Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
jimw1960
10 kW
Hillhater said:
Look, we are currently adding 10 Gt of CARBON to the atmosphere every year. That is equivalent to 36.7 Gt of CO2. We have been adding at a steadily increasing rate for several decades now. By the end of the century, if we do nothing to curb CO2 emissions, we will have been adding at that rate for over a century, resulting in a doubling of CO2 concentration since preindustrial. 10 Gt CARBON per year for over a century is MORE than on a trillion tons of CARBON. And that's if we somehow manage to not increase the rate at which we add CARBON to the atmosphere, which has been steadily increasing. If you want that in terms of CO2, multiply by 3.67.
But don't take my word for it. Here is a 2016 paper on the subject (published in a peer reviewed science journal, unlike the stuff you come up with). https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/essd-8-605-2016.pdf
It says that as of 2016, cumulative CO2 emissions were already 565 Gt of CARBON (2075 GtCO2 if you prefer in terms of CO2--that's over 2 trillion tons of CO2!). So by end of this year, we will be over 600Gt CARBON. Still don't think we are on track to add a trillion tons of CARBON to the atmosphere? As for how much is still in the atmosphere, if you bother to read the paper, you will learn that an increase of 1 ppm CO2 = 2.12 Gt CARBON. We have added about 132 ppm to the atmosphere since preindustrial concentration. So, that adds up to 280 Gt CARBON still in the atmosphere due to human activity---just under half of all cumulative emissions. About one third of cumulative emissions is dissolved in the upper layers of the oceans, increasing the acidity. The rest has been taken up by soil and plants.
Hillhater
100 TW
Nice avoidance bill..billvon said:
I shall assume you cannot explain that idea then !
Hillhater
100 TW
Ahh ! So your “trillion “. has now become 600 Gt !,jimw1960 said:
Pity you couldnt just “man up” and admit you were wrong !...
.....without all this other distraction to try to cover up your bullsh1t.
I know the numbers jim, and i know how to read a study...
When they quote “estimated” 6 times, together with “ assumed” and “projected” ...all before it even gets to the introduction.....it tends to lose much of its scientific credibility (Science is not proven by consensus )
That 280Gt of carbon increase is not shown to be due to human activity,.... it is simply ASSUMED to be !
And that is certainly not scientific !
You really do not understand what “Peer Reviewed”. actually means, do you ?
Hillhater
100 TW
Here is some basic math...billvon said:
3 times i have asked.....3 times you have not been able to answer.
Keep avoiding an answer .!
ZeroEm
1 MW
The permafrost as it warms has been releasing a lot of methane. Watch a show of them drilling holes in the ice and lighting the gas.
I read a lot in here about the CO2 in the atmosphere but the Oceans have been absorbing a lot and it is not known how much but we see the effects or some of us do.
Maybe we can stop drilling for oil and just capture and use the methane that's being added anyway?
I read a lot in here about the CO2 in the atmosphere but the Oceans have been absorbing a lot and it is not known how much but we see the effects or some of us do.
Maybe we can stop drilling for oil and just capture and use the methane that's being added anyway?
wineboyrider
1 MW
Natural gas for the win! https://techxplore.com/news/2018-06-kind-co2-free-natural-gas-power.html
That would help! But like capturing landfill emissions, it's a lot of area with a small concentration of released gas. So lots of pipes and membranes for little gas.ZeroEm said:
Down here they designed the Miramar landfill with that in mind, and collect enough methane to run a 10MW gas turbine. But they estimate they are capturing less than 25% of the CH4.
Hillhater said:
It's amusing to watch you try but fail to understand science.
It's "assumed" that the gravity on Venus is "projected" to be 8.87 m/s/s. We don't need to send a research team to Venus to prove it, that's the general "consensus" based on "scientific theory".
Just because there's no "proof" the gravity on Venus is 8.87m/s/s doesn't mean your opinion to the contrary holds any validity. If you want to dispute these "assumptions" and the "consensus" on the matter you still need to provide a reliable, alternate scientific "theory".
It's very easy to pick apart your arguments because you're not smart enough to follow what you are saying to a consistent logical conclusion. Or maybe you are you just choose not to.
As usual you seem to have things completely backwards. "estimated", "assumed" and "projected" are very scientifically credible, whereas "exact", "known" and "determined" tend to be subjective overstatements. This shouldn't need explaining to anyone with just the basic of critical thinking skills.
billvon said:
Yah, but just one, that's not science. Haven't these NASA "scientists" ever heard of the scientific method? They need to send the exact same probe back to the exact same place with the exact same instruments, at the exact same time and measure the exact same rate of decent or it isn't repeatable. This isn't rocket science!
I hope making these same ridiculous arguments outside the context of climate science will make some people realize how foolish they really are.
Not Natural
Scientists link Europe heat wave to human-caused global warming
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/europe-heat-wave-climate-change-1.4904410
Scientists link Europe heat wave to human-caused global warming
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/europe-heat-wave-climate-change-1.4904410
Hillhater
100 TW
Its amusing to watch how far off topic you will go to in order to avoid answering a question and deflect attention from your shortcomings.billvon said:
ZeroEm
1 MW
Ok, if humans are not the cause of the explosive rise in CO2 what is? 
Hillhater
100 TW
I hope you alarmist’s still have your goggles and snorkels ready so you can breathe with your head in the sand , rather than accept this...
