Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[billvon]

How exactly do you believe we have “measured” those Co2 levels ...or the rate of change ?

Science.

... remember, we have only been able to accurately measure atmospheric CO2 since the 1950’s

And we can use the same measurements on air entrapped in ice cores going back thousands of years.

Odd ?... i thought it was accepted that the historic evidence confirms that temperature increase preceed the increase in CO2

Yes. Dinosaurs didn't drive SUV's. We do - so this time we are providing the increase in CO2 that is causing the warming.

 

[Punx0r]

This is sad. It's not only denier garbage, it's badly out-dated denier garbage. All the serious shills and cranks abandoned these cliches years ago as they've been so thoroughly debunked they are embarrassingly indefensible.

Meanwhile in the real world, permafrost in the arctic is melting at an alarming rate, leaving a landscape dotted with thousand of lakes. But sure, nothing is up.

 

[furcifer]

How exactly do you believe we have “measured” those Co2 levels ...or the rate of change ?
... remember, we have only been able to accurately measure atmospheric CO2 since the 1950’s

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

I know, it's a catch 22, how do you learn to use Google if you can't use Google to learn how to use Google.

Since the 50's we've learned how to measure CO2 levels billions of years back. If you're knowledge base is that dated you should really update it.

Here's a link to a boring scientific paper with a lot of numbers and formulas outlining the methods used to determine CO2 levels over the last 40 million years:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2013.0096

Odd ?... i thought it was accepted that the historic evidence confirms that temperature increase preceed the increase in CO2

What does that have to do with the effects being exponential as opposed to linear? This is completely non-sequitor.

I'm sorry, I believe it's times to disengage with you. Everything you've said has been debunked at least 10 years ago. I'm pretty sure most of what you know is out of the Alex Jones playbook from that period. At least it's similar. Today you're just misinformed and I think it's obvious you don't want to share knowledge, you're pushing an agenda. I'll leave it at that because I don't like labeling people. If you have any serious questions that can't easily be refuted by a simple Google search I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

 

[furcifer]

This is sad. It's not only denier garbage, it's badly out-dated denier garbage. All the serious shills and cranks abandoned these cliches years ago as they've been so thoroughly debunked they are embarrassingly indefensible.

Meanwhile in the real world, permafrost in the arctic is melting at an alarming rate, leaving a landscape dotted with thousand of lakes. But sure, nothing is up.

lmfao, for the record I did not read this post before posting mine. I had the exact same thought however. Most of what I've read here smacks of the handwaving from around IPCC 3. Maybe 4. It was so long, but not that long ago.

 

[Hillhater]

How exactly do you believe we have “measured” those Co2 levels ...or the rate of change ?

Science.
........And we can use the same measurements on air entrapped in ice cores going back thousands of years.
.........- so this time we are providing the increase in CO2 that is causing the warming.

Ice core CO2 data are only proxy’s for ATMOSPHERIC CO2...not direct measurements.
There is no way to verify the correlation.
That IS NOT SCIENCE...its an ASSUMPTION
Further , there are many alternate “proxy” “scientific” methods which disagree with ice core results, both in terms of average levels , rates of change, and peak levels.

 

[Hillhater]

Here's a link to a boring scientific paper with a lot of numbers and formulas outlining the methods used to determine CO2 levels over the last 40 million years:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2013.0096

Obviously too boring for you to read, or you would have noticed that their results indicate CO2 levels higher than todays, during the past few thousand years.
All still “proxy” results and the result of many “assumptions, and “estimates” in their methodology.
A “scientist” would never directly equate proxy results with actual direct measurements.

But you are missing the key point...the lack of direct scientifically verifiable link between any increase in current CO2 levels, and human activity.
And any such link would also need to eliminate the possibility of a “natural” influence.

 

[furcifer]

Obviously too boring for you to read, or you would have noticed that their results indicate CO2 levels higher than todays, during the past few thousand years.
All still “proxy” results and the result of many “assumptions, and “estimates” in their methodology.
A “scientist” would never directly equate proxy results with actual direct measurements.

lol, no it doesn't. Are you reading or just looking at the pictures to try and figure it out?

