Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

What's your point?

Coal has had a declining share in China's electricity generation since 2007.

Your cite discusses projections based on China's economy and possible government actions for stimulation.

From your cite:
"Due to rapidly rising electricity generation from renewables, coal's share of the total generation mix dropped to 62.1% last year, its lowest share since at least 2015."

In China, it is renewables that are the fastest growing.

Again, what is your point?

 

My point is your claim as posted is patently false and that you are conflating two very different things.

Your understanding of coal and China is equivalent to me saying I won’t die of eating poisonous mushrooms because they are only a percentage of my meal. When coal emissions INCREASE it INCREASES atmospheric CO2 and other pollutants no matter how many freaking windmills surround the coal generation plant.

That’s the point. China is INCREASING EMISSIONS FROM COAL. Not decreasing them as you claimed.

 

I posted generation, NOT consumption - which is not what you have suggested I've done in the past.

I posted the analysis of trusted organizations.

NO. As in the past, I've pointed out that the PERCENT of contribution by coal is decreasing while the PERCENT contribution by clean energy is increasing.

THAT is what is pertinent in considering China's direction.

You are forgetting that China is expanding electricity production.

The USA can be more aggressive about ending coal since we have a GIGANTIC supply of natural gas - which China doesn't have. So we brag about coal reduction while majorly increasing use of natural gas.


It would be a significant help if you stated what you're intention is here.

What is your reason for concern about China?

 

Which is the other factor I mentioned. So what has caused these changes of cloud formation and region? You can't present half an equation as evidence.

 

@557
For starters trying to find accurate figures is a nightmare. For instance New scientist says we humans produce 26Gt annually.
But livestock farmers are arguing that they produce 8.1Gt which is apparently only 15.6% of global emissions. That would make human contribution 52Gt. Anyway I've taken the lower figure as a start point
So some initial calcs. Annually rounded.
Land. Animals microbes vegetation produces 440 Gt and absorbs roughly the same ...Nett 0
Oceans Produce 330Gt and absorb 340Gt ...Nett -10
Human activity produces 26Gt absorbs 0Gt... Net +26
So nett total... 16Gt
Forests globally absorb 0.008Gt more than they produce. So we would need to increase forest cover by 2,000 times to reach nett zero.
So it can't realistically be done by forest increase.
If we stopped eating meat that would have a significant effect and that I guess is where you come in with methods by which we continue to eat meat but reduce its emissions.
Over to you

 

Here's a key paragraph from the linked paper. The short version is that cleaner air has driven the decline in reflectivity.

A number of important observations emerge from the observed trends (figure 4). First, the results show that changes to surface reflection, dominated by changes to polar snow cover and sea ice, for example, have only a small influence on the observed global-mean TOA trend. The trend in the global-mean surface contribution is not significantly different from zero at the 95 per cent level. By contrast, all trends of non-surface components are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level and the observed trend in total reflected flux manifestly occurs as a result of changes to the reflection from Earth's atmosphere and not from the surface. As shown below, this change to atmospheric scattering is dominated by changes occurring in the low and mid-latitude atmosphere, a point also noted by Loeb et al. [22]. The second main result conveyed in figure 4a, and one not commonly appreciated, is the contribution to the observed trend in the TOA flux by the atmosphere has a significant contribution that comes from changes in clear sky atmosphere scattering that have occurred over the past two decades. This is revealed more clearly in figure 4b, in which the contributions by the atmosphere are further dissected into its cloudy and clear sky components, indicating that the reduction in SW reflection to space is caused almost equally by the two. Since changes to atmospheric clear sky scattering are dominated by aerosols, this result is suggestive of a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol particle concentration that is known to have occurred over this time (e.g. [40]).

 

I’ll deny any sort of idea that we can have a reversing effect on climate change. I’m positive we likely do affect the climate but with any kind of energy demand there will be adverse effects. I don’t see it happening and the only way to reduce the human footprint is to reduce the human population. That also is something I would disagree with because it would murder by hysteria.

