Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[ohmman]

Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

"This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw: It works only when the sun shines. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.

"Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear," Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, tweeted after news of the deal surfaced late last month. "Because of growing economies of scale, prices for renewables and batteries keep coming down," adds Jacobson, who has advised countries around the world on how to shift to 100% renewable electricity. As if on cue, last week a major U.S. coal company—West Virginia–based Revelation Energy LLC—filed for bankruptcy, the second in as many weeks.

The new solar plus storage effort will be built in Kern County in California by 8minute Solar Energy. The project is expected to create a 400-megawatt solar array, generating roughly 876,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, enough to power more than 65,000 homes during daylight hours. Its 800-MWh battery will store electricity for after the sun sets, reducing the need for natural gas–fired generators."

 

[mspohr]

Study: Climate Change Linked to More Rain in Hurricanes

As Hurricane Barry trudges towards New Orleans, it's not the gale force winds grabbing the public spotlight. It's the rain, a byproduct of man-made climate change, according to a paper published in the journal Nature.

A tremendous amount of rain — 10 to 20 inches — is expected to fall from Thursday night to Saturday. That's on the heels of a tropical rainstorm that dropped seven inches of rain on Wednesday. Usually New Orleans gets six inches of rain in July, according to the New York Times.

Barry's rainfall is no longer an outlier, but a symptom of climate change. The research paper found that climate change intensified the rains of three major hurricanes that made landfall in the U.S. — Katrina, Irma and Maria — by 4 to 9 percent. The scientists also predicted that future warming could increase rainfall totals for the most extreme hurricanes and tropical cyclones by up to 30 percent, as PBSreported.

 

[Swampgator]

You do know that tropical cyclones and hurricanes are the same thing, right?

So again your statements above are self-contradictory.

You do know that tropical cyclones and hurricanes are the same thing, right?

So again your statements above are self-contradictory.

Of course I know that. You own bias causes you to assume anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant, or stupid. And no, my comments do not contradict each other. Learn logic.

 

[Swampgator]

Study: Climate Change Linked to More Rain in Hurricanes

As Hurricane Barry trudges towards New Orleans, it's not the gale force winds grabbing the public spotlight. It's the rain, a byproduct of man-made climate change, according to a paper published in the journal Nature.

A tremendous amount of rain — 10 to 20 inches — is expected to fall from Thursday night to Saturday. That's on the heels of a tropical rainstorm that dropped seven inches of rain on Wednesday. Usually New Orleans gets six inches of rain in July, according to the New York Times.

Barry's rainfall is no longer an outlier, but a symptom of climate change. The research paper found that climate change intensified the rains of three major hurricanes that made landfall in the U.S. — Katrina, Irma and Maria — by 4 to 9 percent. The scientists also predicted that future warming could increase rainfall totals for the most extreme hurricanes and tropical cyclones by up to 30 percent, as PBSreported.

Study: Climate Change Linked to More Rain in Hurricanes

As Hurricane Barry trudges towards New Orleans, it's not the gale force winds grabbing the public spotlight. It's the rain, a byproduct of man-made climate change, according to a paper published in the journal Nature.

A tremendous amount of rain — 10 to 20 inches — is expected to fall from Thursday night to Saturday. That's on the heels of a tropical rainstorm that dropped seven inches of rain on Wednesday. Usually New Orleans gets six inches of rain in July, according to the New York Times.

Barry's rainfall is no longer an outlier, but a symptom of climate change. The research paper found that climate change intensified the rains of three major hurricanes that made landfall in the U.S. — Katrina, Irma and Maria — by 4 to 9 percent. The scientists also predicted that future warming could increase rainfall totals for the most extreme hurricanes and tropical cyclones by up to 30 percent, as PBSreported.

I followed your link, and then read the two studies referenced. They are both junk science. Using conjecture and up front bias to confirm their own thesis. Alas, this is what most science has become. Bet they got some nice grant money for that trash though. And likely more to come!

