Renewable Energy Reported to Threaten Biodiversity

[bluesmoke]

No! The TED talk is relevant, because it focuses on our useless efforts to combat AGW.
I think your comment was that we cannot do nothing, we are not doing nothing, CO2 emissions in the US are falling
faster than in many nations who signed the Paris accord.
Are we to be judged by our emission reductions, or by our words saying we will reduce emissions, and how much money we give away?

The drop in human CO2 emission has been since 2007:

https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...en-biodiversity.417485/page-6#post-1072788336

Caused by the drop in coal generated energy since 2005:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ate-change-greenhouse-gas-coal-transportation

Which has not achieved much toward the Paris Accord goals. Just because CO2 levels are dropping doesn’t mean we should abandon what else can be done to slow AGW.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The drop in human CO2 emission has been since 2007:

https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...en-biodiversity.417485/page-6#post-1072788336

Caused by the drop in coal generated energy since 2005:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ate-change-greenhouse-gas-coal-transportation

Which has not achieved much toward the Paris Accord goals. Just because CO2 levels are dropping doesn’t mean we should abandon what else can be done to slow AGW.

Emissions are falling in the USA primary with three factors. Natural gas replacing coal, energy efficiency in holes and buildings, and more efficient use of energy. I would put renewable energy at 4th place.

Remember. With coal, we are only producing CO2 as a greenhouse gas byproduct. With natural gas, much of the energy comes from making H2O. A more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

After my place was "weatherized," I use far less energy. So do countless millions of other homes in the USA, with the push starting more than a decade back.

Car have become little less efficient now than in 2009, but the people who buy used cars are now neneally buying used cars from the 2000's and newer rather than the 80's and newer. There are few cars left on the roads that are not of the higher class energy standards.

Coal is not the only factor. Coal was dying a natural death to start with.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The sun did not contribute 50% of GW in the 20th century. The IPCC recognizes no such thing. G'bye.

Sure it did. Just like you are an atheist to the Bible, I am an atheist to the Godlike status you see the IPCC as. That's why we see you guys as religious zealots.

Science rules. The real sciences known are ignored by the IPCC, because they are agenda driven. The pick and choose papers, and lie about the contents.

 

[bluesmoke]

Are you sure the sun did not contribute 50% of GW in the 20th century?
The IPCC does not think so, because TSI increased to 1958 and then decreased since then.
But you have to ask what was the net increase between 1900 and 2000.
TSI interactive
It looks like the 10 year average around 1900 vs the 10 year average around 2000,
shows an increase in TSI of .78 W m-2, While the CO2 forcing over that time span
is 1.28 W m-2, but that is not the whole story!
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface
"Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance
corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22). "
So we have a massive increase in solar energy reaching the ground, during the period of the highest warming.
Solar energy could well be responsible for over half of the observed warming.

Shaviv is saying that 50-75% of GW is caused by the sun and cosmic rays and that how CO2 contribution to GW is completely reversed in his theory such that minimizes that CO2. The IPCC reports that a vast majority of scientist conclude otherwise. I'm sticking with scientific consensus. Not denier science. See you on another thread.

 

[Jack Hays]

Shaviv is saying that 50-75% of GW is caused by the sun and cosmic rays and that how CO2 contribution to GW is completely reversed in his theory such that minimizes that CO2. The IPCC reports that a vast majority of scientist conclude otherwise. I'm sticking with scientific consensus. Not denier science. See you on another thread.

Shaviv concludes that CO2 causes roughly 50% of warming, and the sun roughly 50% of warming. Galactic cosmic rays exert cooling influence by promoting cloud formation.

 

[bluesmoke]

Emissions are falling in the USA primary with three factors. Natural gas replacing coal, energy efficiency in holes and buildings, and more efficient use of energy. I would put renewable energy at 4th place.

Remember. With coal, we are only producing CO2 as a greenhouse gas byproduct. With natural gas, much of the energy comes from making H2O. A more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

After my place was "weatherized," I use far less energy. So do countless millions of other homes in the USA, with the push starting more than a decade back.

Car have become little less efficient now than in 2009, but the people who buy used cars are now neneally buying used cars from the 2000's and newer rather than the 80's and newer. There are few cars left on the roads that are not of the higher class energy standards.

Coal is not the only factor. Coal was dying a natural death to start with.

Yeah. 4th place. Once, there was no oil as an energy product. Then, it wasn’t in any place. Renewables are in a fledgling phase.

“With natural gas, much of the energy comes from making H2O. A more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.”

How does natural gas “make” H2O? Or cause an increase in H2O?

H2O increases the effect of CO2. That is its potency role in GW.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Shaviv is saying that 50-75% of GW is caused by the sun and cosmic rays and that how CO2 contribution to GW is completely reversed in his theory such that minimizes that CO2. The IPCC reports that a vast majority of scientist conclude otherwise. I'm sticking with scientific consensus. Not denier science. See you on another thread.

That 50% to 75% is probably accurate.

The TSI coming out of the Maunder Minima, to today, has increased by more than 0.2%. This equated to about a 1 watt per square meter increase in total warming, and the AR5 chaimed what for mankind? About 1.8? Now what cosmic rays are going to do is change the percentage of H2O aerosols in the atmosphere (clouds) which changes the surface insolation.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah. 4th place. Once, there was no oil as an energy product. Then, it wasn’t in any place. Renewables are in a fledgling phase.

There are some oil power plants and some homes use oil heating, but I don't think there are significant amounts on a global scale. Oil refined down to gasoline and diesel are burned to make greenhouse gasses. This contribution from oil is very significant.

“With natural gas, much of the energy comes from making H2O. A more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.”

How does natural gas “make” H2O? Or cause an increase in H2O?

Natural gas is mostly CH4, and some other gaseous alkanes. The others are C2H6, C3H8, and C4H10. When one molecule of CH4 gas burns, it makes 1 molecule of CO2, and 2 molecules of H2O. The combustion of C2H6 leads to 2 x CO2 and 3 x H2O, etc.

Here is a short class for you:

H2O increases the effect of CO2. That is its potency role in GW.

Not true. The argument made that H2O amplifies the effect of CO2, comes from the idea that the surface and atmosphere warms from the CO2. Now because the atmosphere is warmer, it can hold more water in its vapor form. Because the surface warms, we have more evaporation from the ocean into the atmosphere. H2O being the greater greenhouse gas, then adds more warmth yet because it is now increased in the atmosphere.

You obviously do not understand simple chemistry. That should be a prerequisite to debate the climate science...

 

[Buzz]

The real sciences known are ignored by the IPCC, because they are agenda driven. The pick and choose papers, and lie about the contents.

So... is this your new lie you have decided to start pushing despite what the IPCC and most of the science says?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So... is this your new lie you have decided to start pushing despite what the IPCC and most of the science says?

You don't read the papers. You read what propaganda artists say about the science. I read the actual peer reviewed papers.

The IPCC is a political UN entity, designed to show AGW.

Why do you believe the politician driven drivel, over science papers?

 

[Buzz]

You don't read the papers. You read what propaganda artists say about the science. I read the actual peer reviewed papers.

Really?? Lying about me again? You know damn well I have personally refuted you numerous times using lots of peer-reviewed and published papers. And have had to repeatedly remind you of and show several of these instances. Why do you insist on repeatedly lying about this?

The IPCC is a political UN entity, designed to show AGW.

This is nothing but another conspiracy theory you denialists can't prove.

Why do you believe the politician driven drivel, over science papers?

That would be you.

 

[longview]

Shaviv is saying that 50-75% of GW is caused by the sun and cosmic rays and that how CO2 contribution to GW is completely reversed in his theory such that minimizes that CO2. The IPCC reports that a vast majority of scientist conclude otherwise. I'm sticking with scientific consensus. Not denier science. See you on another thread.

I am sorry that you did not follow what I wrote, as I did not mention Shaviv or his theory, but rather cited
a peer reviewed publication By Martin Wild, on the global brightening that occurred starting about 1992.
Aerosol clearing caused a large increase in the amount of available sunlight reaching the ground,
even while the top of the atmosphere sunlight was decreasing.
The IPCC's The Radiative-Forcing bar chart, would have us believe that all the forcings from aerosols were negative,
but from about 1992 on, the amount of sunlight reaching the surface has been increasing. ( A positive forcing number).
In addition, the observed .66 W m-2 per year slope between 1992 and 2002, would completely overshadow,
changes from CO2. (CO2 forcing between 1992 and 2002, was .0246 W m-2 per year.)

 

[bluesmoke]

Sure it did. Just like you are an atheist to the Bible, I am an atheist to the Godlike status you see the IPCC as. That's why we see you guys as religious zealots.

Science rules. The real sciences known are ignored by the IPCC, because they are agenda driven. The pick and choose papers, and lie about the contents.

You pick and choose lesser papers that peers do not accept as negating the IPCC position and pretend your position has better scientific support than that of the IPCC, which it does not. So says the science community and the Lord of Planar has no standing. Neither do I. I'm just agreeing with the IPCC position over the science deniers, like you and others, who refuse to accept the science of AGW which overwhelms the minimum of evidence you present.

 

[bluesmoke]

There are some oil power plants and some homes use oil heating, but I don't think there are significant amounts on a global scale. Oil refined down to gasoline and diesel are burned to make greenhouse gasses. This contribution from oil is very significant.


Natural gas is mostly CH4, and some other gaseous alkanes. The others are C2H6, C3H8, and C4H10. When one molecule of CH4 gas burns, it makes 1 molecule of CO2, and 2 molecules of H2O. The combustion of C2H6 leads to 2 x CO2 and 3 x H2O, etc.

Here is a short class for you:




Not true. The argument made that H2O amplifies the effect of CO2, comes from the idea that the surface and atmosphere warms from the CO2. Now because the atmosphere is warmer, it can hold more water in its vapor form. Because the surface warms, we have more evaporation from the ocean into the atmosphere. H2O being the greater greenhouse gas, then adds more warmth yet because it is now increased in the atmosphere.

You obviously do not understand simple chemistry. That should be a prerequisite to debate the climate science...

Oh, I get the chemistry. That, as you said, is simple. You don’t understand simple science that the vast majority of the science community gets. The warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. That water, just as it does in humid weather condition, increases the temp that has already been increased be the CO2 caused AGW. It is at increased or increasing temp that water vapor has the most effect. At lower temp, meaning non-GW temp, there would not be the heat that causes the water vapor into the atmosphere nor would the water vapor have much an effect at such lower temp. The only way your Lord of Planar conclusion can be validated is by your unsupported belief that CO2 emission by human does not cause global warming. If the premise is wrong, so is as follows wrong being dependent on the premise.

BTW, you won't even take a position on how much of GW is caused by increased release of H2O into the atmosphere.

 

[bluesmoke]

That 50% to 75% is probably accurate.

The TSI coming out of the Maunder Minima, to today, has increased by more than 0.2%. This equated to about a 1 watt per square meter increase in total warming, and the AR5 chaimed what for mankind? About 1.8? Now what cosmic rays are going to do is change the percentage of H2O aerosols in the atmosphere (clouds) which changes the surface insolation.

.....you can't refute the IPCC position nor get any more than less than minimal support among the science community. I can only repeat myself as you come up with some angle twist because all those you've presented before don't work. You just keep throwing more **** against the wall.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh, I get the chemistry.

No way you understand chemistry. Please stop acting like a politician.

When you make such ignorant statements like this:

How does natural gas “make” H2O? Or cause an increase in H2O?

H2O increases the effect of CO2. That is its potency role in GW.
​

You ask a silly question, then are dead wrong with that second sentence I quoted.

Please stop pretending you know what you speak of.

 

[bluesmoke]

No way you understand chemistry. Please stop acting like a politician.

When you make such ignorant statements like this:

​

How does natural gas “make” H2O? Or cause an increase in H2O?​

​

H2O increases the effect of CO2. That is its potency role in GW.​

​

You ask a silly question, then are dead wrong with that second sentence I quoted.

Please stop pretending you know what you speak of.

Please stop pretending you know more than the science community.

You can’t show how NG makes H2O that increases temp so as to be a driver of GW. That is what I am “driving” at. There is no chemistry to support any such implication of yours that NG caused H2O has any impact on GW. Especially w/o there being CO2 caused increased temp in the first place. I can only imagine that the how of NG caused H2O would have to be atomic to have any significant contribution to GW w/o CO2 as the main driver of incr temp or some other driver, like incr temp from the sun.

Water vapor makes temps cooler or warmer depending on the relative humidity. As the degree of water vapor in the atmosphere rises, so does the temp. As the temp rises, so does the effect of water vapor on the temp. At lower temps, water vapor has little warming effect than at higher temps. Hence, as GW increases from human emission of CO2, so does the effect of water vapor on that increasing temp. W/o the CO2, water vapor is no big deal to do with GW.

You are nothing more than a science denier. You deny that the great majority of the science community is correct that AGW, mostly by CO2, is the major cause of increased global temp and going forward. You think you know more than the generals. As long as you keep insisting that these errant tangents of yours somehow refute the IPCC position on AGW, your posting of such is nothing more than science denial. See you on another thread.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Please stop pretending you know more than the science community.

You can’t show how NG makes H2O that increases temp so as to be a driver of GW. That is what I am “driving” at. There is no chemistry to support any such implication of yours that NG caused H2O has any impact on GW. Especially w/o there being CO2 caused increased temp in the first place. I can only imagine that the how of NG caused H2O would have to be atomic to have any significant contribution to GW w/o CO2 as the main driver of incr temp or some other driver, like incr temp from the sun.

Water vapor makes temps cooler or warmer depending on the relative humidity. As the degree of water vapor in the atmosphere rises, so does the temp. As the temp rises, so does the effect of water vapor on the temp. At lower temps, water vapor has little warming effect than at higher temps. Hence, as GW increases from human emission of CO2, so does the effect of water vapor on that increasing temp. W/o the CO2, water vapor is no big deal to do with GW.

You are nothing more than a science denier. You deny that the great majority of the science community is correct that AGW, mostly by CO2, is the major cause of increased global temp and going forward. You think you know more than the generals. As long as you keep insisting that these errant tangents of yours somehow refute the IPCC position on AGW, your posting of such is nothing more than science denial. See you on another thread.

That wasn't the point you made before.

Please stop rationalizing. It looks bad. You are incorrect on some of those points. Do you want to reword them? I think I know what you are trying to say, but you most certainly explain it wrong.