Evidence that the climate scam is collapsing

[longview]

Greenhouse gasses make OLR smaller.

Not necessarily, added greenhouse gases absorb specific wavelengths, but that energy likely just moves around the wavelength dependent
blockage and escapes at a longer wavelength. Keep in mind that to show much of anything on the line by line database they
had to radically increase the differential, but in the real world the CO2 level has not even doubled once.

Interesting that you say directly. Are you saying it may be a feedback to temperature rise?

Feedbacks require an initial input, if there is no initial energy imbalance, then there are no feedbacks.

? The line by line databases can be looked at over time which was done in the study I cited.

But the line by line database, likely is not adjusting to atmospheric changes in real time.

A single doubling has a significant difference on our lives.

We do not actually know that, again there is no empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.

On average to the grid the result is the same.

Sorry the electrical grid does work that way, supply has to line up with demand, in under a second.

I agree that PtF has potential, particularly for load balancing. However, it only makes sense that it will always be more expensive than the solar used to make it. It seems like we should just use the solar power directly as much as possible. If PtF proves to be commercially viable by that time EVs will be ubiquitous.

A solar system designed to cover peak loads in Summer in the South, will generate massive surpluses in the Spring and Fall,
and likely some surpluses in the Winter. Net metering has distorted the value of surplus solar electricity, but the real value is likely
slightly less than the wholesale price. As for value, electricity generated that does not have a demand for that electricity, is lost at a 100% rate,
and could even damage the grid. Power to Liquid could be much closer than you think and could be transitioned globally in a year or two.
We do not have access to the big oil companies research, but the Navy and Sunfire have stated that storage efficiencies
between 60 and 80 % are possible. 60% would place market viability at a sustained oil price of $96 a barrel.

Yes.

Why is the battery a problem?

The battery is a problem because of low energy density, and slow recharge times.
Catastrophic failure is also a bit of a problem.

With the world quickly adopting EVs (except for the US) I wonder how long it will take for oil to become expensive. It seems like we will see a reduction in demand.

The world is not quickly adopting battery electric vehicles, and they are not an option for many people, and oil demand is growing.

Sounds like torture to drive 1000 miles with only one 10 minute stop. Your stops on a long trip may be a little longer with an EV, but you will be able to eat lunch and stretch your legs. Also don’t forget that you won’t have to waste time going to gas stations for the rest of the year if you charge at home, work, etc.

There is a difference between choosing to stop, and being required to.
You have to have a home with a charger set up, how many people who live in apartments has a private parking space,
with the electrical meter tied to their apartment?

Yes. Big time based on this measurement:

These new results reveal the stunning shift in research leadership over the past two decades towards large economies in the Indo-Pacific, led by China’s exceptional gains. The US led in 60 of 64 technologies in the five years from 2003 to 2007, but in the most recent five years (2019–2023) is leading in seven. China led in just three of 64 technologies in 2003–2007 but is now the lead country in 57 of 64 technologies in 2019–2023, increasing its lead from our rankings last year (2018–2022), where it was leading in 52 technologies.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/aspis-two-decade-critical-technology-tracker/

Meanwhile we are attacking science, universities and cutting back on research.

I think we have room too improve, but our problem is we are not challenging ourselves, not China.
Go to almost any University graduation and listen to the names called out in science and engineering,
most are not European based names.

 

[George50]

The cult will deny this and not even give it the time of day, because it is blasphemy. They will not stray from their religion.

I’m sure the cult (you guys) will be happy. Denying that greenhouse gases cause warming is nonsense. Getting rid of the endangerment finding won’t be easy.

The endangerment finding was born out of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. E.P.A. that stated that the Clean Air Act obligated the agency to address pollutants that harm public health indirectly by warming the planet. The ruling forced the agency to weigh in on whether six greenhouse gases harmed public health, which the agency did, in the affirmative, in 2009.

That assessment set off a legal mandate to regulate those emissions. The EPA has a mandate to do what they have been doing.

It looks like the Supreme Court will have to decide whether or not greenhouse gases cause warming. Should be a real s**t show! They will have to decide if the EPA doing this for political reasons or do they now have some secret model that proves the warming we are seeing is coming from some other source?

