Global Action on Climate Change is Dead

[Jack Hays]

The implication here is that "it's too little, too late". You mentioned India and China - both are investing heavily into renewables, with a larger percentage of their power coming from renewables, than the US.

RENEWABLE ENERGY - Make In India

​India has the fifth largest power generation portfolio in the world and its current renewable energy contribution stands at 44.812 GW which includes 27.441 GW of Wind power and 8.062 GW of Solar power installed capacity in the country. (As on 31.07.2016).Fourth largest installed capacity of wind power.Third largest installed capacity of concentrated solar power (CSP) Renewable energy contributes 14.7% of the total installed capacity in the country as on 31.07.2016.Ambitious target of 175 GW of renewable power by 2022 which will include 100 GW of Solar power, 60 GW from wind power, 10 GW from biomass power and 5 GW from small hydro power.

China is crushing the U.S. in renewable energy - Jul. 18, 2017

For the first time ever, China's National Energy Administration in January established a mandatory target to reduce coal energy consumption. It also set a goal for clean energy to meet 20% of China's energy needs by 2030.

You asked about a solution. I can say definitely what isn't a solution - pointing fingers at one another, complaining, and abandoning efforts to curtail the burning of fossil fuels. That is not a solution.

Paris Climate Accord
California’s “leading” climate change fighting partner China funds coal plants in Indonesia violating Paris agreement

By Larry Hamlin Governor Brown who claims that China is “leading” the fight against climate change alongside California seems incredibly oblivious to the reality that China is committed to building hundreds of new coal plants as addressed in a recent New York Times article. Adding to the Governor’s embarrassment over his phony China climate change…

 

[vegas giants]

Paris Climate Accord
California’s “leading” climate change fighting partner China funds coal plants in Indonesia violating Paris agreement

By Larry Hamlin Governor Brown who claims that China is “leading” the fight against climate change alongside California seems incredibly oblivious to the reality that China is committed to building hundreds of new coal plants as addressed in a recent New York Times article. Adding to the Governor’s embarrassment over his phony China climate change…

My god I hope they are investing in coal. Who said they shouldn't?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The rapid rise in CO2 is a significant reason for global warming and something we can do something about

But it doesn't have a significant effect.

The math if you use the 3.71W/m^2 per doubling indicates CO2 is already over 30 W/m^2 of forcing to the climate system. The pundits lie so much about how these greenhouse gasses work.

So if we use 30 W/m^2 at 280 ppm, the first doubling to 560 ppm gives us 33.71 W/m^2. The second doubling to 1,120 ppm, gives us 37.42 W/m^2. This is from an energy balance that already has ~ 400 W/m^2 for a surface forcing.

If we take 400 W/m^2 = 288 K, and extrapolate to 407.42 W/m^2, the new surface temperature is only raised by 0.46%.

(407.42^0.25 / 400^0.25) = 1.004606

(1.0046 x 288) - 288 = 1.33.

So this math has the surface temperature rising by 1.3 degrees, for a quadrupling of CO2 over preindustrial times.

Of course this math is the simple main dynamic, and has no feedback loops, so let's see yours.

 

[Media_Truth]

But it doesn't have a significant effect.

The math if you use the 3.71W/m^2 per doubling indicates CO2 is already over 30 W/m^2 of forcing to the climate system. The pundits lie so much about how these greenhouse gasses work.

So if we use 30 W/m^2 at 280 ppm, the first doubling to 560 ppm gives us 33.71 W/m^2. The second doubling to 1,120 ppm, gives us 37.42 W/m^2. This is from an energy balance that already has ~ 400 W/m^2 for a surface forcing.

If we take 400 W/m^2 = 288 K, and extrapolate to 407.42 W/m^2, the new surface temperature is only raised by 0.46%.

(407.42^0.25 / 400^0.25) = 1.004606

(1.0046 x 288) - 288 = 1.33.

So this math has the surface temperature rising by 1.3 degrees, for a quadrupling of CO2 over preindustrial times.

Of course this math is the simple main dynamic, and has no feedback loops, so let's see yours.

