Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Swampgator]

But removing the climate change component entirely still shows comparable numbers of deaths per GWh of electricity between fossil fuels and wind, so why do you point out the bird argument to begin with?

But removing the climate change component entirely still shows comparable numbers of deaths per GWh of electricity between fossil fuels and wind, so why do you point out the bird argument to begin with?

But removing the climate change component entirely still shows comparable numbers of deaths per GWh of electricity between fossil fuels and wind, so why do you point out the bird argument to begin with?

Because I prefer solar to wind. Why go to an inferior method that still kills as many birds as coal/oil?
I can have my own solar panels and batteries, and not need a grid. That is the dream anyhow.

 

[nwdiver]

Tesla have shown that EVs are cheaper than ICE already.

Which would have not have occurred without government support and mandates. Why is solar so cheap now? Because the German government MASSIVELY supported it. But I get it... your religion is impossible without massive cherry picking of facts....

Because I prefer solar to wind.

Ok; you do you. Wind wins at night. It's cheaper than storage. If your neighbor wants to put up a 300' turbine that's his 'right'.... correct? Or am I misinterpreting your religion.

And birds died before there were ever wind turbines => wind turbines don't kill birds. Right?

 

[traxila]

Good questions. Governments have subsidized oil, gas, and coal historically. That is no more desirable than subsidizing wind or solar.
Even if they dropped all subsidies we would still use the military to subsidize the oil industry.
But I agree with Elon Musk here. Just get rid of them all. The market would then shirt to solar very rapidly. Tesla have shown that EVs are cheaper than ICE already. You don't need to steal money from people to give handouts to farmers to grow corn for ethanol for example.

Do you believe that a truly level playing field is possible? If realpolitik is to be considered and ideal situations acknowledged as ideal, there are going to be subsidies. Where do you want to see them? I understand that you prefer none.

 

[ohmman]

Because I prefer solar to wind. Why go to an inferior method that still kills as many birds as coal/oil?
I can have my own solar panels and batteries, and not need a grid. That is the dream anyhow.

I have solar and battery, and it’s nice. But I have family in Texas and lived there for many years. The utility grade wind they’ve installed makes their overnight prices free in many cases. That’s a technology that’s available today at scale while batteries are ramping up. Bird deaths are absolutely a concern in any construction project but I do think risks need to be addressed in context. You say that buildings are necessary, but there are easy mitigation techniques to avoid bird deaths. Yet aesthetics (glassy towers) win in most cases. I don’t see any way that the bird argument against wind has validity as anything but a tiny part of the technology. Honestly, given the way building decisions are made, the aesthetic argument against wind probably holds more clout. But I think that most people realize that doesn’t reflect on them positively so why not use birds as a proxy?

 

[nwdiver]

Odd how I've never met anyone that denies the physics of AGW that didn't also equate taxation with theft. I'm sure it's just as coincidence... like the massive amount of heat that's magically appearing in the oceans as CO2 levels rise ~40%. Just a coincidence.....

 

[Swampgator]

Which would have not have occurred without government support and mandates. Why is solar so cheap now? Because the German government MASSIVELY supported it. But I get it... your religion is impossible without massive cherry picking of facts....



Ok; you do you. Wind wins at night. It's cheaper than storage. If your neighbor wants to put up a 300' turbine that his 'right'.... correct? Or am I misinterpreting your religion.

And birds died before there were ever wind turbines => wind turbines don't kill birds. Right?

Why do you choose to fight with me on every point when we agree on some things and I am a fellow Tesla owner? I must get under your skin. Good.

As far as my "religion" goes: my neighbor voluntarily agreed to the covenants in our community when he purchased property here. He can put up a wind turbine when he moves out of the neighborhood and onto his own, none covenant governed property. He is free to do so.

Wind and solar are both intermittent power sources. They are not truly useful without storage except as feeders into the larger grid.. Why argue that point with me? I don't get you bro.

 

[nwdiver]

Why do you choose to fight with me on every point when we agree on some things and I am a fellow Tesla owner? I must get under your skin. Good.