An actual scientist wouldn't have the balls to say something like this. It's fairly easy to assume you have no education and at best a grade 9 or 10 level of chemistry. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I'm not.

For the most part this is what you find online. People with no clue, that haven't read the IPCC reports, let alone understood them, frantically hand waving and trying to refute things that can easily be explained by someone such as myself that has no where near enough education to fully understand the science and how it's being applied.

This is why I love these threads. I'm smart enough to know I'm not THAT smart. You really need to start looking at the science and when it gets over your head, you need to be smart enough to realize you actually know nothing. You need at least a post graduate level understanding of chemistry to even know what that paper is actually saying.

I'm going to call you out. If you can explain equation 5.7 as it relates to CO2 levels then I will defer to your knowledge. Otherwise STFU.

 

[furcifer]

LMFAO, as I was writing my last post you posted this gem.

That's the levels at one site in the Antarctic. You don't have any clue what you are reading.

Dunning _Krueger

Full Effect.

 

[furcifer]

I love this.

What specifically is wrong with the proxy? By what litmus do they fail?

What assumptions were made? How do they differ from the usual observations?

How far do the estimates deviate from the sample population? Is acceptable?

When some people use "quotes" it's because "they don't understand what's in between them".



You're a hoot. I'd have a beer with you any day.

 

[Hillhater]

Obviously too boring for you to read, or you would have noticed that their results indicate CO2 levels higher than todays, during the past few thousand years.
All still “proxy” results and the result of many “assumptions, and “estimates” in their methodology.
A “scientist” would never directly equate proxy results with actual direct measurements.

lol, no it doesn't.

YES it does !
Sorry but you cannot just dismiss clearly presented data , ( which you referenced), just because it disproves your statement.
Sure its only one site,...but you chose to reference that paper not me.
Its possible that data from other sites might indicate even higher historic CO2 levels
And i repeat...(because you keep avoiding this point) ..
Where is the SCIENTIFIC linkage between CO2 levels and Human activity ?

 

[billvon]

Ice core CO2 data are only proxy’s for ATMOSPHERIC CO2...not direct measurements.

Correct. Sort of like the thermostat down the hallway is a proxy for the temperature in your room - or the closest weather station is a proxy for the weather at your house.

There is no way to verify the correlation.

Of course there is. You compare ice core data to actual data. Do they match? Then the proxy is a strong one. Then you compare that to other proxies - cave limestone formations, coral cores, ocean sedimentation. Do they all match, within the limits of those methods of measurement? Then again the proxy is a strong one.

That IS NOT SCIENCE...its an ASSUMPTION

We have already discussed your lack of understanding of statistics.

 

[billvon]

You don't have any clue what you are reading.Dunning _Krueger Full Effect.

It's more of a religious thing going on here, I think. For many people, climate change denial is a religion. Arguing with them is similar to arguing with fundamentalist Christians about evolution. It's not that they can't understand evolution - the issue is that if they DO understand it, they become heretics to their religion. And their religion is very important to them, so they take great care to intentionally not understand anything about evolution. (Or if cornered, reinterpret any biological sciences in the light of their beliefs, to make the two sort of line up. Witness "intelligent design.")

 

[furcifer]

You don't have any clue what you are reading.Dunning _Krueger Full Effect.

It's more of a religious thing going on here, I think. For many people, climate change denial is a religion. Arguing with them is similar to arguing with fundamentalist Christians about evolution. It's not that they can't understand evolution - the issue is that if they DO understand it, they become heretics to their religion. And their religion is very important to them, so they take great care to intentionally not understand anything about evolution. (Or if cornered, reinterpret any biological sciences in the light of their beliefs, to make the two sort of line up. Witness "intelligent design.")

Very true.

To be fair, do to the complexity of climate science a lot of it tends to be "faith based". Gravity or evolution are relatively easily demonstrated and verifiable. (and yet even with evolution there are the "deniers") Climate science on the other hand is so involved it's very hard to demonstrate, or more specifically model.