 

[mspohr]

More FUD on tree planting... It might maybe provide an excuse for deniers to keep using fossil fuels.

Exaggerating how much carbon dioxide can be absorbed by tree planting risks deterring crucial climate action

Our research suggests that the promises implied in such studies could actually set back meaningful action on climate change. This is because of what we call "mitigation deterrence"—promises of cheap and easy CO2 removal in future make it less likely that time and money will be invested in reducing emissions now.

Why would anyone expect governments or the finance sectorto invest in renewable energy, or mass transit like high-speed rail, at costs of tens or hundreds of dollars a tonne if they—and shareholders and voters—are told that huge amounts of CO2can be absorbed from the atmosphere for a few dollars a tonne by planting trees?


http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/amdeg/files/2...e_by_negative_emissions_technologies_nets.pdfTechnical summary. This paper offers a new theoretical perspective on the risk that geoengineering interventions might deter or delay mitigation (previously typically described as moral hazard). Drawing on a brief review of mitigation deterrence (MD) in solar geoengineering, it suggests a novel analytical viewpoint going beyond and contrasting with the methodological individualist, managerialist and economist analyses common in the literature. Three distinct registers to assist identification and interpretation of situations and processes through which MD might arise are elaborated and compared. The paper shows that moving from a realist register via a cultural register to a cultural political economy register, makes it clearer how and why misperceived substitutability (between negative emissions technologies (NETs) and mitigation) and narrow climate policy goals matter for MD. We have also identified several plausible mechanisms for MD under a neoliberal political regime. The paper argues that MD cannot be overcome simply by better informing decision makers (the ‘realist’ response), or even by opening up the standard techno-economic framing of climate change and our responses (the ‘cultural’ response). The paper also concludes that the entire political regime that has evolved alongside specific economic interests is implicated in MD, and that the likelihood and significance of MD probably remain underappreciated and understudied.

 

[Swampgator]

Study: Climate Change Linked to More Rain in Hurricanes

As Hurricane Barry trudges towards New Orleans, it's not the gale force winds grabbing the public spotlight. It's the rain, a byproduct of man-made climate change, according to a paper published in the journal Nature.

A tremendous amount of rain — 10 to 20 inches — is expected to fall from Thursday night to Saturday. That's on the heels of a tropical rainstorm that dropped seven inches of rain on Wednesday. Usually New Orleans gets six inches of rain in July, according to the New York Times.

Barry's rainfall is no longer an outlier, but a symptom of climate change. The research paper found that climate change intensified the rains of three major hurricanes that made landfall in the U.S. — Katrina, Irma and Maria — by 4 to 9 percent. The scientists also predicted that future warming could increase rainfall totals for the most extreme hurricanes and tropical cyclones by up to 30 percent, as PBSreported.

"Here we used convection-permitting regional climate model simulations to investigate " Wow. Sounds definitive.

 

[Swampgator]

More FUD on tree planting... It might maybe provide an excuse for deniers to keep using fossil fuels.

Exaggerating how much carbon dioxide can be absorbed by tree planting risks deterring crucial climate action

Our research suggests that the promises implied in such studies could actually set back meaningful action on climate change. This is because of what we call "mitigation deterrence"—promises of cheap and easy CO2 removal in future make it less likely that time and money will be invested in reducing emissions now.