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/08/how-noaa-nasa-erase-americas-hot-past/
I will summarise it for those of you with a mental block on this issue..
...in brief , the USA has been cooling for 30+ Years, and the historic data was published to show that.
BUT, of course that fact does not sit easy with the desired CO2 theory , so the NOAA have “massaged” historic, ( and current) Data in various ways to convert a cooling trend into a warming trend, and reproduced historic records.
....Then they lubed it up, put a big sucker hook in it, disguised it in with a load of other “burley” .., and threw it out for for the alarmist bottom feeders to bite on ! :wink:
Oh !.... and there has been plenty of similar evidence revealed for Australian temp records.
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/08/how-noaa-nasa-erase-americas-hot-past/
I will summarise it for those of you with a mental block on this issue..
...in brief , the USA has been cooling for 30+ Years, and the historic data was published to show that.
BUT, of course that fact does not sit easy with the desired CO2 theory , so the NOAA have “massaged” historic, ( and current) Data in various ways to convert a cooling trend into a warming trend, and reproduced historic records.
....Then they lubed it up, put a big sucker hook in it, disguised it in with a load of other “burley” .., and threw it out for for the alarmist bottom feeders to bite on ! :wink:
Oh !.... and there has been plenty of similar evidence revealed for Australian temp records.
Hillhater
100 TW
sZeroEm said:Ok, if humans are not the cause of the explosive rise in CO2 what is?
It could be one of many possible sources, since human related emissions are only 5% of total annual CO2 emissions.
And of course it may not be increased emissions at all, but possibly reduced CO2 uptake by the various carbon “sinks” that adsorb atmospheric CO2 ?
jonescg
100 MW
Ah some cranks blog! Of course! Why didn't the world's geographers and atmospheric chemists look there?!
jimw1960
10 kW
Hillhater said:
I give up on your ignorant ass. I've never met a mind so closed by a political world view. If you look at the context of my original post (not even talking to you) it was relating to what it would be like if humans had never discovered and used fossil fuels. My comment was just an off the cuff statement that the Earth would not have had a trillion of carbon added to the atmosphere. If you don't think we are on track to exceed a trillion tons of carbon added to the atmosphere before we stop using fossil fuels, then you sir are a fool. And if you somehow think that will be good for humanity, you are an even bigger fool. Anyway, respond all you want, but I'm done with your ignorance.
You've gone back to being a type 1 denier - "the climate isn't warming, stupid!" The reason you'll get laughed at isn't because scientists can prove you wrong - it's because anyone in the US can prove you wrong by their experiences over the last 30 years. Try telling someone in Barrow, Alaska that the climate's not getting warmer, as the lack of sea ice lets storms erode away their town.Hillhater said:
I expect you to quickly flip-flop back to being a type 2 or 3 by dinner. Hard to keep up with your rapidly changing denial system.
jimw1960
10 kW
billvon said:
It's amazing how he can't see his inconsistencies even when they are pointed out to him and the world is on fire all around him. He's probably also an anti-vaxxer and subscriber to a bunch of other conspiracy theories, like chemtrails.
ZeroEm
1 MW
Started reading the link then 1933 (before AC) with the number 100F (unheard of in 1933) they were not used to hot days like we are now. It is 99F at the moment just came off of 100F. Give me a minute and I will see how many people are dying. Ok, I'm back not one death. This is our 4th or 5th day at 100F. 80 years ago in S.A. Texas we had 50 100F days in Ten years, now we have 50 100F days a year. Is that cooling or heating? Want to know about heat ask Amberwolf. I lived in Phoenix for 4 years, seen 126F for 3 weeks.
I have my own weather station don't rely on the news from the airport 20 miles away. Don't think I can down load the data but I can take pictures of the screen.
I have my own weather station don't rely on the news from the airport 20 miles away. Don't think I can down load the data but I can take pictures of the screen.
Hillhater
100 TW
That will vary depending on whose data set you look at.ZeroEm said:
Hillhater
100 TW
And you have remaind a useless mind reader who consistently attacks the messenger rather than address the actual message.billvon said:
Its not my data, ...i simply put it up to give you an opportunity to expand your minds.
ZeroEm
1 MW
I have given up on changing peoples minds. Living in Texas where 99% believe we are just having an unusual year, every year. Where the solution for gun related deaths is more guns. The air pollution in the cities is killing more people every year and are told they have allergies. Texas talks about SAFE levels of lead and asbestos in our water. San Antonio news reports how dangerous ebikes/scouters are.
So to inform people how cheap EV's are to own and no you don't need a 300 mile range when you have never driven 300miles at one time in your life. All cars and trucks are hybrids. If coal is so great where did all the steam engines go and why is it turned into electricity. Why do people pay for fuel to haul around 2-3 tons of metal and plastic.
Just wondering?
One more thing, all your spent Nuclear fuel Texas wants it and we don't mind if you lose some of it in our cities as it's passing thru!
So to inform people how cheap EV's are to own and no you don't need a 300 mile range when you have never driven 300miles at one time in your life. All cars and trucks are hybrids. If coal is so great where did all the steam engines go and why is it turned into electricity. Why do people pay for fuel to haul around 2-3 tons of metal and plastic.
Just wondering?
One more thing, all your spent Nuclear fuel Texas wants it and we don't mind if you lose some of it in our cities as it's passing thru!
