Brazil is ALL-IN on Renewable Energy and Electric Vehicles

Yet this "overwhelming evidence" in the opposite gets ignored despite that it is all based on the official data from official data sites and has been posted here before only to see hysterical responses to it from warmist/alarmists.


Where is the Climate Emergency?

LINK


The latest update was yesterday.


Here is first of about 65 charts from the link:



There has been ZERO climate change in my region for many decades as it is still in the same classification since 1964 when I moved there.

Koppen Climate classification

BSk

 

Doesn’t look like an emergency to me. What’s obvious to all except the global warming alarmists from the chart is that technology improvements and wealth creation have resulted in a great reduction in deaths related to disastrous events.

 

I admire those with a concern for the environment coupled with a willingness to actually DO something about it!

If we were to spend 10% of the time and money we do on emissions reductions on sequestration instead, your graph would look very different. The beauty of many sequestration approaches is they reverse carbon emission sources and turn them into sinks. It attacks atmospheric CO2 from both ends simultaneously.

On the other hand, approaches like EVs only reduce emissions. The existing “excess” CO2 in the atmosphere is not addressed at all. This approach can mitigate future increases in atmospheric CO2 but does nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2. This means it will end up in the ocean or somewhere else many people don’t want it.

Back to housing, yes insulation etc. has huge potential for energy savings. I’m not sure why people who have a home custom built don’t insulate better either with conventional materials or with approaches like you use. Thermal mass and solar aspect could in themselves make a huge difference in energy use as a society if we utilized them in building and planning communities.

In my part of the world it’s common for folks with means to build a stick house with 6 inch exterior walls on top of the biggest treeless hill they can find. And we see -20°F temps here some in the winter with 30-40 mph winds. They want a “view”. I don’t get it.

 

Bankruptcies seem to be what are renewable in these projects.
Swedish Wind Farms Facing Bankruptcy
By Paul Homewood
The total loss for the years 2017–2022 amounted to 13.5 billion Swedish krona [€1.2 billion], which meant a loss margin of 39 per cent,” they said about the sector.

Two Swedish economists have issued a warning that the country’s wind-power industry is on the brink of a wave of bankruptcies.

Christian Sandström and Christian Steinbeck analysed wind-power companies’ annual reports in Sweden and their work revealed “significant financial problems”, they told Swedish media outlet Kvartal on February 28.

“The total loss for the years 2017–2022 amounted to 13.5 billion Swedish krona [€1.2 billion], which meant a loss margin of 39 per cent,” they said about the sector.

Such heavy losses seem to be the rule rather than the exception for wind-power companies in Sweden, according to the annual reports. . . . .

 

Does this belong in a thread about Brazil

 

Certainly as much as your broad claims contrary to the data and your attacks on other posters.

 

I'm sure a publication can post numerous charts, and say "climate change isn't happening". First of all, we are in the very early stages of climate change. Atmospheric CO2 is still on a steady rise.

Until that rise starts to level out, conditions will continue to worsen. Secondly, some areas are affected much more than others. For example, the Eastern United States has seen only moderate change in their average temps. The Western US has seen more change, and Alaska and the Arctic have seen huge changes. Brazil (this thread) has seen a little more change than other area.


Thirdly, a lot of heat is stored in the oceans. That is problematic for a number of reasons. Melting glaciers, sea level rise, and cracks in ice sheets, that eventually break away. Warmer waters (and warmer air) can make hurricanes more powerful. There's much more, but this is good for starters.

 

CO2 is a negligible factor in the "heat Budget" which is easy to show when the use of a doubling factor is used as shown in a Thread started in this forum almost 3 years ago where not a single warmist/alarmist addressed any content of the article because they know it can't be addressed as it is well sourced and mainly from base data.

=====

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 …


=====


Where is the Climate Emergency?

LINK

 

First of all, let's take a look at your source, Watts Up with That. Here's what media bias fact check states about them.
Regarding your Downward Longwave Radiation (DLR) study, it is negligent, similar to other studies using this methodology. It all varies based on the Earth Surface temperature. The following study thoroughly discusses this. I don't pretend to understand it all. I am not a Climate Scientist. Are you? Please provide your Climate Science credentials, since you claim to be such a know-it-all, with your Conspiracy Theory provided link. 99% of Climate Scientists agree with AGW principals and subsequent climate change. Maybe Watts found a study by the other 1%, which the other 99% debunked.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL082220

Abstract
Downward longwave radiation (DLR) is often assumed to be an independent forcing on the surface energy budget in analyses of Arctic warming and land-atmosphere interaction. We use radiative kernels to show that the DLR response to forcing is largely determined by surface temperature perturbations. We develop a method by which vertically integrated versions of the radiative kernels are combined with surface temperature and specific humidity to estimate the surface DLR response to greenhouse forcing. Through a decomposition of the DLR response, we estimate that changes in surface temperature produce at least 63% of the clear-sky DLR response in greenhouse forcing, while the changes associated with clouds account for only 11% of the full-sky DLR response. Our results suggest that surface DLR is tightly coupled to surface temperature; therefore, it cannot be considered an independent component of the surface energy budget.
...
4 Conclusions
In summary, we have presented the surface DLR kernels from Previdi (2010) and argued that the DLR response to greenhouse forcing is controlled primarily by increases in surface temperature. Calculations show that 84% of the variance in ΔDLRc can be explained using only surface temperature, surface specific humidity, and the vertically integrated kernels. The traditional kernel approach explains 94% of the variance. Hence, very little information on ΔDLRc is provided by the vertical structure of climate and radiative perturbations. While the kernels reproduce the modeled ΔDLRc fairly accurately, both approaches have a systemic underprediction likely due to the correlation between temperature and specific humidity. Despite this underprediction, we attribute more than 60% of the predicted DLRc response in our five-model ensemble to changes in surface temperature under the assumption of fixed relative humidity. The cloud changes account for only 11% of the full-sky DLR response.

 

HA HA HA, you didn't bother to look in the link at all and you are just the latest person to specifically avoid a debate on it.

The sources in the link were based on the following;

NOAA several times,NASA, EMDAT, IMBIE. BOM, JMA, CMA, Rutgers Snow Labs, IUCN, Berkely Earth, University of Colorado, Nature, The Lancet, EPA, NCEI, U.N., and a many more all in the article you are afraid of.

Too much data for you to handle apparently which is why you produce the classic fallacy claim as your excuse to avoiding a fact filled article based on official sources.

Still going to ignore this reality?

 

Yep! What’supmyButt. Hardly a nonpartisan site and as misleading as hell since it started before 1920 and all those institutions and structure were placed to deal with climate emergencies

So fail - big fail

 

Let’s look instead to an academic source - you have no issue with academia do you?

https://www.monash.edu/news/article...illion-deaths-a-year-to-abnormal-temperatures

 

Dying coral reefs which are the foundations of much of the marine ecology

 

Sunsettommy, A lot of rhetoric. Did you produce that Climatologist diploma? I'll be waiting..

 

LOL, you have nothing to counter with because the evidence in the article and the base sources scares you so much:

Strong tornadoes in the US are steadily decreasing over the last 72 years.



And here is the Rutgers Snow Labatory’s snow extent data from 1972 to April 2023 … basically, no change.




Nor are the extremes in the amount of moisture (droughts, floods) increasing in the US.



Storminess has not gone up, and there’s been no increase in hurricane strength or frequency … no “emergency” there.

First, the strength.



And here is the global hurricane frequency, both for all hurricanes and for the strongest hurricanes.



LINK

========


The planet loves all that additional CO2 as NASA tells us plainly:

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

Karl B. Hille
APR 26, 2016

Excerpt:

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

LINK

 

Congratulations. Now explain their meaning, and show how they disprove IPCC AR-6 report. Reference the page numbers in the IPCC report, and how your graphs refute the information on that page. I will be glad to research after you do that legwork. It should be easy with your Climatology degree. Here's the Link.
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

 

Lols! Thing is many many denialists do not understand how academia works. They think some made up graphs from a blog somehow refutes the diligent and careful research being done in various institutions throughout the world.

 

From the actual study:

In this study over 9 times as many people die of cold than of heat.

Over the study period deaths related to temperature DECREASED overall as temps globally increased.

As temperatures increase, net mortality related to temperature decreases. Deaths decreased 0.3 percentage points in the time period the study covered.

Funny people use a study that shows almost 10 times as many people die from cold exposure as heat exposure to pitch fear of climate warming. Funny people use a study that shows a DECREASE in net all cause mortality related to temperature as temperatures increase globally to pitch fear of warming.

It would be like presenting a study showing people who eat more fresh vegetables live longer on average to try and get people to eat more sugar and less vegetables. No logic.

SMH.

 

LOL, it is clear you have nothing but evasive replies it is clear the material is too difficult for you to handle which means you failed here meanwhile there is a growing list of prediction failures made by various sources that promote the dumb AGW conjecture.

The very first one is a doozy since their never-ending wailing over melting permafrost prediction from back in 2005 had not occurred only that the Permafrost line used to be down south around the 42-45 degrees North back in the last stage of glaciation which has duly melted back at least 500 to 1,000 miles to the north without ANY terrible climatic upheavals.

CH4 is a negligible forcer a reality long known which is why IPECAC hardly talks about it anymore after it has been exposed as being irrelevant to the "heat budget" which even some of the warmist/alarmists hardly talk about it anymore.

Failed Prediction Timeline

LINK

The charts in the article I posted remains unchallenged (The material too difficult for you apparently) and you are afraid of what are presented in real time based on the official data which is always superior to future always way too warm models and the charts I posted to show there is no climate emergency developing it is a delusion that only warmist/alarmist promote it is why they have been leaving forums in droves in the last year as their climate cult is increasing laughed at.

Your link is massive and just the latest round of similar failed reports going back to 1990, when are you going to stop treating that embarrassing attempt to a new round of delusional modeling fantasies as the previous ones have been exposed as being a big pile of **** and waaay to warm.

You dodge my few easy to understand charts, but YOU think I should run around in the massive IPCC report that has been wrong every single time since 1990, I will pass on the latest pile of excrement as I have dug into previous reports a lot especially the first 4 reports until it became obvious it is a total waste of time thus no longer care to read the same repetition pseudoscience bile.

 

Sure, where is the IPCC AR-6 disproof?

 

Heat deaths are a tiny percentage of cold deaths.

 

Since you irrationally expect me to answer a 1,000 plus pages of a recently published report that isn't materially different from the previous report and have been answered many times all the way back to 1990, it is a sign of your desperation and that you didn't offer any counterpoint to my post at all.

It is well known that the IPCC reports modeling scenarios are always running too warm and dishonest scientists are commonly using the absurd 8.5 RCP rate in their second-rate papers that follows it.

One sided conversation is all YOUR problem.

 

So all those scientists. Every one of them. Are dishonest. That's what's known as a Conspiracy Theory. Just like Flat Earth theory.

 

Not dishonest, no. Well, being humans I’m sure a percentage are, but there is no conspiracy as such. Just like the existence of dishonest cops or plumbers doesn’t denote a conspiracy.

The IPCC is a great resource—as long as one understands the limitations of the process they use to create reports.


The IPCC does not do systematic review as some climate activist types on PF have claimed in the past. The IPCC reports are literature reviews.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-023-00072-3#:~:text=IPCC assessments are based on,review processes have been developed.

The difference? Glad you asked. Quite a bit of difference!

https://libanswers.liverpool.ac.uk/faq/260223#:~:text=Literature reviews don't usually,a new piece of research.

That’s why I often refer to the IPCC as a curator of information to form a narrative. Because that’s exactly what they do.

To be clear, that’s not necessarily a criticism of the IPCC. It’s just the facts. They do not do systematic reviews. They engage in curation of information to form a narrative—they do literature review.

But the main takeaway is that the IPCC reports are not comprehensive unbiased assessments of climate science. They are not intended to be. Anyone who has read them should pick up on this. The studies used as references are for the most part one or two in number and do not usually include any existing studies that come to different conclusions or use better methodology.

If one wants a complete set of information on climate science, exclusive consumption of the IPCC reports will not get you there. Of course they have value. I routinely quote from the reports. But I won’t let a group of scientists (mostly nominated by governments and organizations with agendas) doing literature review do my thinking me.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHA, I never said such that is all from you.

I limited it to scientists using the absurd 8.5 RCP scenario as being dishonest which is absolutely a fact you are the one who inflated it into everyone a dishonest attempt on your part.

Better if you stop twisting the meaning of what I say.