Climate change: Is it for real?

Yes, that is why they average them. China is gave out 155 permits for coal power plants this year alone plus they are building them in third world nations.

 

They appear to be all wrong based on the data from 1998 on. There is a chart up thread that shows this.

China like all developing countries including the US will be forced to improving air quality as the standard of living improves in their country. This is the process by which economic growth increases the wealth available to improve the standard of living of the people. At this point they are much more interested in economic growth. Any interest in moving away from fossil fuels in the short term will be driven by air quality. BTW 4 nuclear power stations will do nothing with regard to CO2 emissions. Pielke Jr. has calculated that it would take the installation of 8500 nuclear power plants (1000 MegaWatts capacity each) to reduce the CO2 emissions by 50% of the 1990 levels by 2050. That's one power plant per day (starting in 2010) between now and the year 2050.

Source - The Climate Fix - Roger Pielke, Jr. - page 116 (of the paper back, the hard cover has an error and lists 12,000) - 2010.

 

Developing countries are not going to hobble their economic growth for a Western wet dream, that is why they all went to Paris with their hands out.

 

Exactly - and all the increases in global CO2 emissions are coming from the developing countries. I recall reading somewhere that the Chinese bullet trains were developed to get the passengers off the tracks so as not to interfere with the coal trains.

 

Like I said though, comparing a model to the actual temperature means very little, in terms of evidence against AGW, unless assumptions about natural cycles and human activity actually came true. It's these uncertainties that are largely the source of the discrepancy, not our understanding of the greenhouse effect. Here are the temperature ranges predicted by some models that *did* make the correct assumptions about El Nino/La Nina oscillations.



http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/07/models-that-predict-pause.html

Without quibbling over the number of plants mentioned, I think it's worth pointing out that nuclear power now provides about 11% of world electricity. It used to be more like 14%. That is significant, yet we did it one plant at a time. Clearly, it adds up over time.I do agree though, that a 50% reduction from nuclear power alone seems lofty at this point, barring major technological and political changes. Renewables and increased efficiency will probably account for the majority of reductions. Still, China's receptiveness to the idea may be a good sign.

 

Surface models overestimate warming by about 3 times the rate of the average of models and troposphere models overestimate the warming rate by 6 times. All of this alarmism is based on model output so the continued deviation of observed temperature to model output is significant and means quite a bit. The evidence is deviating from the hypothesis. Since the hiatus, the IPCC lowered their lower rate from 2 to 1.5C but kept the high. Evidence keeps piling up against even low rate.

Renewables cannot account for any major reduction as it is quite small compared to fossil and nuclear power. Of course China would be receptive because they are considered a developing nation and stand to benefit from the Western wet dream and wealth distribution while continuing to build coal powered plants.

 

Ridiculously fraudulent denier cult myths and deranged twaddle.

 

Again, thanks for showing your complete comprehension of climate change which never goes beyond name calling.

 

Your delusions are pathetic, considering that I am the only one of us who ever posts any scientific evidence at all to support a position on this matter. All you have are your delusions and a lot of hot air.

 

Even with all this hot air there still has been no global warming for the last ~ 20 years. Curious ??

 

Sure. I'm curious why you're deluded enough to believe a lie like that?

In the real world, CO2 driven warming continues at an accelerating pace. 2005 and 2010 were both hotter than 1998, 2014 was even hotter, and now 2015 is ending up much hotter than 2014, and the experts think 2016 will likely be as hot or hotter. Every year since 2000 has been hotter than every year before 1998. All of the hottest years on record are in this century , except for 1998. The long term trend continues to be steeply upward.

 

No lies. See the data above.

 

Yes, I know, peer reviewed papers are less valid than wikipedia or Thinkprogress. Got it.

 

Yeah, lies.....dumbass denier cult lies and moronic pseudo-science. See the data above, starting with post #411. Reality denial is demented.

 

Ah yes, Thinkprogress projected value is fact. Got it. LOL

 

You never say anything meaningful......you just post your ignorance and confusion and delusionally imagine that it means something.

Playing wack-a-mole/troll with you is boring. Unless you up your game considerably, you're just not worth responding to anymore.

 

My, my, projection.

 

Advancing fusion (an energy with a future) should solve many problems.

 

More support for the deployment of solar and wind energy systems (viable sources of enormous amounts of energy right now in the present) would solve many problems.

Which is why so many people are working so hard to accomplish just that.

Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Make Solar Power More Accessible

 

we could have the production possibility frontiers of scale economics with fusion.

 

There currently ARE NO working fusion power plants. If they manage to get one working, then your comments are meaningful, and I would support fusion power too, depending on the cost and other details. Right now though fusion power is still under development and not ready to deploy. Might happen soon or it might not happen for a few more decades.

In any case, the world absolutely needs to stop burning CO2 emitting fossil fuels like RIGHT NOW or ASAP in order to deal with the climate change crisis while it is still possible to do so, and the alternative energy systems that are already developed and are already being deployed around the world and are already supplying an increasing share of the world's energy needs for constantly decreasing costs as the technology improves, are solar and wind power systems.

 

Should other nations follow Germany's lead on promoting solar power?

 

An BS filled article written by a chemical engineer at an oil company....very impartial...LOLOLOLOL.

From your cited article:

"By Ryan Carlyle, BSChE, engineer at an oil company"

Meanwhile, in the real world....

10 Huge Lessons We’ve Learned From Solar Power Success In Germany

Germany, the Green Superpower
The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
MAY 6, 2015
.....what the Germans have done in converting almost 30 percent of their electric grid to renewable energy from near zero in about 15 years has been a great contribution to the stability of our planet and its climate.

Germany Could Be a Model for How We’ll Get Power in the Future
The European nation’s energy revolution has made it a leader in replacing nukes and fossil fuels with wind and solar technology.
National Geographic
By Robert Kunzig
OCTOBER 15, 2015

Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy
MAY 13, 2014

 

Solar and wind are intermittent - unless energy storage technology takes a huge leap forward this energy cannot be stored. Therefore fossil fuel capacity has to be available for calm and cloudy days.

 

Ah, rah rah media reports. How charming. Germany's reliance on fossil fuels had risen year after year.