As far as my "religion" goes: my neighbor voluntarily agreed to the covenants in our community when he purchased property here. He can put up a wind turbine when he moves out of the neighborhood and onto his own, none covenant governed property. He is free to do so.

Wind and solar are both intermittent power sources. They are not truly useful without storage except as feeders into the larger grid.. Why argue that point with me? I don't get you bro.

I'm just curious as to what you think caused the ice ages and the present warming trend.

 

[Swampgator]

Odd how I've never met anyone that denies the physics of AGW that didn't also equate taxation with theft. I'm sure it's just as coincidence... like the massive amount of heat that's magically appearing in the oceans as CO2 levels rise ~40%. Just a coincidence.....

I don't deny the physics. CO2 has a warming effect. Period Nice try though lumping me into a category.

What I keep arguing here is that there are feedbacks not fully understood that can and do moderate the warming effects of increased CO2. It's like this: If I place you into a temperature controlled room, and turn up the thermostat to 100F, I am placing an external forcing on your body temperature. Physics would show that you should warm up because of the increase in thermal energy. But you don't. You still maintain the same internal body temperature, because of your bodies feedback systems that work to cool you. So physics is good to explain simple things, but is not so useful for complex, dynamic systems.

 

[nwdiver]

I don't deny the physics. CO2 has a warming effect. Period Nice try though lumping me into a category.

What I keep arguing here is that there are feedbacks not fully understood that can and do moderate the warming effects of increased CO2. It's like this: If I place you into a temperature controlled room, and turn up the thermostat to 100F, I am placing an external forcing on your body temperature. Physics would show that you should warm up because of the increase in thermal energy. But you don't. You still maintain the same internal body temperature, because of your bodies feedback systems that work to cool you. So physics is good to explain simple things, but is not so useful for complex, dynamic systems.

LOL; Ok. Now put me in a space suit in a vacuum (Like the Earth) and redo your thought experiment. If you add 1w/m^2 to an object floating in a vacuum and it's only radiating and additional 0.2w/m^2 it heats up... physics. The Earth can't sweat. There is no evaporative cooling into space. Our oceans would have disappeared long ago if there was.... The Earth has 1 way to get rid of heat... radiation in the IR spectrum and CO2 LOVES to soak up radiation in the IR spectrum.

The vast majority of feedbacks we know about ACCELERATE the warming. If there were 'moderating' effects as you describe then 180ppm => 280ppm =>180ppm would not cause a ~10C swing from glacial to inter-glacial and a ~200'+ swing in sea levels.

 

[Swampgator]

I'm just curious as to what you think caused the ice ages and the present warming trend.

Complex factors. It has been warming since we came of of the little ice age in the 19th century. Well before man started burning fossil fuels.

As for older ice ages, lots of factors involved. Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity, meteor impacts, and continental shifts are just some of them.

 

[nwdiver]

Complex factors. It has been warming since we came of of the little ice age in the 19th century. Well before man started burning fossil fuels.

As for older ice ages, lots of factors involved. Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity, meteor impacts, and continental shifts are just some of them.

The ice ages specifically are cyclical. Triggered by the Milankovitch cycles. The change in radiative balance is orders of magnitude too small from the orbital oscillations to explain a 10C swing in temperature. WHAT. CAUSES. THE. 10C. CHANGE????????? You claim to accept physics. What does the physics point to?

 

[Swampgator]

LOL; Ok. Now put me in a space suit in a vacuum (Like the Earth) and redo your thought experiment. If you add 1w/m^2 to an object floating in a vacuum and it's only radiating and additional 0.2w/m^2 it heats up... physics. The Earth can't sweat. There is no evaporative cooling into space. Our oceans would have disappeared long ago if there was.... The Earth was 1 way to get rid of heat... radiation in the IR spectrum and CO2 LOVES to soak up radiation in the IR spectrum.

The vast majority of feedbacks we know about ACCELERATE the warming. If there were 'moderating' effects as you describe then 180ppm => 280ppm =>180ppm would not cause a ~10C swing from glacial to inter-glacial and a ~200'+ swing in sea levels.

The planet can and does radiate heat into space.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/

 

[nwdiver]

The planet can and does radiate heat into space.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/

Um..... yeah....