Golly, if only you had been on the IPCC scientific board. Maybe they would have gotten it right.:soap

 

[longview]

Golly, if only you had been on the IPCC scientific board. Maybe they would have gotten it right.:soap

Actually, Dr. Richard Lindzen was on the IPCC Scientific board and found very similar results.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
Lindzen resigned from the IPCC because he thought the summary for policy makers,

"misrepresents what scientists say" and "Exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty"

https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4resign
It sound like it would not have mattered if the IPCC Science board "had gotten it right" since the IPCC
published what they wanted to no matter what the Scientist said.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Golly, if only you had been on the IPCC scientific board. Maybe they would have gotten it right.:soap

Please explain what I said that is wrong.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually, Dr. Richard Lindzen was on the IPCC Scientific board and found very similar results.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
Lindzen resigned from the IPCC because he thought the summary for policy makers,

"misrepresents what scientists say" and "Exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty"

https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4resign
It sound like it would not have mattered if the IPCC Science board "had gotten it right" since the IPCC
published what they wanted to no matter what the Scientist said.

The IPCC and pundits absolutely do misrepresent what the scientists say.

I've been saying that for how long now?

 

[longview]

The IPCC and pundits absolutely do misrepresent what the scientists say.

I've been saying that for how long now?

Considering that is what Lindzen resigned over in 2011, it's been going on for a while.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]The Resurgence of the American Coal Industry. Part Trois: Going Dutch![/h]Guest post by David Middleton If President Obama was the “war on coal,” President Trump might just be the post-war “Marshall Plan”… U.S. Coal Finds Footing In European Markets By Oil & Gas 360 – Jul 22, 2017 A report by the EIA indicated that coal exports—for both steam coal, used for power generation, and metallurgical coal,…
Continue reading →

 

[Media_Truth]

Actually, Dr. Richard Lindzen was on the IPCC Scientific board and found very similar results.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
Lindzen resigned from the IPCC because he thought the summary for policy makers,

https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4resign
It sound like it would not have mattered if the IPCC Science board "had gotten it right" since the IPCC
published what they wanted to no matter what the Scientist said.

Lindzen - the DENIER's HERO. Lindzen charged Oil and Coal operations $2500 per day for his services. He's part of the Cato Institute, which receives support from Exxon. He has obviously jumped ship, selling out to the big money fossil fuel lobby.

But just to humor you, his "mathematical" study showed a 1 deg C rise in temperature for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Mathematician-novice Planar found a 1.3 deg (units weren't important in this calculation:lol for a quadrupling of CO2. You deniers better get together and make your fake math jive with one another.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Lindzen - the DENIER's HERO. Lindzen charged Oil and Coal operations $2500 per day for his services. He's part of the Cato Institute, which receives support from Exxon. He has obviously jumped ship, selling out to the big money fossil fuel lobby.

But just to humor you, his "mathematical" study showed a 1 deg C rise in temperature for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Mathematician-novice Planar found a 1.3 deg (units weren't important in this calculation:lol for a quadrupling of CO2. You deniers better get together and make your fake math jive with one another.

I see you have a problem with reading comprehension. That 1.3 degrees was a static assessment. The world is dynamic.

 

[longview]

Lindzen - the DENIER's HERO. Lindzen charged Oil and Coal operations $2500 per day for his services. He's part of the Cato Institute, which receives support from Exxon. He has obviously jumped ship, selling out to the big money fossil fuel lobby.

But just to humor you, his "mathematical" study showed a 1 deg C rise in temperature for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Mathematician-novice Planar found a 1.3 deg (units weren't important in this calculation:lol for a quadrupling of CO2. You deniers better get together and make your fake math jive with one another.

Dr. Lindzen's numbers may be closer than you think.
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010 : Nature : Nature Research
When we look at the empirical data, a .2 Wm-2 increase for a 22 ppm change in CO2 level,
means a doubling of CO2 would cause an imbalance of 2.38 Wm-2.
Using Hansen's numbers of .3 C per Wm-2 change, that comes to .72 C.
Throw in the IPCC's amplified feedbacks, and the range becomes .9 to 2.7 C with a 1.8 mid point.
Remember AGW is a two part equation, the forcing from the added CO2, and then the much more subjective amplified feedbacks.
If you had actually bothered to read Lindzen's paper, the 1 C was for the forcing only.
He then theorized an attenuated feedback, from his atmospheric iris, to get an ECS of about .8 C fro 2X CO2.
Please try to read the real sources, instead of the pro warming blogs.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Please try to read the real sources, instead of the pro warming blogs.

They only understand what they are spoon feed by the priests of AGW.

