Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Wind and solar are only ~ 10%. That's the Chinese Communist Party's token effort to convince the global alarmists and those that argue that the Chinese Communist Party cares about CO2 emissions. The Chinese 100 year plan for global domination includes imposing their style of socialism on the rest of the world. Do some homework on what the Chinese Communist Party is capable of.

Red China's plan to reduce pollution (not CO2 emissions) is to significantly increase the percentage of electrical energy production by significantly increasing the number of nuclear power stations. Why aren't the western democracies implementing expansion of nuclear energy production which, because energy is stored in the nuclear fuel rods, provides energy 24/7 on demand.

 

This may come as a shock, but windmills and solar panels don’t remove CO2 from the atmosphere! If renewables are 99% of energy production but fossil fuel use is still increasing you haven’t solved what you think the problem is!

Yeh, look at the massive increase in coal and other fossil fuels since 2000-2010 to now!

Who said coal is an excuse for ANYTHING? I just pointed out the FACT China is not going to phase out fossil fuels.

China is headed for an economic disaster. Soon they will not be able to afford to build more transmission lines. They already have to limit much of the nuclear and other clean energy to coasts. This means expensive transmission lines and coal backup for renewables.

They are having blackouts all the time already. It’s a mess.

 

Something like 25% of methane China emits comes from coal mining and abandoned coal mines. I’ve never heard how much comes from natural gas extraction. Could be more for sure.

 

“With IPCC and IEA data, it can be determined that anthropogenic methane currently makes up 65% of all anthropogenic CO₂eq and CO₂ accounts for the With IPCC and IEA data, it can be determined that anthropogenic methane currently makes up 65% of all anthropogenic CO₂eq and CO₂ accounts for the remaining ~35%, using IPCC’s 20-year global warming potential. As a result, it turns out that coal appears to be more “beneficial for the climate” than LNG because of fugitive methane emissions along the value chain. Imagine if the European leaders had known of this research result and had declared coal and nuclear to be “green” instead of gas and nuclear, as voted by the EU in July 2022 (CNBC 2022). ~35%, using IPCC’s 20-year global warming potential. As a result, it turns out that coal appears to be more “beneficial for the climate” than LNG because of fugitive methane emissions along the value chain. Imagine if the European leaders had known of this research result and had declared coal and nuclear to be “green” instead of gas and nuclear, as voted by the EU in July 2022 (CNBC 2022).”

CNBC 2022, authored by Clifford, Catherine, Europe Will Count Natural Gas and Nuclear as Green Energy in Some Circumstances, CNBC, Jul 2022, (https://cnb.cx/3CSbVd9).

The above came from the book:

“The Unpopular Truth about Electricity and the Future of Energy An introduction to electricity in modern energy systems, including cost of electricity, energy returns (eROI), consequences of the energy transition, and recommendations for a sustainable energy policy”

by: Dr. Lars Schernikau is an energy economist, entrepreneur, and commodity trader in the energy raw materials industry based in Switzerland and Singapore.

Prof. William Hayden Smith is Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences at Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.

 

Nah, you just have fog between your ears.

 

Ouch, hurtful words those.

At what temperature does your cliff appear?

 

Interesting. Fossil fuel extraction isn’t in my wheel house so that’s news to me.

 

Not mine as well. The book is worth reading.

 

If we could have Net Zero today do you think temperatures would stop rising? Has the CO2 from last year reached its full effect? Once we hit Net Zero it will take at least a decade for the planet to adjust to the new equilibrium.

The analogy to the cliff is very limited because the car goes on perfectly normally until the cliff is reached. We have had obvious changes for the last decade. If you had asked me in January of 2000 what were the chances of my installing my window air conditioner the coming summer, I would have said 50%. I have installed the air conditioner every summer for the last 6 years.

Climate change is way bigger than a cliff, it is about the planet. It may be about passing a tipping point and it is possible that we won't even know until we are 10 years passed it.

Personally I would wonder about the methane from the thawing tundra in the north. How do we have any control over that? If it takes 10 years for the planet to equilibrate after net zero how can we know if we hit the brakes soon enough?

Like the 50 mph car and the cliff. If there is only 20 feet left when they hit the brakes the car still won't stop in time. I figure y'all will have 2.8 C by 2100. Have fun!

 

We will never “hit net zero”. It’s politically impossible in the western democracies and the Chinese Communist Party is not going to cut economic growth to reduce CO2 emissions. There will not be a tipping point. The natural history of the earth confirms that.