Meanwhile the rest of the world is plowing ahead. In China EVs on average are now cheaper than ICE cars and they cost less to operate. Other than the oil companies I’m not sure who in this country would want to see this. GM, for example, has long ago committed to going all electric. Do you think they now want to do an about face?

The administration’s goal seems to be to push us backwards with technology. Time after time we see this administration ceding the future to China in a multitude of ways. It’s hard to see that happening faster even if China put someone from the Chinese Communist Party in the White House.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I’m sure the cult (you guys) will be happy. Denying that greenhouse gases cause warming is nonsense. Getting rid of the endangerment finding won’t be easy.

Are you really going to go down that path and accuse me and others of things explicitly stated otherwise?

I'm not even going to bother to respond to the rest of your post as iy appears you shifted to nonsense. I once thought you were an intelligent poster. I now have my doubts.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nobody is "denying" that greenhouse gasses cause warming. Only the level of that warming.

I have stated this too many times to allow anyone to turn my point into a lie.

 

[George50]

Not necessarily, added greenhouse gases absorb specific wavelengths, but that energy likely just moves around the wavelength dependent
blockage and escapes at a longer wavelength.

Photons don’t just decide to change their wavelength.

Keep in mind that to show much of anything on the line by line database they
had to radically increase the differential, but in the real world the CO2 level has not even doubled once.


Feedbacks require an initial input, if there is no initial energy imbalance, then there are no feedbacks.

The imbalance is between ASR and OLR.

But the line by line database, likely is not adjusting to atmospheric changes in real time.

300,000 measurements per day is pretty close to real time.

We do not actually know that, again there is no empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.

The citation I provided earlier gave us that empirical evidence.

Sorry the electrical grid does work that way, supply has to line up with demand, in under a second.

You are thinking of one person. The grid is dealing with millions. The load on the grid at any time will be the same no matter whether people are charging 2 hours every day or 10 hours randomly every 5 days.

A solar system designed to cover peak loads in Summer in the South, will generate massive surpluses in the Spring and Fall,
and likely some surpluses in the Winter.

Those surpluses could be used for e-fuel.

Net metering has distorted the value of surplus solar electricity, but the real value is likely
slightly less than the wholesale price. As for value, electricity generated that does not have a demand for that electricity, is lost at a 100% rate,
and could even damage the grid.

Again, the surplus could be used for e-fuel. Either way they are not going to let a surplus damage the grid.

Power to Liquid could be much closer than you think and could be transitioned globally in a year or two.

But it has to be more expensive than the electricity used to generate it. Therefore it makes sense to use the electricity directly where possible.

We do not have access to the big oil companies research, but the Navy and Sunfire have stated that storage efficiencies
between 60 and 80 % are possible. 60% would place market viability at a sustained oil price of $96 a barrel.


The battery is a problem because of low energy density, and slow recharge times.
Catastrophic failure is also a bit of a problem.

Nevertheless, it works fine and the fuel is cheaper than other alternatives.

The world is not quickly adopting battery electric vehicles

In China (by far the largest car market) in the last 2 years EV sales have grown by 65%, worldwide EV sales have grown by 50%. Those are pretty quick growth rates.

, and they are not an option for many people,

Why? That’s not true.

and oil demand is growing.

Yes, but how will that change as the number of ICE vehicles falls to near zero.

There is a difference between choosing to stop, and being required to.

No vehicle can choose to stop. They are all required to.

You have to have a home with a charger set up,

Not true.

how many people who live in apartments has a private parking space,
with the electrical meter tied to their apartment?

Apartments will adapt. People will be able to charge at work.

Right now I could charge at the grocery store while I shop if I wanted to. They have chargers in the parking lot. Walmarts are putting them in too.

I think we have room too improve, but our problem is we are not challenging ourselves, not China.
Go to almost any University graduation and listen to the names called out in science and engineering,
most are not European based names.

Do you think we are challenging ourselves by having an administration who is anti science and bashing universities.