 

[Media_Truth]

Dr. Lindzen's numbers may be closer than you think.
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010 : Nature : Nature Research
When we look at the empirical data, a .2 Wm-2 increase for a 22 ppm change in CO2 level,
means a doubling of CO2 would cause an imbalance of 2.38 Wm-2.
Using Hansen's numbers of .3 C per Wm-2 change, that comes to .72 C.
Throw in the IPCC's amplified feedbacks, and the range becomes .9 to 2.7 C with a 1.8 mid point.
Remember AGW is a two part equation, the forcing from the added CO2, and then the much more subjective amplified feedbacks.
If you had actually bothered to read Lindzen's paper, the 1 C was for the forcing only.
He then theorized an attenuated feedback, from his atmospheric iris, to get an ECS of about .8 C fro 2X CO2.
Please try to read the real sources, instead of the pro warming blogs.

But it's probably much further than you think.

 

[longview]

But it's probably much further than you think.

I tend to go with the empirical data where possible.
Direct measurements are usually apolitical.
You may not like them, but they are what they are.

 

[longview]

But it's probably much further than you think.

If you look back at my posts, I have stated several times, I think the ECS from doubling the CO2
level would be about 1.8 C.
The presumption is that we can actually achieve a CO2 doubling, which I think will not happen
because advances in technology will render using oil for fuel to the same history as whale oil for lighting.

 

[Media_Truth]

If you look back at my posts, I have stated several times, I think the ECS from doubling the CO2
level would be about 1.8 C.
The presumption is that we can actually achieve a CO2 doubling, which I think will not happen
because advances in technology will render using oil for fuel to the same history as whale oil for lighting.

There will be a long time-lag, before we are in a whale oil phase. At least 30-40 years. Middle-Eastern oil reserves will last at least that long, and probably longer, with more technological extraction methods. If unchecked, atmospheric CO2 will be much higher, maybe 3-4x current levels. That is why it is so important to have an International buy-in on the problem and solutions.

 

[longview]

There will be a long time-lag, before we are in a whale oil phase. At least 30-40 years. Middle-Eastern oil reserves will last at least that long, and probably longer, with more technological extraction methods. If unchecked, atmospheric CO2 will be much higher, maybe 3-4x current levels. That is why it is so important to have an International buy-in on the problem and solutions.

It is not a question of how long reserves will last, but how much they cost to extract, and transport to the refineries.
The only thing that matters is how much the refinery has to pay for the oil.
Fracking an oil well can shorten it's life from 20 to 5 years, you get the same amount of oil, over a shorter time frame.
We have been pushing hard on oil for over a century, the remaining oil, will be difficult and expensive to extract.
What is different now, is that there is a price ceiling.
If oil gets much over $90 a barrel, it will be more profitable for the refinery to make their feedstock from scratch.
I also think once they go down that road, they will not go back, because the
the volatility of oil prices has hurt everyone in the oil business.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you look back at my posts, I have stated several times, I think the ECS from doubling the CO2
level would be about 1.8 C.
The presumption is that we can actually achieve a CO2 doubling, which I think will not happen
because advances in technology will render using oil for fuel to the same history as whale oil for lighting.

I would go with no more than 0.9 degrees, centering it at about 0.6 degrees.

As the CO2 increases, so does water surface evaporation since the spectra of CO2 is absorbed in the first several microns on water depth. This adds to absolute humidity, eventually increasing low level cloud cover, and we also have the Iris Effect in play. Both as a negative feedback.

This study was done better than any existing study on CO2 sensitivity:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...l_for_the_Assessment_of_Global_Warming_by_CO2

 

[longview]

I would go with no more than 0.9 degrees, centering it at about 0.6 degrees.

As the CO2 increases, so does water surface evaporation since the spectra of CO2 is absorbed in the first several microns on water depth. This adds to absolute humidity, eventually increasing low level cloud cover, and we also have the Iris Effect in play. Both as a negative feedback.

This study was done better than any existing study on CO2 sensitivity:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...l_for_the_Assessment_of_Global_Warming_by_CO2

True, It could be that most of the observed is simply long cycle constructive interference.
The actual signal of CO2 could be somewhere in the background noise.

 

[Media_Truth]

It is not a question of how long reserves will last, but how much they cost to extract, and transport to the refineries.
The only thing that matters is how much the refinery has to pay for the oil.
Fracking an oil well can shorten it's life from 20 to 5 years, you get the same amount of oil, over a shorter time frame.
We have been pushing hard on oil for over a century, the remaining oil, will be difficult and expensive to extract.
What is different now, is that there is a price ceiling.
If oil gets much over $90 a barrel, it will be more profitable for the refinery to make their feedstock from scratch.
I also think once they go down that road, they will not go back, because the
the volatility of oil prices has hurt everyone in the oil business.