 

A recent research result suggests the "deniers" have been right all along. Perhaps the alarmists may want to begin their apologies by switching to the term "skeptics" to describe those whose disagree with their narrative.
The Conclusion Humans Drive Atmospheric CO2 Increases Is Undermined By Carbon Isotope Data
By Kenneth Richard on 18. March 2024

“From modern instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years, no signs of human (fossil fuel) CO2 emissions can be discerned.” – Koutsoyiannis, 2024
It is routinely claimed that a telltale sign human emissions (fossil fuels) have irrevocably altered the atmospheric CO2 concentration is a declining trend in carbon isotope 13 (δ13C), considered an interruption of natural carbon cycle processes.

But new research examining isotopic data from four observation sites (South Pole, Mauna Loa, Barrow, La Jolla – regarded as “global” in their coverage) indicates there is no isotopic pattern consistent with a human fingerprint.

“The standard metric δ13C is consistent with an input isotopic signature that is stable over the entire period of observations (>40 years), i.e., not affected by increases in human CO2 emissions.”

In fact, not only has the input isotopic CO2 signature not been declining as proposed by those who believe humans are fully responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but, according to multiple detection techniques using both modern data and paleo data extending to the Little Ice Age (16th to mid-19th century), δ13C [input] has actually been increasing.

This directionality is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen if fossil fuels were driving atmospheric CO2 increases.

“…for the longer subperiod lengths, 20 and 30 years, the tendencies are clearly increasing, opposite to the hypothesis that they are caused by fossil fuel emissions”

“…the trends are small and always positive, again contradicting the fossil fuel origin of the phenomenon”

“…from period B to C [1899-1976 to 1977-1997], we note an increase in δ13C [input, from -13.9‰ to -12.9‰], contradicting the fossil fuel origin of the phenomenon”


Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2024

 

Raises two obvious questions.
1, Where has all the man made Co2 gone ?
2, Where is all the extra Co2 we are seeing in our atmosphere coming from?

During all of the cycles between ice ages and warm periods over the past million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide never climbed higher than 300 parts per million. At the end of the last ice age around 20,000 years ago, it was 280 ppm. Today it is close to 410. The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster.

 

The authors have provided answers.
7. Conclusions
The results of the analyses in this paper provide negative answers to the research questions posed in the Introduction. Specifically:

• From modern instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years, no signs of human (fossil fuel) CO2 emissions can be discerned;
• Proxy data since the Little Ice Age suggest that the modern period of instrumental data does not differ, in terms of the net isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 sources and sinks, from earlier centuries.

Combined with earlier studies, namely [2,3,4,5,31], these findings allow for the following line of thought to be formulated, which contrasts the dominant climate narrative, on the basis that different lines of thought are beneficial for the progress of science, even though they are not welcomed by those with political agendas promoting the narratives (whose representatives declare that they “own the science”, as can be seen in the motto in the beginning of the paper).

• It the 16th century, Earth entered a cool climatic period, known as the Little Ice Age, which ended at the beginning of the 19th century;
• Immediately after, a warming period began, which has lasted until now. The causes of the warming must be analogous to those that resulted in the Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD, the Roman Climate Optimum around the first centuries BC and AD, the Minoan Climate Optimum at around 1500 BC, and other warming periods throughout the Holocene;
• As a result of the recent warming, and as explained in [5], the biosphere has expanded and become more productive, leading to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and greening of the Earth [17,18,19,32];
• As a result of the increased CO2 concentration, the isotopic signature δ13C in the atmosphere has decreased;
• The greenhouse effect on the Earth remained stable in the last century, as it is dominated by the water vapour in the atmosphere [31];
• Human CO2 emissions have played a minor role in the recent climatic evolution, which is hardly discernible in observational data and unnecessary to invoke in modelling the observed behaviours, including the change in the isotopic signature δ13C in the atmosphere.

Overall, the findings in this paper confirm the major role of the biosphere in the carbon cycle (and through this in climate) and a non-discernible signature of humans.
One may associate the findings of the paper with several questions related to international policies. Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect? Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions? Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment? These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper’s confined scope but require further research. The reader may feel free to study such questions and provide sensible replies. It is relevant to note that a reviewer implied these questions and suggested negative replies to each of them.

 

Yeah the country that produces double the carbon of the US is, in leftist minds, "the world leader on clean energy".

Next you'll tell me about how tofu dreg construction is the world leader in construction methods.

