CDZ What I think I know about Global Warming/Climate Change

[forkup]

the consensus of this event actually happening is high

False. Thousands of SCIENTISTS are not so sure.

"In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”"
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A consensus needs ONE SPECIFIC question to be answered. GW/CC is too much a complex interdisciplinary science to be DEFINED or polled on a single question.. So the debate about a consensus is PURELY a "low knowledge" media and public fabrication..

You can have ALMOST a consensus on the question of "Is the planet warming and man's emission play a role in that effect" --- But there are at least a couple dozen MORE IMPORTANT questions about the MAGNITUDE and course of that warming or the ability of the modeling to even accurately MAKE projections 30 or 100 years out.

Point is -- There is no immediate public policy crisis if the RATE of warming continues to be 0.014DegC per year. That's what it is currently from the 35 year satellite record. That's 0.14DegC per decade or 1.4DegC per century.

We can't even fathom the technology disruptions that might occur over 50 years making any current efforts useless. And that number from the satellite record is MUCH CLOSER to the BASIC chemistry/physics estimates for a doubling of CO2 in the atmos than it is to ANY of the distorted, fear-inducing, early 1980/90s propaganda campaign for the CATASTROPHIC version of GW/CC.. We have not even REACHED the FIRST doubling of CO2 in the atmos since the Industrial Revolution. And since the "power" of CO2 to warm the surface DECREASES exponentially with concentration, you need TWICE the concentration for the NEXT doubling to get the same 1.1DegC surface effect of the LAST doubling...

This is my problem here. Firstly my premise and I believe that of the OP is not trying to discuss if there is global warming or if the threat is severe enough. It's, if being uncertain of global warming and it's severity absolves humanity of the need to act on it like both are certain?
Second, you first knock the consensus argument, and then concede that there is a consensus about the main assertion.
- I do want to ask you a few questions. First you gave a few statistical numbers. Can you please source them? And since you seem to be making the argument that the consequences won't be severe, why is it that California for instance is getting more, and more severe fires to give a very blatant example?

I knock the simplistic idea that a consensus on ONE QUESTION (a fairly benign one) is the ENTIRE DEBATE. We can all agree that the Earth is warming.. (I do) and that man has some effect on that (I do) -- but it doesn't tell you whether to snooze and change the channel or PANIC AND SCREAM AND RUN.

Because if there's NO consensus from the climate scientists on whether their TOOLS (like the modeling that makes 40 or 100 year predictions is ANY GOOD for that purpose --- regardless of the stupid general consensus that I agreed to above -- we have no policy guidance to act on..

And climate scientists DON'T all agree on the efficiency and accuracy of the models when you ask them that question.. From the most comprehensive survey OF Climate scientists made BY climate scientists (Bray and von Storch -- 2012 thru 2017) here that opinion is.. The vast MAJORITY of them don't have great faith in their models for climate prediction..

As for the Cal fires, that's leaping WAY AHEAD of determining "how frightened" anyone should be about the 0.6DegC increase in GLOBAL temperature that's occurred in your lifetime. Lots of stuff about that ONE NUMBER that gets bantied about..

First -- trying to ASSESS something as complex as the Earth's climate system WITH ONE DAMN NUMBER is a little arrogant. For instance, because that's a WORLD measurement, it says little about the many different climate zones that this planet actually has. This stupid single GLOBAL number leads the public to believe that's what THEY have experienced. When in fact, the Arctic accounts for almost 40% of that planetary warming. WHY? because a "little" extra Greenhouse "blanket" over the Arctic, has a MUCH LARGER temperature change. (It's called Climate sensitivity and is another complex variable that the public version of CC science treats as static constant for the ENTIRE planet -- but it's neither a constant or static)..

Fires, droughts, floods are forever in the history of Cali. Measuring WHY they seem to worse has more answers than JUST "global warming".. It's not possible to determine a 0.5deg shift in mean from the larger NATURAL VARIANCE on temp. Most places in the world have avg temps that VARY by +/- 12 or 15 degrees by DAY (over previous years) or +/- 2 or 3 degrees by SEASON (over previous years). So have some perspective on assigning blame because of 50 year shift of 0.5 degree..

