Fantasy Demolished - U.S. Climate Goals Threatened by "Green" Power demands

[JBG]

The fact of the matter is it has less to do with saving the world than it does with sound economics.

The future is some form of GREEN and the nation that owns more of the patents, licensing and capacity in this sector of that economy will be healthier and more robust.

So to NOT invest, develop and attempt to lead in this sector is to cut one's economic nose off despite one's economic face.

That is seriously open to debate. Our greatest prosperity has come during the fossil fuels era. One way or another you have to deindustrialize, in whole or in part, and lock down, in whole or in part, for this to happen.

 

[Grand Mal]

And Scotland can get up to 80% of their electricity from Nuclear power when the wind is not blowing.
They also have tidal power and hydro power.

Book title- How The Scots Invented The Modern World.
Odd how one of the smallest nations can free itself from dependence on technology that's over a hundred years old.

 

[longview]

The fact of the matter is it has less to do with saving the world than it does with sound economics.

The future is some form of GREEN and the nation that owns more of the patents, licensing and capacity in this sector of that economy will be healthier and more robust.

So to NOT invest, develop and attempt to lead in this sector is to cut one's economic nose off despite one's economic face.

The oil companies have already made the investment, they are simply waiting of economic viability.
Oil has a real cost, it is not free, and that cost is increasing as the demand increases and the supply shrinks.
When the price of oil exceeds the price to make finished fuel products from atmospheric CO2, water and electricity,
they will switch to man made fuels, a new color of gas pump will show up.
What is more the process is not that complicated, so any nation with an energy supply can make all the fuel they need.
The fuel will be carbon neutral, simply because the atmosphere and the ocean are the easiest source of the carbon needed.
I think the number is about $96 a barrel or higher stable price, but this is based on $50 per MWh wholesale electricity,
and a 60% storage efficiency, the electricity could be cheaper, and the storage efficiency will likely be higher.

 

[Grand Mal]

The fact of the matter is it has less to do with saving the world than it does with sound economics.

The future is some form of GREEN and the nation that owns more of the patents, licensing and capacity in this sector of that economy will be healthier and more robust.

So to NOT invest, develop and attempt to lead in this sector is to cut one's economic nose off despite one's economic face.

Stubbornly staying dependant on technology that's over a hundred years old is like pandas being so diet-specific their survival depends on human kindness. Sooner or later the inevitability of evolution will happen.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

That is seriously open to debate. Our greatest prosperity has come during the fossil fuels era. One way or another you have to deindustrialize, in whole or in part, and lock down, in whole or in part, for this to happen.

And given that technology drives the economy and that technology is decidedly affecting the energy sector, you don't believe a paradigm shift is eminent? In fact, the metrics obviously show it is taking place already?

I'd politely suggest that indicates blinders and its adherent shortsightedness.

 

[longview]

That is seriously open to debate. Our greatest prosperity has come during the fossil fuels era. One way or another you have to deindustrialize, in whole or in part, and lock down, in whole or in part, for this to happen.

I disagree! I think we have enough energy from the Sun to bring everyone alive up to fist world standards should they want that.
the problem is that we need the high energy density package that hydrocarbon fuels provide.
The answer is to store the energy as hydrocarbon fuels.

 

[JBG]

And given that technology drives the economy and that technology is decidedly affecting the energy sector, you don't believe a paradigm shift is eminent? In fact, the metrics obviously show it is taking place already?

I'd politely suggest that indicates blinders and its adherent shortsightedness.

I disagree! I think we have enough energy from the Sun to bring everyone alive up to fist world standards should they want that.
the problem is that we need the high energy density package that hydrocarbon fuels provide.
The answer is to store the energy as hydrocarbon fuels.

If the technology develops that way. Great. Otherwise it's Rainbow Stew (link).

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The oil companies have already made the investment, they are simply waiting of economic viability.

Not precisely. They are doing what greedy US corporations have been doing for a few decades now. Eeking out every last nickel of dying tech to bolster stock prices before innovating to stay ahead of the technology curve.

That is how the US, where the internet was invented, fell behind its curve. Even today the percentage of fiber available to homes is only 55.6% in the US, yet it is 88.4% in South Korea. How sad is that?

That is how the same with cellular tech is taking place, with the US far behind the roll out of 5G behind much of Asia and Europe. Even some third world nations. 5G came into being in 2017. It was deployed vastly around Asia and Europe by 2019. We saw its beginning in the US in 2022.

