Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[mko9]

So they were off by 200-300%, maybe more, and that gives you confidence that they know what they are doing??

[kerplunk]

mko9 said:

So they were off by 200-300%, maybe more, and that gives you confidence that they know what they are doing??

"So they were off by 200-300%"

I have a head cold and not very clear-headed but I'm fairly sure their calculated temperature response is for the GHG longwave part only - so no.

[turbobloke]

Sensible State Street CEO says company backs “all forms of energy” at shareholder meeting. A refreshing change from the costly, unreliable dead end wind/solar punts.

https://www.cfact.org/2024/05/17/state-streets-ceo...

[mko9]

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they were off by 200-300%, maybe more, and that gives you confidence that they know what they are doing??

"So they were off by 200-300%"

I have a head cold and not very clear-headed but I'm fairly sure their calculated temperature response is for the GHG longwave part only - so no.

I will refer you to your own quote of the paper, clarification/edit in bold:

kerplunk said:

While we calculated a warming of 0.95 K since pre-industrial CO 2 and CH4 for the Arctic, the observed increase since 1960 is 2–3 K.

So they thought from ~1880 through to today would be .95K, reality is 2-3K since 1960. Doesn't sound to me like they really enderstand the system they are making predictions about.

[kerplunk]

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they were off by 200-300%, maybe more, and that gives you confidence that they know what they are doing??

"So they were off by 200-300%"

I have a head cold and not very clear-headed but I'm fairly sure their calculated temperature response is for the GHG longwave part only - so no.

I will refer you to your own quote of the paper, clarification/edit in bold:

kerplunk said:

While we calculated a warming of 0.95 K since pre-industrial CO 2 and CH4 for the Arctic, the observed increase since 1960 is 2–3 K.

So they thought from ~1880 through to today would be .95K, reality is 2-3K since 1960. Doesn't sound to me like they really enderstand the system they are making predictions about.

No you're comparing apples to oranges and missing the point of the paper. Calculating the first order temperature response to the GHG longwave forcing alone is fine - that's what the paper is about. Feedback effects on temperature like reduced ice cover are a secondary effect and not the focus of the paper.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Sensible State Street CEO says company backs “all forms of energy” at shareholder meeting. A refreshing change from the costly, unreliable dead end wind/solar punts.

https://www.cfact.org/2024/05/17/state-streets-ceo...

Just hypothesising, but what energy source should humankind use if oil and gas ran out tomorrow?? UK and ROW (Yes, I know it won't, but just interested)

[Pan Pan Pan]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Sensible State Street CEO says company backs “all forms of energy” at shareholder meeting. A refreshing change from the costly, unreliable dead end wind/solar punts.

https://www.cfact.org/2024/05/17/state-streets-ceo...

Just hypothesising, but what energy source should humankind use if oil and gas ran out tomorrow?? UK and ROW (Yes, I know it won't, but just interested)

The only viable option is nuclear.
Solar panels don't provide any power, for half the time, and this is when power is most needed, when it is cold and dark.
Wind turbines don't produce any power when there is not enough wind, or when it is blowing too hard. so both are far too unreliable for base load electricity.
Only regions with suitable topology are viable for hydro power. The UK is not one of those.,
Marine generators, including tidal, might offer some hope of short term reliability, but the marine environment is so harsh operation and maintenance of any marine installation is always massively expensive.
Putting all our energy eggs, into just an electricity basket, is also folly. We should be open to developing all forms of energy, not just electrical.

[Pan Pan Pan]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

As I said before, if you have a critique of the paper which you think stacks up, then send it to the journal and the authors for a response. I’m sure they would be grateful to be enlightened. Better still, draft a paper which rebuts their claims and see if it gets published after the peer review process.

So drivel can be continuously and repeatably be posted in this thread without rebuttal or debate.

The whole conspiracy is a dire load of bks supported by some easily led, biased followers in here.

If that is the case, we should close this thread. You can all start lobbying government about your concerns........

The denialists/ conspiracy supporters cannot even defend the ste being posted and quoted in here. It ain't clever....

It is the ecomentalists who keep on bleating that `MAN' has already caused climate change, so why are we continuing to to add billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting numbers man to the planet at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY?

[mko9]

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they were off by 200-300%, maybe more, and that gives you confidence that they know what they are doing??

"So they were off by 200-300%"

I have a head cold and not very clear-headed but I'm fairly sure their calculated temperature response is for the GHG longwave part only - so no.

I will refer you to your own quote of the paper, clarification/edit in bold:

kerplunk said:

While we calculated a warming of 0.95 K since pre-industrial CO 2 and CH4 for the Arctic, the observed increase since 1960 is 2–3 K.

So they thought from ~1880 through to today would be .95K, reality is 2-3K since 1960. Doesn't sound to me like they really enderstand the system they are making predictions about.

No you're comparing apples to oranges and missing the point of the paper. Calculating the first order temperature response to the GHG longwave forcing alone is fine - that's what the paper is about. Feedback effects on temperature like reduced ice cover are a secondary effect and not the focus of the paper.

Ah, so what your saying is the prediction was utterly pointless, as they can't differentiate the outcome to what they were predicting in the first place. For one factor, over 140 years we predict X. For all factors combined over 60 years, we saw Y. We don't actually know what that means for our original prediction.

[kerplunk]

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they were off by 200-300%, maybe more, and that gives you confidence that they know what they are doing??

"So they were off by 200-300%"

I have a head cold and not very clear-headed but I'm fairly sure their calculated temperature response is for the GHG longwave part only - so no.

I will refer you to your own quote of the paper, clarification/edit in bold:

kerplunk said:

While we calculated a warming of 0.95 K since pre-industrial CO 2 and CH4 for the Arctic, the observed increase since 1960 is 2–3 K.

So they thought from ~1880 through to today would be .95K, reality is 2-3K since 1960. Doesn't sound to me like they really enderstand the system they are making predictions about.

No you're comparing apples to oranges and missing the point of the paper. Calculating the first order temperature response to the GHG longwave forcing alone is fine - that's what the paper is about. Feedback effects on temperature like reduced ice cover are a secondary effect and not the focus of the paper.

Ah, so what your saying is the prediction was utterly pointless, as they can't differentiate the outcome to what they were predicting in the first place. For one factor, over 140 years we predict X. For all factors combined over 60 years, we saw Y. We don't actually know what that means for our original prediction.

No I'm explaing how your intrepretion of the result is faulty.

I'll leave judgements on the paper's worth to you.

[mike9009]

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/...

[J210]

The UN think global Digital ID’s will be critical to flight the “climate crisis”

https://www.undp.org/blog/why-legal-identity-cruci...

[Vanden Saab]

mike9009 said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/...

I am not sure that 'India is producing more energy from coal than ever before' is the win you are suggesting

[Nomme de Plum]

Vanden Saab said:

mike9009 said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/...

I am not sure that 'India is producing more energy from coal than ever before' is the win you are suggesting

It's called direction of travel.

'In the first quarter of 2024, India added a record-breaking 13,669MW of power generation capacity, with renewable energy accounting for a substantial 71.5 per cent share.'

'India has also rocketed to third in the world’s solar power generation rankings, behind only China and the US, according to Ember’s fifth annual Global Electricity Review of 80 countries, released last week.'

Edited by Nomme de Plum on Sunday 19th May 09:39

[swisstoni]

Nomme de Plum said:

Vanden Saab said:

mike9009 said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/...

I am not sure that 'India is producing more energy from coal than ever before' is the win you are suggesting

It's called direction of travel.

'In the first quarter of 2024, India added a record-breaking 13,669MW of power generation capacity, with renewable energy accounting for a substantial 71.5 per cent share.'

'India has also rocketed to third in the world’s solar power generation rankings, behind only China and the US, according to Ember’s fifth annual Global Electricity Review of 80 countries, released last week.'

Edited by Nomme de Plum on Sunday 19th May 09:39

Up seems to be the direction.

[turbobloke]

China and India talk up their green window dressing while being first and second in the global CO2 stakes. China alone is 27x UK emissions and growing. China has made it clear through public statements that it puts energy security and economic development first. India's coal-fired electricity output & emissions hit record highs (Jan 2024). Meanwhile both nations sit in the 'developing' group of UN IPCC COP moneygrabbing nations, still eligible for redistribution of wealth from self-inflicted nations based on not-a-crisis reasons.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

China and India talk up their green window dressing while being first and second in the global CO2 stakes. China alone is 27x UK emissions and growing. China has made it clear through public statements that it puts energy security and economic development first. India's coal-fired electricity output & emissions hit record highs (Jan 2024). Meanwhile both nations sit in the 'developing' group of UN IPCC COP moneygrabbing nations, still eligible for redistribution of wealth from self-inflicted nations based on not-a-crisis reasons.

Still broadcasting??

[Nomme de Plum]

swisstoni said:

Nomme de Plum said:

Vanden Saab said:

mike9009 said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/...

I am not sure that 'India is producing more energy from coal than ever before' is the win you are suggesting

It's called direction of travel.

'In the first quarter of 2024, India added a record-breaking 13,669MW of power generation capacity, with renewable energy accounting for a substantial 71.5 per cent share.'

'India has also rocketed to third in the world’s solar power generation rankings, behind only China and the US, according to Ember’s fifth annual Global Electricity Review of 80 countries, released last week.'

Edited by Nomme de Plum on Sunday 19th May 09:39

Up seems to be the direction.

Perhaps this will help you understand the concept of rate of change, or maybe it too nuanced for you to comprehend.

'The share of coal in India’s power sector dropped to less than half for the first time in decades, indicating a major milestone in the South Asian country’s shift towards renewables...........India is on path to reach its target of 50 per cent cumulative power generation capacity from non-fossil fuel-based sources by 2030 way ahead of its time.'

[turbobloke]

India's direction of travel includes coal fired output up 33% year-on-year Oct 22 to Oct 23, with a need for 80 GW of new thermal capacity by 2032 to meet demand - that's according to their power minister R Singh - and emissions rising by more than 30% from 2023 to 2040. They're aiming to be Net Zero in 2070 which is a long enough can kick to allow the worst of (not-a-)crisis mania to subside.

[swisstoni]

Nomme de Plum said:

swisstoni said:

Nomme de Plum said:

Vanden Saab said:

mike9009 said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/...

I am not sure that 'India is producing more energy from coal than ever before' is the win you are suggesting

It's called direction of travel.

'In the first quarter of 2024, India added a record-breaking 13,669MW of power generation capacity, with renewable energy accounting for a substantial 71.5 per cent share.'

'India has also rocketed to third in the world’s solar power generation rankings, behind only China and the US, according to Ember’s fifth annual Global Electricity Review of 80 countries, released last week.'

Edited by Nomme de Plum on Sunday 19th May 09:39

Up seems to be the direction.

Perhaps this will help you understand the concept of rate of change, or maybe it too nuanced for you to comprehend.

'The share of coal in India’s power sector dropped to less than half for the first time in decades, indicating a major milestone in the South Asian country’s shift towards renewables...........India is on path to reach its target of 50 per cent cumulative power generation capacity from non-fossil fuel-based sources by 2030 way ahead of its time.'

They added 13,669MW of power generation.
And 71.5% was renewable.
That leaves 28.5% more power generation by fossil.

More. Gettit?