Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

AGW is.

 

You mean Russian gas I assume.

 

Where does gas come from.

 

LoL the effort spent to rationalize in that argument is impressive.

 

LoL sure.

Better get Qatar and Palau under control before we all die then.

 

Hmmm. The data suggest otherwise.
China’s 2023 coal output hits record high
By Paul Homewood

BEIJING, Jan 17 (Reuters) – China’s coal output reached a record high in 2023, data from the statistics bureau showed on Wednesday, amid an ongoing focus on energy security and a rise in demand after pandemic-related restrictions eased.
The world’s biggest coal producer mined 4.66 billion metric tons of the fuel last year, up 2.9% from a year earlier, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.
For December, output reached 414.31 million tons, nearly flat with November’s 414 million tons and up 1.9% from the year-earlier level.
Daily output over the month was 13.36 million tons, slipping from November’s record high daily average of 13.8 million tons.
The country’s overall power generation, which is dominated by coal-fired plants, rose 8% year-on-year in December.
Analysts are predicting another modest coal production increase in 2024. The rate of growth has slowed over the past year, following an energy security push that drove a ramp-up of output beginning in 2021.
Full story

 

Natural gas is created naturally over the course of hundreds of millions of years. It is formed when layers of decomposing plants and animals are subject to intense heat from the Earth and pressure from rocks.

 

I was unaware that Qatar and Palau produce anymore Anthropogenic global warming pp than any other country.
Do you have figures for that?

 

Read what I said.

 

https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2023

 

I didn't ask about natural gas.

 

I did. I thought you wrote nonsense.
Climate Bureaucrats Give China a Free Pass
Oliver McPherson-Smith RCEnergy

There is no indication this initiative has not been pursued.
China To Build 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants
By Paul Homewood
The report reckons that these new coal plants and blast furnaces will add 150 million tonnes to China’s CO2 emissions. This is roughly half the UK’s total emissions.

China is leading the world in new coal power plants, building more than three times as much new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined in 2020. It isn’t alone in its reliance on coal, however. China and four other countries, India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam, account for more than 80% of the coal power stations planned across the world, according to a June report by the think-tank Carbon Tracker.

 

That's what Germany was getting from Russia

 

Well your retort clearly shows you didn't read it properly, which I assume is why it appeared as nonsense to you.

 

Sure.

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...e-85-2022-russia-biggest-supplier-2023-04-17/

German oil imports rose 8.5% in 2022, Russia biggest supplier

 

Emissions from agricultural pursuits have always been large drivers. From 7000 years ago to today.

Right. No push from government and there would be less move to renewables. I think everyone agrees with that. But the question is why government is doing it?

Trying to show in 1840 one could have made the exact same climate narrative as we see today. You could point to disasters and to increased CO2 and claim causation and demand action. You could sell climate change with fear, just like today.

Sure. But the 1840 world was all the 1840 folks knew. You could have made the same narrative and sold it with the same tactics then as now.

You are certainly welcome to disagree with these studies. But the conclusions conflict with your opinion. On agriculture preventing an ice age the researchers said this:

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

Not my opinion. Researchers say the emissions from early ag kept us from entering a natural ice age. If you disagree with the evidence they base their conclusions on you can. But we can’t deny these researchers concluded entrance into a natural ice age was avoided.

Same with NASA. We can’t ignore what they conclude. NASA says this.

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

If you disagree with this evidence you can provide counter evidence to invalidate it. But we can’t just deny the evidence outright. I’ve pull quoted it twice now.

Your opinion is noted. Please consider your opinion conflicts with peer reviewed research on the matter.

But you would not do a cost benefit analysis? You would not consider decreased costs or increased revenue in your analysis?

No, I am not proposing a narrow view. I’m proposing considering ALL costs and benefits. Not just narrow ones you’ve been conditioned to accept.

Remember I’ve already pointed out the cost of all these supposed disasters is DECREASING. The studies I presented showing decreased cost of disasters had nothing to do with farming except they include losses in the ag sector as well as urban losses to property and infrastructure.

You realize populations are increasing most rapidly in tropical regions, right? Would this be the case if humans were not adapted to warm temps?

No I don’t remember a 1-2 rise globally means 3-4 at the equator. Why? Because that’s not what science shows. The poles are warming much faster than equatorial regions. The north regions of the planet 4 times faster than the global average. A 1-2 global increase means around 0.4-1 at the equator. Arctic amplification, differentials in humidity levels, and land mass distribution all play a part. But observations, modeling, and laws of physics all contradict your assumptions.

Again, researchers say we ALREADY avoided such a “fall” by emitting way back 7000 years ago.

Again, I’m not the one with a narrow view. I’m advocating for inclusion of ALL costs and benefits. You wish to only include COSTS. You don’t want to include fewer cardiovascular deaths in the analysis. That’s the narrow view.

Where are poor harvests due to CO2 driven AGW? Are you referring to places like Somalia etc.? Have I shared this tidbit with you?

https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf

I know, I know, it’s not what you’ve been led to believe, but that’s what is happening.

I’m not sure what you are asking about old people in cold places.

I’m saying it’s not. You don’t want it to be part of your analysis because you think adding data points is narrow minded.

Re cows today emitting more methane than native ruminants in the 1800’s? I’m 1840 there were about 36-60 million bison burping in the US. There are about 39 million beef and dairy cows in the US today. Not sure I see a big problem there. Perhaps other places on the planet have increased non native ruminants over native past populations.

