Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Just a couple of factual problems here. First, the EU has how many more millions of citizens, and the EU still outproduces the US, facts. Second, the US certain does do many things around the emissions of green house gasses. What is a catalytic converter for example? So baseless claim after another, you suggest that you have a credibility. So what, in your estimation needs to be addressed? Try being specific. Are you mad that the US sinks too much CO2? Are you mad that the US has virtually eliminated CO from exhaust gases? Are you mad that as a nation, the US is planting too many trees? I hear these petty complaints from folks like you and I still cannot get a qualified answer from you folks. It seems it's vastly more entertaining for you to complain than be a part of the solution.

Perhaps you can do your part and stop wasting the energy your online presence produces? What are you willing to do for the cause?

 

First of all, countries of the EU have their own energy plans. So, blaming the EU for something that is not under the control of the EU is pure sophistry.

Next, the fact that we have taken some measures is NOT an excuse. In fact, the Republican party is working hard to INCREASE greenhouse gas emissions by such strategies as promoting coal.

Tailpipe emissions have been reduced, but suggesting they are almost zero is more nonsense. Transportation still accounts for 27% of US greenhouse gas emissions.

27% does NOT count as "virtually eliminated".

If you want to argue trees, then come up with some facts.


The next time you whine about the horrors of addressing climate change, how about bringing something to say?
The bottom line is that the US is one of the worse greenhouse gas emitters of all first world countries.

And, one ramification of that is that we've surrendered any leadership that America might have had. Who should care what the US says when almost every other first world country has more to say than we do???

 

There has been even a period when the Earth hadn't ice caps at all ...
That's not the problem. The problem is about the level of the oceans.

If the Northern ice cap melted nothing will happen: it's made of floating ice ...
But if the glaciers in Greenland and at the South pole melted we will be in troubles.
They are on dry land [the Southern ice cap, for accuracy, is partially made by floating ice, in this context it's the continental ice to be object of interest] so that all that water will make the oceans increase their level with evident problems for the coastal regions all around the world.

 

As an aside note: have you ever wondered why Iceland is called "Iceland", while it's not totally covered by ice at all, and Greenland is called "Greenland", while it's substantially totally covered by ice? Did they make confusion?

Anyway, the point is that this 99.5% has to remain a 99.5%. If we go on like this it risks to become a 94.0% then a 93.0% ... and so on.

 

Plus if it warm enough to melt the ice caps (including the “third ice cap” that is the Himalayas) the increase in ocean temp will cause expansion of the water

 

Again, baseless charges. Bituminous coal is certainly not as foul burning, and is highly more available, stable and reliable for the grid. There are scrubbers that can and do sequester harmful gasses, and the technology exists to make it far more clean that you might admit. More when you only choose to describe CO2 as a GHG do you get to the fractional percentage that you claim. More, as a fraction, the emissions of CO2 are still a tiny fraction of the release that happens naturally. You know this, it's been exhaustively discussed on these very forums. But breathlessly attempt to convince anyone that this less than a percent of total CO2 emissions does in deed have impact.

So how about this. The next time you come here to whine, try bringing some impact. Not speculation about events not born our by your previous predictives. Clearly, we are well past the shelf life of "the US NorthEast coast line under feet of ocean". No? how about bringing actual causative, nor correlative, data that shows how this fractional CO2 emission produces any actual harm to the climate. How about that?

The real observation is that all you have is what all of the other AGW faithful have. A belief in a catastrophic outcome that isn't predicated on actual observable data. It's religious fervor. We know it, and yet you do not. Climate does change. I realize that because it does, you have to find a way to howl at the mood over it. it does not, however, mean that we as a species have the ability to do anything meaningful about it, yet. So, your last word is that we should lead. Why? To what end? Do you really suppose that suddenly China, India, and the EU are going to play along? I mean other than punish the folks by costing them more and more for their daily comfort and survival, what measures do you suppose are going to both demonstrate a measurable difference and at the same time, produce a measurable "relief" to these catastrophic horrors you worry so about?

 

Thousands of years to melt enough for an appreciable effect on sea level.

 

Wait a minute ... the global warming can work like an avalanche.
If you reduce the surface of the ice on the planet the globe will reflect less solar light [and thermal energy].
I can make you an example: a dozen of persons have lost their life on the Alps [on "Marmolada"] because a sector of a glacier has suddenly collapsed [unfortunately glaciers tend to collapse without warn you ...].

I do know Alpine glaciers and frankly speaking I could have been there as well. No visible clues that the glacier was going to collapse.
Reality was that heat created a liquid slipway under the ice. For the mountaineers there was no possibility to survive.

In early July at high altitude glaciers should be well more stable on the Alps.
A natural problem for us is the creation of ephemeral lakes. This happened also during the glacial age ...
An Alpine glacier, being exposed to hot sun, tends to melt in the middle before it melts in the borders.
This is due to the matter of fact that the borders of the glaciers are covered by dust [and so protected].
This phenomenon creates lakes in the middle of the glaciers and when the wall of the border falls ... we've got a local flood involving a mountain valley.

But the collapse of a wide sector of a glacier is a well different matter.

 

I know Himalayas. When I've been there, they told me that they are suffering of wide landslides.
I had occasion to verify it walking for kilometers on a gigantic landslides.
Let's not suggest to do this to all "trekkers". I'm an extreme trekker and an expert mountaineer.
The surface of a landslide is "manageable" by an extreme trekker.