In essence what you are saying is we don't know how bad it'll get so lets do nothing?

 

[Olde Europe]

Considering all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions. That in and of itself should say quite a lot about the danger.

Naw, the only thing left to decide is whether they've fallen for the Chinese Hoax, or are in on it.

Actually, it's saddening to watch how much toxic waste the Merchants of Doubt have injected into the climate debate in the U.S., and even intelligent folk falling for the scam, while everybody with a grasp of data and evidence, and an unpolluted mind, finds the time for procrastination, business as usual, is up. If anything, climate scientists have to revise up their former estimates of climate consequences in the face of more recent data. All the while, carbon emissions are still rising, and Trump's imbecility is but a small part of it. That should scare the hell out of everyone.

 

[task0778]

the consensus of this event actually happening is high

False. Thousands of SCIENTISTS are not so sure.

"In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”"
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A consensus needs ONE SPECIFIC question to be answered. GW/CC is too much a complex interdisciplinary science to be DEFINED or polled on a single question.. So the debate about a consensus is PURELY a "low knowledge" media and public fabrication..

You can have ALMOST a consensus on the question of "Is the planet warming and man's emission play a role in that effect" --- But there are at least a couple dozen MORE IMPORTANT questions about the MAGNITUDE and course of that warming or the ability of the modeling to even accurately MAKE projections 30 or 100 years out.

Point is -- There is no immediate public policy crisis if the RATE of warming continues to be 0.014DegC per year. That's what it is currently from the 35 year satellite record. That's 0.14DegC per decade or 1.4DegC per century.

We can't even fathom the technology disruptions that might occur over 50 years making any current efforts useless. And that number from the satellite record is MUCH CLOSER to the BASIC chemistry/physics estimates for a doubling of CO2 in the atmos than it is to ANY of the distorted, fear-inducing, early 1980/90s propaganda campaign for the CATASTROPHIC version of GW/CC.. We have not even REACHED the FIRST doubling of CO2 in the atmos since the Industrial Revolution. And since the "power" of CO2 to warm the surface DECREASES exponentially with concentration, you need TWICE the concentration for the NEXT doubling to get the same 1.1DegC surface effect of the LAST doubling...

This is my problem here. Firstly my premise and I believe that of the OP is not trying to discuss if there is global warming or if the threat is severe enough. It's, if being uncertain of global warming and it's severity absolves humanity of the need to act on it like both are certain?
Second, you first knock the consensus argument, and then concede that there is a consensus about the main assertion.
- I do want to ask you a few questions. First you gave a few statistical numbers. Can you please source them? And since you seem to be making the argument that the consequences won't be severe, why is it that California for instance is getting more, and more severe fires to give a very blatant example?

I knock the simplistic idea that a consensus on ONE QUESTION (a fairly benign one) is the ENTIRE DEBATE. We can all agree that the Earth is warming.. (I do) and that man has some effect on that (I do) -- but it doesn't tell you whether to snooze and change the channel or PANIC AND SCREAM AND RUN.

Because if there's NO consensus from the climate scientists on whether their TOOLS (like the modeling that makes 40 or 100 year predictions is ANY GOOD for that purpose --- regardless of the stupid general consensus that I agreed to above -- we have no policy guidance to act on..

And climate scientists DON'T all agree on the efficiency and accuracy of the models when you ask them that question.. From the most comprehensive survey OF Climate scientists made BY climate scientists (Bray and von Storch -- 2012 thru 2017) here that opinion is.. The vast MAJORITY of them don't have great faith in their models for climate prediction..

As for the Cal fires, that's leaping WAY AHEAD of determining "how frightened" anyone should be about the 0.6DegC increase in GLOBAL temperature that's occurred in your lifetime. Lots of stuff about that ONE NUMBER that gets bantied about..

First -- trying to ASSESS something as complex as the Earth's climate system WITH ONE DAMN NUMBER is a little arrogant. For instance, because that's a WORLD measurement, it says little about the many different climate zones that this planet actually has. This stupid single GLOBAL number leads the public to believe that's what THEY have experienced. When in fact, the Arctic accounts for almost 40% of that planetary warming. WHY? because a "little" extra Greenhouse "blanket" over the Arctic, has a MUCH LARGER temperature change. (It's called Climate sensitivity and is another complex variable that the public version of CC science treats as static constant for the ENTIRE planet -- but it's neither a constant or static)..

