The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

UK electricity by source. 2019 is not yet in the books and it takes time to tabulate the data from 2018. This chart is the newest I can find and has only one year of data missing so cannot be refuted as totally obsolete.
.
.

.
.
UK Total primary energy by source as of two years ago including waste heat (which might someday in the mid future be improved by a factor of 2.5 if we can transform all technology to achieve the perfect electrification of all activity). They lumped all non carbon energy together at 17% and didn't include a break out for wind and solar which would have been about 5%. Which is similar to the other world leader, Germany.
.
.

.
.

The numbers are meaningless without a discussion of how it's used.

[redneck]

.

The world needs a massive carbon tax in just 10 years to limit climate change, IMF says


https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...ange-imf-says/

In the United States, a $75 tax would cut emissions by nearly 30 percent but would cause on average a 53 percent increase in electricity costs and a 20 percent rise for gasoline at projected 2030 prices, the analysis in the IMF’s Fiscal Monitor found.

.






And...







>

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Select a topic,make a case,and see what ensues.I've been reading the actual peer-reviewed research papers into my third year now.I have a sense of what's in the reports.I don't feel a need to read a phone book.Fire away!

So no comment on the retraction?
You remind me of Elizabeth warren when asked about raising taxes.

I will play make believe and pretend the paper that made up the frame work for the oceans and cryosphere ipcc report hadn't been retracted in nature and that it's still relevant, since that's what your doing.

In this report the ipcc defines pre industrial climate as the time between 1850 and 1900.
This seems odd to me for several reasons:
The industrial revolution had already stated by 1850 then exploded from 1850 to 1900.
There is seemingly no upper time limit to what "pre industrial" climate could be defined as time wise but they went with 50 years.
Just 50 years doesn't really fit the definition of climate.
1850 was the end of the little ice age and there was a rather large volcanic eruption in 1883 that caused the earth to be cooler for up to 10% of that 50 year time frame.
Why does it seem like they cherry picked a time period to define the base line for pre industrial climate in a time that isn't pre industrial or long enough to be climate and we know was unusually cool because of explainable events?

[RedDevil]

Those are 2016 UK numbers, but the scene is changing rapidly - especially in the electricity branch:
https://fortune.com/2019/10/15/uk-renewable-energy-40-percent-fossil-fuel/

Renewable energy has made a breakthrough in the U.K. The third quarter of this year was the first where more electricity was generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels.

According to new analysis by the climate change analysis site Carbon Brief, Q3 saw 40% of power come from renewables such as wind, biomass and solar, while fossil fuels—almost all gas, as coal and oil now have a negligible share of the U.K. energy scene—accounted for 39% of generation. (The remaining 21% largely came from nuclear.)

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The numbers are meaningless without a discussion of how it's used.

Only to you. To the rest of the world, this is current data.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Those are 2016 UK numbers, but the scene is changing rapidly - especially in the electricity branch:
https://fortune.com/2019/10/15/uk-re...t-fossil-fuel/

"According to new analysis by the climate change analysis site Carbon Brief, Q3 saw 40% of power come from renewables such as wind, biomass and solar, while fossil fuels—almost all gas, as coal and oil now have a negligible share of the U.K. energy scene—accounted for 39% of generation. (The remaining 21% largely came from nuclear.)"
.
.
They are doing the thing. Conflating the terms "energy" and "electricity".
.
Electricity is only a small fraction of total primary energy consumption.
.
.

.
.

.
. I couldn't find a chart with a better break out for UK "renewables and nuclear" But this is the newest chart showing the totals from 2018 for Germany which will slightly lead UK on wind and solar at 4.6%.
.
.

.
.
And then to keep this in perspective for the world, additions of fossil fuel consumption outpace new added production from renwables by 2-3X every year. Energy consumption is growing far faster than solar and wind are being built out.
.
.

.
.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's what I have been saying all along less ice is good, I would be more worries if the glaciers are growing.

Sea ice algae is the beginning of the marine food chain.Zooplankton and Phytoplankton feed off it.Phytoplankton is where our oxygen comes from.
When the sea ice goes,we're looking at the collapse of the marine life.
The albedo effects from the loss of ice will be runaway warming.Methane clathrates will melt,amplifying the greenhouse effect.More runaway warming.
Thermal expansion of oceans.Accelerated ice sheet melting.Accelerated glacier calving,sea-level rise.Loss of ice mass means tectonic rebound,exacerbating sea-level rise.Corral death.Collapse of fisheries.Ocean acidification and loss of all shellfish,mollusks,plankton.
Extinction of polar species.Freshwater pulse to arctic and antarctic will effect thermohaline circulation with unknown consequences.
Atmospheric warming will harm food production.Latent heat will kill.Non-linear feedback loops will accelerate change beyond timescales in which technology could affect adaptation.Nuclear power will become impossible as heat sink disappears....................It just goes on and on........................
The atmosphere was stable for 11,000-years until we started burning coal.For current CO2 concentrations we'll see 70-feet of sea rise.No life forms evolved for abrupt climate change.It's the rate of change that's going to take us out.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

"Given the math, human tendencies, and the issues pertaining to time, scale and cost, the current green energy movement currently is little more than hot air. It’s just not going to happen in time.

We’re nowhere close to being able to build out the massive energy projects required. The equivalent of 200, 10 MW off shore (or 450, 4MW onshore) wind turbines every day for the next 30 years? That’s a total pipe dream. While at the same time replacing all built out fossil fuel infrastructure with electric.

We lack the political will, the cultural readiness, the proper narrative. Even the appropriate resources.

Beyond those concerns, nearly everything about how we heat, move, cool and manufacture the components of our modern lives will have to be refashioned (and possibly jettisoned) as part of that project.

Such an ambitious undertaking has no historical analog. It’s a ridiculously complex set of problems (which have solutions) and predicaments (which don’t). It’s exactly the sort of situation that politicians will avoid as long as possible, after which it will be too late to do very much about it"
.
https://www.peakprosperity.com/getti...-green-energy/
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpi.../#776522c935f7

It will never happen,with you talking like that.The last 20-years in the Middle East has cost us 2.3-Terrawatts of installed renewable power.Up in smoke.We'd never have been there if it weren't for petroleum.That's more power than we'd need if we could get away from fossil-fuel entropy.What you defend the most is what we need to end as fast as we possibly can.
We've got enough off-the-shelf technology to work with today.The longer we delay,the nastier the picture becomes.

[freebeard]

The atmosphere was stable bistable for 11,000-years until we started burning coal.

.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by litesong

Yes, communist chinese (always small letters), who murdered, tortured & starved to death, 100 million of their own Brothers, Sisters, Children & Babies, make all Asians go wild.
Possibly due to distance from communist chinese(always small letters), the rest of the world will not accept the idea, that communist chinese(always small letters) want to subdue (murder, torture, starve to death) the rest of the world, too. So, the world gives wealth to the communist chinese (always small letters) for shoddy products, so communist chinese(always small letters) can murder, torture & starve people to death......easily.

communism has to do with who owns the means of production.It has absolutely nothing to do with statecraft.