Originally posted by demi-conservative
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong
Collapse
X
-
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostObserve how it's been derailed to 'who is currently the biggest polluter, and how do we define it'. Instead of facing facts, that in the next several decades the emissions of China + India alone, let alone the rest of the developing world, will skyrocket. Absolutely skyrocket, past how many more "points of no return".
They're not serious about addressing the huge problem they claim exists, and it's not worth taking them too seriously.
India, in contrast, is in a sharp upwards swing, and their past governments were pushing coal right up until the point where renewables became cheaper. The plus side of things is that they've still got over 100 million people without any electricity, and the grid is underpowered and unstable where it exists, so there's a lot of space for renewables to occupy. They're now pushing solar hard, but there's some committed infrastructure there, and I don't have a strong sense of their government's commitment to things — it will require ongoing commitment to diplomatic pressure by the countries that have sane climate policies (which pretty much means the industrialized democracies except the US and Australia*).
Is that "taking it seriously" enough for your tastes, or would you care to define what would be?
*Canada's climate policy is badly internally inconsistent, but they talk a good game internationally at least."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostIs that "taking it seriously" enough for your tastes, or would you care to define what would be?
Also, care to address the fact that the price of solar power is artificially low because of China's dumping, and that can't last?Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostIt's a small start. Now acknowledge the statement about "points of no return".
It's a rather dishonest way to participate in a discussion. As i said earlier, it would be nice if you discontinued it.
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostAlso, care to address the fact that the price of solar power is artificially low because of China's dumping, and that can't last?"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostI've already addressed that at least twice in other threads, and just posted relevant information to it in a neighboring thread. I'm not here to jump through hoops for your satisfaction. The statement i quoted was meant as sarcasm, to highlight the fact that you have been consistently imputing things about other people here without ever once bothering to find out whether they're actually true first.
It's a rather dishonest way to participate in a discussion. As i said earlier, it would be nice if you discontinued it.
Even if dumping were clearly occurring (and i haven't seen evidence confirming it has; please share if you have itRemember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostI impute these common characteristics about screaming about 'points of no returns', because they are typical of the 'sky is falling!!!!' crowd. You know this. If you take a different position, make it clear. If you've addressed it elsewhere, link the post. Otherwise what's the point of engagement.
Here's something that should not be a newsflash: people who want to do something about climate change have a huge range of opinions about what they'd like to see done about it, and differ on how they feel the best way to build support for their favored options. That's the reality. Your approach in this discussion has been "i'm going to assume everyone who disagrees with me does so for reasons i dislike, and treat them accordingly."
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostAre you seriously saying that you were not aware that China was dumping solar technology on a massive scale? Just google 'china dumping solar' if you are seriously that ignorant."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Stumbled across this while at work today. Haven't checked the original paper, so, treat the press release with appropriate caution. But it's one of a huge number of surveys that show that trust in science has remained largely steady for many decades.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-amh111419.php
This one's especially interesting given that it uses the General Social Survey, a non-commercial source of data that's got a long history, and (if i recall correctly) is fairly large."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostObserve how it's been derailed to 'who is currently the biggest polluter, and how do we define it'. Instead of facing facts, that in the next several decades the emissions of China + India alone, let alone the rest of the developing world, will skyrocket. Absolutely skyrocket, past how many more "points of no return".
They're not serious about addressing the huge problem they claim exists, and it's not worth taking them too seriously.
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostNo. While the overall volume is important, the volume for each country isn't.
For one thing, CO2, the atmosphere and the global climate don't recognise national boundaries.
But more relevantly, stating that the US produces more CO2 than Andorra doesn't really tell us anything. We'd expect that to be the case, because the US is so much bigger than Andorra. Just like we'd expect there to be more dentists in Canada than in Lichtenstein, and more hamburgers sold in Texas than in Rhode Island. If you want to make sensible comparisons between the performance of nations (or states/provinces/counties/etc) you need to compensate for size and population, and compare per capita values, or maybe per km2 values, or some combination of these. That way you might find that on average Texans eat 160 hamburgers per year while Rhode Islanders only eat 75, or that there is one dentist in Lichtenstein for every 1200 people, but Chinese dentists each serve 26200 people.*
Egypt has about four times as many people as Australia. If the Egyptians and the Australians are producing similar amounts of pollution, Egypt would produce four times as much CO2 as Australia. If Egypt is producing more than four times as much as Australia, then the Egyptians are bigger polluters than Australians. If Egypt is producing less than four times as much as Australia, then it's the Australians that are the bigger polluters.
