:

Not on this matter. Don't change the subject to try and avoid showing you have posted a load of false cr4p - prima facie

You made the claim that peer reviewed science is a load of crock. You furthered this by stating that there are peer reviewed research papers claiming that by now the ice caps would have melted by now / or that the Earth would be in an ice age.

I'm humorously citing the alarmist nonsense climate scientists fed to the media, who used that alarmist nonsense to sell AGW to the public.  My point in doing so is to show that climate "scientists" don't rely on rational discourse to make their point.  Climate "scientists" are no better than the media, politicians, and snake oil salesmen.  It was their choice to sink to that level, destroying their reputation in the process.  Now they must live without respect afforded to academics and professionals. 

It's a real shame, too.  There was important work to be done in climate science.  Now that its practitioners have endangered the public by politicizing their work in an unprofessional manner, that may not get done.  Climate scientists ought to be held to the same standard as professional engineers, who would be stripped of their licenses, fined, and jailed for this kind of malpractice. 

 

19 minutes ago, NickW said:

You made the claim - its incumbent upon you to provide evidence to support this in the face of a challenge. This is how basic scrutiny of evidence works. 

I'm not obligated to provide you anything, you entitled twit.  If you want me to spend time and money on your models, you must provide evidence that your models work.  I've already told you what evidence is required: show me a model that explains past data and has accurately predicted the future.

No doubt you'll disagree with that standard of evidence, so I'll provide the context for it: it's the standard all scientific theories are held to.  E.g. Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation wasn't widely accepted until Edmund Haley used it to predict the reappearance of a comet.  It was the predictive power of a theory that matters.

You claim you can predict the climate decades/centuries into the future.  Where is your publicly recorded climate model from 30+ years ago whose predictions came true today?  If you don't have that, you have nothing. 

Once you have that, we can discuss the economic consequences of your predictions.  If you somehow manage to predict the economic future - something economists have failed to do for centuries - then we can talk about spending money. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I'm humorously citing the alarmist nonsense climate scientists fed to the media, who used that alarmist nonsense to sell AGW to the public.  My point in doing so is to show that climate "scientists" don't rely on rational discourse to make their point.  Climate "scientists" are no better than the media, politicians, and snake oil salesmen.  It was their choice to sink to that level, destroying their reputation in the process.  Now they must live without respect afforded to academics and professionals. 

It's a real shame, too.  There was important work to be done in climate science.  Now that its practitioners have endangered the public by politicizing their work in an unprofessional manner, that may not get done.  Climate scientists ought to be held to the same standard as professional engineers, who would be stripped of their licenses, fined, and jailed for this kind of malpractice. 

 

I'm not obligated to provide you anything, you entitled twit.  If you want me to spend time and money on your models, you must provide evidence that your models work.  I've already told you what evidence is required: show me a model that explains past data and has accurately predicted the future.

No doubt you'll disagree with that standard of evidence, so I'll provide the context for it: it's the standard all scientific theories are held to.  E.g. Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation wasn't widely accepted until Edmund Haley used it to predict the reappearance of a comet.  It was the predictive power of a theory that matters.

You claim you can predict the climate decades/centuries into the future.  Where is your publicly recorded climate model from 30+ years ago whose predictions came true today?  If you don't have that, you have nothing. 

Once you have that, we can discuss the economic consequences of your predictions.  If you somehow manage to predict the economic future - something economists have failed to do for centuries - then we can talk about spending money. 

Yawn......

I will ask again without the need to post the obligatory OP.com cartoon.

 

You said'

I've worked in academic labs.  About 75% of peer reviewed literature is garbage.  Climate research is no different; it's been making wild predictions for decades.  IIRC, the ice caps were supposed to have melted by now.  Or were we supposed to be in an ice age?  It's hard to tell; the climate "scientists" can't keep their story straight.

Fine - please provide evidence of peer reviewed studies to support your claims highlighted in the paragraph above?

Or would it be safe for me to assume your claims are all pi$$ and wind, smoke and mirrors?

[NickW + 2,714]

12 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I'm humorously citing the alarmist nonsense climate scientists......

 

This may help in your search

www.google.com