The obvious course of global action is to maximize economic growth using inexpensive fossil fuels which will maximize the capability to make any localized adaptations necessary.

The policies of the western democracies to curb CO2 emissions is ridiculous and will only result in reduced economic growth which is regressive to low income citizens while reducing global CO2 emissions by a very small amount which will result in practically zero reduction in global average temperature (if you believe there global average temperature directly depends on atmospheric CO2).

 

Ahhhh. Such surety! No links of course but absolute conviction!

 

Common sense based on the historical record and an understanding of the Chinese Communist Party. Links aren’t needed for that.

 

Well, at least he didn’t post a link to insurance salesmen from a company posting record turnover and increasing profit margins complaining about “climate disasters” that cost less and less as a percentage of GDP as time passes.

 

By reintroduction of large herbivores our ancestors helped remove. Same way we have control over high summer temps in many areas. By replacing transpiring species that mitigate high summer temps.

“Nature” spent eons developing solutions. We are just too egotistical and stubborn to USE those solutions. Or perhaps some don’t want to solve anything….

 

You make a claim, validate it. Have you taken into account the recent market crash in China? But some digging (Brandolinis law strikes again) and I found the real reason
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-china-ev-graveyards/

 

Don’t large herbivores produce methane? Doesn’t methane also contribute to……. Meanwhile of course we are continuing to deforest the planet

 

This goes back to the fog in the head business.

What natural history do you have that is better than the 800,000 years of data derived from ice cores? The human race has deviated the atmosphere and climate from "natural history".

The problem is the unpredictability of unnatural futures. Hence the unknown location of "the cliff".



https://icecores.org/about-ice-cores

 

The Chinese Communist Party validates the claim on a daily basis. They could care less about any market crashes which only harms western investors.

 

Oh Bowerbird. All living organisms produce methane. Nearly every living organism produces CO2, including trees in rain forests.

Now that you know rainforests produce CO2 are you going to advocate for removing rainforests from where they have been net advantageous for long periods of time?

Real scientists have been exploring reintroduction of large herbivores to permafrost for years. Reintroduction is already happening in small areas as initial experimentation has been very positive.

Large herbivores not only revert vegetation back to types that favor winter cooling of soils, they also compact winter precipitation so that less thawing occurs during the warm season. The lack of large herbivores has allowed the permafrost ecosystem to evolve to a less stable state. If you want a stable state the plants and animals that initially created the stable state must be present.

It’s unfortunate folks have been led to believe increasing atmospheric CO2 is responsible for all environmental changes. In fact, other anthropogenic factors are often far more responsible for changes we see than fossil fuel use/elevated CO2 levels.

At some point you should ask why these facts are not known by the folks most concerned about AGW. Real climate science is not only complex, it’s fascinating if one pays attention to the actual SCIENCE.

 

When did the last tipping point occur? Atmospheric CO2 concentration has exceeded 5000 ppm in the past. And the earth did not turn into “Venus.”

The earth is actually in a period of “CO2 starvation”.

 

Just one teensie little problem with your commentary. CO2 doesn't act as a forcer of climate. So, no cliff in the future. As for a "tipping point", all you've accomplished with this lengthy scribe is to demonstrate your ability to regurgitate the catechism. Does it make you feel better? When you think about your ability to blog on this forum, did it ever occur to you that you are a net contributor to the problem and crisis that you decry? And if it were such a concern of yours, why not do something yourself? Too much effort, or are you simply admitting by your participation that you know that the line you're preaching is BS to begin with?

 

Oy! This is the essence of Brandolinis law. Spend time and effort finding the real truth but the “make it up as you go” crowd don’t bother looking at the evidence

 

And you know all this how? Wait! Don’t tell me! “Common sense”

 

Since you are actively participating on the thread that this is being discussed on, you should know better.... But wait, you just couldn't help yourself by injecting this little barb... And since you don't seem to be able to discuss this coherently on the other thread, you just came here to escape and start the hyperbole and BS here? Laughable.

 

But still more than pristine surface sites, radiosondes, and the best satellite record.

And so faceplants your kook conspiracy theory.

He neither demanded nor even suggested any such thing. You simply made it up, as is your wont.

No, you made that up.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. He's proposing that the known errors actually be corrected for, and not incorporated into the temperature record by the deliberate under-correction that you favor.