Fires, droughts, floods are forever in the history of Cali. Measuring WHY they seem to worse has more answers than JUST "global warming".. It's not possible to determine a 0.5deg shift in mean from the larger NATURAL VARIANCE on temp. Most places in the world have avg temps that VARY by +/- 12 or 15 degrees by DAY (over previous years) or +/- 2 or 3 degrees by SEASON (over previous years). So have some perspective on assigning blame because of 50 year shift of 0.5 degree..

In essence what you are saying is we don't know how bad it'll get so lets do nothing?

I think what he's saying in essence is we don't know how bad it'll get so lets not PANIC AND SCREAM AND RUN.

 

[Leo123]

Considering all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions. That in and of itself should say quite a lot about the danger.

Not true....Here is some info for you.

"2. Declines in CO2 emissions in 2017 were led by the US (-0.5% and 42 million tons, see chart above). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years."

"5. Together, China and India accounted for nearly half (212.2 million tons) of the increase in global carbon emissions (426.4 million tons). EU emissions were also up (1.5% and 42.4 million tons, see chart) with just Spain accounting for 44% of the increase in EU emissions. Among other EU members, UK and Denmark reported the lowest carbon emissions in their history."

Chart of the day: In 2017, US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world for 9th time this century - AEI

 

[Olde Europe]

Considering all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions. That in and of itself should say quite a lot about the danger.

Not true....Here is some info for you.

"2. Declines in CO2 emissions in 2017 were led by the US (-0.5% and 42 million tons, see chart above). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years."

"5. Together, China and India accounted for nearly half (212.2 million tons) of the increase in global carbon emissions (426.4 million tons). EU emissions were also up (1.5% and 42.4 million tons, see chart) with just Spain accounting for 44% of the increase in EU emissions. Among other EU members, UK and Denmark reported the lowest carbon emissions in their history."

Chart of the day: In 2017, US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world for 9th time this century - AEI

Thank You! x 1
task0778

Winner x 1
Meister​

And yet, "America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018".

I have a little puzzle in the above-quoted text. 42 million tons (EU: 1.5%, 450 million people), and 42 million tons (US: 0.5%, 325 million people): What does that tell you?

Moreover, tax man's text clearly stated, "all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions." Whereas the U.S., having left the Paris Accord, and Trump reversing whatever climate-related regulations President Obama enacted, clearly doesn't try, and, if the 2018 increase is any indication, seems to have reversed the prior course of reducing the emissions, from an egregiously high per-capita level. Tax Man is perfectly right.

 

[Leo123]

Considering all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions. That in and of itself should say quite a lot about the danger.

Not true....Here is some info for you.

"2. Declines in CO2 emissions in 2017 were led by the US (-0.5% and 42 million tons, see chart above). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years."

"5. Together, China and India accounted for nearly half (212.2 million tons) of the increase in global carbon emissions (426.4 million tons). EU emissions were also up (1.5% and 42.4 million tons, see chart) with just Spain accounting for 44% of the increase in EU emissions. Among other EU members, UK and Denmark reported the lowest carbon emissions in their history."

Chart of the day: In 2017, US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world for 9th time this century - AEI

Thank You! x 1
task0778

Winner x 1
Meister​

And yet, "America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018".

I have a little puzzle in the above-quoted text. 42 million tons (EU: 1.5%, 450 million people), and 42 million tons (US: 0.5%, 325 million people): What does that tell you?

Moreover, tax man's text clearly stated, "all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions." Whereas the U.S., having left the Paris Accord, and Trump reversing whatever climate-related regulations President Obama enacted, clearly doesn't try, and, if the 2018 increase is any indication, seems to have reversed the prior course of reducing the emissions, from an egregiously high per-capita level. Tax Man is perfectly right.

Your link says the CO2 rise is a preliminary estimate. Why are you citing supposition as fact? BTW the link's source 'Rhodium Group' which is an organization making money off so called climate change.

"The report appears to be authored by the co-chairs. In fact, according to the CEI report, the consultants from an outfit called the Rhodium Group wrote it.

