Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Punx0r]

Actually it more like 900 billion tonnes ! :wink:

Ah, very clever! You know the context was CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, but craftily switched things around to talk about gross emissions for the whole carbon cycle! Damn, you nearly got me there... Hang on, weren't you decrying those natural emission figures earlier in this thread for being inaccurate estimates?

The upswing in CO2 has occurred rapidly since the Industrial Revolution got going.....

That is a correlation , not a proof of cause.

Man gets hit in face, man immediately suffers nosebleed. Sure, there's no absolute proof of a causal relationship. But since you are the one claiming obvious effect No.1 is not caused by obvious thing No.2, why don't you explain what the "real" cause is? Can you offering anything beside a hand wave and "well, could be a lot of things!". Where's your climate model?

.... and that has been higher than alarmist predictions, several times over the recent history of mans existance.. ...without dramatic consequences. ???

When, exactly, was it hotter than today in "recent history of mankind's existence"?

You have to go back ~120,000 years to find the last time temperatures were comparable to today: "The Eemian period — and the ice ages before and after it — were natural Earth processes, explainable through simple physics by our orientation to the sun at the time"

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D
https://mashable.com/article/earth-warmest-temperatures-climate-change/?europe=true

CO2 was initially proposed as the indicator of impending temperature change , but that has failed to be true, with temperature not responding in the way predicted by the AGW modeling

Put down the crackpipe

 

[Hillhater]

Actually it more like 900 billion tonnes ! :wink:

Ah, very clever! You know the context was CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, but craftily switched things around to talk about gross emissions for the whole carbon cycle! Damn, you nearly got me there... Hang on, weren't you decrying those natural emission figures earlier in this thread for being inaccurate estimates?..

Yes , exactly...you have almost grasped the point.
35bt is <4% of the 900+ bt (guesstimated !) total being churned by the planet.
The potential margin of error in our guestimate of that total, is many (10+) times the "problem" quantity AGW is based on.
How comfortable are you with that ?

The upswing in CO2 has occurred rapidly since the Industrial Revolution got going.....

That is a correlation , not a proof of cause.

...Man gets hit in face, man immediately suffers nosebleed. Sure, there's no absolute proof of a causal relationship. But since you are the one claiming obvious effect No.1 is not caused by obvious thing No.2, why don't you explain what the "real" cause is? Can you offering anything beside a hand wave and "well, could be a lot of things!". Where's your climate model?

Man gets hit in the face , but doesnt get nose bleed....conclusion ?
Man gets nose bleed whilst watching TV....is that still due to someone getting hit in the face ?
Not all hits to the face result in nosebleeds
Nosebleed is not always caused by a hit in the face.
If you are going to invest huge resources and finances into solving a problem, you might want to be sure you know what the problem is first, rather than assuming you know the cause.

..

.... and that has been higher than alarmist predictions, several times over the recent history of mans existance.. ...without dramatic consequences. ???

When, exactly, was it hotter than today in "recent history of mankind's existence"?..

Medieval, and Roman, were both periods where the temperature has been shown to nave been 1-2 C warmer than current temperatures....and the Minoan period , 3000 yrs ago, even warmer still.

 

[cricketo]

If you are going to invest huge resources and finances into solving a problem, you might want to be sure you know what the problem is first, rather than assuming you know the cause.

 

[Punx0r]

Yes , exactly...you have almost grasped the point.
35bt is <4% of the 900+ bt (guesstimated !) total being churned by the planet.
How comfortable are you with that ?

Extremely, as I am capable of grasping the concept of a carbon cycle...

The mass of the ocean is approximately 250 times that of the atmosphere. If someone dumped 35Gt x 250 = 8.7 TRILLION TONNES of salt into the ocean every year, would you claim it had "no effect"? When the ocean got undeniably saltier, would you claim it MUST be caused by some other obscure cause?

Nosebleed is not always caused by a hit in the face.

That is exactly the point I was making. It's a facetious argument to make when someone has just been hit in the face as an "alternative" explanation is extremely unlikely and would require remarkable evidence to support it (hint, hint).

..
Medieval, and Roman, were both periods where the temperature has been shown to nave been 1-2 C warmer than current temperatures....and the Minoan period , 3000 yrs ago, even warmer still.

Bzzzt. https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

 

[billvon]

Man gets hit in the face , but doesnt get nose bleed....conclusion ?

Rational conclusion - he did not get hit very hard
Hillhater conclusion - it is IMPOSSIBLE for a strike to the face to cause a nosebleed!

Man gets nose bleed whilst watching TV....is that still due to someone getting hit in the face ?

