Climate Change Could Happen Slower for the Next Decade, Study Says

You should actually read the 'world scientific community' instead of blind fealty to CAGW blogs. Those not paid by the billions of government spending are saying otherwise. Russia for one. Older scientists that do not rely on prolific government grants for another. You don't even understand that the US taxing or cutting carbon will not even make a dent.

 

Ignorant anti-science twaddle.

 

When the bamboozled dupes of the fossil fuel industry stop denying the scientifically affirmed reality of anthropogenic global warming and it's consequent climate changes, the idiotic anti-science arguments they keep advancing at the direction of their puppetmasters will stop.

An idiotic oversimplification based on ignorance.

What a great fossil fuel industry propaganda meme. 'If AGW isn't happening then there's no problem....and we can keep selling fossil fuels....if AGW is happening, there's nothing we can do about it....and we can keep selling fossil fuels'.

In fact, there is a great deal the world can do to deal with this climate change crisis, and ending the use of carbon emitting fossil fuels is first on the list.

Only in terms of total current yearly emissions. On a per capita basis the USA is still the world leader in carbon emissions. Moreover, the USA is historically the single largest contributor to the 43% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since the industrial revolution.

Total BS. China, India and the other countries are trying to deal with this problem and cut carbon emissions. The US should be leading on this issue and working with the rest of the world on solutions, including drastically cutting carbon emissions, instead of endlessly delaying any effective actions because of rightwingnut political obstruction. The fossil fuel industry is trying to block the very necessary measures our country and the world need to take to deal with this problem because restricting carbon emissions would dramatically affect their multi-billion dollar profits and their stock prices.

 

China and India to cut emissions?

That's not true. They are only reducing their rate of new coal plant construction. They will still be responsible for the increases in dirty emissions into the atmosphere for decades to come.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 As I said the ONLY alternative to fossil is nuclear and even if we start now it will be decades before enough plants are brought online. It takes 10 years to build just one plant and there are only so many people qualified to build them in the first place. Solar and wind will NEVER provide the amount necessary nor can they be relied to provide reliable consistent power.

As it is there are only two possibilities. Either we adapt and deal with it or we hope that the doom and gloom predictions are wrong because we cannot do anything about it at this point.

MOD EDIT - Off Topic Humanity will have to adapt because it is too late in the game to make any serious changes. And stop posting in threads you have no business in. China and India are both rapidly building coal plants.

 

I would like to add that this shows just how political the climate sciences have become.

Only in politics, is a reduction of expected growth, called a cut!

 

liberals have always used that as such.

 

No, it's not exclusive to them. I see it more from liberals because they want to always spend more, but I see it as a political thing.

I just wish political science was different than how it is used with the climate.

 

Some completely false claims based only on your ignorance of the facts and that crackpot rightwingnut ideological brainwashing you've obviously been subjected to.

Solar, wind and ocean energy systems are quite capable of replacing all of the fossil fuel generated energy the world uses today or will in the future.

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how
Scientific American

 

That article has been rebuffed and torn to shreds multiple times already. It is complete and utter nonsense. No serious engineer or scientist believes that renewables can power the world much less even produce a majority of the power. The amount of ignorance on this subject that you display is monumental.

I suggest you watch a movie called Switch http://www.switchenergyproject.com/ produced by an environmental engineer who actually deals in reality and not fantasy as you apparently do.

When you grow up and actually catch up with other environmentalists who are now admitting that nuclear is the only option to power a majority of the world without fossil fuels get back to me. I won't hold my breath since you apparently are still beholden to nonsensical claims about renewables.