And this is where I find myself. I'm obviously not a "denier", but I know a little about the modeling and how multiple variables interact. 1 variable is pretty easy. 2 variables is a lot more difficult. 3 variables separates the boys from the men. It's very difficult to provide an analytical solution to system of 3 variables. In most cases this is where you want to begin to estimate things with numerical methods.

When you begin to look at climate science it's a system of 100's and 1000's of variables. Reducing to a single variable like atmospheric CO2 is ineffective, although it certainly is a driving force.

And this is where I find my skepticism. I guess it can be surmised in the iconic "Life finds a way" from Jurassic Park. As many variables as we try to account for "life" or the environment tends to "find a way".

That's not to say I think CO2 is by any means good, or in the current state a "natural variation". I honestly think it's not good, but I also think it's probably "not that bad". As much as I respect the current understanding of climate science, my feelings are it's probably not as bad as some tend to purport.

Of course understanding all of this means realizing and acknowledging it's also quite possible we are already in a runaway state. You can't look at the obvious spectrum of possibility and not see that "not that bad" hovers slightly below marginal, and "disastrous" is still front and center.

Anyhow, too many "quotes" in this post. Time for another beer and bed.

 

[furcifer]

YES it does !
Sorry but you cannot just dismiss clearly presented data , ( which you referenced), just because it disproves your statement.
Sure its only one site,...but you chose to reference that paper not me.
Its possible that data from other sites might indicate even higher historic CO2 levels
And i repeat...(because you keep avoiding this point) ..
Where is the SCIENTIFIC linkage between CO2 levels and Human activity ?

Seriously, just read for comprehension.

The paper I cited is an example of how they calculate atmospheric CO2 as far back as a billion years.

It's not the only paper, nor does it claim to be. It's a single example of the hundreds, upon hundreds of papers, that a combined together to get the overall picture.

No where in that paper do they claim that atmospheric CO2 levels were lower than they are today. Please feel free to cite anyhting to the contrary.

eta: this is technically incorrect. The chart does show lower levels, obviously. I was thinking about something different and mis-spoke. My bad.

As for the "scientific" linkage between human activity and CO2 level, there's a direct linkage between the amount of CO2 in ppm before we started using fossil fuels, and to the current date. It's a scientific fact, fossil fuels are made of big carbon molecules.

You don't even know enough to ask coherent questions. I'm not sure if you even realize this?

 

[Hillhater]

Ice core CO2 data are only proxy’s for ATMOSPHERIC CO2...not direct measurements.

Correct. Sort of like the thermostat down the hallway is a proxy for the temperature in your room - or the closest weather station is a proxy for the weather at your house.

You dont seem to understand the difference between a proxy and an actual measurement.
A thermometer MEASUREMENT in the hallway, tells you nothing about the temperature in another room.
And the closest weather station does not tell you about local conditions

There is no way to verify the correlation.

Of course there is. You compare ice core data to actual data. Do they match? Then the proxy is a strong one. Then you compare that to other proxies - cave limestone formations, coral cores, ocean sedimentation. Do they all match, within the limits of those methods of measurement? Then again the proxy is a strong one...

How can you compare 1000 yr old ice core proxies with any actual data measured at the time, when there is none ?
Comparing to other independent proxies will increase the level of confidence, but is still not proof
And , as shown above , there are other proxy CO2 estimates that DO NOT support those ice core results, and infact suggest CO2 levels may well have been above 400ppm in comparitively “recent “ history

Shall i ask yet again ?...
Proof of CO2 increase/ human involvement ?
Proof of CO2 influencing any measured global temperature increase ?

You should hurry to answer, as you must have many other things to do before you all fry on the burning planet in 12 yrs time !
Now , that does sound like the kind of prediction a religious cult would use to scare the population !

 

[Hillhater]

No where in that paper do they claim that atmospheric CO2 levels were lower than they are today. Please feel free to cite anyhting to the contrary...

Errr? They didnt have to,... its an established fact that CO2 levels are increasing currently.

...As for the "scientific" linkage between human activity and CO2 level, there's a direct linkage between the amount of CO2 in ppm before we started using fossil fuels, and to the current date. It's a scientific fact, ..