It's not an unwarranted attack. How leftists think is on full display every day.

I "LoL" because the nonsense is palpable.

Suggesting that China is somehow some kind of worldwide leader in clean energy is so poorly thought out, so deeply delusional, that you can only laugh at the people suggesting it. It's a level of delusion so far separated from reality that there's nothing you can say to those purporting it.

China doubling it's already double carbon production (which is a ridiculous metric to begin with) to mildly reduce US emissions by a few % is the epitome of stupid ideas....particularly when the underlying premise fails as spectacularly as it does, and as it did in Germany.

Russia is at war with Ukraine thanks again, primarily, to leftist warmongering. The Obama administration, and a few select RINOs, spent a full 8 years shoving their arms down to the elbow into their Ukrainian sock puppet. The entire invasion was a result of leftist war-mongers poking Russia with their vassal country, while simultaneously funding Russia with their idiotic green agenda failures.

Everything the leftist mind conjures up is a failure, both foreign and domestic.

 

"Temporarily fall back on coal".

LoL.

 

LoL they went from 40GW in 2021 and are currently building enough coal plants to produce 86GW.

They've more than doubled their coal plant plans in 2-3 years.

They built more than two coal plants PER WEEK in 2022.

The frickin nonsense that comes from the left.

 

The problem with saying the volumes of fossil fuels used to pump fens in 1840 are insignificant is that then we can say that about anything. I could use that equivalent of CO2 emissions being insignificant to justify increasing emissions on my farm for short term profit. Then when everyone uses that equivalency to justify their use of fossil fuels you end up with 37 Gt per annum of emissions.

I maintain all of our actions are significant.

That said, I see and agree with your point that 1840 level total emissions levels would certainly be more in line with what people say they want today.

It’s actually curators of science that are pushing politicians. And most politicians are not motivated by ideals. I think it’s a mistake to assume a wind generator company is less motivated by money than an oil company. Or to assume they don’t lobby politicians into symbiotic relationships motivated by profit and campaign finance as well.

A sample of fodder that could have been used to promote the idea emissions were leading to devastating climate change.

In 1840 the second most destructive tornado in US history killed 317. The record holder for deaths in the US was a tornado in 1925 that killed 695.

In the UK there were unprecedented floods in 1840.

https://tewkesburyhistory.org/A-List-of-Floods

With 1840 emissions and 1840 “climate disasters” the exact same case could be made as today. Unprecedented disasters and increased emissions correlations.

Why do people always assume this stuff is my idea? I’m just going off research. I’m not making it up, honest!

https://news.virginia.edu/content/mounting-evidence-suggests-early-agriculture-staved-global-cooling#:~:text=A new analysis of ice,warmer climate we experience today.

Ice ages require there to be very little resistance to slight variations in temperatures of specific geographical regions, typically cooling of upper reaches of the northern hemisphere. With the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere it would be almost unimaginable that natural solar and orbital cycles could trigger cooling and ice formation in upper latitudes needed to start the process.

Most people believe NASA to be an acceptable source. Again, not me making stuff up.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/45/wha...less-active-will-we-enter-into-a-new-ice-age/

I had hoped to get a businessman to leap to a cost/benefit analysis. I should have been more clear I’m not looking for dollar amounts and exact figures.

The evidence shows a comparison between cancer and AGW is not valid because it assumes incorrectly AGW has only negative consequences (or that cancer has positive consequences which is not supported by any evidence I’m aware of).

From above on prevention of ice ages, in comparison to a 1-2°C rise in global temps, what would it cost to survive a 1-2°C drop in global temperatures? Not to the dollar, just ballpark? What about a 3-4°C rise vs. a 3-4°C drop? I hope I don’t have to get into the details on that.

I’m pretty sure the reason most people conclude I don’t want solutions is because I point out inconvenient evidence that conflicts with the popular narrative. But neither you nor I would enter into a new area of business without considering both costs and benefits. But that is exactly what we are asked to do on climate. We are asked to believe all change is bad and that all change is the result of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Both are completely false premises.

When the argument about cost of adaptation to AGW was introduced to you, was data like this part of the analysis?