The Rhodium Group, headed by a former climate and energy adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Democratic presidential campaign, told The Washington Times that it did not produce the report.

Related: New Report Exposes Global Warming ‘Law Enforcement for Rent’

But the Rhodium executive, Trevor Houser, wrote in August 2017 email, “My understanding is that we are ghost-writing this, and it will be produced/branded as a USCA work product that uses/references Rhodium Group data. Correct?”

The arrangements sparked ethical and legal concerns among some supporters. The CEI report cites an email from Cuomo aide Cochran to Inslee advisers in July 2017. “I am concerned about the branding issue for UNF,” he wrote, referring to the Ted Turner organization."

Privately Funded Government Jobs Advance Left's Climate Agenda

 

[flacaltenn]

1. There seems to be a significant increase in the amount (percentage?) of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is unknown how much of this is due to man-made emissions.

2. There seems to be a slight increase in ocean temperatures. It is unknown if this is related to CO2 levels or natural variations.

3. Many scientists believe that these portend rapid and catastrophic effects on the Earth's climate. It is unknown what the specific effects would be.

4. Many people believe that governments should impose drastic restrictions and controls on industry to avoid or minimize these effects.

5. Other people dispute the likelihood of of these effects and/or their causation by man-made emissions.

6. The question is what price should we be willing to pay now in order to deal with a speculative future?

Thoughts/comments?

1.) It is entirely clear that the catastrophic rise in carbon in the atmosphere from 280 (pre-industrial) to over 400ppm today is due to human activity, the burning of fossil fuel in particular.

2. There is near universal consensus among publishing climate scientists that the rise in ocean and surface temperatures is due to the rise in CO₂.

3. The general outlines of the trajectory we are on is clear, apart from the exact point when feedback loops the rising temperatures are kicking off, generating runaway climate change.

4. Far too few people are convinced that decarbonizing our entire way of life (particularly in the industrialized West) is necessary to avoid climate catastrophe, even though that is absolutely required.

5. With respect to them the only question is, who is paying these people to say what they are saying?

6. The question is, is humankind smart enough, do we care enough for our offspring, to pay but a small price now to avoid a catastrophic price to be paid later.

Considering all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions. That in and of itself should say quite a lot about the danger.

Why don't you go ask Macron of France how well that's going? Or the folks in Germany where electricity is now a luxury item and their wind/solar investments are now an embarrassment to the annointed leaders..

...

 

[JBvM]

Why don't you go ask Macron of France how well that's going? Or the folks in Germany where electricity is now a luxury item and their wind/solar investments are now an embarrassment to the annointed leaders..

...

Are their wind/solar investments really an embarrassment? Haven't heard that one yet

 

[JBvM]

I see some weird web site Scandal: Germany Darkens…Blocks EU Bid To Collect (Embarrassing) ‘Energy Poverty’ Data! that looks like an attack site. Can't be relied on, but it plays the 'embarrassment' game

But I find some facts here: German wind output to increase in 2018

German wind output to increase in 2018
13 December 2018 by Craig Richard

Renewables are expected to cover 38% of gross electricity consumption in Germany in 2018, according to preliminary figures, up two percentage points from last year, with grid upgrades also on the horiz

 

[flacaltenn]

I see some weird web site Scandal: Germany Darkens…Blocks EU Bid To Collect (Embarrassing) ‘Energy Poverty’ Data! that looks like an attack site. Can't be relied on, but it plays the 'embarrassment' game

But I find some facts here: German wind output to increase in 2018

German wind output to increase in 2018
13 December 2018 by Craig Richard

Renewables are expected to cover 38% of gross electricity consumption in Germany in 2018, according to preliminary figures, up two percentage points from last year, with grid upgrades also on the horiz

So you skipped the REAL news about the failure of launching 'green" electricity because of questionable sources and launched right over to "windpowermonthly.com" for a straight story... Sad....

Renewables aren't just solar and wind.. It's includes hydro and a lot of "biomass" furnaces... (Read that -- burning garbage to save the planet).. And the numbers that advocates use (like in your link) is INSTALLED CAPACITY.. Solar and wind typically operate at 1/3 of their installed capacity because the sun only shines efficiently for about 8 a day (less in Germany) and the wind only blows on about 1/3 of days. The bragging numbers are not ACTUAL production..