Greed is the enemy of innovation. It is rather sad that in our nation greed is winning over innovation.

 

[coyote505]

Likely because the green frenzy will NOT materially reduce living standards. While some of the haves will have to give a little (maybe keep your thermostat at 78 degrees), the have nots (by far the majority) will see improvements in the quality of their lives.

Muscle up buttercup, your first world problem is showing.

You're sounding very Obamanistic. No. I'm Not willing to become a Turd World country, just to keep them company.

 

[coyote505]

That's what people said about, cars, planes, computers, cell phones...etc. etc.

The difference is, those were created by the market, not government decree.

 

[JBG]

If biocapacity is true, as seen in diminishing returns, then nature will force a reduction in living standards.

Only if we allow that to happen.

 

[longview]

If the technology develops that way. Great. Otherwise it's Rainbow Stew (link).

The technology is already developed, The Navy and companies like Sunfire energy
are talking about it, The Exxon's, Shell's and BP's of the world are mum, but all had large research projects that are now quiet.
What is happening is that the oil companies are divesting themselves of oil fields that produce at higher prices, and are buying
up solar and wind farms.
bp agrees to take full ownership of Lightsource bp
Shell acquires 1.1 GW of solar projects in Spain
How Big Oil Of The Past Helped Launch The Solar Industry Of Today
This may sound well in the press, but they are securing their lines of supply.

 

[longview]

Not precisely. They are doing what greedy US corporations have been doing for a few decades now. Eeking out every last nickel of dying tech to bolster stock prices before innovating to stay ahead of the technology curve.

That is how the US, where the internet was invented, fell behind its curve. Even today the percentage of fiber available to homes is only 55.6% in the US, yet it is 88.4% in South Korea. How sad is that?

That is how the same with cellular tech is taking place, with the US far behind the roll out of 5G behind much of Asia and Europe. Even some third world nations. 5G came into being in 2017. It was deployed vastly around Asia and Europe by 2019. We saw its beginning in the US in 2022.

Greed is the enemy of innovation. It is rather sad that in our nation greed is winning over innovation.

And greed is what will cause the oil companies to follow the greater profit.

 

[ralfy]

Only if we allow that to happen.

How do you reverse diminishing returns?

 

[PoS]

Sure, as soon as you point out where I said they were doing that.

But you said theyre no better than the ones doing it.

 

[samiam5211]

But you said theyre no better than the ones doing it.

I did.

 

[Buzz]

Well let's just check the text of the study.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate

So the finding was that between 2002 and 2020 they observed a -0.24 W m-2 trend in downward longwave radiation.
That does not sound ambiguous at all. An increase in CO2 is supposed to cause an increase in downward longwave radiation.
What was observed was an increase in Absorbed Solar radiation (ASR) this is in the shortwave (Visible and near visible spectrum).
of course they also say in the plane language summary this,

Long... you are misinterpreting the data. I have explained this to you repeatedly. And the study says the same thing I am saying. Now when will you quit ignoring the rest of the data given in Figure 2? Here is what you are ignoring:

The 'Other' in the blue circle is the added warming from GHGs(which includes CO2) and increasing water vapor(WV). The 'Temp" in the red circle is the increase in global temperatures which is dramatically increasing the OLR. So the one number(−0.24 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1) you keep cherry-picking comes from that total in Figure 2e The increase in ASR is mostly due to the decrease in clouds(black circle) and the decrease in snow, ice, and aerosols(green circle) which are mostly feedbacks from the warming due to increasing GHGs. Now why do you insist on ignoring this data? It's because you just want to claim that CO2 isn't warming the planet anymore even though this is just not true.

The difference is the abstract is subjective opinion, while the observed data, is, well the observed data!

Yeah... and your interpretation of the data is opinion as well. But the difference between your opinion and the author's opinion is that they are actually peer-reviewed and published scientists and you are an anonymous poster on the internet known for lying. Most intelligent people who are not denialists believe the opinion of the scientists over yours.

