The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Lissa]

China is doing much more on renewable energy than we are doing. Of course they are also catching up and consuming more and more but next to that they do much more than most western countries (except for countries such as Sweden and Denmark).

Wait. In looking at consumption, you want to view them per capita, but in production you look at them en masse?

https://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/26/sol...y-country/

or

https://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/27/top...es-update/

If the goal is to find the stats putting China in the best light, you are winning.

How about... "China’s coal power generation capacity will grow as much as 19 percent over the next five years even as the world’s biggest energy consumer expands use of non-fossil fuels."

Except, you forget the other things that have been mentioned (and I already pointed to earlier in this thread) that while the Chinese are increasing the number of coal plants, they also putting in more efficient and less climate impacting plants (by using carbon scrubbers to remove as much CO2 from the exhaust as possible).

The lobby against climate change is only about 800 times bigger than the total funding for scientists that are working on serious climate change.

Or, is it 856 times? Where is this stat coming from?

It's coming from those that would lose a lot in profits if they had to actually build infrastructure that was more climate friendly.

Knowing what I know, power companies and the like do everything they can to keep a plant running for as long as possible (this is why some electrical producers that are running reactors are pushing the NRC to allow them to go past the 50 year license on some nuclear plants to squeeze as much profit as they can even though those old plants are a lot less efficient and potentially more dangerous then newer designs).

It is also not even a very difficult piece of science....if there wasn't such a big interest of old money to keep digging coal and oil we would have had consensus already in the beginning of the 90s.

More than that. Fossil fuels are "power packed" and portable (i.e. fuel tanks). The issue is more that the replacement for the range and power of 40 liters of petrol is non-existent, until recently. Coal is also energy dense, and cheap per ton. It was the go to fuel for electric steam generation, until pollution (not just CO2) controls, and fracking made NG a better, cheaper alternative. Wind and solar are great, and getting better, but still there is darkness, and cloudy, and windless days requiring the backup generation of a dependable source.

No they're not. That's the furthest thing from the truth when it comes to energy output. The typical combusion process (converting some fossil fuel to energy and bi-products) is about 2 to 3 eV (electron volt) per interaction. The typically fission reaction (splitting Uranium, Plutonium, or Thorium) is 200 MeV (Mega electron volt) which is ~100,000,000 times higher. Even the fusion reaction of H2 and H3 to He4 + n is about 12 MeV (4,000,000 to 6,000,000) more per interaction. Even recombining Hydrogen and Oxygen is just as good for power output as a fossil fuel and the bi-product is water.

Simply, fossil fuels is a dead end for power production.

Most people working on climate change are working on estimating how much the temps will rise when we do thing a or thing b. Nobody is working on evidence because it is already as clear as is gravity......there might be some details slightly of but it is a solid piece of work.

I think it is important to know if the temp will go up 1 degree C, or 10 degree C.

More important is how soon and what we need to do to limit those changes.

Again.....climate science is not the most difficult thing scientists are investigating...far from that.

And yet, they get it so wrong sometimes.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/198...02700w.pdf

Everyone is going to get things wrong on occasion, but the fact that there's more right than wrong says something about those that refuse to think that Humans are having an effect on the climate. It isn't just what we're doing with power production, but the sheer numbers of us. With the increase in temperatures and increase in population have gone hand in hand. In 1950 there were 2.5 Billion Humans on Earth, now in 2016 it's estimated to be around 7.4 Billion Humans on Earth, almost 3 times as many and the overall change in climate started as the population has exploded over the past 60 years.

The elephant is in the room and the deniers need to take their blinders off and look around like those that don't deny it have.