Why would anyone expect governments or the finance sectorto invest in renewable energy, or mass transit like high-speed rail, at costs of tens or hundreds of dollars a tonne if they—and shareholders and voters—are told that huge amounts of CO2can be absorbed from the atmosphere for a few dollars a tonne by planting trees?


http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/amdeg/files/2...e_by_negative_emissions_technologies_nets.pdfTechnical summary. This paper offers a new theoretical perspective on the risk that geoengineering interventions might deter or delay mitigation (previously typically described as moral hazard). Drawing on a brief review of mitigation deterrence (MD) in solar geoengineering, it suggests a novel analytical viewpoint going beyond and contrasting with the methodological individualist, managerialist and economist analyses common in the literature. Three distinct registers to assist identification and interpretation of situations and processes through which MD might arise are elaborated and compared. The paper shows that moving from a realist register via a cultural register to a cultural political economy register, makes it clearer how and why misperceived substitutability (between negative emissions technologies (NETs) and mitigation) and narrow climate policy goals matter for MD. We have also identified several plausible mechanisms for MD under a neoliberal political regime. The paper argues that MD cannot be overcome simply by better informing decision makers (the ‘realist’ response), or even by opening up the standard techno-economic framing of climate change and our responses (the ‘cultural’ response). The paper also concludes that the entire political regime that has evolved alongside specific economic interests is implicated in MD, and that the likelihood and significance of MD probably remain underappreciated and understudied.

So what you just posted concludes that, because trees (and plants) may be able to adsorb co2 and mitigate your "climate change" they could derail your CAGW agenda. Correct?

 

[ohmman]

You own bias

Ad hominem (circumstantial).

"Here we used convection-permitting regional climate model simulations to investigate " Wow. Sounds definitive.

Argument from personal incredulity.

Thanks for reminding us that we should all be careful of each other's logical fallacies.

What specifically don't you like about convection permitting models, aside from the name? They've shown improvement in localized rain prediction based on every published meta review I can find, dating back over 6 years.

 

[Swampgator]

Ad hominem (circumstantial).

Argument from personal incredulity.

Thanks for reminding us that we should all be careful of each other's logical fallacies.

What specifically don't you like about convection permitting models, aside from the name? They've shown improvement in localized rain prediction based on every published meta review I can find, dating back over 6 years.

Pointing out bias is not ad hominem. Calling someone a denier is.

I find it interesting that you have repeatedly called me out for perceived ad hominems, but have not done similar to the persons who blatantly use them against me. Perhaps that's because they are on "your" team?

As for models, in general they can be useful, but are never definitive. They are mathematical predictors based upon assumptions made by the modelers. When their results do not fit the actual observations, they simply adjust them (using whatever fudge factors required) to meet those results.
Below is a graph comparing the best IPCC CMIP-5 model results vs actual observed data. You can see they were fairly far off.
While a high resolution convection permitting model may be useful for local weather predictions, it is silly to think you could use it to retroactively prove that a hurricane would have been less intense 100 years ago. But even if it were perfect, what does that show? It was cooler 100 years ago. So theoretically a hurricane would show as weaker in energy just from that one variable alone. But guess what, the most intense land-falling hurricane in the US, ever, occurred in 1935. Well before man was pumping much CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

[jrad6515]

Of course I know that. You own bias causes you to assume anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant, or stupid. And no, my comments do not contradict each other. Learn logic.

Good luck my friend, but logic is not something that these practitioners of the fine art of cognitive dissonance would understand.

 

[jrad6515]

Pointing out bias is not ad hominem. Calling someone a denier is.

I find it interesting that you have repeatedly called me out for perceived ad hominems, but have not done similar to the persons who blatantly use them against me. Perhaps that's because they are on "your" team?

As for models, in general they can be useful, but are never definitive. They are mathematical predictors based upon assumptions made by the modelers. When their results do not fit the actual observations, they simply adjust them (using whatever fudge factors required) to meet those results.
Below is a graph comparing the best IPCC CMIP-5 model results vs actual observed data. You can see they were fairly far off.
While a high resolution convection permitting model may be useful for local weather predictions, it is silly to think you could use it to retroactively prove that a hurricane would have been less intense 100 years ago. But even if it were perfect, what does that show? It was cooler 100 years ago. So theoretically a hurricane would show as weaker in energy just from that one variable alone. But guess what, the most intense land-falling hurricane in the US, ever, occurred in 1935. Well before man was pumping much CO2 into the atmosphere.

