The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The only people denying that the climate changes are the ones that think the earth is 4,000 years old.

To that list you can add, petroleum geologists.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Energy/ Economy-human wellbeing/ Population have been highly correlated at nearly 1:1:1. Total world primary energy by source is still 87% from fossil carbon. Gross Domestic Product could be rebranded Gross Domestic Burning. Additions of solar and wind (actual production- not capacity) are not quite keeping pace with growth and development. They are not able to displace anything. Not to mention lift up 1 billion people that don't even have reliable electricity. Or 3 billion that still cook and heat with wood. Germany is a world leader in working to replace all fossil carbon energy.
.
Here is the latest 2018 chart for primary energy consumption by source for Germany. Solar and wind up to 4.6%. Double their value if you like for being electricity instead of thermal if they could achieve the full electrification of all remaining liquid fuel and heat processes.
.
.

.
.

The data has no significance without the context of load.And load is not locked in stasis.It can vary almost instantaneously with the stroke of a pen,rearranging ink on a paper.Your graphic completely misrepresents potentialities,as if the world was locked in an immovable paradigm.An endlessly continuing theme.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Unfortunately clean energy does not achieve anywhere near the scale of the carbon energy we are now addicted to. Additional solar and wind build out is not quite keeping up with the growth of energy consumption. And new hydro is being increasingly frowned upon. Despite the best efforts of some Euro countries like Germany, the World is still actually using more carbon energy year on year as we chase growth and poor countries try to rise up.
.
.

.
.

.
.
.

The sooner we transition away from carbon energy,the sooner we'll get away from the entropy-trap of combustion,and realize a remarkable reduction in demand,reduction in power requirements.With an overall thermal efficiency of 15%,fossil carbon combustion is the greatest demonstration of waste ever conceived.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I don't think you quoted what you think you quoted. I wasn't talking about cell phones or technology; merely stating the obvious, that economics depends on fossil fuel consumption, and that is why developing countries are given a pass to consume whatever amount it takes for them to be considered "developed". Then they can join the rest of the people in feeling miserable, depressed, self-loathing, and consider themselves no-good exploiters of the oppressed.

Economics doesn't depend on fossil fuels.Energy is the issue.The longer you beat the same drum,the longer it will take for those you influence,to turn away from fossil fuel.And the longer it will take to reduce necessary capacity.
I've told you three times now,that China and India are exempt from emissions until they reach industrial parity,as defined by the U.N..Concentrate on the Unites States.That's where you live,and have an impact.
I strongly recommend that you spend time with the 2nd law of thermodynamics until you realize the folly of combustion,in an era of renewable electricity.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

...load is not locked in stasis.It can vary almost instantaneously with the stroke of a pen,rearranging ink on a paper.Your graphic completely misrepresents potentialities,as if the world was locked in an immovable paradigm.

The pen has no power; it's the presumption of authority that gives the pen the illusion of power. If people don't feel that what the pen prescribes is in their best interest, it loses all authority. Proclaiming something is also a long ways away from implementing strategy to achieve the proclamation too. For those reasons, we are locked into an extremely difficult to move paradigm.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

I think you must be still conflating total primary ENERGY with total ELECTRICITY. Which is only a small part of the total energy the world uses...So we see a defensive reply that we have also seen many times before, that a chart from 2017 is totally outdated. Which it is not. Only one year has passed and growth of World energy consumption is still far outpacing actual added solar and wind PRODUCTION (which is also constantly conflated with added CAPACITY). There is only 1 year newer data possible. And please see that the newest chart that I just posted just came out for Germany and is showing the 2018 (we are still in 2019 by the way so there is no way to get a newer annual total) total primary energy by source. They are a World leader in spending per capita on solar and wind buildout and are now up to 4.6% of their ENERGY consumption from these sources. We are being admonished by the strikers to 'Tell the truth". Facts are facts.

Capacity is contextual and conditional,and meaningless without a discussion of current load.The power requirement to satisfy current load is not set in cement.And since much of current load is horrifically inefficient,and or expendable,we could be doing the same tasks with less overall energy,if it were a priority.All statistical charts misrepresent potentialities afforded with off-the-shelf technology.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Overgeneralization.Stereotypical demonization.Logic bypass.Appeal to emotion.
A short presentation on your part will help us all process the IPCC data you've experienced,for the common good.Otherwise,we're stuck in an identical context trap.

I already pointed out some of the cherry picking they did in the latest report but the true believers didn't want to hear it. Also the numerous temperature scenarios the ipcc had where clearly it wasn't going to be the end of the world.

Reading ipcc reports has absolutely confirmed that the climate cult true believes don't read the reports in their entirety for them selves. They might control F browse them for the most sensational bits and that's if they ever lay eyes on a report.

Riddle me this, the morning that the last ipcc report came out the cultists were in full melt down. The report had only been out for several hours at that point. How did they read 1,170 pages in a few hours?
Do you really expect someone to browse the report for maybe an hour and be able to give a rational assessment?