 

[George50]

Are you really going to go down that path and accuse me and others of things explicitly stated otherwise?

I'm not even going to bother to respond to the rest of your post as iy appears you shifted to nonsense. I once thought you were an intelligent poster. I now have my doubts.

You obviously can’t refute my post.

Interesting how you can accuse others of being in a cult when they have the overwhelming consensus of science on their side while you don’t have an alternative model.

 

[George50]

Nobody is "denying" that greenhouse gasses cause warming. Only the level of that warming.

I have stated this too many times to allow anyone to turn my point into a lie.

The FDA is denying it and you are fine with that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You obviously can’t refute my post.

Why waste my time? It is not really anything new after all these years.

Interesting how you can accuse others of being in a cult when they have the overwhelming consensus of science on their side while you don’t have an alternative model.

Consensus again. Not scientific at all with the ways the consensus it lies about.

The cult mentality applies to those who have faith in what the agenda claims. Those who have no way of understanding what is an is not correct, and they believe in a religiously faith like manner. The term applies. But when you make unfounded accusations the we believe there is no warming... are you trying to be intellectually dishonest, or do you really not comprehend what we day?

Either way does not bode well for your integrity.

If you watched that EPA video in an earlier post, it was mentioned the CO2 effect is north of zero. Nobody claims zero.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The FDA is denying it and you are fine with that.

Bullshit. Now you are making claims from uninformed opinion, with no fact. Again, they said north or zero.

Your integrity is diminishing fast. Are you in the habit of making unfounded claims? i guess you are not interested in any proper debate regarding science.

And you mean EPA. Right? I would hop[e you are not listening to the FDA on climate change.

 

[Lord of Planar]

300,000 measurements per day is pretty close to real time.

I wouldn't call it that, because it is not sampling the same area. It takes several orbits to get back to the came regions.

 

[George50]

As do other factors. Please do not think or suggest greenhouse gasses are the only cause.

Why do you state the obvious when your comment has no relevance to my reply to Longview?

There is still not absolute determination of what the seen changes mean.

The changes in the study are measurements of the change in OLR.

How? To state that as fact means to know as fact what the quantification of the doubling really does, which is impossible to know.

.We can not know exactly what the quantification will be. However, the results are expressed in ranges with extreme certainty and everything in the range is a very concerning scenario. To ignore the best science we have is foolhardy

There is always a loss in storage. What needs to be asked is if the loss is acceptable or not. If the goal is to stop using fossil fuels or achieve net zero emissions, then there are few less expensive was to go except to directly turn electricity when it is an excess to a storage method that can be stored indefinitely and used as needed. Simple hydrocarbons can serve that role, and we even have fuel cells than can directly turn them back into electricity.

You missed the point. I agree that e-fuels have potential, particularly for load balancing. However, it only makes sense that e-fuels will always be more expensive than the solar used to make it. It seems like we should just use the solar power directly as much as possible rather than converting it to e-fuels first.

Some years back, I drove to the east coast. Such a trip is harsh enough. If I had to wait 45 minutes every 200 miles to recharge, I would have gone bonkers.

A Hyundai Ionic 6 can do that in about 15 minutes.

It seems like it’s strange to dismiss a car because you would have had to wait for an extra few hours on a trip you did years ago and may never do again but being fine with having to stop at gas stations a few thousand times in your life time when you could just plug in your car on the way into your house.

 

[George50]

Bullshit. Now you are making claims from uninformed opinion, with no fact. Again, they said north or zero.

The EPA is denying that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. That is bullshit.

The EPA is claiming that emissions reductions have cost Americans a trillion dollars. That is bullshit. If anything the regulations have saved Americans billions in fuel costs by pushing automakers to improve gas mileage.

Your integrity is diminishing fast. Are you in the habit of making unfounded claims? i guess you are not interested in any proper debate regarding science.

What the EPA is doing is not science. It is political bullshit.

And you mean EPA. Right? I would hop[e you are not listening to the FDA on climate change.

LOL You got me on that one.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why do you state the obvious when your comment has no relevance to my reply to Longview?

Only making sure the facts are understood.