I don’t know about rabbits except as hind gut fermenters so methane would primarily come out the other end than cattle. I don’t know how the global population of rabbits has changed either. Someone is welcome to figure it out.

We do know fossil fuel usage has increased.

I just hope we don’t attribute stupidity to everyone who questions the popular narrative on climate change.

On rare occasions I offer an opinion. Here’s one. Honesty is always the best policy.

Yes I agree fantastic ideas like net zero are one reason for the attitudes that prompted the premise in the OP. Despair, hopelessness, giving up.

Agree the most vociferous attacks on EVs are hyperbole. Even I routinely make 30 mile commutes without heavy loads. I say let folks drive what they want. One trip down the interstate on-ramp in a Tesla usually converts the doubters. Let EVs sell themselves on their merits. Don’t force the issue. It pisses people off and leads to western nations partnering with China to do things like build massive coal power plants in Indonesia.

Sure. Now is what matters. We can learn from the past but have to live in the present.

I don’t think scientists are in it for money. But I certainly see evidence that some climate change policy is certainly centered on attempts to create equity among nations.

All climatologists certainly don’t agree. If they did you and I would not be having this conversation.

Agreed.

No. He claimed Bangladesh had no way to benefit from Canadian ag. Had no idea they already were. I think we’ve retired the idea CO2 driven AGW is responsible for food problems in Bangladesh. I hope so anyway.

Sounds like just the folks to trust with climate policy! They aren’t being lobbied by folks who really care about humans or the environment, are they?

Poorer countries should be helped by us to increase their soil organic matter. They need it more than us. They would benefit most. Degradation of soils is worst in places without resources. Increased organic matter reduces erosion they suffer more from. It increases water infiltration that placed like Bangladesh desperately need. It reduces need for synthetic fertilizer they can’t afford. It stops desertification in these places that threatens their lives. My life doesn’t depend on half a percentage soil organic matter. In other parts of the world that would mean the difference between life and death.

I agree my figures are crude and a generalization. It’s just a starting point. I don’t have intimate knowledge of rice production for instance. I know what’s possible on soils supporting cereal grains, corn, soybeans and many forage crops. But others I couldn’t supply 100% accurate figures for if I wanted to.

I’m a huge fan of individuals/families growing a portion of their food. For many reasons including CO2.

Yes, famine is primarily political. It’s not being driven by CO2 induced climate change although most people believe it is.[/QUOTE]

 

Availability of land for reforestation and afforestation is unrelated to population for the most part. Most population growth is in very small geographical areas. Forests weren’t destroyed to make room for human housing.

Not only can we replace trees, we have knowledge we can apply to using the trees best suited to the purpose. A tree that sequesters carbon while simultaneously fixing nitrogen to reduce need for fossil fuel based fertilizers is better than one that doesn’t fix nitrogen. A tree that supplies mast to fatten a pig is better than one that doesn’t.

Agreed.

Yeh, I remember thinking tidal and wave were brilliant ideas when I was a child. Unfortunately hasn’t panned out.

Wind and solar are great as long as we don’t have to get too authoritarian about them.

I say use all that make sense.

It’s good people are taking advantage of cheaper off peak power. With your high rates it would certainly be attractive. I agree storage solutions are key to good utilization of wind and solar. A lot of room for innovation.

 

Sure. The percentage of power coming from coal in China is decreasing. But that’s a totally different thing than claiming consumption of coal sourced electricity in China is decreasing. That simply isn’t true. Quite the opposite is occurring.

The atmosphere doesn’t care about percentages. Only total emissions which are increasing. Windmills don’t take CO2 out of the atmosphere that coal power plants put there.

 

Coal is a decreasing PERCENT of energy production in China.

The reason is that clean energy is growing faster than is coal.

You can't detect China's energy direction by looking at one single source of electricity.

 

You are catching on! Percentages are different than total sums.

I have no interest in your obsession with China. I’m simply pointing out their use of coal sourced electricity is increasing, not decreasing as you claimed.

I’m also concerned China is building captive coal plants outside China to process their raw materials for their “green” projects. But you aren’t aware of that game and wouldn’t care if you were.

 

It will be interested to see the effect on China's oil consumption of the transportation sector moving toward EVs.

It won't be immediate, but new car sales demonstrate a strong trend.

 

The transportation sector isn't moving towards EVs.

The EV nonsense is a massive failure.

I mean leftist cities are welcome to go for it.

Maybe shoe leather will keep the population alive.

 

What is important is their direction.

And, that is NOT shown by looking at coal alone. What IS important is their change in electricity production technology mix. In addition, it's important to recognize their infrastructure improvements in transporting electricity - a major investment in a clean energy future.

Also, let's remember that they emit less greenhouse gas per capita than we do.

When someone does better than we do, at something that is seriously important, we should understand how they did it.

 

LoL he thinks the Chinese are interested in the whole "green" agenda thing.

He truly believes it!

 

There is no doubt that concerns of those living in cities are not identical to concerns of those living in smaller cities and somewhat more rural environments.

According to Kelly Bluebook, EV sales grew by 46% between 2022 and 2023. Prices are highly likely to decrease, as battery prices are decreasing rapidly, and there is more industry focus on price competition.

Why would this trend stop?