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061832

So when it’s cold, 8 times more people die of temp related cardiovascular events than when it’s hot. And the frequency of cold events is decreasing faster than the increase in heat events.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00404-x

If that’s not part of the cost/benefit analysis of cost to “adapt” why isn’t it? Humans are adapted to temps above temps today. We are at the bottom end of the temp spectrum humans can survive and thrive. Without fossil fuels we would not have thrived. The evidence is all around us, we’ve just been conditioned to see only what we are told to see, and that is carefully curated.

Perhaps. Force is certainly counterproductive if you want widespread public support. Not everyone is willing to accept and/or support authoritarianism in this area of government. But the allure of cheap, dense energy of fossil fuels is very strong. I maintain a better approach would have been focusing on human health consequences of aerosol/particulate pollution from fossil fuels. It’s on the back burner in the narrative, but much more significant from a risk to humans perspective than CO2.

Particulate pollution would be a better analogy along with cancer. Much better than a cancer/warming or cancer/CO2 comparison.

Thanks. I agree net zero is unicorn and rainbow thinking at this point. However in the context of this thread, such pie in the sky thinking does drive people to give up and believe efforts are hopeless. I think goals should be reasonable. Your approach of historic levels 1840-1960 are more realistic and more likely to attract support.

We can imagine what would happen if we stopped fossil fuel usage today. The population would decrease and there would be no more increased rate of population increase for a long time if ever. We could also wipe out 5 billion people with a pandemic and fossil fuel usage would plummet. I wouldn’t want to prove anything with either method but I think it’s pretty obvious how the two issues are related and intertwined.

Probably the only crucial point was the data showing precipitation available to create flooding in Bangladesh has decreased quite a bit from levels seen in the 1901-1930 time period. That kind of deflated the argument CO2 driven excess precipitation is to blame for Bangladesh’s current problems. Has to be something else…

You’ve probably heard the argument climate policy is created to weaken first world economies and transfer wealth to second and third world countries. I’ve seen quotes of climate activists claiming such. Don’t know if they are valid or not.

I like to analyze as much as possible at the global scale. Does humanity as a whole benefit or receive harm? Does global production of food increase or decrease etc.? Are global cardiovascular deaths higher with hot or cold dominant weather? With a global trade economy I don’t see why anyone has to lose.

I’ve never really considered climate policy as a geopolitical weapon. Perhaps I should.

I had a guy on PF tell me increased wheat production in Canada doesn’t help someone in Bangladesh any good. They have no access to Canadian wheat. I had to explain Bangladesh is already the sixth largest importer of Canadian wheat and any excess production in Canada makes wheat more affordable for imports to Bangladesh. So yes, Bangladesh does benefit when climate change helps a Canadian farmer.

Pretty much. That’s where the fossil fuels came from.

Yes. Carbon is life. Who doesn’t want more plant animal and human life?

No, urban stacking makes sense to me. There are numerous benefits. Locally grown food. Filtration of particulate pollutants. Mental health benefits from a greener more natural environment. Capture of some CO2. Huge mitigation of urban heat island effects (much lower summer temp daytime highs). Etc., etc.

Back of the napkin, there are about 4.6 billion acres of farmland globally. There are regenerative ag producers sequestering 1.5 tons of carbon per acre annually. If every acre was carefully managed (this is debatable because different soils and climates and crops have varying potential) to sequester 1.5 tons carbon annually that’s 6.9 billion tons (6.9 Gt C) of carbon. Each unit of carbon stored requires 3.67 units of CO2 so we multiply the 6.9 Gt C by 3.67 to get 25 Gt CO2 removed from the atmosphere annually. We emitted 37 Gt CO2 last year.

Another data point. Thirty percent of all CO2 emissions over time came from deforestation.

It takes a combination of agriculture, forestry, addressing desertification etc. to hit net zero. And I think that’s as rainbow and unicorn as net zero by ending all fossil fuels. But there is huge potential to be tapped.

At some point commercial biochar will be viable. Renewable energy with a carbon byproduct that is stable (sequestered) for thousands of years in the soil and increases fertility, bio activity and water infiltration/retention.

 

Well said. You have far more patience than I do to get anything past the mental barriers.

Biochar is already making it's way into the lawn care community as a gangbusters product. My lawn has never looked better than with that stuff.