Rational conclusion - other things can cause nosebleeds
Hillhater conclusion - this is PROOF that getting hit in the face cannot cause a nosebleed!

See the difference there?

But if you are still unsure, ask your doctor if getting hit in the face can cause a nosebleed.

If you are going to invest huge resources and finances into solving a problem, you might want to be sure you know what the problem is first, rather than assuming you know the cause.

Exactly. Which is why we've spent hundreds of millions over decades to make sure we know what the problem is.

 

[Hillhater]

?...
Rational conclusion - other things can cause nosebleeds
Hillhater conclusion - this is PROOF that getting hit in the face cannot cause a nosebleed!

See the difference there?

Yes...billvon has reading & comprehension problems !
That is no where near anything i posted.

...from my post..
Nosebleed is not always caused by a hit in the face....

 

[Hillhater]

The mass of the ocean is approximately 250 times that of the atmosphere. If someone dumped 35Gt x 250 = 8.7 TRILLION TONNES of salt into the ocean every year, would you claim it had "no effect"? When the ocean got undeniably saltier, would you claim it MUST be caused by some other obscure cause?...

Oh dear, and i thought you were begining to think rationally !,
.... again, you have "ignored the 900+ x 250 = 225 Tt (+_ 20%) from other sources, being added/subtracted at the same time !

Nosebleed is not always caused by a hit in the face.

That is exactly the point I was making. It's a facetious argument to make when someone has just been hit in the face as an "alternative" explanation is extremely unlikely and would require remarkable evidence to support it (hint, hint).

..( billvon).....Rational conclusion - he did not get hit very hard

No , you do not need to prove it is not the hit that caused it, only that there are other "rational possiblities,
.....but if you want to BE SURE it WAS the hit, then you would need to show conclusive proof !
And in the case of CO2 in the atmosphere, that scientific proof does not exist, and there are other rational possibilities......(eg, variations in the natural carbon cycle )

 

[Punx0r]

.... again, you have "ignored the 900+ x 250 = 225 Tt (+_ 20%) from other sources, being added/subtracted at the same time !

At least we've narrowed down what you believe is causing global warming: the natural carbon cycle is wildly unstable. I note you consciously take the position that the cause of this instability is either not relevant, or cannot be known, you just believe it exists, i.e. faith.

No , you do not need to prove it is not the hit that caused it, only that there are other "rational possiblities,
.....but if you want to BE SURE it WAS the hit, then you would need to show conclusive proof !

Interesting. To be fair, this isn't some half-baked logic you've cooked up yourself, it's a well known system called "fear, uncertainty and doubt". Paralyse the system be insisting that unless something can be demonstrably proven with absolute uncertainty, it cannot be true. It's a fallacious because nothing can ever be measured with complete accuracy, nor anything predicted with absolute certainty. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

A relevant example from recent history:

Doctor: "across a sample of many thousand of patients, those who smoke heavily show a statistically significant higher incidence of lung cancer compared to non-smokers when confounding variables are controlled for, therefore smoking is a cause of cancer"

Tobacco Shill Lawyer: "This man, patient 2490, can you PROVE beyond all doubt his tumours were caused by smoking ALONE? That there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSE?"

Doctor: "Well, I suppose, technically, it could have been something else, but it is unlikely, but when taken as a statistical trend across the population, the correlation approaches 1..."

"Aha! So you have no PROOF! You are speculating! Your Honour, the witness has NO EVIDENCE as to the cause of this man's cancer"

Replace Tobacco & cancer with CO2 & climate change. Same game, same faulty logic, even the same *people* behind it, taking the money of those with an agenda to push. "The science is not settled!". It was, back in the 1970's. In the public domain though, the illusion of uncertainty and debate was promulgated for decades.

And in the case of CO2 in the atmosphere, that scientific proof does not exist, and there are other rational possibilities......(eg, variations in the natural carbon cycle )

The scientific proof does exist, you just deny it does. Scientists have spent many years and much resource diligently bottoming-out all alternative explanations and nothing fits, except the great big elephant standing in the corner of the room.

You forget that the past warming and cooling periods many deniers like to point at, have been explained by the same mechanisms that have been shown not to be cause the current warming. It's physics.

 

[Hillhater]

At least we've narrowed down what you believe is causing global warming: the natural carbon cycle is wildly unstable. ..

No, sorry but again you have jumped to the wrong conclusion. ..a bad habit you seem to have.?
I simply have pointed out that there are other rational possibilities to explain the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
That does not mean that i believe CO2 is causing any warming effect.