The country with the best record is Germany and they are only able to produce 27% of their power from renewables and that is after heavily subsidizing the industry and spending massive amounts of money. This is a country that is smaller than some of our states. Germany is abandoning the solar subsidies because it has been an abysmal failure. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-germany-solar-subsidies.html

They made the mistake of trying to substitute nuclear with renewables and it collapsed in on them. The decades of fear mongering and illiteracy and sheer stupidity from the left concerning nuclear power is finally coming to an end as at least some environmentalists have admitted they were wrong and now support nuclear power and that it is essential to save the planet.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/22/are_environmentalists_rethinking_nuclear_power/

But you keep clinging to you infantile idiotic rose colored reality about renewables. Eventually you will manage to get that thick head of yours all the way up into your colon if you keep ramming it enough. People like you are holding back providing low carbon power just as much as the evil fossil companies that you keep railing about. You are no different than them you are just on the other side of the same coin. You are an luddite who is afraid of technology.

 

A desperate myth of the fossil fuel junkies and just more unsubstantiated hot air from you. I notice that you rarely cite any supporting evidence to back up your fallacious assertions, and when you do cite something, it often doesn't actually say what you're claiming it says. There are a couple of examples of that in this post of yours.

More BS and delusional fossil fuel junkie myths. Just as an example - "serious scientists" would perfectly describe the two scientists who authored the study I just cited about powering the whole planet with renewables. There are many more such scientists out there who agree with them but probably none of them work for the fossil fuel industry or the nuclear industry, which seems to be your bias.

Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson is a professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Atmosphere and Energy Program at Stanford University. He is also a senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment and the Precourt Institute for Energy, both at Stanford. The main goal of his research is to better understand severe atmospheric problems such as air pollution and global warming, and to develop and analyze large-scale renewable energy solutions to them.

Dr. Mark A. Delucchi is a research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, specializing in economic, environmental, engineering, and planning analyses of current and future transportation systems. He is a member of the Alternative Fuels Committee and the Energy Committee of the Transportation Research Board.

All you've got is your brainwashed ignorance and your own hot air.

LOLOLOL....you are soooooo gullible. That's a propaganda outlet for the petroleum engineers and totally biased. More BS.

Here's the reality...

Solar May Produce Most of World’s Power by 2060, IEA Says
Bloomberg
By Ben Sills
Aug 29, 2011
Solar generators may produce the majority of the world’s power within 50 years, slashing the emissions of greenhouse gases that harm the environment, according to a projection by the International Energy Agency. Photovoltaic and solar-thermal plants may meet most of the world’s demand for electricity by 2060 -- and half of all energy needs -- with wind, hydropower and biomass plants supplying much of the remaining generation, Cedric Philibert, senior analyst in the renewable energy division at the Paris-based agency, said in an Aug. 26 phone interview. “Photovoltaic and concentrated solar power together can become the major source of electricity,” Philibert said. “You’ll have a lot more electricity than today but most of it will be produced by solar-electric technologies.”

A handful or so of environmentalists have proposed utilizing nuclear power strictly as a stopgap measure to cut carbon emissions until the renewables can be grown enough to take over. Most environmentalists disagree, for many good reasons, including the nuclear waste problem, the lag time for new nuclear plant construction compared to the deployment of renewables, the amount of CO2 released in the mining and processing of the nuclear fuel, and others.

More fossil fuel junkie BS.

Germany can now produce half its energy from solar
Good news: Germany produced a record 50.6 percent of its energy with solar panels in the first two weeks of June.
SCIENCEALERT STAFF K
TUESDAY, 24 JUNE 2014
New data reveals that Germany broke a record at the start of June by generating half its energy from solar power, demonstrating the country's impressive renewable energy capabilities.
Research from the Fraunhofer ISE research institute showed that German solar panels generated a record 24.24 GW of electricity between 1pm and 2pm on Friday, June 6th. And on Monday June 9th, a public holiday, solar power production peaked at 23.1 GW, which was 50.6 percent of total electricity demand. Tobias Rothacher, an expert for renewable energies at Germany Trade & Invest, told The Local: “I think we could break a new record every two to three months now. We are installing more and more PVs [solar panels].”

Germany has had success with solar by encouraging citizens to install panels on their roof tops, rather than focussing on building large-scale solar farms. In fact, 90 percent of Germany's solar panels are on individuals' roofs. Good weather has also helped solar power production this year, which has increased 34 percent in the first part of 2014. With the current rate of production, Germany will need to invest in more energy storage technology to keep up.

Even more BS.

From the PhysOrg article you cited:
"Germany will stop subsidising solar energy by 2018 at the latest, its environment minister said Monday after last year initiating a scaling-back of generous state support for the faltering industry. He said Monday that the limit of 52 gigawatts would be reached by 2017 or 2018. Currently solar panels installed in Germany generate 34 gigawatts of power."

So....52 gigawatts of power is a "collapse"....LOLOLOL....soooo delusional....

Again LOLOL. Nuclear is a mega-disaster waiting to happen, with the taxpayers on the hook for the cleanup costs while the fats cats who own those plants walk away with their profits. Nuclear waste keeps piling up with no viable way to contain it for the necessary thousands of years.
***Three-mile Island***Chernobyl***Fukushima***

From that article from Salon.com that you just cited:
"Faced with the near-term catastrophe of climate change and the planet-poisoning effects of fossil fuels, is the environmental movement changing its tune on nuclear energy? It’s not a new question, and let’s be clear that the short answer is still no – or mostly no. You can’t find one major environmental organization, from activist groups like Greenpeace to mainstream conservation groups like the Nature Conservancy or the National Audubon Society, that has come out publicly in favor of nuclear power. But there is also a longer and more complicated answer to the question, which is that many people who have long been skeptical about the safety, economic feasibility and ultimate morality of nuclear power are now somewhat willing to consider the argument that, at least in the medium term, we can’t do without it."

Here's seven good arguments against using nuclear power as a stop-gap measure to combat AGW.
1. Because it is not a fast enough response to climate change
2. Because it is too expensive
3. Because the need for baseload electricity is exaggerated
4. Because the problem of waste remains unresolved
5. Because it will increase the risk of nuclear war
6. Because there are safety concerns
7. Because there are better alternatives”

 

You didn't even bother to read your OWN links.


Research from the Fraunhofer ISE research institute showed that German solar panels generated a record 24.24 GW of electricity between 1pm and 2pm on Friday, June 6th. And on Monday June 9th, a public holiday, solar power production peaked at 23.1 GW, which was 50.6 percent of total electricity demand.


Wow........they reached 50% for ONE hour in June on a sunny day. So what the hell do they do when its cloudy in winter or during the night?

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-germany-solar-subsidies.html

Germany will stop subsidising solar energy by 2018 at the latest, its environment minister said Monday after last year initiating a scaling-back of generous state support for the faltering industry.

Peter Altmaier of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union had fought to set a ceiling of solar power capacity above which the government would no longer offer its financial backing.

He said Monday that the limit of 52 gigawatts would be reached by 2017 or 2018. Currently solar panels installed in Germany generate 34 gigawatts of power.

"The development of solar energy ran out of control in the last three years," Altmaier told a news conference.

The system of subsidies, under which solar energy producers are paid a guaranteed price for each kilowatt-hour of power generated, created a boom in recent years, making Germany a global leader in the field.

The farm sector in particular seized upon solar power as a chance to supplement income, and the low price of solar panels from Asia contributed to the craze.

The state support was justified in large part by Germany's much-heralded "energy revolution" in which it is phasing out nuclear power and aiming to produce 80 percent of its power with renewable resources by 2050.

But solar energy is notoriously unreliable as a power source and Germany has seen its market hobbled by oversupply and ferocious competition from players such as China.

Merkel, campaigning for a third term, has promised an overhaul of subsidies for renewable energy after the September general election, amid criticism particularly from the energy industry.

Berlin "has so far invested 216 billion euros ($278 billion) in renewables and the biggest chunk went to solar, the technology which does least to ensure the power supply," said the head of industrial group Siemens, Peter Loescher, in an interview published in the business daily Handelsblatt on Monday.

Germany has seen a wave of solar company insolvencies and the number of people employed in the industry fell to 87,000 in 2012 from 110,900 a year earlier, while sales plummeted by 11.9 billion euros, according to government figures.

Solar panels are at the heart of a current trade spat between China and the European Union, which accuses the Chinese of selling its solar panels below cost."

Any engineer or scientist will tell you that solar and wind are unreliable power sources. The only reliable renewables are hydroelectric where you need a nearby source of water or geothermal where you are also limited as to where you can build geothermal plants.

Solar and wind are HORRIBLE misuses of land and extremely wasteful and inefficient.

http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/200741/nuclear-vs-wind-energy-UK

According to the BBC this nuclear power plant will take up 170 hectares of land. For those who don’t understand hectares (and that includes me) this is 1.7 square kilometres, and from the air will look something like this:

So, how big would a wind farm need to be to provide as much electricity as Hinkley C? The plans are to have two 1.6 GW reactors on site. These will likely have capacity factors somewhere between 80 and 90%. So, the average power output from the plant should be at least 2.6 GW. Let’s use the London Array offshore wind farm as a starting basis to see how big a wind farm would need to be to match it. The London Array is a 630 MW wind farm, covering an area of 100 square kilometres just off the English Coast. If we assumed a capacity of 35% (I have not seen projections for its capacity factor, but it is not likely to differ too much from this) then its average output will be just over 0.2 GW. So, if we wanted to scale this up to provide as much power as Hinkley C then we would need a wind farm covering about 1,200 square kilometres, which is just a bit less than the area of Greater London.

Germany is also paying dearly for their solar power as it is five times more costly than Finlands new nuclear plant. http://thebreakthrough.org/index.ph...of-german-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear

Germany’s solar program will generate electricity at quadruple the cost of one of the most expensive nuclear power plants in the world, according to a new Breakthrough Institute analysis, raising serious questions about a renewable energy strategy widely heralded as a global model.

The Finnish European pressurized reactor (EPR), with an estimated total cost of $15 billion, will generate over half as much energy as the entire existing German solar program, which will run to roughly $130 billion. The total cost of electricity produced by German solar will be 32 cents per kilowatt-hour versus 7 cents per kilowatt-hour for the Areva-Siemens nuclear plant in Finland — a more than four-fold difference. Two such nuclear plants would generate slightly more than Germany’s solar panels, at less than a fourth the total cost.

 

I hope you at least belched when you were done with this regurgitation. this is a good one coach jones.

 

Germany, half it's power in June...

What about January, with only 8 hrs between sunrise and sunset?

Being as high in latitude as Germany is, you can get so much more energy with solar panels with that 16 hrs of sunshine.

Today, Bonn Germany had almost 13 hr 28 min between sunrise to sunset. The summer soltice is just seconds short of 16 hr 30 min.

 

"Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson is a professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Atmosphere and Energy Program at Stanford University. "

Yep he isn't a EE like yours truly and has never once worked in the power industry. He wouldn't know a VAR from a hole in the head.

 

And yet you're talking about him and he ain't talking about you!

 

I have a wonderful family. I've never felt empty enough to want to change the world. Most of those types of people are empty inside.

- - - Updated - - -

I have a wonderful family. I've never felt empty enough to want to change the world. Most of those types of people are empty inside.

 

and yet you're talking about him and he ain't talking about you!!

 

I dont care. I'm happy with my little piece of the world.

 

how many of Al Gores predictions have come true?....Zero...

 

LOLOL.....deniers hate actual evidence....it messes with their myths.....

 

Germany Reached Nearly 75% Renewable Power Use On Sunday
May 15th, 2014

 

For one hour. LOL

 

NASA: 1934 Hottest Year on Record (nearly 80 years ago) Do Global Warming backers ignore weather history?

The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;

The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;

Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and

Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...g-backers-ignore-weather-hi/question-3360865/

so how in the hell is that chart acurate

 

We have had twice as many record lows for 2014 than record highs. Dang that global warming.