Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

[longview]

Health effects of air pollution

Breathing polluted air harms our health. Learn about ozone, black carbon, sulfur dioxide and other forms of air pollution, and how they impact our health.

www.edf.org

...and then there's that greenhouse effect we hear about.

The greenhouse effect is based on Earth (or any planet) having an atmosphere, not necessarily what
gases compose the atmosphere.
The greenhouse effect compares how much cooler Earth would be IF THE ATMOSPHERE WERE COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT.
All gases have an absorption spectrum, so the atmosphere would not be completely transparent, unless there were no gases.

 

[flogger]

Health effects of air pollution

Breathing polluted air harms our health. Learn about ozone, black carbon, sulfur dioxide and other forms of air pollution, and how they impact our health.

www.edf.org

...and then there's that greenhouse effect we hear about.

CO2 is not air pollution and the planet is getting ever greener as we speak due to CO2

 

[Lord of Planar]

Health effects of air pollution

Breathing polluted air harms our health. Learn about ozone, black carbon, sulfur dioxide and other forms of air pollution, and how they impact our health.

www.edf.org

...and then there's that greenhouse effect we hear about.

The greenhouse effect is not a pollutant.

 

[Volunteer]

The greenhouse effect is not a pollutant.

Considerable health effects result from air pollution. As you know, we are not filtering out the particulates.

 

[longview]

Considerable health effects result from air pollution.

Your statement does not disagree with what he said!

 

[Volunteer]

Your statement does not disagree with what he said!

Oh yes I disagree with him. Regarding filtering out particulates he said, "...it has been done."

 

[longview]

Oh yes I disagree with him. Regarding filtering out particulates he said, "...it has been done."

His statement was "The greenhouse effect is not a pollutant" which is basically correct as far as CO2 is concerned.
so saying "Considerable health effects result from air pollution." does not disagree with that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh yes I disagree with him. Regarding filtering out particulates he said, "...it has been done."

I few places out of thousands isn't going to be noticed.

 

[Spock]

Considerable health effects result from air pollution. As you know, we are not filtering out the particulates.

Personally, I love to inhale sulfur dioxide, carbon particles, ozone and methane at every opportunity.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Personally, I love to inhale sulfur dioxide, carbon particles, ozone and methane at every opportunity.

Is that how you keep your blood green?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

There is no need for 'action' of any kind as the climate is doing just fine as I recently illustrated elsewhere.

Please quantify the effect this 'action' will have on the climate and what some 3 decades of it have achieved to date ?

For example this report explains the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions.

"The more the planet warms, the greater the impacts. Without rapid and deep reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, the risks of accelerating sea level rise, intensifying extreme weather, and other harmful climate impacts will continue to grow. Each additional increment of warming is expected to lead to more damage and greater economic losses compared to previous increments of warming, while the risk of catastrophic or unforeseen consequences also increases. {2.3, 19.1}"

Fifth National Climate Assessment

The Fifth National Climate Assessment is the US Government’s preeminent report on climate change impacts, risks, and responses. It is a congressionally mandated interagency effort that provides the scientific foundation to support informed decision-making across the United States.

nca2023.globalchange.gov

There the evidence is also overwhelming.

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

 

[longview]

For example this report explains the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions.

"The more the planet warms, the greater the impacts. Without rapid and deep reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, the risks of accelerating sea level rise, intensifying extreme weather, and other harmful climate impacts will continue to grow. Each additional increment of warming is expected to lead to more damage and greater economic losses compared to previous increments of warming, while the risk of catastrophic or unforeseen consequences also increases. {2.3, 19.1}"

Fifth National Climate Assessment

The Fifth National Climate Assessment is the US Government’s preeminent report on climate change impacts, risks, and responses. It is a congressionally mandated interagency effort that provides the scientific foundation to support informed decision-making across the United States.

nca2023.globalchange.gov

There the evidence is also overwhelming.