No , you do not need to prove it is not the hit that caused it, only that there are other "rational possiblities,
.....but if you want to BE SURE it WAS the hit, then you would need to show conclusive proof !

Interesting. To be fair, this isn't some half-baked logic you've cooked up yourself, it's a well known system called "fear, uncertainty and doubt". ....
.... It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

Actually its the basis of the Scientific method.
CAGW is a unproven "theory".
For it to be scientifically proven it has to be tested, verified , and repeatable.
That has never been done.

And in the case of CO2 in the atmosphere, that scientific proof does not exist, and there are other rational possibilities......(eg, variations in the natural carbon cycle )

The scientific proof does exist, you just deny it does. Scientists have spent many years and much resource diligently bottoming-out all alternative explanations and nothing fits, except the great big elephant standing in the corner of the room.

Show me the scientific proof !...
Just because no one has been able to conclusively establish the cause, does not mean you just pick your favorite explanation as the answer...that is not the scientific method.
The climate is more than a little complex (understatement). For anyone to identify one single trace gas as "THE" cause of global temperature variations, ought to make every rational thinker stop a think for a moment.

 

[billvon]

At least we've narrowed down what you believe is causing global warming: the natural carbon cycle is wildly unstable. ..

No, sorry but again you have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
I simply have pointed out that there are other rational possibilities to explain the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
That does not mean that i believe CO2 is causing any warming effect.

That's one of the things I find so funny about climate change deniers. Their rationale changes from day to day.

"The climate's not changing!"
"OK so maybe it's changing but CO2 isn't causing the warming!"
"OK so maybe it is but we didn't do it! And I'm not admitting that CO2 is causing it anyway."
"The warming will all be good, or didn't you think about that?"
"CO2 is an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer! What, do you want all the plants to die?"

And they can believe all those things at the same time.

Can you imagine if any serious scientist behaved this way?

 

[Hillhater]

As i said before bill..
You have a reading/ comprehension problem.
Just because " i do not believe CO2 is the cause of any warming effect"...
that does not mean i deny there is any warming occurring
You see, you have made a incorrect assumption,......i am NOT a "climate change denier" !
I know The climate is constantly changing.
I will debate the causes
I will debate the effects of the changes
I will debate the magnitude of those changes .
But , i wont accept irrational, unscientific comments or conclusions.

 

[cricketo]

But , i wont accept irrational, unscientific comments or conclusions.

Yeah, you're one tough customer. Okay, here is an alternative approach, for the sake of entertainment.

CO2 is a green house gas. Pretty straightforward science rooted in physics, hopefully no debate about that.

Humans are burning massive amounts of fossils that took millions of years to accumulate, hopefully no contest to that one either. There are estimates, but the absolute numbers not important anyway. Relative is what is important.

Humans are also causing deforestation. Hopefully no denial about that.

So we have net increase in CO2 (human caused increase in emissions combined with human caused reduction in sequestration), which is a green house gas that would cause warming. Perhaps we can debate how much warming it would cause, but this is a simple calories in/calories out math. If I am not working out, but keep eating more than I should, becoming fat is an expected and logical outcome.

Unless you could prove (scientifically) that we're not causing net CO2 increase, and perhaps we're sequestering more CO2 than we're producing ? I am all ears (eyes).

 

[Hillhater]

....Unless you could prove (scientifically) that we're not causing net CO2 increase, and perhaps we're sequestering more CO2 than we're producing ? I am all ears (eyes).

Maybe you should back up a few posts, ...
.... check my comments about where that CO2 could be coming from.
...and about scientific proof of that CO2 "greenhouse Theory "..(CAGW theory)
The onus of proof lies with the person proposing the theory !

 

[cricketo]

....Unless you could prove (scientifically) that we're not causing net CO2 increase, and perhaps we're sequestering more CO2 than we're producing ? I am all ears (eyes).

Maybe you should back up a few posts, ...
.... check my comments about where that CO2 could be coming from.
...and about scientific proof of that CO2 "greenhouse Theory "..(CAGW theory)
The onus of proof lies with the person proposing the theory !

The question is not about alternative, additional sources of CO2. The question is whether humans are contributing to CO2 increase or not. That is so we can then take a rough estimate of that particular source of CO2, and use physics to calculate how much such increase in green house gas can contribute towards energy trapping and thus global temperature increase.

Is that scientific enough for you ?

