Climate Scientist Judith Curry, has an interesting take on renewable energy policies

[Buzz]

True, it only shows how food prices responded to past "adjustments".
In addition,Carbon Offset Prices Could Increase Fifty-Fold by 2050

So your described sequestering could add up $0.36 per gallon to fuel for farming.
but I am sure the farmers would just eat that added cost and not increase their prices!

A 36-cent increase in the cost of burning fossil fuels isn't going double food prices. You are still just guessing.

 

[longview]

A 36-cent increase in the cost of burning fossil fuels isn't going double food prices. You are still just guessing.

No that is based on a metric ton of fuel is about 333 gallons, adding an extra cost, will increase the cost of what is produced!

 

[Buzz]

No that is based on a metric ton of fuel is about 333 gallons, adding an extra cost, will increase the cost of what is produced!

Yeah... so what? You still haven't shown that carbon offsets or anything else are going to starve billions of people.

 

[Nickyjo]

They do not get into specifics, and that is the problem.
UN net zero coalition

That doesn’t sound like moving to zero — given its being a most difficult challenge as they said — just moving to reduce greenhouse gases, a worthy effort.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Link, please.

Stop wasting my time. You always deny things. Goodbye.

 

[longview]

Yeah... so what? You still haven't shown that carbon offsets or anything else are going to starve billions of people.

Life after oil: How many people can Earth Support?

The number of mouths we can feed depends on what’s for dinner. If all of the world’s people ate like carnivorous Americans—1,763 pounds of grain each per year, some eaten directly, but most fed to livestock—then the 2-billion-ton world grain harvest would support only 2.5 billion people.

 

[longview]

That doesn’t sound like moving to zero — given its being a most difficult challenge as they said — just moving to reduce greenhouse gases, a worthy effort.

Net Zero is not actual zero emissions, the environment picks up about 56% of all CO2 emissions, and the
percentage seems like it keeps up with the emission levels.
Net Zero is where Emissions equal uptake, so there is zero CO2 growth.

 

[Nickyjo]

Net Zero is not actual zero emissions, the environment picks up about 56% of all CO2 emissions, and the
percentage seems like it keeps up with the emission levels.
Net Zero is where Emissions equal uptake, so there is zero CO2 growth.

Thanks. So it is a worthy approach?

 

[longview]

Thanks. So it is a worthy approach?

Sort of, the data looks like CO2 has done most of what it is capable of.
In Theory each doubling of CO2 will cause an added energy imbalance of 3.71 W m-2.
Since about 2001 (when we got satellites up to measure the imbalance) the energy imbalance is still
increasing, but in the short wavelength spectrum. In the longwave spectrum (where CO2 would have a effect),
the energy imbalance is decreasing.
Surface Irradiances of Edition 4.0 Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Data Product

Ed4 global annual mean (January 2005 through December 2014) surface net shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) irradiances increase by 1.3 W m−2 and decrease by 0.2 W m−2, respectively, compared to EBAF Edition 2.8 (Ed2.8) counterparts (the previous version), resulting in an increase in net SW + LW surface irradiance of 1.1 W m−2.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas because as you add more the positive energy imbalance continues to increase.
Each unit of increase has less forcing than the unit that came before, because as Earth warms, it radiates better.
Where this would break down is where when CO2 is added the increased imbalance in the longwave radiation is exceeded
by the increase in outgoing longwave radiation, which looks like it is happening.

 

[Nickyjo]

Sort of, the data looks like CO2 has done most of what it is capable of.
In Theory each doubling of CO2 will cause an added energy imbalance of 3.71 W m-2.
Since about 2001 (when we got satellites up to measure the imbalance) the energy imbalance is still
increasing, but in the short wavelength spectrum. In the longwave spectrum (where CO2 would have a effect),
the energy imbalance is decreasing.
Surface Irradiances of Edition 4.0 Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Data Product

CO2 is a greenhouse gas because as you add more the positive energy imbalance continues to increase.
Each unit of increase has less forcing than the unit that came before, because as Earth warms, it radiates better.
Where this would break down is where when CO2 is added the increased imbalance in the longwave radiation is exceeded
by the increase in outgoing longwave radiation, which looks like it is happening.

Thanks, I understood much, but not all of that. Room for some optimism.