View attachment 429238

Of course everything you say is correct but don’t try using logic on these sanctimonious ideologues. Remember this is an anti-science socialist echo chamber and dissent is NOT allowed.

They can’t rebut but any of your facts but they can call you names and then accuse you of being the one who is practicing ad hominems.

The good news is that we are contributing to a lot of “climate despair” around here, lol.

 

[xfea]

Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"
A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

 

[Dr. J]

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan

He may mean "corroborated."

high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate

Cool! Looks like we'll finally see Buck Rogers' Anti-Galactic Cosmic Ray Gun!

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect.

https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

Zerohedge is an extremely unreliable source for any type of information. You can tell it's not science-based because of the jump to the new right-wing bugaboo, AOC. HTH.

 

[jrad6515]

[QUOTE="Dr. J, post: 3830290, member: 64466”]


Zerohedge is an extremely unreliable source for any type of information. You can tell it's not science-based because of the jump to the new right-wing bugaboo, AOC. HTH.[/QUOTE]



Hmmm… You know I think you’re right. Who could question an intellectual giant like AOC?:

 

[ohmman]

Pointing out bias is not ad hominem.

Wrong again.

I find it interesting that you have repeatedly called me out for perceived ad hominems, but have not done similar to the persons who blatantly use them against me. Perhaps that's because they are on "your" team?

Nope, it's because you weaponized logical fallacies (occasionally incorrectly) in your posts here in attempts to invalidate others' arguments. I imagine that you don't want to perpetuate the climate "skeptic" stereotype of being hypocrites, so I'm here for you.

While a high resolution convection permitting model may be useful for local weather predictions, it is silly to think you could use it to retroactively prove that a hurricane would have been less intense 100 years ago. But even if it were perfect, what does that show? It was cooler 100 years ago.

Regarding models, I understand their limitations and usefulness, as I built them for years. "All models are wrong, but some are useful." Did you download the entire study or just read the abstract? They controlled for temperature changes attributable to anthropogenic emissions, so no, it doesn't only prove what you said.

 

[nwdiver]

The deniers can't even come up with a remotely plausible alternative hypothesis, that's WHY they're deniers. They're not FOR anything. They're just against the idea that CO2 accumulation is in anyway bad because it threatens their precious worldview. Cosmic Rays??? LOL Really?

For the ~dozenth time; What alternative hypothesis fits the observations better than the ~40% rise in CO2 levels causing a change in the radiative balance of the atmosphere????????

 

[ohmman]

Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"
A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Here's the link to the actual publication.

"sensitivity ∆T2CO2 = 0.24dC derived in the papers [3, 2, 4]"
Those papers [3, 2, 4]? Their own. None of which have been peer-reviewed and one of which never made publication.

Actual ∆T2CO2 from other sources across the board? Anywhere between 1.5dC and 4.5dC.

 

[jrad6515]

Great video by Tony Heller documenting the climate tampering fraud by NOAA/NASA in recent years:

None of you alarmists will be able to refute any of this with data so I expect to see a lot of name calling, cognitive dissonance, ad hominems, big oil conspiracies, Trump Derangement Syndrome, and frantic calls for censorship and lengthy video conferences, lol.

 

[jrad6515]

News flash: Porn causes climate change!:

Watching Porn Produces as Much Carbon Dioxide Emissions as Whole Countries – Research

Digital technology has an invisible environmental impact, but researchers suggest it might actually be very, very sizeable, so you better get your hands off your laptop if you don’t want to be a climate criminal.

So next time one of you AGW wankers wants to look at porn just remember you are destroying the planet!

 

[nwdiver]

as Much Carbon Dioxide Emissions as Whole Countries – Research

So you agree that CO2 causes climate change? If only there was an energy source that didn't emit CO2.... oh, wait...

For the ~13th time.... if it's not the ~40% rise in CO2... WHAT IS IT???????????????