Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024, Chris Buckley wrote:

On 2024-09-26, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

Leaving that aside, nuclear and hydro alone cannot supply sufficient
energy to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels at the historic
energy growth of 2.3% per annum.  Indeed, that's an exponential growth
that will eventually hit a sharp and sudden upward curve which leads
to all kinds of knock-on issues (scarcity, waste heat, etc.).  Consider
that if energy use growth continues at 2.3% per annum, in 400 years
the waste heat alone from energy generation will cause the earths
average surface temperature to exceed the boiling point of water[*].  Absurd,
perhaps, to assume that that growth rate is sustainable, but there you
are.
>
[*] Simple physics. The calculations are shown here:
>
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=20

>
Your arguments are as nonsensical now as they were 4 months ago
when you tried the same thing (well, you've modified the rate down to 2.3%
instead of 2.8%). You and Murphy do not understand very basic things
about scientific extrapolation and modeling.
>
Yes, if energy usage grows at 2.3%/year, after 400 years we'll be over
the boiling point of water. But it's equally true and informative
that if energy usage grows at 100%/year, after 15 years we'll be far above
the boiling point of water.  Ie, both have no relation to reality.
>
Modeling of the future is not done directly based on historical data;
it is done based on expected value in the future.  As you very well
know, having carefully read the evidence and citations I presented
4 months ago, the expected energy growth is far less than even 2.3%/year.
The US forecast I presented back then was for growth between 0 and 15%
total by year 2050.
>
So how about some current figures:
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html
From 2010 to 2019 growth rate was 1.5%/year worldwide.
>
In 2023 it was markably higher (2.2%) but that was pretty much due to
a big bump by China (6.6%).
>
The energy growth in the developed countries (OECD) was -1.5% in 2023.
Does that mean we have to worry about reaching the freezing point of
water instead? (Not a serious question).  As countries develop, their
growth rate will eventually decrease, given current concerns.
>
In any case, I know of no scientists predicting a growth rate of 2.3%/year.
Your model does not reflect reality and your comments are pointless.

Note that models is the new way of doing science. You develop 1000 models, 999 fail and are never heard of again, one model works for next week, and gets the glory! After 2 weeks, it too, fails, and another batch of 1000 models are develop.
Also note that only models predicting utter doom for the climate of the planets are allowed to be evaluated, all others are not even allowed into the club. ;)
But this is nothing new. It has been done since forever in the financial industry, and yields equally bad results, over time, in the stock market, except if you zoom out and look at the highest level trends. But the more you "zoom in" the worse the models become, over time.