The changes in the study are measurements of the change in OLR.

Which by themself don't indicate much.

.We can not know exactly what the quantification will be. However, the results are expressed in ranges with extreme certainty and everything in the range is a very concerning scenario. To ignore the best science we have is foolhardy

Except what you accept as as extreme certainty is not so. there is no certainty that the sensitivity is as high as the IPCCCV states. In fact, almost every independent outside of what the IPCCC utilizes says otherwise.

You missed the point. I agree that e-fuels have potential, particularly for load balancing. However, it only makes sense that e-fuels will always be more expensive than the solar used to make it. It seems like we should just use the solar power directly as much as possible rather than converting it to e-fuels first.

I didn't miss any point around it. To get away from fossil fuels, storage will be an absolute necessity.

A Hyundai Ionic 6 can do that in about 15 minutes.

What I read is 16 minutes 10% to 80%, and that is with a 350kW CCS-2 charger. They are rather spare for traveling long distances. If one location has an outage on a long distance trip outside of metropolitan areas, you are screwed.

It seems like it’s strange to dismiss a car because you would have had to wait for an extra few hours on a trip you did years ago and may never do again but being fine with having to stop at gas stations a few thousand times in your life time when you could just plug in your car on the way into your house.

I am only pointing out that electric cars are not ready for everyone. I have stated this time and again. Too many people live in places that with no charger capabilities, and charging point costs make it expensive and inconvenient for those who cannot charge overnight in their garage.

 

[George50]

Why waste my time? It is not really anything new after all these years.

Consensus again. Not scientific at all with the ways the consensus it lies about.

Lies? Back to the conspiracy theories?

The cult mentality applies to those who have faith in what the agenda claims. Those who have no way of understanding what is an is not correct, and they believe in a religiously faith like manner. The term applies. But when you make unfounded accusations the we believe there is no warming... are you trying to be intellectually dishonest, or do you really not comprehend what we day?

Either way does not bode well for your integrity.

If you watched that EPA video in an earlier post, it was mentioned the CO2 effect is north of zero. Nobody claims zero.

North of zero is nonsense. Not even you would claim that is the bottom of the range. Their statements are just political BS.

The cult mentality applies to those who have faith in what the agenda claims. Those who have no way of understanding what is an is not correct, and they believe in a religiously faith like manner. The term applies. But when you make unfounded accusations the we believe there is no warming... are you trying to be intellectually dishonest, or do you really not comprehend what we day?

Either way does not bode well for your integrity.

It does not bode well for your integrity to approve of statements that are obviously political BS.

If you watched that EPA video in an earlier post, it was mentioned the CO2 effect is north of zero. Nobody claims zero.

North of zero implies that the effect could be infinitesimal. Which is zero by any possible physical measurement. It’s political BS.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Lies? Back to the conspiracy theories?


North of zero is nonsense. Not even you would claim that is the bottom of the range. Their statements are just political BS.


It does not bode well for your integrity to approve of statements that are obviously political BS.

North of zero implies that the effect could be infinitesimal. Which is zero by any possible physical measurement. It’s political BS.

That's right. Don't accept what is outside the climate dogma as possible. Your approach is denial of science.

 

[George50]

Only making sure the facts are understood.

Which by themself don't indicate much.

The study shows changes in OLR attributable to CO2 and CH4/NO2. I guess you forgot to read it.

Except what you accept as as extreme certainty is not so. there is no certainty that the sensitivity is as high as the IPCCCV states. In fact, almost every independent outside of what the IPCCC utilizes says otherwise.

Some say too high, some say too low, some say just right. They lowered the uncertainty in the range with the last report. We’ll see what happens in the next.

I didn't miss any point around it. To get away from fossil fuels, storage will be an absolute necessity.

That’s what I was saying too. My point to Longview though is that it is more costly to use solar to make e-fuels than it is to just use solar generated electricity directly. Therefore we should use solar generated electricity directly when possible and use e-fuels as storage when needed as opposed to making and using e-fuels all the time.