Humic acids are another amazing heavily carbon product for plant life. Love that stuff.

 

Yes numbers are all over the place. This is a pretty comprehensive analysis.

They come up with 7.6 Gt annual now. Globally, we have destroyed about 1/3 of our forests. If we replaced what we took that adds 2.5 Gt annual sequestration.

Restoring native grasslands and eating grass fed ruminants sourced meat would be the best carbon sequestration method in many locations. Large ruminants are about the best soil carbon and carbon cycle managers nature has ever come up with.

Probably the best system overall is savanna type systems where native grasses and trees (some of which should be mast bearing) are combined. Forest edge environments are very productive. Ruminants, monogastrics like pigs, and poultry can be rotated through these systems—all benefitting and returning benefits to the land.

Meat isn’t the problem. The problem is tilling up land (which releases carbon) to grow corn to feed cattle, hogs and chickens that aren’t even “made” to eat corn. They can eat mast, grass, insects etc. they evolved eating, and instead of polluting the environment they can improve it. But people would have to WANT to eat healthy meat instead of doughnuts and soft drinks. You can’t make doughnuts and Pepsi out of acorns and grass and worms/insects.

 

Well you better stop trusting whoever you got that nonsense from. I am not forgetting anything. I’m simply pointing out that China is GENERATING MORE electricity from coal than ever. A record. This means coal CONSUMPTION is also record high. It also means coal based EMISSIONS are record high.

You said this.

That statement is patently FALSE. China’s consumption of coal fired electricity hit an ALL TIME record in 2023. To CONSUME coal fired electricity they must GENERATE it by CONSUMING coal. This creates EMISSIONS. All are INCREASING in China. Coal fired generation. Coal fired consumption. And coal fired emissions.

I doesn’t matter that they are increasing wind power as well. They are still INCREASING consumption of coal fired electricity, the exact opposite of your claim.

I matters because total emissions are what matters. Total emissions are INCREASING.

I didn’t bring up China. You made a false claim about China. I simply corrected your gross error.

SMH

 

What I've said is true.

There is bad news, but there is also good news as China puts more investment into clean energy than any other country in the world.

And, what do you want to do about that?

 

No, what you said is pure delusion.

If the world's primary producer of carbon, by more than 100% of the US, is "investing in clean energy more than any other country in the world" by building two new coal fire plants every week, then no amount of explanation can help pull you out of that delusion.

I can't fathom how anyone could come to such ridiculous conclusions about China and their plans.

A 10 year old could see the problem with that idea.

 

My guess would be that they're counting all the "green" technology that they're selling to all the western suckers, I mean countries, in the world as their "investment" in clean energy.

Just when you thought it couldn't get stupider.......

 

It's absolutely hilarious.

They think they have an environmental "win" by China building two new coal plants per week in order to reduce the emissions of a country with less than half the CURRENT carbon output of China by a couple percentage points.

I don't even have words for how ridiculously dumb that argument is.

 

I didn't make that statement in a vacuum.

The reference is to data showing that coal IS a declining percent of fuel for power production.

I brought up China, because they ARE the worst emitter of greenhouse gasses.

But, they are also working hard to do something about that.

They are the world leaders in clean energy patents, manufacturing, exports and installation. They have created far better electricity transport than we have.

The result is that the percent of electricity from coal is dropping while the percent of electricity from clean energy is rising.



>>> As for the USA, we emit far more greenhouse gasses per capita than does China.

What YOU are trying to do is point fingers at China when we ourselves have work to do.

We need China's clean energy technology. We need China's far cheaper electricity transportation, such as their super high voltage AC and DC transmission technology so we can operate as a country, not as local point source production.

 

You figure this out by looking at the data from trusted sources that measure this stuff.

 

This is why I don't even bother trying to go into details, reports, modeling, or anything else with leftists.

They can't even grasp basic concepts when they highlight China as some kind of champion of clean energy.

You can't have a more simple concept to grasp right there, but they don't even understand THAT.

 

Or you could just use basic logic instead of an appeal to authority.

If you can't understand that China doubling it's coal factories in 3 years to produce solar panels for a country with less than half it's carbon output, for a few % carbon decrease is a huge net loss, then you're not capable of understanding anything you read on the topic.