So -- you being the "free market" kinda guy -- lemme tell you how this unfolds. For every MWatt of wind/solar that you put on grid -- you need an INSTANTANEOUS "back-up" generator like hydro or gas or nuclear or coal or you need to IMPORT that back-up from neighbors. So you're paying for TWICE the generation capacity that you actually need. And actually, that gas, hydro, coal, nuclear plant is really your PRIME generator, but the govt FORCES YOU to idle your plant when the wind decides to blow or the sun shines or the snow melts off the solar panels in winter.

So -- being a capitalist, you'll understand if investors don't WANT to put money into a mega nat gas plant that the government is only gonna allow to run about 60% of the time. While you have to pay for the same labor, maintenance costs.

Ever see a daily production for a 1st class offshore wind farm? These used to be available all over the web in the early 2000s and most have now been taken down to avoid embarrassment. This one is a Danish field that is in one of richest wind fields in the world... Keep in mind it's rated capacity is 600,000..

Wanna see German solar production in the wintertime?? LOL...

 

[JBvM]

I see some weird web site Scandal: Germany Darkens…Blocks EU Bid To Collect (Embarrassing) ‘Energy Poverty’ Data! that looks like an attack site. Can't be relied on, but it plays the 'embarrassment' game

But I find some facts here: German wind output to increase in 2018

German wind output to increase in 2018
13 December 2018 by Craig Richard

Renewables are expected to cover 38% of gross electricity consumption in Germany in 2018, according to preliminary figures, up two percentage points from last year, with grid upgrades also on the horiz

So you skipped the REAL news about the failure of launching 'green" electricity because of questionable sources and launched right over to "windpowermonthly.com" for a straight story... Sad....

Renewables aren't just solar and wind.. It's includes hydro and a lot of "biomass" furnaces... (Read that -- burning garbage to save the planet).. And the numbers that advocates use (like in your link) is INSTALLED CAPACITY.. Solar and wind typically operate at 1/3 of their installed capacity because the sun only shines efficiently for about 8 a day (less in Germany) and the wind only blows on about 1/3 of days. The bragging numbers are not ACTUAL production..

So -- you being the "free market" kinda guy -- lemme tell you how this unfolds. For every MWatt of wind/solar that you put on grid -- you need an INSTANTANEOUS "back-up" generator like hydro or gas or nuclear or coal or you need to IMPORT that back-up from neighbors. So you're paying for TWICE the generation capacity that you actually need. And actually, that gas, hydro, coal, nuclear plant is really your PRIME generator, but the govt FORCES YOU to idle your plant when the wind decides to blow or the sun shines or the snow melts off the solar panels in winter.

So -- being a capitalist, you'll understand if investors don't WANT to put money into a mega nat gas plant that the government is only gonna allow to run about 60% of the time. While you have to pay for the same labor, maintenance costs.

Ever see a daily production for a 1st class offshore wind farm? These used to be available all over the web in the early 2000s and most have now been taken down to avoid embarrassment. This one is a Danish field that is in one of richest wind fields in the world... Keep in mind it's rated capacity is 600,000..

Wanna see German solar production in the wintertime?? LOL...

I have only seen tons of Wind farms in California and Washington

all over farm country and/or high desert locations

Not sure I trust all the web sites and partisan on sides of this issue debated on the web and in print

I've seen people involved attack NASA
that is guaranteed to lose me

 

[Leo123]

I see some weird web site Scandal: Germany Darkens…Blocks EU Bid To Collect (Embarrassing) ‘Energy Poverty’ Data! that looks like an attack site. Can't be relied on, but it plays the 'embarrassment' game

But I find some facts here: German wind output to increase in 2018

German wind output to increase in 2018
13 December 2018 by Craig Richard

Renewables are expected to cover 38% of gross electricity consumption in Germany in 2018, according to preliminary figures, up two percentage points from last year, with grid upgrades also on the horiz

So you skipped the REAL news about the failure of launching 'green" electricity because of questionable sources and launched right over to "windpowermonthly.com" for a straight story... Sad....