What I read is 16 minutes 10% to 80%, and that is with a 350kW CCS-2 charger. They are rather spare for traveling long distances. If one location has an outage on a long distance trip outside of metropolitan areas, you are screwed.

Rare if ever a problem now on interstates.

I am only pointing out that electric cars are not ready for everyone. I have stated this time and again. Too many people live in places that with no charger capabilities

Most of them can plug in at home.

and charging point costs make it expensive

Yes, the cost can be as much as for gasoline for a charging point. Rarely more.

and inconvenient for those who cannot charge overnight in their garage.

Don’t need a garage. Just a cord.

Bottom line is that the vast majority of people will not have a problem with charging and even for them it will be remedied soon.

 

[George50]

That's right. Don't accept what is outside the climate dogma as possible. Your approach is denial of science.

That’s right. Don’t accept the best climate science we have. Your approach is a denial of science.

Why should the world make decisions on something that is possible but unlikely when we know what is far more likely to happen? Especially when the solutions are often saving us money.

p.s. Infinitesimal is not possible.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The study shows changes in OLR attributable to CO2 and CH4/NO2. I guess you forgot to read it.

These are very small changes shown.

Some say too high, some say too low, some say just right. They lowered the uncertainty in the range with the last report. We’ll see what happens in the next.

If you buy into what the IPCCC claims with all their known bias.

Rare if ever a problem now on interstates.

I just looked at a map not long ago. If I were to make a trip to the east coast again, my route is very limited for fast chargers.

Most of them can plug in at home.

Not many older homes have a 40 or 50 amp circuit available for 35 amp charging. Do they even have a 200 amp drop from the pole? Newer homes not much of a probable.

Yes, the cost can be as much as for gasoline for a charging point. Rarely more.

I have heard that many are as expensive as filling with gas. I suspect that will lessen with competition. Still, at best, we see it taking about eight times longer to recharge over filling a tank for the same range.

Don’t need a garage. Just a cord.

A cord will not give you level 2 for overnight, except maybe some rare situations.

Bottom line is that the vast majority of people will not have a problem with charging and even for them it will be remedied soon.

Maybe the majority. I disagree with adding "vast" to it.

 

[George50]

I wouldn't call it that, because it is not sampling the same area. It takes several orbits to get back to the came regions.

Plenty of samples.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That’s right. Don’t accept the best climate science we have. Your approach is a denial of science.

What we read from the IPCCC reports are not the best science. It is cherry picked to suit their agenda.

Why should the world make decisions on something that is possible but unlikely when we know what is far more likely to happen? Especially when the solutions are often saving us money.

p.s. Infinitesimal is not possible.

That thought of "likely" is invalid simply because of the improper scientific methodologies used.

 

[George50]

These are very small changes shown.

If you are looking at the graph that shows CO2 and CH4/NO2. That is just for 1cm wavenumber. You would need to add all the wavenumbers together.

If you buy into what the IPCCC claims with all their known bias.

Known bias?

I just looked at a map not long ago. If I were to make a trip to the east coast again, my route is very limited for fast chargers.

This is the middle of nowhere. Perhaps it’s changed since you last looked. It’s changing fast.

Not many older homes have a 40 or 50 amp circuit available for 35 amp charging. Do they even have a 200 amp drop from the pole? Newer homes not much of a probable.

Most people don’t need 35 amp.

I have heard that many are as expensive as filling with gas. I suspect that will lessen with competition. Still, at best, we see it taking about eight times longer to recharge over filling a tank for the same range.

Yes, but if they don’t charge at home many stores now have chargers at their parking spaces. People can fill up while getting groceries. Can’t do that with ICE.

A cord will not give you level 2 for overnight, except maybe some rare situations.

Most people don’t need level 2. Level 1 will keep them going. If they get behind they can go to a fast charger.

Maybe the majority. I disagree with adding "vast" to it.

 

[George50]

What we read from the IPCCC reports are not the best science. It is cherry picked to suit their agenda.

Sorry but that sounds like a conspiracy theory, not science.

That thought of "likely" is invalid simply because of the improper scientific methodologies used.

I haven’t seen evidence of that.

 

[George50]

These are very small changes shown.