Ha ! :lol: ..the only thing “factual” about that is the approximate correlation of timing
You do not seem to grasp the concept of linkage by “scientific proof” as compare to correlation .
And again i remind you, there are no direct MEASUREMENTS of CO2 concentrations dating before we started using fossil fuels...so you cannot have a reliable direct comparison.

 

[TheBeastie]

Here is a scientist who has a PhD in Ecological Climatology, worked for the IPCC, with core Nobel prize contributing work talking about global warming.

Almost all IPCC scientists have said what Dr. Patrick Michaels has said in this video but in incredibly discrete or disconnected ways, it's just up to personal politics/issues if you want to absorb the real world or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ

[youtube]fA5sGtj7QKQ[/youtube]
It's really another example of why broadcast media has to die, these people just abuse it and brainwash people.


A lot of the global warming folks said the Arctic would be "ice free" during the middle of the Arctic summer by now over 10 years ago. But the fact is its still a solid block of ice during the middle of summer and looks no different than decades ago.
You can look at the REAL-WORLD snap shots of the Arctic updated every day.
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2019-06-18-T00%3A00%3A00Z&z=3&v=-4091099.9060205137,-2145748.687224617,3519268.0939794863,1987115.3127753828

Fact is people like Al Gore are obviously surprised people still believe global warming is a real problem, and that is mostly caused by co2 dispite their claims not coming true at all. The co2 climate models REALLY don't work, but there is an incredible amount of political power and money to be gained by suggesting the models are true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxq4PmFV6yg&feature=youtu.be
[youtube]Pxq4PmFV6yg[/youtube]

Al Gore only came down to argue against the Adani coal mine in Queensland Australia only after being paid at least $300,000.
Mr Gore's trip to the Sunshine State was controversially funded with $320,000 of Queensland taxpayer money.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-07/adani-mine-not-mentioned-as-al-gore-speaks-in-brisbane/11191116
The abuse of broadcast media on peoples minds and naivety has made people like Al Gore very rich.

Fact is it's very clear these people like Al Gore do not believe in global warming because if they did they wouldn't want to use wind/solar renewables as the solution, because the facts are there for everyone to see that they don't lower co2 on any acceptable level at all.

South Australia with its tiny population 1.6million people and 2142MW of installed wind-farm capacity, which I can confirm ElectricityMap deliberately refuse to show as "installed-capacity", is almost always constant emitting 10 times more co2 than Nuclear based France who are serving 67million people.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=AUS-SA&remote=true

https://twitter.com/energybants/status/828712452988604418

To me the IQ test fail is looking at the real-world data and studies of wind/solar renewables and seeing how much co2e has to be created to manufacture and maintain/support these systems.
Fact is they are incredibly bad and do not make sense if you want to lower co2 emissions.
Quote: This means that—on a life-cycle basis in Germany—Ferroni (2014) has suggested that PV solar is worse for climate forcing than gas or coal. Ferroni has calculated that lifetime (twenty-five years) emissions from solar energy in Germany (panels made in China, shipped to Germany, including transport and peripherals) is 978g carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh. For state-of-the-art coal the figure is 846g and for gas (CCGT) 400g.
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/07/future-solar/

These people do not give a crap about the environment and are insulting the general publics intelligence.

 

[Hillhater]

Another example on how effective a surplus ( 3.0+GW ) of installed wind and solar generation actually is when you need it on a cold day..
South australia today,
..hint:..wind is Green, Solar is Yellow Gas is Red ..and purple is the imports begged from neighbouring states.
Currently, SA ‘s wholesale electricity cost ($150+ $/MWh), is more than double its neighbouring state costs

 

[furcifer]

You do not seem to grasp the concept of linkage by “scientific proof” as compare to correlation .
And again i remind you, there are no direct MEASUREMENTS of CO2 concentrations dating before we started using fossil fuels...so you cannot have a reliable direct comparison.

lol, there are no "direct MEASUREMENTS" of the temperature of the sun either. So I guess it could be made of ice

This is all pretty basic physics and chemistry. A lot of measurements are made by what you would call "proxy". From down to the atomic level, all the way up to the dumb cop that can tell how fast a car was going BY THE SKID MARKS.

