A very simple and easy to understand explanation of why climate change is REAL.

If we get our act together it will come from solar,wind,and wave

 

CO2 adds a little over 1.6 watts for every square meter.

The global mean temperature has increased by almost 1.0C since 1960.

CO2 (and only considering it) contributes 100-125% to the warming. Note that other processes have a negative contribution and that's why the CO2 contribution is greater than 100%.

CO2 both reflects, absorbs, or is transparent to EM radiation depending on the frequency of that radiation. The molecule is tuned just right to be mostly transparent to incoming shortwave radiation but opaque to outgoing longwave radiation. Quantum electrodynamics is required to explain this behavior.

CO2's contribution is measurable. The first measurements were performed in the laboratory in the 1800s. It was only later after the maturing of quantum mechanics did we have an explanation for what was first observed in the laboratory in the 1800's. And in 1896 the first prediction of it's warming effect in the Earth's atmosphere was published. Again, these prediction were made from empirical data collected in the laboratory decades before the human contribution began ramping up.

 

We all know that Exxon-Mobil scientists produced a study in the 1970s that warned of oil use leading to global warming (which they later tried really hard to bury). But now it turns out that in the Netherlands Royal Dutch Shell documents were found that say the same things.

https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/05/shell-knew-climate-change-liability/

It's not too surprising since all oil companies, like those of any industry, stay informed on what the "competition" is doing and learning.

Here's more:
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2018/...shell-knew-about-climate-change-30-years-ago/

http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2018/04/documents_show_shell_foresaw_c.html

 

I see. Very tricky.

 

If it’s practical enough (one day) and affordable enough then yes, possibly. Until then, thank coal, and nuclear plants for the electric power you enjoy instead of whining about how people ought to live their lives because you know better.

 

Yes massa Peabody

 

Your question implies we need to replace the majority.

But, that's just not the case.

For example, replacing coal with solar+wind would be a huge win. Simply moving to use the energy we have in ways that are more efficient would be a big win, too. Every investment in insulation means less need for fossil fuel - and gaining long term profit from the savings in energy.

As for your other post, this does not change the lives of anyone, so you don't have to whine about having your life controlled.

And, it's a matter of what we know through science. Your "because you know better" really has to do with what science has found to be the case - and us becoming aware of that.

Let's remember that in America today there are more people working clean energy projects than coal projects today. Plus, China has more clean energy patents and produces more clean energy equipment for export than do we - why are we ceding this gigantic economic direction to foreign competitors?

 

Again, this is something that individuals choose to do based on the cost to benifit ratio with their own money/time.

Solar/wind simply don’t have what it takes to be taken seriously in the free market yet. Without being subsidized by the taxpayers (thanks to lobbyists and the politicians who use this as a voting issue) solar/wind power doesn’t make a dent in the power the first world countries needs to run.

 

Today, there are corporations that will put solar on your roof for FREE with a contract that allows them to share the difference in power cost with you - so you get a free installation and a % of the proceeds.

Today, China is adding between one and two soccer field's worth of solar per HOUR. Plus, they have a significant export business in clean energy (wind/solar) technology where they own the patents.

Today, clean energy employs more Americans than does coal.

You can't pitch this as toy.

And, proposing to measure production progress against goals that don't need to be met is sophistry.

 

hmmm except you dont prove negatives. As a scientist Im ready to look at your data. Also, you left off natural sources of CO2. Why? Also why are you wasting energy posting on the internet if you believe we are causing climate change? This proves you dont practice what you preach.
Lastly...has the climate always changed?

 

If Solar measures anywhere near what you think, don’t you think that utility companies would buy/sell energy that way?

Also, do you think that solar has a chance in hell of surviving without taxpayers subsidies? If not, it’s not a success.

 

Not necessarily. Solar has a high land cost. For a utility that can make things prohibitively expenses. That's an expense that individual consumers do not have since they can "develop" the land they already own in the vertical dimension...ya know...solar panels on top of house on top of land.

 

Land for solar farms (read in the middle of nowhere) is cheap. My point stands, if solar makes any sense (financially), utility companies would have used their deep pockets to change to solar by now.

 

Rooftops already exist and come with existing electric service connections. Plus, they are close to the point of use, so transmission losses are minimized - in fact, new transmission lines become less necessary.

Utility companies make money by selling you electricity. They really aren't all that wild about you being a producer. In the extreme, they would end up being the load facilitators, selling their product when demand exceeds supply - not the same business model they have today.

Building large centralized facilities is a different type of problem. Even there, progress is being made. The first stages of the Morocco facility are up and running, producing electricity from on-site solar collection with 24 hours per day capability. Plus, advances in such systems are being made.

 

Are you proposing that scientists overlooked the fact that there are natural climate cycles?

Given that climate scientists figured that out and told you about it, I really don't see a way to suggest that existing cycles have been forgotten by climatologists.

As for natural CO2, the issue is in the change. Again, it's well known that there are natural producers of CO2. What is new is the vast tonnage of carbon that man has mined from deep sequestration and then blown into the atmosphere. As in all systems, it's a matter of balance. And, in this case the balance is being moved.

 

Yeah yeah that’s wonderful. Now the question is, do you want to force private companies/citizens to subsidize solar? You won’t answer a simple question about that. Why is that?

 

No I realize it is objectively false, because climate has always changed naturally, and didn't stop changing naturally just because people started burning fossil fuels.

See how that works?

 

No, but AGW screamers have deliberately removed them from their models. Remember? "We have to get rid of the medieval war period." "Hide the decline." Etc.

Not forgotten. Deliberately ignored, dismissed, and excised.

Yes, to a more favorable one.

 

And they overestimate that feedback by about an order of magnitude.

But the effect is derisory because water vapor leaves the atmosphere so quickly.

No, there are no empirical studies showing any such thing. The "studies" are all of phony computer models.

No, that's just false.

 

So, about the same as in the medieval warm period that AGW screamers got rid of.

It's a non-issue. Sea level has been rising steadily for over a century. People just move back from the sea. There are lots of drowned ancient cities, and other ancient seaports that are now miles from the sea.

 

I don't know who you are listening to, but that is total nonsense. Scientists are NOT saying that. You're getting your info from the wrong source.

More bull. Scientists are NOT doing that - AT ALL.

No, again scientist are not saying that.


Please cite something that supports ANYTHING you have said.

 

Solar power cost is dropping every few years, so yeah, it’s likely just a matter of time. In some cases it may already be, and the skeptics are just using data that is a few years out of date. The technology appears to be on a trend of improving efficiency similar to that of the semiconductor industry.

As for subsidies, it depends on your perspective. Fossil fuels are extreme costly in the long run, in terms of natural resources and human wellbeing. We just push that cost off on future generations. Fossil fuels have high external costs, even if the sticker price is low. So who is really being subsidized?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/climat...-energy-sources-weekly-pic/amp/?source=images

 

No, they wouldn't. Power companies have not figured out what to do with Solar. They sense that it will be their demise. Because it will be (unless they adapt). They spend millions lobbying against it. Here in Florida they managed to get our Republican state government to make it illegal for third party companies to sell solar power to homes. So if they changed to solar, it would be illegal for them to provide it to households. Which is fine with them so long as nobody else can sell it.

That changed this week, though. A solar power company was finally authorized to sell solar.

Power companies, same as the right, are on the wrong side of history on energy matters and everything concerning the environment.

 

CO2 is only a tiny part of the greenhouse effect. How do you know it has warmed the planet by 2 F instead of like .1 F and something else is the real driver?

 

"As a Scientist"?

Please tell me you're not a scientist...

Gawd