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
See more
See less

How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
    Observe 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.
    That comment explains a lot.
    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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
      Observe 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.
      To be honest, i'm more worried about India than China. China's emissions seems to have plateaued, and the country has far more renewable energy installed than anyone else on the planet, and have gone in big for electric vehicles. They also seem to be able to build nuclear reactors (though for all we know, their budget or safety standards on these builds may be just as bad as ours.) They've got a lot of work to do to bring the whole country up to the standard of living that their urban population enjoys, but at least all of those people will be given new — meaning efficient — homes, cars, etc.

      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 Post
        Is that "taking it seriously" enough for your tastes, or would you care to define what would be?
        It's a small start. Now acknowledge the statement about "points of no return".

        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 Post
          It's a small start. Now acknowledge the statement about "points of no return".
          I'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.

          Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
          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?
          It's not clear that it matters. The actual panels are a relatively small cost in photovoltaic installation. The support hardware/inverters and siting and permitting fees are both substantially larger. Even if dumping were clearly occurring (and i haven't seen evidence confirming it has; please share if you have it), in the end of it doesn't look like it will raise costs enough to offset the large advantage that solar is developing.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            I'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.
            I 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

            Even if dumping were clearly occurring (and i haven't seen evidence confirming it has; please share if you have it
            Are 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.
            Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
              I 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.
              Where's the actual engagement if you straw man me constantly? Without any engagement, it's impossible for there to be a point to it.

              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 Post
              Are 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.
              Try reading my statement more carefully. I'm aware of countless accusations of dumping. I'm not aware of the evidence showing those accusations are accurate. I do know that various trade organizations have imposed anti-dumping tariffs, but i have not seen the evidence they used to make the decision. Since you're the one who made the claim, it would seem asking you for the evidence would be appropriate.
              "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 Post
                  Observe 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.
                  At present the pollution form China is decreasing, and as cited they are investing more than the USA, and have the largest production of hydroelectric power in the world.


                  Source: https://www.channel3000.com//world-news/china-saves-hundreds-of-thousands-of-lives-by-reducing-air-pollution/1143713651news



                  China saves hundreds of thousands of lives by reducing air pollution New research shows clean air policy successes

                  By: Jack Guy, CNN
                  Posted: Nov 19, 2019 02:17 PM CST Updated: Nov 19, 2019 02:17 PM CST

                  China saves hundreds of thousands of lives by reducing air pollution

                  (CNN) - China's raft of clean air policies saved hundreds of thousands of lives in 2017 alone, according to new research.

                  Fine particle pollution declined rapidly following the implementation of new rules on industrial emissions and the promotion of clean fuels, according to the study, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).

                  The study, which focused on the period from 2013-2017, was conducted by a group of Chinese researchers and scientists.

                  PM2.5 particulate matter, as this kind of pollution is known, is so small that it can enter the bloodstream, potentially leading to cancer, stroke and heart attack in the long term.

                  After rapid industrialization and weak regulations left the country with a reputation for smog and bad air quality, Chinese authorities started to take air pollution seriously in 2008.

                  In 2013, Beijing had PM2.5 concentrations 40 times higher than levels recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the government introduced its toughest-ever clean air policies that year.

                  The study found "significant declines" in PM2.5 levels across China from 2013-2017, coinciding with new standards for thermal power plants and industrial boilers, the replacement of old factories, and new emissions rules for vehicles.


                  While the weather can also influence PM2.5 concentrations, the study found it had relatively little impact for the period of the study.

                  The authors say this "confirms the effectiveness of China's recent clean air actions."

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  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 Post
                    No. 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
                    Roy, I think you left out a word somewhere - or maybe I'm not following.

                    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 Post
                      Roy, I think you left out a word somewhere - or maybe I'm not following.
                      I can't locate any places with missing words, although the second sentence might have been better as While the global volume is important, the volume for each country isn't.
                      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 Post
                          Don'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.
                          Finally getting some time for this. The PV article didn't leave links, but it left enough.

                          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, Michael.Nyberg@energy.ca.gov

                          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 Cow Poke View Post
                            That would be China.
                            You're absolutely right Cow Poke, though per capita its the US. I agree though that China needs to step up.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              No. While the overall volume is important, the volume for each country isn't.
                              O-kay...

                              For one thing, CO2, the atmosphere and the global climate don't recognise national boundaries.
                              That was pretty much my reason for asking.

                              But more relevantly, stating that the US produces more CO2 than Andorra doesn't really tell us anything.
                              I passed geography - and follow a geography channel - so I do know where Andorra is! So there! An American who knows something about European geography!

                              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.*
                              Er, okay - but that wouldn't be true of RI versus Montana. Don't think it's true of RI v Alaska offhand, either. Landmass doesn't guarantee a given pop. density. But with you so far.

                              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.
                              And now I lose you. Granted, higher pop with all else equal would have that result - but the atmosphere won't care. The overall volume of CO2 is the problem as I understand it.

                              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
                              And you couldn't make up round numbers?












                              *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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X