How about the The "quantification in oceann heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper retraction?
That was the main paper used to make the ipcc oceans and cryosphere report.
None of them dare comment on the retraction, which tells me all I need to know.

The worst thing that could happen to the climate change movement is for people to read these reports for them selves. The true believers won't try to weaponize the reports and the children stressing out, needing mental health help because they are worried about climate change ending the world will be way better off. People on the fence will jump on to the rational side where climate change does happen but it's not any where near being able to kill even a slightly inconvenient number of us.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I posted this over at a long beaten horse topic and it got moved so as long as I'm in the lounge let me post it in the correct thread.

Here's what I have learned from the application of science. Oh I had the classroom theory, year, and years, and years at the highest levels possible at the finest institutions. Training with a failure rate higher than that experienced by Navy Seals, just all academic not physical. So I learned how things are supposed to be, then for 8 years I applied it. often 80+ hours a week, at least 48 weeks a year. Titrations, spectrophotometers, centrifuges, ph meters, conductivity, salinity, turbidity, etc. The joke I had heard became reality. When you as field chemist are asked what something is, the reply is, "What do you want it to be?" Keep in mind this is in the realm of hard science. We know exactly what is happening, nothing is speculation, nothing is unknown in a process, we aren't filling in any blanks. We can push those precise analysis to a huge range of results based on tiny accuracy of analysis errors at each step. Now if the outcome didn't have a bias then most would wash out and overall you would have a pretty honest result. But when you have done it a thousand times you soon find that those paying the checks actually are looking for specific results. So you give them what they expect.

Now I look at man's effect on the climate and the results both sides get, knowing what it is like in the real world. I also know from my almost 50 years of riding this planet how amazing it all seems to be. It's not some fragile piece of glass waiting to be shattered by a small input from man. Animals aren't fragile, people aren't fragile, plants aren't fragile, the rocks, the core, the atmosphere, none of it, is weak.

one place where I see the bias pushing results, is in the burying of solutions that could help remove C02, if it does need removed, if those solutions don't also involve a political push that the convenient truth of favors one political religion. So say large CO2 scrubbers. I have read detailed reports that show how that could be done on a large scale at under $100 per ton. Worst case $1000 per ton with current technology. I always hear how batteries will get better and less expensive with time an application, so wouldn't that be true here as well? Maybe $50/ton is possible one day. But even at $1000/ton it still would be less expensive that the Green New Deal. What it doesn't do is control people, scare them into voting a certain way, live a way good for the state, and all the other things where the solution seems to be the same solution communism was supposed to fix.

This doesn't even touch on all the unknowns, that you have to plug into models. Again pushing the results where you want the outcome to fall. What do clouds do? We don't know, so we guess. Imagine what the guess is from those that want this to be a huge problem? That's right more clouds, and clouds don't cool they heat even more. We don't know that there will be more clouds, or that clouds will heat even more, but we will take that error of analysis and carry it forward to the next guess we make. This time about say the ocean's carbon sink, and on and on. To get the small warming that will somehow make part of the Earth uninhabitable, you have to keep multiplying those guesses by themselves because if you took an more average approach we would end up with results that we have actually experienced the last 20 years, rather than the results that scare people into submitting to their religion.

This is not a personal attack,just an observation.
After reading your post,I'm left with the impression that,you have absolutely no command of climate science,otherwise,it would have 'shown' itself.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The data has no significance without the context of load.And load is not locked in stasis.It can vary almost instantaneously with the stroke of a pen,rearranging ink on a paper.Your graphic completely misrepresents potentialities,as if the world was locked in an immovable paradigm.An endlessly continuing theme.

That is ridiculous. Built out infrastructure doesn't change with the stroke of a pen. Data does not lie. Denying it does nothing to suggest wise and pragmatic actions that can lead us to change. Energy load is dependant upon many considerations. Even with an institution of worldwide Marshal Law and extreme imposed authoritarian austerity. Mainly at this point being, the infrastructure that uses it. Which must be totally rebuilt to change from liquid fuel and natural gas, to electricity. Of which many industrial processes, mining and refining, and agriculture have no practical electrical possibility in sight at this scale for 7.6 billion people. This will take hundreds of trillions of dollars and several decades. It has taken us 70 years of the Great Acceleration to grow this big and it will take just as long to build it into something else all over again with a controlled degrowth at a rate that does not seem so much like a total collapse.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

If global warming happens there will be more usable land for food production. We could easily support more people. Not that I want it to happen but Sibrea and Canada, the largest land masses on the planet, go from poor or unusable farmland to good farmland. Look at the size of Sibrea, it's amazing to consider.

If you'd followed the scientific literature on food production over the last 30-years,you would have experienced enough counterfactual evidence to disabuse yourself of your notions of increased food production.And you'd know that nutrition levels of today's cereal grains are already in decline.