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

The last 8 cycles of glacial periods, validate that the CO2 level is a RESULT of the temperature change.
There is no evidence from the ice core records that would suggests that a change in the CO2 level would cause the temperature to change.

 

[flogger]

The last 8 cycles of glacial periods, validate that the CO2 level is a RESULT of the temperature change.
There is no evidence from the ice core records that would suggests that a change in the CO2 level would cause the temperature to change.

Thanks for saving me the bother

 

[flogger]

Considerable health effects result from air pollution. As you know, we are not filtering out the particulates.

Do not conflate pollution with climate change .

They are most certainly not one and the same

 

[flogger]

The last 8 cycles of glacial periods, validate that the CO2 level is a RESULT of the temperature change.
There is no evidence from the ice core records that would suggests that a change in the CO2 level would cause the temperature to change.

The simple fact is that given we cannot even detect much less quantify the effect CO2 has in its totality much less the effect of our tiny part of it

We are simply chasing AGW unicorns because it benefits those that want us to ...... ker ching !

 

[Volunteer]

Do not conflate pollution with climate change .

They are most certainly not one and the same

Correct, bur particulate matter in the lungs affects health, according to doctors.

 

[longview]

Correct, bur particulate matter in the lungs affects health, according to doctors.

Which is why we should focus on reducing actual pollution like particulate matter.
CO2 is not in that category.

 

[Glitch]

The greenhouse effect is based on Earth (or any planet) having an atmosphere, not necessarily what
gases compose the atmosphere.
The greenhouse effect compares how much cooler Earth would be IF THE ATMOSPHERE WERE COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT.
All gases have an absorption spectrum, so the atmosphere would not be completely transparent, unless there were no gases.

You are mistaken. The greenhouse effect very much depends on the composition of the gases in the atmosphere. There are only certain gases that retain heat for any period of time - the definition of a greenhouse gas. Nitrogen and oxygen, for example, are not greenhouse gases because they cannot absorb and retain heat.

You are also basing your assumptions of what temperatures would be like on Earth if it were a perfect black-body. Which is obviously not the case since perfect black-bodies are only theoretical and can never exist in the real-world.

As I mentioned above, nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb anything from the infrared spectrum. Nitrogen and oxygen absorb UV radiation, the other end of the spectrum. So it is very possible to have a dense atmosphere that contains no greenhouse gases. However, it is highly unlikely.

The closest real-world example can be found in our solar system, on a moon orbiting Saturn. The moon Triton has a 99.915% nitrogen atmosphere, with 0.06% carbon monoxide, and 0.025% methane. Methane is certainly a greenhouse gas, and while carbon monoxide is not considered a greenhouse gas it does absorb a small amount of infrared radiation. Triton does not have a perfectly transparent atmosphere, just a 99.915% transparent atmosphere.

 

[longview]

You are mistaken. The greenhouse effect very much depends on the composition of the gases in the atmosphere. There are only certain gases that retain heat for any period of time - the definition of a greenhouse gas. Nitrogen and oxygen, for example, are not greenhouse gases because they cannot absorb and retain heat.

You are also basing your assumptions of what temperatures would be like on Earth if it were a perfect black-body. Which is obviously not the case since perfect black-bodies are only theoretical and can never exist in the real-world.

As I mentioned above, nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb anything from the infrared spectrum. Nitrogen and oxygen absorb UV radiation, the other end of the spectrum. So it is very possible to have a dense atmosphere that contains no greenhouse gases. However, it is highly unlikely.

The closest real-world example can be found in our solar system, on a moon orbiting Saturn. The moon Triton has a 99.915% nitrogen atmosphere, with 0.06% carbon monoxide, and 0.025% methane. Methane is certainly a greenhouse gas, and while carbon monoxide is not considered a greenhouse gas it does absorb a small amount of infrared radiation. Triton does not have a perfectly transparent atmosphere, just a 99.915% transparent atmosphere.