Renewables aren't just solar and wind.. It's includes hydro and a lot of "biomass" furnaces... (Read that -- burning garbage to save the planet).. And the numbers that advocates use (like in your link) is INSTALLED CAPACITY.. Solar and wind typically operate at 1/3 of their installed capacity because the sun only shines efficiently for about 8 a day (less in Germany) and the wind only blows on about 1/3 of days. The bragging numbers are not ACTUAL production..

So -- you being the "free market" kinda guy -- lemme tell you how this unfolds. For every MWatt of wind/solar that you put on grid -- you need an INSTANTANEOUS "back-up" generator like hydro or gas or nuclear or coal or you need to IMPORT that back-up from neighbors. So you're paying for TWICE the generation capacity that you actually need. And actually, that gas, hydro, coal, nuclear plant is really your PRIME generator, but the govt FORCES YOU to idle your plant when the wind decides to blow or the sun shines or the snow melts off the solar panels in winter.

So -- being a capitalist, you'll understand if investors don't WANT to put money into a mega nat gas plant that the government is only gonna allow to run about 60% of the time. While you have to pay for the same labor, maintenance costs.

Ever see a daily production for a 1st class offshore wind farm? These used to be available all over the web in the early 2000s and most have now been taken down to avoid embarrassment. This one is a Danish field that is in one of richest wind fields in the world... Keep in mind it's rated capacity is 600,000..

Wanna see German solar production in the wintertime?? LOL...

I have only seen tons of Wind farms in California and Washington

all over farm country and/or high desert locations

Not sure I trust all the web sites and partisan on sides of this issue debated on the web and in print

I've seen people involved attack NASA
that is guaranteed to lose me

Wind farms have a fairly heavy maintenance cost. Compare tons of windmills to a few huge hydro generators or a nuclear plant. The latter are much more efficient. That being said, I have nothing against generating electricity by a diverse means. I hear that ocean tide generators can produce energy but you seldom hear about it.

 

[JBvM]

I see some weird web site Scandal: Germany Darkens…Blocks EU Bid To Collect (Embarrassing) ‘Energy Poverty’ Data! that looks like an attack site. Can't be relied on, but it plays the 'embarrassment' game

But I find some facts here: German wind output to increase in 2018

German wind output to increase in 2018
13 December 2018 by Craig Richard

Renewables are expected to cover 38% of gross electricity consumption in Germany in 2018, according to preliminary figures, up two percentage points from last year, with grid upgrades also on the horiz

So you skipped the REAL news about the failure of launching 'green" electricity because of questionable sources and launched right over to "windpowermonthly.com" for a straight story... Sad....

Renewables aren't just solar and wind.. It's includes hydro and a lot of "biomass" furnaces... (Read that -- burning garbage to save the planet).. And the numbers that advocates use (like in your link) is INSTALLED CAPACITY.. Solar and wind typically operate at 1/3 of their installed capacity because the sun only shines efficiently for about 8 a day (less in Germany) and the wind only blows on about 1/3 of days. The bragging numbers are not ACTUAL production..

So -- you being the "free market" kinda guy -- lemme tell you how this unfolds. For every MWatt of wind/solar that you put on grid -- you need an INSTANTANEOUS "back-up" generator like hydro or gas or nuclear or coal or you need to IMPORT that back-up from neighbors. So you're paying for TWICE the generation capacity that you actually need. And actually, that gas, hydro, coal, nuclear plant is really your PRIME generator, but the govt FORCES YOU to idle your plant when the wind decides to blow or the sun shines or the snow melts off the solar panels in winter.

So -- being a capitalist, you'll understand if investors don't WANT to put money into a mega nat gas plant that the government is only gonna allow to run about 60% of the time. While you have to pay for the same labor, maintenance costs.

Ever see a daily production for a 1st class offshore wind farm? These used to be available all over the web in the early 2000s and most have now been taken down to avoid embarrassment. This one is a Danish field that is in one of richest wind fields in the world... Keep in mind it's rated capacity is 600,000..

Wanna see German solar production in the wintertime?? LOL...