Clarification.

I should have said wavenumber segment. If you are looking at the graph that shows CO2 and CH4/NO2. For example for CO2 it represents 710-720 cm^-1. It represents just part of the spectrum. You would need to add all the wavenumber segments together to get the total of Wm^2.

 

[longview]

Photons don’t just decide to change their wavelength.

No photons don't change wavelength, but when a photon is absorbed by an atom or molecule, it is no longer a photon,
but an excited energy state. That energy will be passed on to other atoms or molecules which do have
different emission spectra.

The imbalance is between ASR and OLR.

That is only part of the story, as the vast majority of the imbalance is happening in the shortwave spectrum,
where added greenhouse gases have little effect.
Greenhouse gases do not change how much available sunlight reaches the surface, yet that is where our increase is happening.

300,000 measurements per day is pretty close to real time.

I think you are getting confused between the line by line database, and AIRS instruments.

The citation I provided earlier gave us that empirical evidence.

No that citation showed that CO2 absorbs photons in the longwave spectrum,
which is not the same as saying that added CO2 causes warming.
To cause warming in the longwave spectrum, OLR has to decrease more than the Planck radiation increases.

You are thinking of one person. The grid is dealing with millions. The load on the grid at any time will be the same no matter whether people are charging 2 hours every day or 10 hours randomly every 5 days.

What you do not seem to understand is that to replace millions of IC cars, the grid's capacity needs to
increase by ~20% of the total gasoline not used.
368. million gallons per day, X 34 kWh per gallon = 12,512 GWh X ~20% =2,502 GWh per day.
Current consumption is about 11,000 GWh per day, so the grid need to increase capacity by 22%.

Those surpluses could be used for e-fuel.

Again, the surplus could be used for e-fuel. Either way they are not going to let a surplus damage the grid.

The way they keep Surpluses from damaging the grid is called a dump load, they throw the energy away as heat at a 100% loss usually.

But it has to be more expensive than the electricity used to generate it. Therefore it makes sense to use the electricity directly where possible.

Except there is a cost to changing all the cars, especially to cars that cannot do all the same things.
The price of electricity is expensive...sometimes, if they have a surplus the price goes negative, this will start to happen more and more.
Saving all the surplus as transport fuels we need anyway, is just a good idea.

Nevertheless, it works fine and the fuel is cheaper than other alternatives.

If working fine is your goal, ok, but most of us would like that to be at least as functional as what we had before not less functional.
and the fuel is not always cheaper, A public charger at $.50 per kWh would be $37 to charge a 75 kWh battery (300 miles of range),
I fill my Truck up for less than $30 for a 500+ mile range.

In China (by far the largest car market) in the last 2 years EV sales have grown by 65%, worldwide EV sales have grown by 50%. Those are pretty quick growth rates.

I have no issue with people who want a battery electric car, but I do not want that to be the only choice available.

Why? That’s not true.

Millions of people live in Apartments that do not have the capability of a home charging position,
and the benefits of BEV are lost if they can only use Public charging stations.

Yes, but how will that change as the number of ICE vehicles falls to near zero.

BEV could replace most cars, but are a long way from replacing work vehicles, ship and jets,
But the price of oil has other variables besides just demand, like extraction cost. The price will keep going up.

No vehicle can choose to stop. They are all required to.

At some point yes, but the BEV is required to stop every 200 miles or so, but the IC car can go up to 500 miles before being required to stop.

Not true.

The price of using a public charger all the time is about equal to the cost of gasoline,
except now you have to carry around a heavy battery.
Saying there will be chargers available in the future is not encouraging.

Do you think we are challenging ourselves by having an administration who is anti science and bashing universities.

Our Universities have lost focus, and become politically correct, "safe spaces" sorry freedom of ideas do not have "safe spaces".

 

[Volunteer]

The price of using a public charger all the time is about equal to the cost of gasoline,

I find this to be true. On our beach trips we use Electrify America, stopping for 45 minutes for lunch there, and it is comparable to the cost of gasoline. I leave home with a full charge from my rooftop solar so my beach trips end up cheaper than gasoline.