What fascinates me more, however is the political debate over this on this forum. The science seems generally settled, both US parties agree about it, oil companies acknowledge it, the DODefense calculates whether climate change may affect stability in some regions. (It will, however be interesting to see how Trump and DeSantis if he runs will treat it while campaigning.) But here on DP we have what I’ve called the “Aha! Factor,” as when a scrap of info appears suggesting things are not so ominous or a contrary article is published, the suggestion appears that the entire phony consensus is collapsing. I wonder if, had the internet existed when we learned negative things about say, tobacco or smog, if the same skepticism would be present.

 

[longview]

Thanks, I understood much, but not all of that. Room for some optimism.

What fascinates me more, however is the political debate over this on this forum. The science seems generally settled, both US parties agree about it, oil companies acknowledge it, the DODefense calculates whether climate change may affect stability in some regions. (It will, however be interesting to see how Trump and DeSantis if he runs will treat it while campaigning.) But here on DP we have what I’ve called the “Aha! Factor,” as when a scrap of info appears suggesting things are not so ominous or a contrary article is published, the suggestion appears that the entire phony consensus is collapsing. I wonder if, had the internet existed when we learned negative things about say, tobacco or smog, if the same skepticism would be present.

The misunderstanding is what is contained in the consensus.
The consensuses about AGW is only that,
A) the average global temperatures have increased over the last century,and
B) that Human activity likely played a role in the observed warming.
Both of these things are true, but that alone is not an agreement with all of the IPCC's catastrophic predictions.
Consider that of the simulation's of future warming TCR is much closer to how Humans emit CO2 than ECS.
IPCC AR6 technical summary

Based on process understanding, warming over the instrumental
record, and emergent constraints, the best estimate of TCR is 1.8°C,
the likely range is 1.4°C to 2.2°C and the very likely range is 1.2°C to 2.4°C.

If the 2XCO2 sensitivity is 1.8°C instead of 3.0°C, it changes all the predictions.

 

[Nickyjo]

The misunderstanding is what is contained in the consensus.
The consensuses about AGW is only that,
A) the average global temperatures have increased over the last century,and
B) that Human activity likely played a role in the observed warming.
Both of these things are true, but that alone is not an agreement with all of the IPCC's catastrophic predictions.
Consider that of the simulation's of future warming TCR is much closer to how Humans emit CO2 than ECS.
IPCC AR6 technical summary

If the 2XCO2 sensitivity is 1.8°C instead of 3.0°C, it changes all the predictions.

If the IPCC is overstating the problem, why are those with less catastrophic views not getting heard in Congresses and Parliaments around the world? For example, tepublicans now control the House. Shouldn’t we expect the relevant committees to be calling skeptical scientists who might tell us to change some policy directions?

 

[longview]

If the IPCC is overstating the problem, why are those with less catastrophic views not getting heard in Congresses and Parliaments around the world? For example, tepublicans now control the House. Shouldn’t we expect the relevant committees to be calling skeptical scientists who might tell us to change some policy directions?

First off skepticism is not the same thing as scientists disagreeing about sensitivity.
The scientist who question the high climate sensitivity have testified before Congress.

 

[Buzz]

Stop wasting my time. You always deny things. Goodbye.

Why do you only whine about wasting time on this forum when someone wants you to back what you say? It is because you generally can't back up your BS. Pretending that you care about wasting your time is just a cop-out you use to justify your refusal to back yourself up. And then you lie about me and run away with your tail between your legs.

But don't worry... I went and dug up the discussion in question. And what do you know?... you are just flat-out wrong yet again. Here is where it generally started.

I was not mistaking top of atmosphere with surface energies. I was debating TOA with longview while debating surface energies and what constitutes radiative forcing with you. And the study you cited did, in fact, prove long wrong. You even agreed with me that long was wrong about changes in TSI directly applying to the entire surface of the Earth as a forcing.

So, just as I suspected... I was NOT wrong and you have yet to ever show where I am/was wrong about any major point... EVER!!

 

[Buzz]

Life after oil: How many people can Earth Support?

This still doesn't back up your false assertion that carbon offsets are going to starve billions. Why can't you just admit that that statement was just wrong?

 

[Buzz]

Net Zero is not actual zero emissions, the environment picks up about 56% of all CO2 emissions, and the
percentage seems like it keeps up with the emission levels.
Net Zero is where Emissions equal uptake, so there is zero CO2 growth.

This is wrong.

While the amount of CO2 that the Earth is absorbing has increased with the increasing amount of emission, it is not expected to stay the same if and when man starts to decrease emissions. The absorption will decrease as well so that the increase in atmospheric CO2 will not stop until man stops putting CO2 into the air with fossil fuel burning.

And this is supported by the vast majority of climate scientists as well as the IPCC. Why longview can't accept this fact... I don't know.