*I made these numbers up, obviously
I'll reread it tomorrow when I'm not so tired and get back to you."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostRoy, I think you left out a word somewhere - or maybe I'm not following.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
I do believe that the pollution and global warming emissions of India is the largest 'elephant' in the room, and may become the largest polluter, and not China. The international community should put the 'thumb screws' on India to change, but again they are not united to address pollution nor global warming.
Unfortunately the USA is far behind the game as far as the efforts of the International community. The current administration as well as the Conservative blockade is living in denial and passing out plastic straws. and contributing to the lack of unified efforts to address pollution and global warming The problems with India and the USA are part of the reasons why I do not believe that the international efforts fall far short of significantly reducing nor ending the trend of global warming.Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-20-2019, 08:06 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostDon't know how reliable PV Magazine is as a source, but assuming they can copy/paste a table correctly, these figures seem relevant:
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/07/...an-reputation/
It indicates that CA gets about 3X the imported power from renewables as it does from coal, and that coal's share of the imports has been cut in half over the last five years. I'm reasonably certain that the state's renewable mandates include out-of-state power, so this is almost certainly policy driven. I know it was a major factor in the closing of a coal plant in Arizona.
Here are the 2018 figures.
California Energy Commission
Total System Electric Generation
2019-11-20_09-07-13.jpg
Source: CEC-1304 Power Plant Owners Reporting Form and SB 1305 Reporting Regulations.
In-state generation is reported generation from units one megawatt and larger.
Contact: Michael Nyberg, [email protected]
Data as of June 24, 2019
Pushing the numbers around, zeroing in on imports, the largest category is "Unspecified."
PV mag says the NW imports are principally hydro.
There is one significant hole in CEC’s data, in that it shows 28.0 TWh of imports – nearly a third of the total – as “unspecified”. The large majority of that power is from the Northwest, which is dominated by hydroelectric power but also has wind and coal-fired power plants.
Unspecified SW imports amounting to 14 percent of total imports sounds like Mexican coal plants to me, which would bump coal from 10 to 24 percent of imported power, and fossil fuels imports from 20 to 34 percent, topping the 29 percent total for all renewable imports. That would be at maximum.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostNo. While the overall volume is important, the volume for each country isn't.
For one thing, CO2, the atmosphere and the global climate don't recognise national boundaries.
But more relevantly, stating that the US produces more CO2 than Andorra doesn't really tell us anything.
Sorry, sometimes I think I'm funny.
Serious now: so, if this is so, why do we care about per capita?
We'd expect that to be the case, because the US is so much bigger than Andorra. Just like we'd expect there to be more dentists in Canada than in Lichtenstein, and more hamburgers sold in Texas than in Rhode Island. If you want to make sensible comparisons between the performance of nations (or states/provinces/counties/etc) you need to compensate for size and population, and compare per capita values, or maybe per km2 values, or some combination of these. That way you might find that on average Texans eat 160 hamburgers per year while Rhode Islanders only eat 75, or that there is one dentist in Lichtenstein for every 1200 people, but Chinese dentists each serve 26200 people.*
Egypt has about four times as many people as Australia. If the Egyptians and the Australians are producing similar amounts of pollution, Egypt would produce four times as much CO2 as Australia. If Egypt is producing more than four times as much as Australia, then the Egyptians are bigger polluters than Australians. If Egypt is producing less than four times as much as Australia, then it's the Australians that are the bigger polluters.
This calculation only works if pop is the only variable - but that isn't so in the real world. I understand how per capita is calculated - we use it all the time in Poli Sci. What I don't get is why this is a useful metric - specifically, why is per capita a better metric than overall volume in this particular case*.
*I made these numbers up, obviously
*I know per capita matters as a metric in many cases - but I don't see its application in figuring out where most of the pollution is coming from.Last edited by Teallaura; 11-20-2019, 07:51 PM."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Er - maybe I'm just missing the obvious - are we talking climate science or climate politics?"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
Comment