The Earth was 1 way to get rid of heat... radiation in the IR spectrum

What causes this balance to change enough to result in a 10C swing in temperature to cause ice ages?

 

[Swampgator]

The ice ages specifically are cyclical. Triggered by the Milankovitch cycles. The change in radiative balance is orders of magnitude too small from the orbital oscillations to explain a 10C swing in temperature. WHAT. CAUSES. THE. 10C. CHANGE????????? You claim to accept physics. What does the physics point to?

Where do you find a 10C increase in temperature?
It has only warmed about 0.8 C from every source I see. Are you referencing potential warming from the RCP8.5? Even IPCC admits that is highly unlikely to happen.

 

[Swampgator]

Where do you find a 10C increase in temperature?
It has only warmed about 0.8 C from every source I see. Are you referencing potential warming from the RCP8.5? Even IPCC admits that is highly unlikely to happen.

Is your religion really that simple? CO2 runs the global temperature like a thermostat?

 

[nwdiver]

Where do you find a 10C increase in temperature?
It has only warmed about 0.8 C from every source I see. Are you referencing potential warming from the RCP8.5? Even IPCC admits that is highly unlikely to happen.

The only coherent explanation is that orbital shifts cause a rise in CO2 levels which triggers a feedback effect. If it's not CO2 that's forcing this swing... what is it?

Is your religion really that simple? CO2 runs the global temperature like a thermostat?

Religions are not faslifiable by definition If you can falsify CO2 as the dominant forcing that would be awesome. And you would probably win a Nobel prize. Good luck....

 

[Swampgator]

The only coherent explanation is that orbital shifts cause a rise in CO2 levels which triggers a feedback effect. If it's not CO2 that's forcing this swing... what is it?

How do you propose an orbital shift causes a rise in CO2 levels?

 

[nwdiver]

How do you propose an orbital shift causes a rise in CO2 levels?

???? How.... How can you be this blindingly ignorant on a topic AND have the confidence to form a seemingly immovable opinion??? Are you literally blind to disconfirming information? Is your cognitive dissonance really that strong????

Exactly! The Milankovitch cycles TRIGGER a slight warming... CO2 comes out of solution when the oceans warms slightly because physics and more CO2 means warmer temperatures also because physics.... CO2 DRIVES climate into the inter-glacial...

 

[Swampgator]

???? How.... How can you be this blindingly ignorant on a topic AND have the confidence to form a seemingly immovable opinion??? Are you literally blind to disconfirming information? Is your cognitive dissonance really that strong????

You make zero sense. Orbital shifts do not cuase CO2 to rise. If they cause increases in temperature then CO2 may increase as a result. I think you are starting to get it. CO2 increases lag temperature increases. It does not cause the increase in the first place.
Here is a good start on glaciation and abrupt temperature regime changes. Read the entire 4 or 5 part series. Lot's of good information here.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/24/nature-unbound-i-the-glacial-cycle/

 

[nwdiver]

You make zero sense. Orbital shifts do not cuase CO2 to rise. If they cause increases in temperature then CO2 may increase as a result. I think you are starting to get it. CO2 increases lag temperature increases. It does not cause the increase in the first place.
Here is a good start on glaciation and abrupt temperature regime changes. Read the entire 4 or 5 part series. Lot's of good information here.
Nature Unbound I: The Glacial Cycle

... it's a SMALL increase in temperature. NOT a 10C rise. What causes the 10C rise? Warm water cannot hold as much gas in solution as cold water. If the oceans warm a little atmospheric CO2 levels will rise which alters the radiative balance which causes more warming => more CO2 comes out of the oceans => more warming until an equilibrium is reached after a ~10C rise. If it's not CO2 that drives the 10C rise.... WHAT. IS. IT?????

From your source;

'Yet, if CO2 is responsible for 100% of modern warming, why has it produced only a 0.8°C increase'
​

Funny how often people forget about the oceans. Again... >90% of the thermal energy is being absorbed by the oceans. If not for that buffer we would be suffering from a ~12C increase. It takes time to heat the oceans. As the child-in-chief says... they're 'big water'.