Post Reply 
The Great Global Warming Swindle
01-31-2017, 09:22 PM (This post was last modified: 01-31-2017 09:51 PM by kandrathe.)
Post: #41
RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle
(01-31-2017 07:29 PM)eppie Wrote:  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."

Quote: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?

Quote: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.

Quote: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 4 degree C.

[Image: scenariotempgraph_0.jpg]

and, I think it is important to understand how natures systems of sequestration will respond."From a global mass balance perspective, net uptake of atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase during the past 50 yr and seems to remain strong. Although present predictions indicate diminished C uptake by the land and oceans in the coming century, with potentially serious consequences for the global climate, as of 2010 there is no empirical evidence that C uptake has started to diminish on the global scale. Therefore, to improve our understanding of carbon–climate interactions, more process studies focusing on mechanisms and regions of increased net CO2 uptake are required, uncertainty in the global C budget must be reduced by better constraining estimates of fossil fuel emissions, and the global network monitoring atmospheric CO2 must be expanded to include regions where C uptake is sensitive to climate variability. "

Regardless of whether we survive it, I believe the ecologic change process is rapid enough to precipitate a massive species extinction event due to rapid climate change.

Quote: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

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P.J. O’Rourke

[Image: yVR5oE.png][Image: VKQ0KLG.png]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-31-2017, 10:01 PM (This post was last modified: 01-31-2017 10:03 PM by Lissa.)
Post: #42
RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle
(01-31-2017 09:22 PM)kandrathe Wrote:  
(01-31-2017 07:29 PM)eppie Wrote:  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).

Quote:
Quote: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).

Quote:
Quote: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.

Quote:
Quote: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.

Quote:
Quote: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.

Sith Warriors - They only class that gets a new room added to their ship after leaving Hoth, they get a Brooncloset

Einstein said Everything is Relative.
Heisenberg said Everything is Uncertain.
Therefore, everything is relatively uncertain.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2017, 03:52 PM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2017 07:35 PM by kandrathe.)
Post: #43
RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle
(01-31-2017 10:01 PM)Lissa Wrote:  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).
I'm more focused on the speed of lines going up, and down.

[Image: 20151212_woc737_0.png]Reaching Peak Emissions

Quote: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...
Sure. Knowing what I know, 800 times seems like a number yanked from the air. I don't dispute your experience with decommissioning existing aged infrastructure. I just like to deal with facts, not conjecture. Is there a study that shows all the money spent on clean energy research, and by whom? I believe you will find much of it is being done by fossil fuels giants looking ahead 30-40 years.

Quote: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.
Again, in theory... Nuclear powered cars didn't meet the condition necessary for wide spread consumer adoption. Is there even a prototype? Personal nukes sounds like a good plan... on some other planet not populated with angry apes.

Quote:Even recombining Hydrogen and Oxygen is just as good for power output as a fossil fuel and the bi-product is water.
"Hydrogen is not a readily accessible energy source like coal or wind. It is bound up tightly in molecules such as water and natural gas, so it is expensive and energy-intensive to extract and purify. A hydrogen economy–a time in which the economy’s primary energy carrier would be hydrogen made from sources of energy that have no net emissions of greenhouse gases–rests on two pillars: a pollution-free source for the hydrogen itself and a fuel cell for efficiently converting it into useful energy without generating pollution." -- JJ Romm

Quote:Simply, fossil fuels is a dead end for power production.
Literally. You don't need to sell it to me. I'm all "Elon Musk YAY!" In a hundred, to a few hundred years from now, people will look back at our squandering of natural mineral resources the way we look back at the senseless extermination of the passenger pigeon, or old growth forests. Oil is useful for things more useful than burning it.

Quote:More important is how soon and what we need to do to limit those changes.
I think we are at the point of choosing the form of the destructor. Unless we all coordinate to sequester the last 100 years of excess CO2 in the atmosphere, you aren't going to roll back changes in the global climate system. If we gave up fossil fuels completely now, we'd starve, freeze, and die in social upheaval uprisings.

[Image: 20133503041_84707166cc.jpg]

Quote: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.
The alarmism, based on that NASA paper, gave fuel to the normal ostrich, or denial response. Being imprecise, then selling it, them being wildly wrong because you didn't understand the mechanism fully is science, not politics. The issue is not that a scientist was wrong, but that it spawned a "Chicken Little" (Kylling Kluk) political movement which ends up with the full belly of Foxy Loxy (Ræv Skræv).

Quote: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.
This was my original point in calling out China, and India. It seems clear that new technology can increasingly green the energy in the US, Canada, and Europe while not shocking the economy into free fall. For the West, the prospects of reducing and eliminating most fossil fuel consumption has a glimmer of hope (maybe 4 decades away, but do-able).

But, as consumer demands for stuff, and energy increases in Asia, we risk vastly increasing the amount of annual carbon contribution to the atmosphere for decades. Now, I feel it is and has been patently unfair to their people that backwards economies have been kept down, but their emergence puts pressure on limited resources, and sustainability. That is to say, as Asia's people finally rise to enjoy the comforts we've enjoyed in the West for the past century, they'd be short lived as the planet slowly dies under the weight of our combined excess consumption.

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P.J. O’Rourke

[Image: yVR5oE.png][Image: VKQ0KLG.png]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2017, 09:18 PM
Post: #44
RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-data.html
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2017, 10:47 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2017 07:32 PM by kandrathe.)
Post: #45
RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle
(02-06-2017 09:18 PM)Ashock Wrote:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-data.html
Well, of course. Just like the Hanson model, or the hockey stick. If the data doesn't fit the narrative, or predetermined prediction, then we must engage in the hunt for the missing confirmation bias. Or, if you were to actually attempt to publish an inconvenient truth about the lack of measurable warming (tactfully named "a pause") then you might need to be pilloried and/ or otherwise humiliated in the public square of science... you... you... heretic!

You wouldn't want to publish facts that might confuse the flock of ardent zealous believers.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/...ated-data/

But, on the other side. The Daily Mail's David Rose sell more rags if he goes all sensational... it's gotta be a scandal to make the scandal rag. I would note that BOTH sides of this issue ( and others) are on volume level 11 (irrational head explodes). So, it is not a mystery why we can't discuss, or publish anything without one extremist, or the other getting apoplectic.

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P.J. O’Rourke

[Image: yVR5oE.png][Image: VKQ0KLG.png]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2017, 05:02 PM
Post: #46
RE: The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/articl...-Rose.html
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump: