Why the AGW Science is Irrelevant

So....you quote a government agency on power and trust them to be correct but you say climate change is a cash cow. When it is well known ofgem is a government agency with profit in mind. This is a good way to raise energy rates.

 

ahh you don't like the truth much do you ? And the truth is wind and solar are intermittent suppliers of energy and electrical grids need to have a reliable source or you get blackouts and brownouts. That means for every Kw of renewable you have to build a fossil fuel/nuclear plant to backup the renewable in case of cloudy weather or the wind isn't co operating or you get blackouts and brownouts. Having to build 2 sources increases costs of course

 

It also increases cost when for profit companies take over power supplies. It is also in their best interest to blame alternative energy sources. This keeps the profits coming in. Fossils fuel dependence is like drug dependence. It is hard to wean the public off of it. No one is saying we need to get rid of fossil fuel plants. We just need to reduce the dependence on them and reduce the amount of carbon being dumped into the atmosphere. The carbon cycle of the earth is out of balance and only a Luddite stands in the way of progress. But you feel free to quote for profit entities to support your claims. And it is privatised power you are quoting and they are definitely in it for the money. The same charges deniers levy on climate scientists.

 

seems as if you just love to expose your lack of knowledge daily. Electric companies in the USA are privately owned or Co Ops for the most part with a few quasi state entities. Here in the USA we have some of the cheapest energy in the world at a average price of 12 cents a kWh. Denmark which likes to brag on it's renewable energy a kWh is 41 cents. Austrailia, Spain, Germany and the UK are all big on the renewables also and the price runs from 20 cents to 35 cents.

Average electricity prices around the world: $/kWh

 

Everything has different prices all over the world. I do not see how electricity is any different. Your post proves nothing

 

your post just shows that you are the one that cannot understand that having to build 2 sources of electrical energy costs more than only having to build a single source. It is cheaper to build one reliable source than a unreliable one and then still have to build the reliable one to use when the unreliable one fails to provide the electricity you need naturally the cost is going to go up. Even a child should be able to understand that. It is not a coincidence that the more "green" energy a country uses the higher the cost of that electricity

 

Or we could use alternative energy to take some of the pressure off the power plants that already exist. Most people that could switch....at least partially... already have their power supplied and would not need anotheir plant built.

 

So, of course, this is simply unsupportable. You assert the formula, but now I'll press you for it, and you'll respond that the formula itself isn't important, blah blah blah. Well, if only CO2 is being regulated, it is essential to then demonstrate for us, what the formula is. So, produce it.

So, x giga tons of CO2 equals Y amount of temperature warming. If you can't provide it, We'll all understand.

 

If atmospheric CO2 doubles from pre industrial levels the earth will warm from 5 to 7 degrees. But this takes into consideration that feedbacks also come into play. These feedbacks include a rise in water vapor, water absorbing more heat than ice, and other ffactors. All you have to do is find out how many gigatons of carbon in 1ppm of atmospheric CO2. It won't be hard if you look.

 

And yet, this hasn't been the case. Empirical temp data doesn't support this level of feedback. Also, if you look at the actual feedback model, CO2 follows, not causes, warming. The solution of the atmosphere must warm to hold more atmospheric CO2, not the other way around.

Perhaps once the work at CERN is started, a better holistic understanding of atmospheric dynamics will provide a more credible platform from which to enact policy. Until then, it's irresponsible to think that starving the world of CO2 will have anything but disasterous results.

 

The climate sensitivity of CO2 from real world data is ~ 1 deg C. Therefore doubling of the CO2 concentration would result in a global average temperature increase of ~ 1 deg C. Doubling from the year 2000 is estimated to take place in 2100 (CO2 concentration increase from 350 ppm to 700 ppm).

 

True .. it's 1.2

Not True ... this doesn't account for feedbacks.

 

The climate sensitivity is determined by real world data which includes all factors.

What is your fact based determination of the value of the climate sensitivity of CO2 ??

 

Ice cores show co2 following warming. But other factors were involved. Just because your house warms with the furnace off does not mean the furnace does not work.

 

You mean the giant water vapor feedback that AGW nonscience made up out of whole cloth, and contradicts both theoretical analysis and empirical evidence? That feedback?

 

No ... on multiple levels

 

Core analysis is what has been the foundation of the idea that CO2 drives warming, which clearly it did not. Clearly, it followed as concentrations were allowed to increase based on suspension capability of the warming atmosphere. Nor, do we expect that any additional engine function is implied as the more immediate input is H2O vapor. The assumption is that if the furnace isn't on, the warming doesn't happen. Outside influences that warm the house are irrelevant. The assertion that CO2 becomes a furnace hasn't been shown to have real world applicability.

 

This is sorta true. It would be more accurate to say that core data shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature. It also shows that CO2 has always followed temperature. But that's not the whole story ...

None of the rest of this has any basis in reality.

 

Feel free to produce the evidence that refutes it. We'll wait.

 

Feel free to produce the evidence that supports it.

 

Burden of proof lies with the affirmative, that'd be you partner.

 

It is simple. Without the greenhouse effect the earth would be a frozen ball of ice.

 

That does not support the claim. The claimed magnitude of CO2 sensitivity is simply not logically compatible with the climate record, as it implies that temperature follows CO2, but it is known that CO2 follows temperature. In addition, the mechanism whereby CO2 would lead temperature -- high positive water vapor feedback -- is entirely speculative and unsupported by empirical evidence, whereas the mechanism whereby temperature leads CO2 -- the inverse relation between ocean temperature and CO2 solubility -- is known, well established, and indisputable.

- - - Updated - - -

What feedback, then?

 

Then you tell me why the earth is not a frozen ball of ice.

 

Proximity to the sun. An atmosphere. Adequate magnetic protection. There's really quite a long list. CO2, however, isn't one of the major contributors, and yet, you'd have us all believe that absent CO2, the planet would become an ice ball. Hmmm..... Nope. not even a little bit true or funny.