 

[longview]

Long... you are misinterpreting the data. I have explained this to you repeatedly. And the study says the same thing I am saying. Now when will you quit ignoring the rest of the data given in Figure 2? Here is what you are ignoring:
View attachment 67500107
The 'Other' in the blue circle is the added warming from GHGs(which includes CO2) and increasing water vapor(WV). The 'Temp" in the red circle is the increase in global temperatures which is dramatically increasing the OLR. So the one number(−0.24 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1) you keep cherry-picking comes from that total in Figure 2e The increase in ASR is mostly due to the decrease in clouds(black circle) and the decrease in snow, ice, and aerosols(green circle) which are mostly feedbacks from the warming due to increasing GHGs. Now why do you insist on ignoring this data? It's because you just want to claim that CO2 isn't warming the planet anymore even though this is just not true.

Yeah... and your interpretation of the data is opinion as well. But the difference between your opinion and the author's opinion is that they are actually peer-reviewed and published scientists and you are an anonymous poster on the internet known for lying. Most intelligent people who are not denialists believe the opinion of the scientists over yours.

Buzz what you refuse to understand is that the Planck black body warming, the increase in OLR from a warmer body, is already included in the forcing formula.
Here is a more detailed discussion of the forcing formula and why it is a natural log curve.
Why logarithmic

Uppercase "B" is used in many of the equations, it is part of the forcing formula.

 

[Buzz]

Buzz what you refuse to understand is that the Planck black body warming, the increase in OLR from a warmer body, is already included in the forcing formula.
Here is a more detailed discussion of the forcing formula and why it is a natural log curve.
Why logarithmic
View attachment 67500114
Uppercase "B" is used in many of the equations, it is part of the forcing formula.
View attachment 67500117

Ok... you finally produced something that shows that the Planck function is included in the forcing formula. So what? Do you seriously think that the CO2 level is all of a sudden up to the point that increases are no longer causing more warming? It isn't. That is just more denialist fantasy.

This doesn't change anything. This is just another of your stupid rabbit holes of obfuscation.

Now, how about addressing all the data in that study instead of just cherry-picking it?

 

[longview]

Ok... you finally produced something that shows that the Planck function is included in the forcing formula. So what? Do you seriously think that the CO2 level is all of a sudden up to the point that increases are no longer causing more warming? It isn't. That is just more denialist fantasy.

This doesn't change anything. This is just another of your stupid rabbit holes of obfuscation.

Now, how about addressing all the data in that study instead of just cherry-picking it?

I have to follow the data!
The data says that the OLR increased at the same time as the CO2 level increased, this cannot happen
in the context of the existing forcing formula (Which includes the higher level of Planck radiation).
No added energy imbalance (Negative in that spectrum in fact) no warming!
If the increase in Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR) is a secondary result of earlier CO2 warming, then it is temporary,
because again no new CO2 warming to feed the input.

 

[highroller]

My state is going full blast on renewable sources to be carbon neutral by 2040.

 

[Buzz]

I have to follow the data!
The data says that the OLR increased at the same time as the CO2 level increased, this cannot happen
in the context of the existing forcing formula (Which includes the higher level of Planck radiation).
No added energy imbalance (Negative in that spectrum in fact) no warming!
If the increase in Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR) is a secondary result of earlier CO2 warming, then it is temporary,
because again no new CO2 warming to feed the input.

Ok... so you can't address Figure 2e and all the data from that study. You are just going to cherry-pick what you want and ignore the rest.

This is why you are a climate change denialist who should not be believed by anyone who wants to know what the science of climate change really says.

 

[longview]

Ok... so you can't address Figure 2e and all the data from that study. You are just going to cherry-pick what you want and ignore the rest.

This is why you are a climate change denialist who should not be believed by anyone who wants to know what the science of climate change really says.

ETR, Emitted Thermal Radiation, let's see what the text says as opposed to your interpretation.

ETR is defined positive downwards and is thus equal to −outgoing longwave radiation.

The trend is negative, producing an increase in the outgoing longwave radiation.
They are allowed to interpret the data any way they like, but the detector likely lacks that level of resolution,
which is why we see the Short wave radiation and the longwave radiation is two groups, they have two detectors.

 

[Buzz]

ETR, Emitted Thermal Radiation, let's see what the text says as opposed to your interpretation.

The trend is negative, producing an increase in the outgoing longwave radiation.

None of this goes against my or the authors of this study's interpretation.

They are allowed to interpret the data any way they like, but the detector likely lacks that level of resolution,

You are guessing.

which is why we see the Short wave radiation and the longwave radiation is two groups, they have two detectors.

No duh.

 

[longview]

None of this goes against my or the authors of this study's interpretation.

You are guessing.

No duh.

Can you show anything otherwise?