I wish I shared your viewpoint that a lack of oil availability will drive down atmospheric CO2, and render it a non-problem. It is an extremely optimistic outlook, which risks mankind's very existence in parts of the world, to economic principals. Haven't the last few oil shortages demonstrated that the US will pay any price for oil, and still not reduce their consumption, in any meaningful way? I see no justification, in practice, for your viewpoint. The middle-east has oil reserves that will power the world for many years, and the US has historically been their biggest customer.

 

[longview]

I wish I shared your viewpoint that a lack of oil availability will drive down atmospheric CO2, and render it a non-problem. It is an extremely optimistic outlook, which risks mankind's very existence in parts of the world, to economic principals. Haven't the last few oil shortages demonstrated that the US will pay any price for oil, and still not reduce their consumption, in any meaningful way? I see no justification, in practice, for your viewpoint. The middle-east has oil reserves that will power the world for many years, and the US has historically been their biggest customer.

My position is not that a lack of oil will drive down CO2 levels.
Finding and extracting oil has a real dollar costs, and those costs are increasing.
When those costs exceed the cost of the refineries making their own feedstock,
they will choose the most profit, and make their own feedstock.
A few years ago a Saudi prince stated that oil would never go above $100 a barrel again, and he was right,
because it cannot. At current whole sale electricity prices, the cutoff will be below $90 a barrel,
above that, the greater profit would come from making fuel from scratch.
As Tim the Plumber said, "the stone age did not end for a lack of stone"

 

[Media_Truth]

My position is not that a lack of oil will drive down CO2 levels.
Finding and extracting oil has a real dollar costs, and those costs are increasing.
When those costs exceed the cost of the refineries making their own feedstock,
they will choose the most profit, and make their own feedstock.
A few years ago a Saudi prince stated that oil would never go above $100 a barrel again, and he was right,
because it cannot. At current whole sale electricity prices, the cutoff will be below $90 a barrel,
above that, the greater profit would come from making fuel from scratch.
As Tim the Plumber said, "the stone age did not end for a lack of stone"

So are you saying you have a total lack of concern about CO2? Burning "feedstock" will still increase CO2. Any combustion process will. It's hard to discern your actual stances, because there seems to be a lot of flip-flopping. You mentioned that you thought there was 1-2 degree Centigrade rise in global temperatures, due to increased atmospheric CO2. Don't you see this increasing if we continue the practice of combustive energy and transportation, on a massive scale?

 

[longview]

So are you saying you have a total lack of concern about CO2? Burning "feedstock" will still increase CO2. Any combustion process will. It's hard to discern your actual stances, because there seems to be a lot of flip-flopping. You mentioned that you thought there was 1-2 degree Centigrade rise in global temperatures, due to increased atmospheric CO2. Don't you see this increasing if we continue the practice of combustive energy and transportation, on a massive scale?

If the Carbon used to build the hydrocarbon fuels from scratch, is harvested from atmospheric CO2,
when the fuel is burned, ZERO net CO2 is added to the atmosphere. I.E. Carbon neutral.
If all new CO2 emissions from transport is stopped, it will impact total emissions.

 

[Media_Truth]

If the Carbon used to build the hydrocarbon fuels from scratch, is harvested from atmospheric CO2,
when the fuel is burned, ZERO net CO2 is added to the atmosphere. I.E. Carbon neutral.
If all new CO2 emissions from transport is stopped, it will impact total emissions.

The title of this thread is "Global Action on Climate Change is Dead". The relatively new concept of harvesting atmospheric CO2 into fuels certainly doesn't belong in this thread, because it is a potential global action on climate change. This technology is still in a research phase. We've heard a lot about other touted technologies. Many aren't dead, but they are sitting in research limbo:

1. Fuel Cells
2. Fuel from Algae
3. Biodiesel
4. Hydrogen

Add this to the list. At best, it's many years out. At worst, it doesn't pan out at all. Like hydrogen, it requires a lot of energy input, in the form of electricity. I'm totally supportive of the research, and potential development.

Renewables are here, and can generate electricity today. They are now economically viable. Electric cars are here. So as individual consumers, we already have the formula for net-zero-carbon living. If other options come along - GREAT.