You clearly don't understand how science works. Which is nothing to be ashamed of. You haven't spent any time learning about it. And why would you? Silica gel chromotography of dichloromethane fraction containing keytones for the purposes of analyzing samples in a gas spetrometer for M-H+ ions is pretty boring. Why would you want to dedicate 10 years of your life learning these methods just for fun?

"Reliable direct comparison" is meaningless when applied to a complex dynamic system. From a scientific perspective we take instantaneous measurements and then extrapolate or interpolate, ie determining what happens between the measurements or determining what happened before or will happen after. This is the scientific method in a nutshell. And of course this is why "proxy" is actually quite reliable. I bring this back to the temperature of the sun, we could propose that based on our knowledge of waves travelling in a vacuum, as they enter the atmosphere and strike a black body of a certain size, its rise in temperature is directly correlated to the surface temperature of the sun. We could then predict the temperature of the black body after a given amount of exposure in certain conditions and correlate that to the surface temperature of the sun. It's entirely plausible that this proxy method, ie. measuring the temperature of something on Earth, could determine the temperature on the sun. This is the "theory", we would conduct an "experiment" and collect "data" to compare to our "predictions" and make "conclusions".

So again, using "proxies" as if it were some sort of mysterious word that can be easily dismissed by someone such as yourself is completely foolish.

 

[ZeroEm]

Here in Texas it is Still Spring for another day or two. In this house we had out first black out from our 7 billion dollar grid upgrades.
Now the Power company sent out an Email (in a State that makes more power than most) to reduce power between 1600 and 1800 hrs to day to avoid rolling black outs. Temp is 95 deg F (35C), now why don't we use CO2 in our chillers, the heat pump would work better. I remember that would be making use of a waste product that maybe should not be released in such large amounts.

My ext-cord 12ga 50ft arrived now need to get DC cables from my 4KW MOD WAVE inverter to my under sized SLA connected to 75amp 400vdc-12vdc stepdown to keep food cold or a fan for me.

 

[Hillhater]

..... A lot of measurements are made by what you would call "proxy". From down to the atomic level, all the way up to the dumb cop that can tell how fast a car was going BY THE SKID MARKS. ..

Obviously you dont understand how science works either !..
Science is based on data , repeatable results
...The cop can MEASURE the skid marks, but he can only ESTIMATE how fast the car was going.
See the difference ?
The measurement is factual and indisputable but the speed is only theoretical and open to many errors.
Once you go beyond actual observed, measurable data, ....all you have is a THEORY, not scientific fact.

Now,.. any more “scientific” ideas on those links ..Human activity...CO2 increase,...climate changes, ??

 

[furcifer]

...The cop can MEASURE the skid marks, but he can only ESTIMATE how fast the car was going.
See the difference ?

No.

Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding science!

ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE ESTIMATES. ALL OF THEM!!!

Unless you're dealing with analytical solutions in mathematics, EVERYTHING IS AN ESTIMATE. Even in math, solutions to systems of equations beyond second order tend to be ESTIMATES.

Seriously, if you had any clue what you were talking about you'd know this. It's pretty much first year stuff. Since almost all measurements/solutions are estimates, in actual science, we acknowledge the precision, and define the error in our estimates.

It's really basic. As an example, an American football field is 360 feet long. If you measured every single football field in the US, they would all be the same.

Now get ready for this.

NONE OF THEM ARE THE SAME.

This probably confuses you since you don't understand science. It all depends on how precise we are with our measurements.

You obviously don't understand error or statistics. We know every measurement is an estimate, but we define the required precision in order to determine if it acceptable or to be rejected.

Stats is a stupid course. I hated taking it. I never understood why so many programs require a stats course until just now. It's always been obvious to me but you clearly need one.

 

[furcifer]

eta: the rest of your post makes no sense. velocity or speed isn't theoretical. it's a physical and measurable property of a moving body. the skid marks are a direct result of a tire with zero relative velocity to the pavement applying a force, that is countered by the normal force due dynamic friction between the tire and the road. all you need is the weight of the car and the coefficient of friction between the tire and the road to determine the velocity. As I said before, we know it's an estimate. As an example it's going to be 75 mph +-2, or 0.2 or 0.0002 or 20! If it was the latter we might reject the calculation because it is of no use. Even the first one might be rejected depending on the circumstances.

 

[billvon]

To be fair, do to the complexity of climate science a lot of it tends to be "faith based". Gravity or evolution are relatively easily demonstrated and verifiable. (and yet even with evolution there are the "deniers") Climate science on the other hand is so involved it's very hard to demonstrate, or more specifically model.

Agreed on gravity - but not evolution.

Evolution is complicated. You can't see it at work in everyday life - you have to trust biologists. It is very hard to see how (to use Hoyle's expression) "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747." The rules of inheritance, dominant vs recessive alleles, meiosis, mutation, the HOX complex - these are things most people don't understand. So to most people who accept evolution, it's taken on "faith" that the expert that explains it knows what they are talking about.

That's also what makes it easy to deny. That 747 analogy is just the top of the list. So if you have a strong reason to deny it, there's no shortage of excuses to do so - and most people don't have a lot of already-known facts they have to somehow transform into not-facts.

And this is where I find myself. . . .

Most of what you said I agree with. The modeling is complicated. We know that more CO2 will cause more heat, because that's easy to model, and in fact easy to test in a high school physics lab. We also know that it will make oceans more acidic, because that's basic chemistry (despite word games by a few people here.)

So that's where you start. The rest is harder. So CO2 causes warming. What happens next? Perhaps that will melt permafrost and release more methane, and that will drive warming even faster - because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas. Or perhaps we will see more cloud formation on the day side of the planet (faster evaporation) but less on the night side, for as-yet unknown reasons. That will slow the warming by increasing the planet's albedo.

All that makes the degree of warming uncertain - which is why even later models have uncertainty bands. The good news is that the predictions made so far have been pretty accurate, which means that the models people have used are at least close to reality.

Other effects are even harder to estimate. Some are easy - a given storm can drop more rain and a given drought will be worse; those effects are driven purely by higher temperatures and temperature differentials. But will the _average_ storm be stronger? Will tornadoes be more destructive and hurricanes larger? We know some of the variables that go into those things, but not all of them - and as you said, their interaction is even harder to model.

I also agree with the "life finds a way" thing. We will certainly see massive extinctions, because we always see massive extinctions when the climate changes radically. But life will adapt. The K-T discontinuity killed 75% of the species on the planet, for example, due to rapid environmental change. But it also gave mammals a chance to evolve into plesiadapiformes, primates and finally us.

So we don't have the power to wipe out life on Earth - but we certainly have the power to make life more miserable for ourselves. And from my perspective, it's worth some effort to _not_ do that.

 

[billvon]

Now the Power company sent out an Email (in a State that makes more power than most) to reduce power between 1600 and 1800 hrs to day to avoid rolling black outs.

Out here we have load aggregators that make that a lot easier. The one I use, OhmConnect, sends a signal to your house to shut down "dispatchable" loads like the garage freezer, hot water heaters, pool pumps, dishwashers etc. (It also enables my inverter that pumps about 800 watts back to the grid.) They last an hour at a time - very occasionally they go to two hours. You get about $1 for every kwhr you don't use during that time.

Temp is 95 deg F (35C), now why don't we use CO2 in our chillers, the heat pump would work better. I remember that would be making use of a waste product that maybe should not be released in such large amounts.

Some people do. The refrigerant R744 is just plain old CO2. The problem is that pressures have to be well over 1000psi to work as a refrigerant at the range of temperatures we want to work at - and that's expensive. (And if a 1000psi accumulator lets go you do not want to be anywhere near it!)

My ext-cord 12ga 50ft arrived now need to get DC cables from my 4KW MOD WAVE inverter to my under sized SLA connected to 75amp 400vdc-12vdc stepdown to keep food cold or a fan for me.

What's the source of the 400 volts? Your EV? If so be careful. Those systems are NOT designed to be easy to connect to.