I have only seen tons of Wind farms in California and Washington

all over farm country and/or high desert locations

Not sure I trust all the web sites and partisan on sides of this issue debated on the web and in print

I've seen people involved attack NASA
that is guaranteed to lose me

Wind farms have a fairly heavy maintenance cost. Compare tons of windmills to a few huge hydro generators or a nuclear plant. The latter are much more efficient. That being said, I have nothing against generating electricity by a diverse means. I hear that ocean tide generators can produce energy but you seldom hear about it.

I hear about that every once in a while. Anywhere near a coast will be attacked by everyone with an interest and investment on coastal issues -- call them stakeholders or whatever, but unless generating machines are put far ... then we get into fishing grounds.

maybe we should conserve and go more green. The younger generation believes so. Screw people over 30

 

[Olde Europe]

Considering all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions. That in and of itself should say quite a lot about the danger.

Not true....Here is some info for you.

"2. Declines in CO2 emissions in 2017 were led by the US (-0.5% and 42 million tons, see chart above). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years."

"5. Together, China and India accounted for nearly half (212.2 million tons) of the increase in global carbon emissions (426.4 million tons). EU emissions were also up (1.5% and 42.4 million tons, see chart) with just Spain accounting for 44% of the increase in EU emissions. Among other EU members, UK and Denmark reported the lowest carbon emissions in their history."

Chart of the day: In 2017, US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world for 9th time this century - AEI

Thank You! x 1
task0778

Winner x 1
Meister​

And yet, "America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018".

I have a little puzzle in the above-quoted text. 42 million tons (EU: 1.5%, 450 million people), and 42 million tons (US: 0.5%, 325 million people): What does that tell you?

Moreover, tax man's text clearly stated, "all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions." Whereas the U.S., having left the Paris Accord, and Trump reversing whatever climate-related regulations President Obama enacted, clearly doesn't try, and, if the 2018 increase is any indication, seems to have reversed the prior course of reducing the emissions, from an egregiously high per-capita level. Tax Man is perfectly right.

Your link says the CO2 rise is a preliminary estimate. Why are you citing supposition as fact? BTW the link's source 'Rhodium Group' which is an organization making money off so called climate change.

"The report appears to be authored by the co-chairs. In fact, according to the CEI report, the consultants from an outfit called the Rhodium Group wrote it.

The Rhodium Group, headed by a former climate and energy adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Democratic presidential campaign, told The Washington Times that it did not produce the report.

Related: New Report Exposes Global Warming ‘Law Enforcement for Rent’

But the Rhodium executive, Trevor Houser, wrote in August 2017 email, “My understanding is that we are ghost-writing this, and it will be produced/branded as a USCA work product that uses/references Rhodium Group data. Correct?”

The arrangements sparked ethical and legal concerns among some supporters. The CEI report cites an email from Cuomo aide Cochran to Inslee advisers in July 2017. “I am concerned about the branding issue for UNF,” he wrote, referring to the Ted Turner organization."

Privately Funded Government Jobs Advance Left's Climate Agenda

Yeah, it's an estimate ...

Based on emissions data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for the first three quarters of the year, weekly EIA petroleum supply data, plus daily power generation and natural gas data from Genscape and Bloomberg, respectively, we estimate that energy-related CO2 emissions increased by 3.4% in 2018.​

... based, you know, on data. Your quote, Livezette working as hyperventilating mouthpiece for the CEI, long on innuendo and short on facts, is non-pertinent to the 2018 emissions data, and non-responsive - just another in a long list of climate-denial smears, laden with out-of-context quotes. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[jwoodie]

In the end though nuclear is not the solution.

So what is "the solution?"

 

[forkup]

In the end though nuclear is not the solution.

So what is "the solution?"

Wind, solar, local energy production, or some other technology yet to be developed. As I said 1 mishap on average every 20 years involving an energy source that has harmful effects for periods measured in millennia should give a person pause don't you think?

 

[jwoodie]

In the end though nuclear is not the solution.

So what is "the solution?"

Wind, solar, local energy production, or some other technology yet to be developed. As I said 1 mishap on average every 20 years involving an energy source that has harmful effects for periods measured in millennia should give a person pause don't you think?

So should we wait for this other technology to be developed? (Wind, solar and local energy production are obviously insufficient.)

P.S. Which do you consider to be a greater threat: Nuclear power or Global Warming?