Anyway, the loss of ice is substantially causing the fall of the walls of the Himalayan mountains.
Just to add a technical detail: the seracs under the Lotse are no more so accessible.
I wonder about the touristic "expeditions" towards the pick of Everest mountain ... if they follow that way ... well ... best wishes!

 

Your problem starts with your denial of science on climate and energy.

Yes, other countries including India and China are seriously interested, as they have major self interest.

Today, China leads the world in clean energy in patents, manufacturing, exports, and domestic installations. Also, clean energy solutions feature in their aid to other countries.

As for the USA, we come in at 3rd. Maybe. Our energy plan brought us the Texas disaster, fueled by denial of our need for infrastructure improvements.

You need to get over your disdain for China.

 

Nope. Alarmism on this topic derives from a fundamental under-appreciation of the sheer volume involved.
Greenland retained 99.7% of its ice mass in 20th Century!!!
2015 › 12 › 30 › greenland-retained-99-7-of-its-ice-mass-in-20th-century
of Greenland ice sheet (Wikipedia). The "Lost Ice Cube" represents 8,165 cubic kilometers of ice. ... reported ice mass loss, it is truly amazing that a 0.3% reduction in the Greenland ice sheet during the

 

I was born and raised in Australia - we get vertigo and nose bleeds if we stand on a Termite mound, mind you some of our Termite Mounds are pretty tall………


You should see the size of the Termites!!!

 

China and will lead the EV revolution and in fact that will power Asia because the density of the cities are causing massing air pollution from ICEs - many cities have already banned Diesel engines

 

Get It Or Not
The trans Tibetan plateau rail
demonstrates what Asia can do.


Support Hydrogen!
Moi

 

Rail might be an especially good target for hydrogen power, as it wouldn't depend on populating the country with hydrogen fueling stations!

That might be true for long haul trucks, too, if hydrogen capacity and trips were matched. Distribution centers could have hydrogen fueling for the trucks that serve them.

I like hydrogen. It's a pretty good way of storing energy cleanly. But I'm not so sure that hydrogen is enough of an advantage for cars to beat out the pace of battery advances.

For one thing, I won't be filling a hydrogen car in my garage!

 

LOL.. that old saw... so when you're losing, call others names. Deniers... You sound like the inquisition. And the reality is that the science here doesn't support your religious fervor, no matter how craftily you attempt to otherwise manipulate your data sets. You suggest you have "interest" from other nations that currently do nothing to curb their pollution, let alone their management of CO2. Be specific, what are they "interested" in? Show some propensity towards any of these ridiculous machinations you claim will have some impact.

I'd say that T Bone Pickens and his little money grab is more responsible for the issues TX suffered than any other single cause. And the real horror is that it wasn't heat that produced it, but astonishingly cold that really hurt folks there. or did you forget that? And that historic event wasn't a result of "warming" was it. Not a question.

Face it. Your plan is a cobbled together bundle of ifs and buts.. You have no cohesive plan other than to centralize power production and management in an effort to artificially control people's lives and mobility. Rationing the power to control the people. just admit if already.

 

European eco-warriors are yielding to the power of reality.
European Commission Declares Nuclear and Gas to be Green
Charles Rotter
The European Commission has labeled nuclear and gas as sustainable. Critics are calling the step “greenwashing” and say it could threaten the bloc’s bid to become climate-neutral by 2050. . . .

 

The analysis of the Texas energy disaster points directly to decisions made by the Texas legislature and the governor.

Your last paragraph does not refer to anything I've said.

It's really pathetic when you have to resort to saying I said stuff that I did not say.

 

1. The Texas Energy Disaster
   2021 › 02 › 20 › the-texas-energy-disaster
   I live in Texas and write about climate science and energy, so I get a lot of questions ... Midland, Texas. ... Figure 2 shows some of the critical weather statistics for Midland, Texas, near the
   and solar with the Texas disaster. If other States don't want to end up like Texas, then don't place
   
2. "Wind was operating almost as well as expected"... A Texas-sized Energy Lie
   2021 › 02 › 25 › wind-was-operating-almost-as-well-as-expected-a-texas-sized-energy-lie
   bigger in Texas"? ... Well... The lamestream media lies about the recent Texas energy disaster have been ... blame for the Texas energy crisisNatural gas, the state's dominant energy source, has provided drastically
   ins-biomass-power-plant-sat-idle-during-texas-winter-energy-crisis/
   

 

No, that is NOT the final analysis of the controlling investigative agency of the state of Texas.

Remember? I cited it to you in a past thread.

This is just one more case where Anthony Watt is publishing incorrect analysis to promote HIS personal view.

 

No, you did not.

 

There is industry wide agreement that wind energy performed as per plan by ERCOT for cold weather emergency conditions - ERCOT being the agency controlling Texas energy.

The ERCOT plan for those conditions was for wind to supply 2GW. Obviously, that's nowhere near enough to have made a significant difference in the event of the gas power failure that occurred.


This IS another case of Anthony Watt choosing to print some blogger who clearly does NOT know what happened in Texas - but DOES share Watt's anti-clean energy political agenda.

Even Gov. Abbott backtracked on his knee jerk blame of clean energy that he initially tried to pass for truth.

Then, you come along and tout Watt is if HE is an authority!

Seriously, Hays - you need to find better sources. And, you need to check your claims before posting.

 

Neither link was written by Watt. Read more, then post.

 

LOL!!!

No, YOU read my post and you will realize that I did not suggest Watt wrote anything at all!!

 

"Then, you come along and tout Watt is if HE is an authority!"
Your words.