China Now Has 31+ GW of Offshore Wind Installed

I voted against Trump twice and will do so again.

 

I’m pretty hard on China. Doesn’t have anything to do with Trump. I just look at the numbers. Russia hasn’t significantly increased emissions over the last decade. China has. Russia emits almost 7 times as much CO2 (and increasing) as Russia.

If we are REALLY concerned about reducing emissions, China is the big opportunity to do so. When someone gets in a car wreck and ends up in the ER, the staff are going to address arterial bleeds before obsessing over sprained fingers.

 

It’s funny that ad hominem always comes out. I’ve never voted for the dude either, but just because I offer evidence that conflicts with a preconceived worldview I’m magically a dupe of Trump.

It’s amusing.

 

Yeah, China definitely has work to do. Look at #2 - the good ole US of A. What's worse is the US has a much high per capita totals - over double.

 

I don't think anybody's emissions are a problem. But I'm opposed to using China as a weapon against the US.

 

Yep. We emit a lot per capita. Far from the worst, but pretty bad. You will note our emissions have been decreasing though, compared to China’s increasing.

Another interesting point. Australia, Canada, Luxembourg, Iceland, Qatar, etc. all have higher per capita emissions than Russia. Don’t see much criticism of those countries.

 

Suffice to say that all countries have stated goals of carbon reductions, including Russia. Some countries are well on their way, others have done very little. Australia and Canada and Iceland are in the former, and Russia is in the latter. Russia's warmongering is thwarting progress not just in Russia, but around the world. Can we agree on that?

 

Well, goals don’t produce CO2 emissions. Increasing CO2 emissions leads to more AGW which I’ve been led to believe is not the goal. Russia isn’t increasing emissions and China is.

As far as the Russia/Ukraine conflict, peer reviewed research again conflicts with your statements here. I’m of course assuming “progress” is reducing CO2 emissions. Perhaps I’m assuming too much. Maybe that’s not the goal.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01208-x#:~:text=On the consumption side, the,0.6 GT CO2e.

If I’m misinterpreting “progress” as reduced emissions I’m happy to be corrected.

 

Emissions scenarios and arguments over them are ALL politically generated nonsense as the Earth is loving all the increase to the life of the planet.


From NASA


Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

LINK


There is NO downside to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

 

These steadily-increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 must plateau-out and start coming down. Noted that you didn't comment on the following:

- Russia's warmongering. The death toll is horrendous. Not as bad, but still deeply concerning, is all the infrastructure that will need to be replaced, and the consequences - Massive amounts of concrete, lumber, plastics,etc - and all the associated waste of resources, pollution, and CO2 emissions.

 

Because your link was from NASA, I knew there would be a "but" in the article, and sure enough, you failed to mention it.

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

Thanks for posting that link which expresses the problem of Climate Change so proficiently.

 

Well, they aren’t coming down if we follow current “goals”.

Yeh, if all 1.5 million housing units are replaced that have been destroyed that will require a bit fewer resources than the 6-10 million units China builds annually. Many of which sit empty.

A normal three story house in the US can take as much as 78 tons of CO2 to construct. Let’s be really generous and assume all 1.5 million destroyed units in Ukraine would require 78 tons CO2 to replace. That’s very generous because most destroyed units in Ukraine are nowhere near equivalent to a US 3 story house. I’ve stayed in some of the biggest flat units in Ukraine and they are not equivalent to US units in any way.

So, 78 times 1.5 million gives us 117 million tons CO2 emissions. That’s 0.106 Gt CO2. If we subtract that from the 1-2 Gt CO2 savings from the study that still leaves a 0.9-1.9 Gt CO2 savings from the conflict.

I’m no fan of war. That’s for certain. And I highly value human life—even Russian lives. But a reduction in population would be a reduction in CO2 emissions we would have to account for as well. No?

I’m all for ending this war. But not because of CO2 emissions—because all war is bad and protracted war is especially bad. Reducing emissions won’t make me feel better about Russia invading Ukraine.

Not sure I feel the same as this dude.

 

The very phrase "The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere" destroys its credibility as CO2 doesn't trap anything a fact that you should have long known and YOU seem unaware of just how little the doubling of 280 ppm to 560 ppm generates very little additional warm forcing as I showed you before which you didn't bother countering because you know this is true:


"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.



The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"

=================

The lower Tropospheric Hot Spot doesn't exist.

The Positive Feedback Loop doesn't exist.

Both are needed to help validate the basic AGW conjecture.

 

It's all you... Keep trying to explain your way out of it.

 

Your denial continues.

 

The devil is in the detail of the Nature article:

Agricultural production and area expansion in parts of the world other than Ukraine and Russia could pose a risk to biodiversity and lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions related to land. However, total greenhouse gas emissions might decrease as lower emissions from less use of fossil energy due to higher energy and fertilizer prices in the whole economy dominate additional emissions resulting from land use change.

Words like "could" and "might" are used, which indicates possible scenarios. This article is talking about immediate outcomes - i.e. if people don't have access to petroleum, they can't use it. I wasn't addressing those possible scenarios. I was addressing all the rebuilding that will have to be addressed in the future. That will be a massive undertaking, and will require huge investment in fossil fuels. Hopefully there is some balancing, and they "Build-Back-Better".

 

Yes, the study looked at various possible scenarios. We can’t predict future human behavior well. Based on the data we do have the study concluded this.

I was responding to your unsubstantiated claim.

I’m simply pointing out peer reviewed research comes to different conclusions than your claim if reduced emissions is your goal. I further showed longer term rebuilding emissions are a small fraction of the projected short term reduced emissions.

There are no fortune tellers here. Just evidence vs. unsubstantiated opinion. I gravitate more towards evidence. We always should on matters of science. Analysis of data in peer reviewed studies should hold more sway than dislike for a country or people group. We can dislike “warmongering” and still base positions on actual evidence instead of feelings.

 

Sure, they've stated goals. Even wrote them down. Even made an Accord.

Unlike an actual treaty, though, an accord has no enforcement mechanism.

Technically, nobody actually has to do anything.

 

At one time, Russia pledged to be carbon-neutral by 2060. With the war, they may not even achieve their modest goals in relation to 1990 levels.

Where does Russia stand on climate change?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67637803

Moscow said it was sticking to the commitments to become carbon neutral by 2060 and limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70% of 1990 levels by 2030, yet climate change experts see those targets as modest.

Russia's levels of emissions already stand at around 30% below 1990 levels, excluding forest sinks.

 

And? This is somehow unexpected?

 

Translation: I have no counterpoint to offer.

Keep trying to explain your failure to debate it.

 

China has multiple wind turbine manufacturers, which is very unusual. Goldwind is the largest.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/chinas-...tions-hit-new-high-according-to-bloombergnef/

3-27-2024
China’s Goldwind Retains Turbine Supplier Lead, as Global Wind Additions Hit New High, According to BloombergNEF

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a44632369/china-turns-on-worlds-largest-turbine/

And Mingyang Smart Energy - built the world's largest wind turbine.

July 2023

• The MySE-16-260 is a 16-megawatt turbine with a rotor diameter of 853 feet—that’s some 26 feet longer than the previous recorder holder, which went online in China just a few weeks ago.