 

[forkup]

In the end though nuclear is not the solution.

So what is "the solution?"

Wind, solar, local energy production, or some other technology yet to be developed. As I said 1 mishap on average every 20 years involving an energy source that has harmful effects for periods measured in millennia should give a person pause don't you think?

So should we wait for this other technology to be developed? (Wind, solar and local energy production are obviously insufficient.)

P.S. Which do you consider to be a greater threat: Nuclear power or Global Warming?

Actually no. I already conceded that nuclear power is probably better than the non-renewable options. I just stated that nuclear is not a good long term solution. Not saying it's not usable in the interim.
As to renewable energy being insufficient. There are plenty of countries who are putting resources in renewable energy and for whom those sources are beginning to displace conventional energy production.

 

[forkup]

In the end though nuclear is not the solution.

So what is "the solution?"

Wind, solar, local energy production, or some other technology yet to be developed. As I said 1 mishap on average every 20 years involving an energy source that has harmful effects for periods measured in millennia should give a person pause don't you think?

So should we wait for this other technology to be developed? (Wind, solar and local energy production are obviously insufficient.)

P.S. Which do you consider to be a greater threat: Nuclear power or Global Warming?

Global warming in terms of overall damage. Not considering nuclear weapons who to me are the biggest threat to humanity overall.

 

[flacaltenn]

Considering all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions. That in and of itself should say quite a lot about the danger.

Not true....Here is some info for you.

"2. Declines in CO2 emissions in 2017 were led by the US (-0.5% and 42 million tons, see chart above). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years."

"5. Together, China and India accounted for nearly half (212.2 million tons) of the increase in global carbon emissions (426.4 million tons). EU emissions were also up (1.5% and 42.4 million tons, see chart) with just Spain accounting for 44% of the increase in EU emissions. Among other EU members, UK and Denmark reported the lowest carbon emissions in their history."

Chart of the day: In 2017, US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world for 9th time this century - AEI

Thank You! x 1
task0778

Winner x 1
Meister​

And yet, "America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018".

I have a little puzzle in the above-quoted text. 42 million tons (EU: 1.5%, 450 million people), and 42 million tons (US: 0.5%, 325 million people): What does that tell you?

Moreover, tax man's text clearly stated, "all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions." Whereas the U.S., having left the Paris Accord, and Trump reversing whatever climate-related regulations President Obama enacted, clearly doesn't try, and, if the 2018 increase is any indication, seems to have reversed the prior course of reducing the emissions, from an egregiously high per-capita level. Tax Man is perfectly right.

Your link says the CO2 rise is a preliminary estimate. Why are you citing supposition as fact? BTW the link's source 'Rhodium Group' which is an organization making money off so called climate change.

"The report appears to be authored by the co-chairs. In fact, according to the CEI report, the consultants from an outfit called the Rhodium Group wrote it.

The Rhodium Group, headed by a former climate and energy adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Democratic presidential campaign, told The Washington Times that it did not produce the report.

Related: New Report Exposes Global Warming ‘Law Enforcement for Rent’

But the Rhodium executive, Trevor Houser, wrote in August 2017 email, “My understanding is that we are ghost-writing this, and it will be produced/branded as a USCA work product that uses/references Rhodium Group data. Correct?”

The arrangements sparked ethical and legal concerns among some supporters. The CEI report cites an email from Cuomo aide Cochran to Inslee advisers in July 2017. “I am concerned about the branding issue for UNF,” he wrote, referring to the Ted Turner organization."

Privately Funded Government Jobs Advance Left's Climate Agenda

Yeah, it's an estimate ...

Based on emissions data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for the first three quarters of the year, weekly EIA petroleum supply data, plus daily power generation and natural gas data from Genscape and Bloomberg, respectively, we estimate that energy-related CO2 emissions increased by 3.4% in 2018.​

... based, you know, on data. Your quote, Livezette working as hyperventilating mouthpiece for the CEI, long on innuendo and short on facts, is non-pertinent to the 2018 emissions data, and non-responsive - just another in a long list of climate-denial smears, laden with out-of-context quotes. Thanks, but no thanks.

Up 3% over a year ago is likely in the noise and error of the data. About the ONLY thing that matters on this is: