Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

furcifer said:
ghg_co2_emissions_lg.jpg


Can you see this graph? I think maybe you can't. Or don't understand it.
Click to expand...
I wonder why you have switched charts ?..did you not like the previous one you posted ?
But i am not just viewing the graphs, i am also looking at the actual data, and the numbers do not lie.
.. CO2 concentrations rising progressively from 1750 to 1850 , before any fossil emissions are recorded.
Maybe you dont see the significance of CO2 increasing before Fossil fuel emissions began ?
 
Hillhater said:
No, obviously the CO2 increase was not NEGLIGIBLE , or it would not have been detected.
Click to expand...
It was barely detected. It was negligible compared to now.
If you look at the data points which clearly show the CO2 levels rising progressively from 1750, whilst there is no record of fossil emissions in that period .
Click to expand...
Ah. So you think they stored all the CO2 from the burning of that tens of millions of tons of coal in 1750, which they have records for? Maybe they stored it in big tanks?

You're nuts.
 
Don't forget, as the population increased, more and more forest was cleared and burned to make way for farms and cities.
 
billvon said:
Hillhater said:
If you look at the data points which clearly show the CO2 levels rising progressively from 1750, whilst there is no record of fossil emissions in that period .
Click to expand...
Ah. So you think they stored all the CO2 from the burning of that tens of millions of tons of coal in 1750, which they have records for? Maybe they stored it in big tanks?
Click to expand...
According to data posted by furcifer, there was 30mT of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in1800.( and much less in 1750 ?)
,,,or less than 0.0003% of all natural CO2 emissions at that time
Totally insignificant even compared to minor natural variations (+/- 5%,..40,0+GT ?) of total CO2 emissions.
BUT, .. you think that 0.0003% increase is significant, whilst a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels (276 - 286 ppm), prior to 1850 is NEGLIGIBLE ? :shock:

Who is nuts ??
 
Hillhater said:
Totally insignificant even compared to minor natural variations (+/- 5%,..40,0+GT ?) of total CO2 emissions.
BUT, .. you think that 0.0003% increase is significant, whilst a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels (276 - 286 ppm), prior to 1850 is NEGLIGIBLE ?
Click to expand...
So CO2 varies by 5% naturally. Which means that a 4% variation is PROOF!

Again, you are nuts. Put down the kool-aid.
 
billvon said:
Hillhater said:
Totally insignificant even compared to minor natural variations (+/- 5%,..40,0+GT ?) of total CO2 emissions.
BUT, .. you think that 0.0003% increase is significant, whilst a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels (276 - 286 ppm), prior to 1850 is NEGLIGIBLE ?
Click to expand...
So CO2 varies by 5% naturally. Which means that a 4% variation is PROOF!
Click to expand...
oh naughty bill !,..you misquoted me . (I suspect it was no accident ?)
..I said it was a 4% INCREASE , a TREND, even visible on those graphs,..not a +/- variation
And i didnt say it was PROOF of anything...
..just a FACT that CO2 increased before any significant FF CO2 was present.
and i thought you claimed to be a wiz with stats ?
so, i am still waiting for a rational explanation ?
Just as i am waiting for that explanation of the 1.3c/kWh power cost from the battery ?
 
furcifer said:
What about this graph don't you understand? It seems pretty straightforward.

graph_grid.png
Click to expand...
What i dont understand ?....
1). Why is the CO2 level so consistent , when other methods of measuring CO2 over similar periods show much more variability, and generally higher levels ?
2). Why anyone would take data from a 100 yr old Antarctica ice core, and directly link. it to atmospheric data collected on a pacific island using different sampling and analysis methods .?
3). Why alarmist groups like “2 deg”, IPCC, etc only ever use this ice core data, and ignore/disregard other relavent CO2 records that do not support their AGW theory ?
4) why YOU seem to think this graph proves anything about the CAUSE of increasing CO2 levels . ?
 
Hillhater said:
I wonder why you have switched charts ?..did you not like the previous one you posted ?
But i am not just viewing the graphs, i am also looking at the actual data, and the numbers do not lie.
.. CO2 concentrations rising progressively from 1750 to 1850 , before any fossil emissions are recorded.
Maybe you dont see the significance of CO2 increasing before Fossil fuel emissions began ?
Click to expand...

I think I posted 50. Google "anthropogenic CO2 graph" and all of them come up like this > ..../

Dude, coal mining. Just google it. First thing that comes up:

"The Industrial Revolution, coal mining, and the Felling Colliery Disaster. From around 1750 to 1850, the Industrial Revolution changed life in Britain. It was a very important period in British history. During this time, factories were built, to produce goods such as textiles, iron, and chemicals on a large scale."

http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/lettersandthe...oal-mining-and-the-felling-colliery-disaster/

Any more questions?
 
Hillhater said:
..just a FACT that CO2 increased before any significant FF CO2 was present.
and i thought you claimed to be a wiz with stats ?
so, i am still waiting for a rational explanation ?
Click to expand...

Let's try this. Can you point to the flat part of this graph?

aggi.fig5.png
 
You're only fooling yourself at this point.

I have to ask if you understand the environment and ecosystems? They have developed a balance over millions of years. For the most part that's how the carbon cycle has operated for the last 20 000 years. Then humans came along, started burning fossil fuels and we have clearly upset that balance. It's not that difficult to understand.

I get that you think the Earth is a big place and we are tiny. I really do get it. But I also understand that everywhere you look, nature has struck a balance with the environment. And that's the key point, it doesn't matter how big something is, if it's in balance it doesn't take very much to push it over.

These are extremely simple concepts. It really takes effort to not understand them and be able to apply them to AGW.
 
furcifer said:
Hillhater said:
..just a FACT that CO2 increased before any significant FF CO2 was present.
and i thought you claimed to be a wiz with stats ?
so, i am still waiting for a rational explanation ?
Click to expand...

Let's try this. Can you point to the flat part of this graph?

aggi.fig5.png
Click to expand...
Sure,..flat up to 1750 .
How do you think this tells you anything about Fossil related CO2 ?
You do realise that this is exactly the same TOTAL CO2 CONCENTRATION data that you posted previously (in a different graph) and i have been trying to make you understand that CO2 started increasing around 1750, whilst there was no significant fossil fuel CO2 emissions until 1850 ish.
So, thank you for verifying my point..even if billvon refuses to accept this. ! :lol:
 
furcifer said:
I have to ask if you understand the environment and ecosystems? They have developed a balance over millions of years. For the most part that's how the carbon cycle has operated for the last 20 000 years. Then humans came along, started burning fossil fuels and we have clearly upset that balance. It's not that difficult to understand......
Click to expand...
No, i do not understand the environment and Ecosystems...nobody fully understands them..or do you claim to ??
They are recognised as being highly complex with infinite factors that interact in ways we do not yet understand.
It is far from clear that we have upset anything, All we have is a kneejerk reaction from a few unscientific observations, and “theorys”
To suggest that this is “not difficult to understand”, and all due to humans, is a simplistic view that neatly satisfies simple minds.
 
Hillhater said:
[ Sure,..flat up to 1750 .
How do you think this tells you anything about Fossil related CO2 ?
You do realise that this is exactly the same TOTAL CO2 CONCENTRATION data that you posted previously (in a different graph) and i have been trying to make you understand that CO2 started increasing around 1750, whilst there was no significant fossil fuel CO2 emissions until 1850 ish.
Click to expand...

What? Humans started using coal in the 1600's (well forever, but open pit mining started around mid 15th century and pretty much has ramped up ever since). Coal is a fossil fuel.

You can't see the forest for the trees bro. Don't tell me you know anything about science, you can't read a graph. There's a pronounced increase that is directly related to fossil fuel use. All of it, the population boom, the changes to the land, all because we learned how to harness this energy dense substance.
 
furcifer said:
These are extremely simple concepts. It really takes effort to not understand them and be able to apply them to AGW.
Click to expand...
Religions often require deliberate misunderstanding of things like evolution, climate change and plate tectonics. Many here believe in the religion of denial, and mere facts won't sway their deep personal faith, any more than a new hominid fossil will sway a Christian creationist. He HAS to misunderstand.

George Monbiot put it well:

It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.

It may be hard - but many deniers are up to the challenge. Their religion demands it. So they find that crumb and base their entire worldview on it. And when it disintegrates, why - they just find another.
 
Hillhater said:
Concrete ( Cement) was not discovered/invented until 1825, so its manufacture could not be a factor in the 1750-1850 increase in CO2.
Click to expand...

Nope. Wrong again. The Romans were using concrete 2000 years ago. It's like you're trying to be wrong.

Nobody but you is talking about this 50 year period you have honed in on. The adults are talking about the GIGANTIC rise on the right side of the graph.
 
billvon said:
furcifer said:
These are extremely simple concepts. It really takes effort to not understand them and be able to apply them to AGW.
Click to expand...
Religions often require deliberate misunderstanding of things like evolution, climate change and plate tectonics. Many here believe in the religion of denial, and mere facts won't sway their deep personal faith, any more than a new hominid fossil will sway a Christian creationist. He HAS to misunderstand.

George Monbiot put it well:

It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.

It may be hard - but many deniers are up to the challenge. Their religion demands it. So they find that crumb and base their entire worldview on it. And when it disintegrates, why - they just find another.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's fascinating to watch. It really is a religious faith in many regards.
 
Hillhater said:
No, i do not understand the environment and Ecosystems...nobody fully understands them..or do you claim to ??
Click to expand...

Strawman. I never said I "fully" understood how ecosystems work.

That's such a stupid argument. Does anybody "fully understand" anything? As I said before, the more you know the more you realize how little you actually understand.

Hillhater said:
They are recognised as being highly complex with infinite factors that interact in ways we do not yet understand.
Click to expand...

This suggestion is rubbish. It's mainly because you lack proper understanding and training. When YOU say you don't understand it's because you're completely ignorant. When a scientist says "We don't understand" it's because he knows 95% and can't explain 5%.

Hillhater said:
To suggest that this is “not difficult to understand”, and all due to humans, is a simplistic view that neatly satisfies simple minds.
Click to expand...

So you're saying you're satisfied with this answer then. Great! :mrgreen:
 
furcifer said:
Hillhater said:
[ Sure,..flat up to 1750 .
How do you think this tells you anything about Fossil related CO2 ?
You do realise that this is exactly the same TOTAL CO2 CONCENTRATION data that you posted previously (in a different graph) and i have been trying to make you understand that CO2 started increasing around 1750, whilst there was no significant fossil fuel CO2 emissions until 1850 ish.
Click to expand...

What? Humans started using coal in the 1600's (well forever, but open pit mining started around mid 15th century and pretty much has ramped up ever since). Coal is a fossil fuel.
Click to expand...
Sure, but you failed to register the word “significant” fossil fuel related CO2.
And you obviously missed my previous post where i pointed out that the FFCO2 in 1800 amounted to 0.0003 % of all CO2 emissions at that time.
Where have you hidden your graph for that FF CO2 for 1700 - 2000 ??
Ah, here it is...... can you see the FLAT portion of the red line ( FFCO2)
https://skepticalscience.com/images/CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif
CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif

OR ,..this one that you also posted previously....note the “cement” contribution.
565cb19b1700008100e1abc0.jpeg

By the way, do you know the difference between Roman “Concrete” and our modern version using Cement ??
.. obviously not, or you would not make such dumb claims.
 
furcifer said:
Hillhater said:
To suggest that this is “not difficult to understand”, and all due to humans, is a simplistic view that neatly satisfies simple minds.
Click to expand...

So you're saying you're satisfied with this answer then. Great! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
?????
Oh dear,..you really do have a reading/comprehension problem !!
Let me explain..
I am saying it IS difficult to understand..
YOU have stated it is NOT difficult to understand..and presumably satisfied with that situation
Ergo..it is you who has the simple mind ! :roll:

PS..have you found ANY papers yet with PROOF that all CO2 increase is due to human activity ??
 
Hillhater said:
Sure, but you failed to register the word “significant” fossil fuel related CO2.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea what you're talking about. I can't make myself stupid enough to understand. There's no significant increase in CO2 either. The increase is directly proportional to human use of fossil fuels.

Hillhater said:
And you obviously missed my previous post where i pointed out that the FFCO2 in 1800 amounted to 0.0003 % of all CO2 emissions at that time.
Where have you hidden your graph for that FF CO2 for 1700 - 2000 ??
Click to expand...

There's is no point. We're talking about anthropogenic CO2. You don't seem to know what that is.

Hillhater said:
By the way, do you know the difference between Roman “Concrete” and our modern version using Cement ??
.. obviously not, or you would not make such dumb claims.
Click to expand...

Adding quotes doesn't magically change words dude.

I know a fair bit about concrete. And cement. Do you want to discuss binders in the cement, or different aggregates in concrete? Pick your poison. None of that changes the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. On just about every single topic in this thread. It's actually impressive.
 
Hillhater said:
PS..have you found ANY papers yet with PROOF that all CO2 increase is due to human activity ??
Click to expand...

Begging a stupid question doesn't change the fact that it's a stupid question.

Since almost all of them do the onus is on you to produce one to the contrary (I actually produced the most recent one, which was like 2006).

Out of curiosity, what do you think is proof? What's your idea of a smoking gun that somehow the entire scientific community hasn't thought of or has overlooked?

Or you can stop lying and just be honest. You have no clue, you wouldn't know it if it smacked you upside the head. Every single denier has the same bag of tricks. Somehow they are experts on what ISN'T proof, but no clue what is. Some can't even read a graph :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
HYGROpower ?
Replies
1
Views
374
Chalo
Chalo
H
Full cost comparason between Wind , solar, coal, gas, Nuclear
Replies
0
Views
330
Hillhater
H
J
Some thoughts on the future of automotive EVs
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
156
Views
7,357
jonescg
jonescg
RustyKipper
    • Like
Ammo box battery with solar charging
Replies
4
Views
724
99t4
9
E
GMAC vs Grin All Axle vs Dual Drive Catrike
2
Replies
28
Views
1,211
edben05
E
Back
Top