Well all gasses absorb some frequency, perhaps not in the infrared.
Nitrogen for example absorbs in the Green, Yellow and Red spectrum, which do exists in Sunlight.
To be fair, Elements tend to have MUCH shorter spontaneous emission times than molecules, due to the different
nature of the energy states.
The point is that the greenhouse effect was first thought of before we understood quantum absorption,
they were just looking at the presents of an atmosphere.

 

[MAGAnificent]

By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.



https://www.sciencealert.com/most-of-the-world-could-be-100-powered-by-renewables-by-2050

Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

Doubtful especcially if the climate change cult continues to stupidly push EVs.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I can paint a likely road map where it could happen sooner, but the people who do not like oil companies will not like it.
The alternatives lack viable storage, Nature show us that the best way to store energy in as a hydrocarbon.
When the price of oil gets about $90 a barrel, it will be more profitable for refineries to buy wholesale electricity and make their fuels from
water (Hydrogen) and CO2 (Carbon), the process is similar to modern cracking.
On the upside we could reduce new CO2 emissions, and make the transition transparent to most people.
Solar power could be stored as conventional fuels, and sold through existing infrastructure to existing demands.

Toyota has developed an internal combustion engine that runs on hydrogen. Nothing more then water vapor exits the tail pipe. That may be the direction we need to go. EVs that run on massive battery packs are impractical in most regions.

 

[longview]

Toyota has developed an internal combustion engine that runs on hydrogen. Nothing more then water vapor exits the tail pipe. That may be the direction we need to go. EVs that run on massive battery packs are impractical in most regions.

Because of the vast existing demand and distribution infrastructure, I think the man made hydrocarbon fuels will come first.
Later I could easily see hydrogen fuel cell electric cars like Toyota is making.
Mirai
There is a process called steam reformation, where the hydrogen is split off of a hydrocarbon in real time.
This may be a middle path, until a true hydrogen infrastructure is in place.
There would be some advantage to a vehicle with all the torque and range of an IC vehicle, but the efficiency of a fuel cell.

 

[Glitch]

Well all gasses absorb some frequency, perhaps not in the infrared.
Nitrogen for example absorbs in the Green, Yellow and Red spectrum, which do exists in Sunlight.
To be fair, Elements tend to have MUCH shorter spontaneous emission times than molecules, due to the different
nature of the energy states.
The point is that the greenhouse effect was first thought of before we understood quantum absorption,
they were just looking at the presents of an atmosphere.

It has absolutely nothing to do with quantum absorption. To be a greenhouse gas it must not only absorb infrared radiation, it must also retain that heat even if it is just very briefly. Any wavelength longer than 780 nm and shorter than 1 mm is considered infrared. Only if the gas absorbs light in that range can be be construed to be a greenhouse gas. If the gas cannot or does not absorb IR radiation, then it is not a greenhouse gas and is considered to be transparent.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Because of the vast existing demand and distribution infrastructure, I think the man made hydrocarbon fuels will come first.
Later I could easily see hydrogen fuel cell electric cars like Toyota is making.

Probably if we do not waste too much time and investment on impractical battery only run EVs

There is a process called steam reformation, where the hydrogen is split off of a hydrocarbon in real time.
This may be a middle path, until a true hydrogen infrastructure is in place.
There would be some advantage to a vehicle with all the torque and range of an IC vehicle, but the efficiency of a fuel cell.

Toyota may lead the way. American automobile manufacturers are too much in the pockets of politicians.

 

[Glitch]

Toyota has developed an internal combustion engine that runs on hydrogen. Nothing more then water vapor exits the tail pipe. That may be the direction we need to go. EVs that run on massive battery packs are impractical in most regions.

There are two issues with hydrogen as a fuel source. First, it is extremely expensive to produce in large quantities. Second, it is highly explosive. Otherwise, hydrogen would be an excellent choice. Liquid hydrogen has more than twice the energy density of gasoline. Unfortunately, to keep hydrogen in a liquid state requires a temperature of -434.74°F (absolute zero = -459.67°F) and an atmospheric pressure of at least 0.0695 atmospheres (1 atmosphere = sea level).