 

[Buzz]

If the IPCC is overstating the problem, why are those with less catastrophic views not getting heard in Congresses and Parliaments around the world? For example, tepublicans now control the House. Shouldn’t we expect the relevant committees to be calling skeptical scientists who might tell us to change some policy directions?

The IPCC is not overstating the problem. If anything they might be understating it by being too conservative in their estimations.

The problem is that a few scientists(most of which don't even work in the field anymore) and lots of pundits like longview are distorting the science with help from right-wing propaganda sources to make it seem like there is a legitimate debate. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of real practicing climate scientists agree that man-made global warming is something that we do need to worry about and do something about.

Don't believe longview's lies and misinformation. I have only been consistently debunking him for at least 8 years now.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Buzz...

Please don't blow a gasket.

 

[Nickyjo]

First off skepticism is not the same thing as scientists disagreeing about sensitivity.
The scientist who question the high climate sensitivity have testified before Congress.

Good to hear. Let a hundred flowers bloom. If he convinces us to ease up on unnecessary regulations, fine. But s/he needs to convince the majority of scientists and the governments of the world that they have been wrong all along.

 

[Buzz]

Buzz...

Please don't blow a gasket.

What's the matter? Can't refute anything I'm saying??

 

[longview]

This still doesn't back up your false assertion that carbon offsets are going to starve billions. Why can't you just admit that that statement was just wrong?

If the current population of Earth is 7.8 billion, and an Earth without oil can only support 2.5 billion at our current lifestyle,
then it goes without saying that what we eat and how much we eat is going to decrease.
That decrease for people already on the fringe, will equal starvation.

 

[longview]

This is wrong.

While the amount of CO2 that the Earth is absorbing has increased with the increasing amount of emission, it is not expected to stay the same if and when man starts to decrease emissions. The absorption will decrease as well so that the increase in atmospheric CO2 will not stop until man stops putting CO2 into the air with fossil fuel burning.

And this is supported by the vast majority of climate scientists as well as the IPCC. Why longview can't accept this fact... I don't know.

So now you want to disagree with the UN?

What is net zero?​

Put simply, net zero means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with any remaining emissions re-absorbed from the atmosphere, by oceans and forests for instance.

But do you think it is the CO2 emissions that drive higher carbon uptake, or the temperature and CO2 level?
I would contend that Science already has the answer.
Plants in greenhouses do not only grow better as the CO2 level is increasing, but the entire time the CO2 level is
at a higher level.
Net Zero is where we have no annual growth in the CO2 level, but the level will stay wherever it is for several decades.

 

[longview]

Good to hear. Let a hundred flowers bloom. If he convinces us to ease up on unnecessary regulations, fine. But s/he needs to convince the majority of scientists and the governments of the world that they have been wrong all along.

Again disagreement about how sensitive the climate is to added CO2 is not saying anyone is wrong.
The range of 2XCO2 climate sensitivity stated by the IPCC across the different simulations is enormous.
IPCC AR6 technical summary

The AR6 best estimate of ECS is 3°C, the likely range is 2.5°C to 4°C and the very likely range is 2°C to 5°C.

Based on process understanding, warming over the instrumental record, and emergent constraints,
the best estimate of TCR is 1.8°C, the likely range is 1.4°C to 2.2°C and the very likely range is
1.2°C to 2.4°C.

Across just the two primary simulations of CO2 doubling, the range of possible warming is 1.2°C to 5°C!
I only see a few predictions outside of the IPCC's published range.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What's the matter? Can't refute anything I'm saying??

I can refute it, but you aren't worth me taking more than about 30 seconds a post. You are not worthy of me taking the time. Not until you show me you understand these sciences.

 

[Buzz]

If the current population of Earth is 7.8 billion, and an Earth without oil can only support 2.5 billion at our current lifestyle,
then it goes without saying that what we eat and how much we eat is going to decrease.
That decrease for people already on the fringe, will equal starvation.

This is about carbon offsets supposedly causing billions to starve... not about going without oil.

You just can't admit your original statement was stupid. So now you want to change the subject.

Again disagreement about how sensitive the climate is to added CO2 is not saying anyone is wrong.
The range of 2XCO2 climate sensitivity stated by the IPCC across the different simulations is enormous.
IPCC AR6 technical summary


Across just the two primary simulations of CO2 doubling, the range of possible warming is 1.2°C to 5°C!
I only see a few predictions outside of the IPCC's published range.

ECS and TCR are different and are not directly comparable. To add the ranges of both together as if they are the same is just more denialist BS.