 

[Hillhater]

Maybe you missed the point about the lack of proof that CO2 is influential in any warming effect ?
There is NO scientific proof of that relationship......only Unproven Theory. :wink:

The NULL Hypothesis is that climate change is natural, if you want to propose another theory the the onus is upon YOU to prove the new theory , not on anyone to defend the NULL hypothesis. So far there is insufficient evidence to disprove the NULL hypothesis and indeed there is significant contradictory evidence to AGW and quite a number of alternative theories for the warming ( None of which are proven either). So the ball is in YOUR court to prove your case AND to show all the competing theories invalid. ...

 

[cricketo]

Maybe you missed the point about the lack of proof that CO2 is influential in any warming effect ?

You're saying CO2 is not a green house gas, and that is from the position of physics (science) ?

 

[billvon]

The NULL Hypothesis is that climate change is natural, if you want to propose another theory the the onus is upon YOU to prove the new theory

It has been proven.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Proven through science. You can even do it yourself with a lamp, a glass tank, a filter and a radiometer.
We have increased the concentration of greenhouse gas. Proven, by simple math.
Thus we have a hypothesis - as CO2 increases, more heat will be trapped and temperatures will rise.

Next, experimental proof. As CO2 increased, did temperatures rise? Answer - yes.

Experimental proof.

So now we have the science and math to understand it, and have conducted the experiment - and seen the result. So now we have a confirmed theory. Thus, if you want to claim something different is happening, it is up to you to put the same level of rigor into it. (On the plus side, if you CAN come up with something compelling, you are guaranteed a Nobel prize - so get to work!)

 

[cricketo]

So now we have the science and math to understand it, and have conducted the experiment - and seen the result. So now we have a confirmed theory. Thus, if you want to claim something different is happening, it is up to you to put the same level of rigor into it. (On the plus side, if you CAN come up with something compelling, you are guaranteed a Nobel prize - so get to work!)

I think perhaps Hillhater has science to show that CO2 emitted due to human activity is a different kind of CO2 (dark matter?) which doesn't cause energy trapping, thus not contributing to temperature increases, unlike volcanoes and lightnings.

 

[billvon]

I think perhaps Hillhater has science to show that CO2 emitted due to human activity is a different kind of CO2 (dark matter?) which doesn't cause energy trapping, thus not contributing to temperature increases, unlike volcanoes and lightnings.

Double secret probation CO2?
CO2 lite?
Faux CO2?
Short bus CO2?
"I can't believe it's not CO2!"

 

[cricketo]

Double secret probation CO2?
CO2 lite?
Faux CO2?
Short bus CO2?
"I can't believe it's not CO2!"

Yeah, kind of like infinite donut that doesn't make you fat.

 

[Hillhater]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Proven through science. You can even do it yourself with a lamp, a glass tank, a filter and a radiometer........

:lol: You have been watching "Myth Busters" again , bill.
Are you seriously suggesting that a "glass tank" is representitive of our planetary climate system
Sorry bill, but that is not scientific proof of a "global" effect.
That is about the same level of scientific rigor as your "half pound of salt in a gallon of water" experiment

..(cricketo)
You're saying CO2 is not a green house gas, ? ..

Im saying , ..there is no scientific proof that CO2 is the CAUSE of global temperature changes.
....Infact there is more evidence to suggest the changes in CO2 levels are the RESULT of global temperature change.
CAGW..is only a unproven THEORY.

 

[cricketo]

Im saying , ..there is no scientific proof that CO2 is the CAUSE of global temperature changes.

Perhaps it is engineering you're struggling with. You have to break the problem apart. First, you need to answer
the question whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not. You're refusing to do that. As long as you don't provide a definitive
answer to such question, there is no point in moving on to the next question. Which is whether different concentrations of CO2 in a gas mixture result in different energy trapping properties of such gas mixture. Then the next question, whether humans are causing significant unnecessary addition of CO2 to such gas. Then the next question...

They call your approach "moving goal posts" in a civil society. I call that trolling. Not sure for what purpose though

 

[Punx0r]

....Infact there is more evidence to suggest the changes in CO2 levels are the RESULT of global temperature change.

I've not seen any such theory that hasn't already been widely discredited, so if you have something please post link.

 

[billvon]

:lol: You have been watching "Myth Busters" again , bill.
Are you seriously suggesting that a "glass tank" is representitive of our planetary climate system

Nope. Merely a way to prove that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas.

Sorry bill, but that is not scientific proof of a "global" effect.

It is scientific proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

That is about the same level of scientific rigor as your "half pound of salt in a gallon of water" experiment

That wasn't an experiment.

You aren't much into science, are you.

 

[Punx0r]

CAGW..is only a unproven THEORY.

I think you are conflating the lay definition of "theory" i.e. "hunch" with the scientific kind:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory