Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Rickyvol77]

The first two of those are actually a thing so I'm not sure what specifically you object to. With respect to the ozone layer hole, we stopped using certain chemicals to prevent further damage to it.

Can you point to any scientific literature where the consensus among climate scientists was that global cooling was something we should have been worried about or that coastal cities would be underwater by 2010?

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
1989

 

[508mikey]

I'll take wuFlu pandemic for 1000 Alex.

I thought about that after I posted it

 

[NorthDallas40]

If paying lip service to green energy involves leading the world in it then I guess you're right. Between Q2 2019 and Q2 2020 they 1) decreased overall output; 2) decreased fossil; 3) increased wind; 4) increased solar; and 5) increased nuclear. The fact that they're still building coal plants isn't much of a surprise given the abundance of coal in China, the industrialization and urbanization efforts, and the relative poverty of Chinese citizens. We'd probably still be building coal plants if it were cheaper than gas.

They are also leading the world on the addition of coal generation capacity. You keep ignoring that. Thus I find your defense of their lip service attention to the issue un compelling.

Oh and no they didn’t decrease overall polluting output they increased the gross output and just tweaked the mix. I’ve covered that. Also in 2020 they lowered the mix differences by 0.4% this nobody alive now will see the day of a clean energy China. Congrats.

But I'll ask you again: where does the bar lie for when we give a **** about what China is doing? If shifting to clean energy is prudent for our future then shouldn't we be doing it instead of waiting for them to hit some arbitrary percentage of fossil to renewable power output ratio?

I guess we should give a **** when China indicates they give a **** huh? And that would be indicated by not adding coal capacity at a rate of 2:1 over clean wouldn’t it? Kinda seems stupid to me to keep ignoring that and stating “but they lead the world in adding clean energy!” They also lead the world in adding polluting generation huh? Since the world continues to buy products produced by their polluting grid it would appear nobody really gives a **** ... right?

I'm not going to do the ****ing legwork for making whatever point it is that you're trying to make here. How about this: theres a retort to whatever linked opinion piece you're so taken with and unwilling to provide in this thread in [insert journal here]. Enjoy!

I already did the legwork and told you where it was. Why cross link and waste forum space. But yeah you get the idea. You’re wrong. Again.

 

[Wafflestomper]

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
1989

This isn't scientific literature. It's an associated press article from more than 30 years ago quoting a politician.

 

[Rickyvol77]

This isn't scientific literature. It's an associated press article from more than 30 years ago quoting a politician.

Do a little further digging and see where the UN got their “scientific facts”.

 

[C-south]

This isn't scientific literature. It's an associated press article from more than 30 years ago quoting a politician.

Is the traitor John Kerry a scientist?

 

[Wafflestomper]

Do a little further digging and see where the UN got their “scientific facts”.

I saw where one politician had talked to a scientist. That's not scientific literature or a consensus. Scientists don't have to go through peer review talking off hand to politicians.

 

[LouderVol]

View attachment 353312

if I accelerate from 0 to 100 from one street to the next, and then 0 to 60 the next, I have decreased my acceleration. but I have still accelerated.

all this says is that thermal and hydro didn't grow as much as they did the year before.

 

[Wafflestomper]

if I accelerate from 0 to 100 from one street to the next, and then 0 to 60 the next, I have decreased my acceleration. but I have still accelerated.

all this says is that thermal and hydro didn't grow as much as they did the year before.

If you go 0 to 100 on one city block and then decrease your speed by 5% on the next block your speed is 95. In other words, if your acceleration is negative you've decelerated.

 

[NorthDallas40]

if I accelerate from 0 to 100 from one street to the next, and then 0 to 60 the next, I have decreased my acceleration. but I have still accelerated.

all this says is that thermal and hydro didn't grow as much as they did the year before.

Oh you’ve done it now.

 

[AM64]

I highly doubt China cares about the environment. They are likely investing in all technologies (and stealing technologies) to expand technology exports. And they also use it to expand their influence, particularly in poor nations where they are using outrageous loan terms and builds to leverage rare Earth metals.

I doubt they invest too much past 10% wind or solar because your grid can't take it without backup.

Another perspective. Chinese elite can live wherever they want once they settle the control issue by being the only manufacturing nation left. They can leave behind millions of there own as discarded waste just like they've always done. Life is cheap in China, and so is the environment.

 

[AM64]

The original argument--the one you interjected your opinion into--is that China is investing in green energy. They added more wind capacity last year than the rest of the world combined. That's investing in green energy. They also added 40-something GW of solar last year. That's investing in green energy too.



Lol. You go off on a tangent not really related to the topic we were discussing and then expect me to search some other thread for a link you posted? If you want to argue some other point here then stop being lazy and argue it here and not in some other thread. Or don't; I don't really GAF.

China's "investment" in green energy has a lot more to do with manufacturing and exporting the generating equipment than using it.

 

[Electric Orange]

 

[LouderVol]

If paying lip service to green energy involves leading the world in it then I guess you're right. Between Q2 2019 and Q2 2020 they 1) decreased overall output; 2) decreased fossil; 3) increased wind; 4) increased solar; and 5) increased nuclear. The fact that they're still building coal plants isn't much of a surprise given the abundance of coal in China, the industrialization and urbanization efforts, and the relative poverty of Chinese citizens. We'd probably still be building coal plants if it were cheaper than gas.

But I'll ask you again: where does the bar lie for when we give a **** about what China is doing? If shifting to clean energy is prudent for our future then shouldn't we be doing it instead of waiting for them to hit some arbitrary percentage of fossil to renewable power output ratio?

I'm not going to do the ****ing legwork for making whatever point it is that you're trying to make here. How about this: theres a retort to whatever linked opinion piece you're so taken with and unwilling to provide in this thread in [insert journal here]. Enjoy!

I guarantee you they did not decrease overall output. Unless you count cutting off services to their minorities.

 

[LouderVol]

If you go 0 to 100 on one city block and then decrease your speed by 5% on the next block your speed is 95. In other words, if your acceleration is negative you've decelerated.

Except your chart wasnt tracking it as a continuation. It was a yearly growth comparison. Which is why you reset to zero and then compare the numbers. They are tracking the change in the delta, the delta of the delta, bot sure if that has a name.

In your case and what china is doing they went from 0 to 100 to 160, they decreased their rate of acceleration but still accelerated.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Except your chart wasnt tracking it as a continuation. It was a yearly growth comparison. Which is why you reset to zero and then compare the numbers. They are tracking the change in the delta, the delta of the delta, bot sure if that has a name.

In your case and what china is doing they went from 0 to 100 to 160, they decreased their rate of acceleration but still accelerated.

A year on year comparison is a comparison over 12 months. That's why it says year to date, and why it's expressed in both Twh and percent and not just percent.

Let's say that Q2 2018 was 100 Twh, Q2 2019 was 200 Twh, and Q2 2020 was 300 Twh. The comparison in growth rates between the two periods (2018-2019 and 2019-2020) is going to be -50% despite tripling your output in two years. You're overthinking this.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Except your chart wasnt tracking it as a continuation. It was a yearly growth comparison. Which is why you reset to zero and then compare the numbers. They are tracking the change in the delta, the delta of the delta, bot sure if that has a name.

In your case and what china is doing they went from 0 to 100 to 160, they decreased their rate of acceleration but still accelerated.

I’ve already pointed to the compounding issue year over year. He just deflects away from it.

In fact I gave the example using today’s generation distribution and that 1.4% renewable growth rate which showed in ten years China would still have more in coal energy alone than we would in our entire generation capacity and coal would still be at around 55% if their total capacity.

But then the renewable growth went from 1.4% to 0.4% the very next year. Whoopsie!

 

[LouderVol]

A year on year comparison is a comparison over 12 months. That's why it says year to date, and why it's expressed in both Twh and percent and not just percent.

Let's say that Q2 2018 was 100 Twh, Q2 2019 was 200 Twh, and Q2 2020 was 300 Twh. The comparison in growth rates between the two periods (2018-2019 and 2019-2020) is going to be -50% despite tripling your output in two years. You're overthinking this.

But it's still growth. That's the point you are missing. It can say negative, but it's not a decrease. They are still accelerating.

 

[Wafflestomper]

But it's still growth. That's the point you are missing. It can say negative, but it's not a decrease. They are still accelerating.

But if growth is negative it is a decrease. If you start at 100 and go to 60 that's a decrease. It sounds like your point is actually that one year is too small of a sample size to see the whole picture.

 

[LouderVol]

But if growth is negative it is a decrease. If you start at 100 and go to 60 that's a decrease. It sounds like your point is actually that one year is too small of a sample size to see the whole picture.

No I am saying you are reading the chart all wrong.

Do the simple math of adding up the categories and comparing to the total doesnt add up.

They are comparing rates of growth, the delta of the deltas, or the acceleration of the acceleration.

They added nearly 40 whatevers, kilowatts or terawatt or whatever, less than they did the year before. But they still added. They still increased the overall production. Which is why the totals dont simply add up like you want them to.

The chart is showing yearly comparative growth, not yearly production or growth.

 

[Wafflestomper]

No I am saying you are reading the chart all wrong.

Do the simple math of adding up the categories and comparing to the total doesnt add up.

They are comparing rates of growth, the delta of the deltas, or the acceleration of the acceleration.

They added nearly 40 whatevers, kilowatts or terawatt or whatever, less than they did the year before. But they still added. They still increased the overall production. Which is why the totals dont simply add up like you want them to.

The chart is showing yearly comparative growth, not yearly production or growth.

I suspect the reason the total production is negative is due to covid lock downs in the first half of 2020.

 

[0nelilreb]

GM Announces The End Of Building Diesel/Gas-Powered Cars And Trucks | MotorBiscuit

Edit : SIAP

 

[LouderVol]

I suspect the reason the total production is negative is due to covid lock downs in the first half of 2020.

View attachment 354281

Like I said cutting off their minorities. Covid was a really big win for the party over there.

They get to lock up their minorities even more under the guise of "pandemic protections", and no one checks them because why would they.

 

[Electric Orange]

 

[OHvol40]

What makes you so sure co2 is the cause of all things climate change?

“This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

Climate Science Special Report: Executive Summary