Percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar is 1.1%

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, mthebold said:

If you add up the area of all those wind turbine bases, they probably consume more space than a conventional power plant.  Still, your point is valid: the effect on agriculture is minimal.  Personally, I would be more concerned about the negative health effects of living near turbines.  If you can site they away from people, they're fine.  Otherwise, we're toying with something we don't understand.  

Solar panels on marginal land could be good, esp. if you pair them with the right kind of agriculture.  

At first, I thought maybe I had poorly worded my question.  However, upon scanning the executive summary, I realized the executive summary doesn't mention 65% of anything.  Even worse: this paper is a discussion of radiative forcing only.  @DanilKa questioned the role of CO2 in raising planetary temperatures, which is not the same thing as CO2's role in radiative forcing.  To respond to NickW's comment, we must first establish the link between radiative forcing & global temperatures.  That requires: 

1)  Knowledge of every variable that may affect temperature over every time scale.
2)  A temperature model that has demonstrated predictive capability.

The article you provided offers neither of those things.  In fact, in the very first sentence of the exec summary, it assumes anthropogenic warming w/o reference, skips any mention of temperature variables, and launches into the details of radiative forcing.  It doesn't address DanilKa's question at all.  

If you would like to prove your point, look for the total list of variables affecting global temperature and a validated predictive model (preferably not the one they used to predict global cooling in the 1970's...).  I'm not convinced scientists have produced either; prove me wrong.  

 

When presented with a fact, the first question we should ask ourselves is, "Why does that matter?"  Just because something is a fact does not mean it's relevant or that it supports an argument.  To wit: a technology can have good EROEI and still be an expensive boondoggle.  EROEI is like Carnot efficiency: it may have some utility to the R&D community whose job is to hypothesize & develop new technologies, but it's useless to the rest of us.  Renewables advocates like it because it's emotionally appealing and allows them to ignore financial unpleasantness.  Nonetheless, it's not a basis for making capital decisions.  EROEI is only relevant in a discussion of future technologies we're researching or would like to be researched.  Outside that context, it's a red herring.  

That said, there are rhetorical techniques that make use of misdirection and assuming a point in contention.  The use of EROEI in this conversation could easily be considered a rhetorical technique.  I.e. it could be considered an intentional attempt to mislead and sway opinion.  Given your incorrect use of an IPCC reference, I'm inclined to believe you are, in fact, intentionally misleading people.  It's difficult to discern intentions over the internet, however, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  Let's try this one more time.  

RE: Wind farms.

1. There are no proven health effects of living near wind farms. Such claims have been rubbished again and again in arenas such as courts and public enquiries.. That said its reasonable to have planning laws that stipulate minimum distances from turbines as they generate some noise. Any ill effect is effectly psychogenic and could apply to any other industrial structure. If low frequency is a killer as claimed then no one could live by the coast

The article you have cited is junk written by a GP - Pseudonym of Sarah Mitchell perhaps. It was written in 2013. How many proven cases since then? 

Wind power only uses the land the turbines sit on and power lines. In regard to thermal plant you appear to have forgotten about the land where the coal or gas is extracted. 

RE Radiative forcing from Anthropogenic emissions

In my original post I omitted the maths I did to come up with 65%.

The report estimates the total radiative forcing of anthropogenic emissions (Co2, N20, Ch4 & CFC's) at 2.83 w/m2 of which Co2 is responsible for 1.82.

The answer therefore is 64.3% so my 65% was a slight overestimate.

I am fully aware that water vapour has a significant role in warming as well but the atmospheric content of water vapour is not growing like the other emissions - it is effectively stable.

Which unwinds the obnoxious  ad hominens you throw in at the end of your lengthy tome and which I have highlighted for reference. 

[NickW + 2,714]

This is the specific section of the IPCC report

Highlighted for clarity

Industrial-Era Anthropogenic Forcing

The total anthropogenic ERF over the Industrial Era is 2.3 (1.1 to 3.3) W m–2. 3 It is certain that the total anthropogenic ERF is positive. Total anthropogenic ERF has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic ERF estimate for 2011 is 43% higher compared to the AR4 RF estimate for the year 2005 owing to reductions in estimated forcing due to aerosols but also to continued growth in greenhouse gas RF. {8.5.1, Figures 8.15, 8.16} Due to increased concentrations, RF from WMGHGs has increased by 0.20 (0.18 to 0.22) W m–2 (8%) since the AR4 estimate for the year 2005. The RF of WMGHG is 2.83 (2.54 to 3.12) W m–2. The majority of this change since AR4 is due to increases in the carbon dioxide (CO2) RF of nearly 10%. The Industrial Era RF for CO2 alone is 1.82 (1.63 to 2.01) W m–2, and CO2 is the component with the largest global mean RF.Over the last decade RF of CO2 has an average growth rate of 0.27 (0.24 to 0.30) W m–2 per decade. Emissions of CO2 have made the largest contribution to the increased anthropogenic forcing in every decade since the 1960s. The best estimate for ERF of WMGHG is the same as the RF but with a larger uncertainty (±20%). {8.3.2, 8.5.2, Figures 8.6, 8.18}

[zerogrid + 8]

Oh well, I'm still none the wiser about any of it but as the Fed has talked down the $ this PM I will revel in NatGAs having shot up from 4.38 o 4.68 MMbtu .... I will saver the £76K I have made this afternoon and leave you thoroughly wonder people to argue over Climate change/Global warming and who said what to whomever, whenever .

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Finally the answer I was looking for when I started the thread before about home installation and why I should/should not do it.  Thank you.  Now I can sleep easy in my air conditioned bedroom that is ultimately powered by....not sure what it's powered by.  Might be coal.  Might be garbage.  @Tom Kirkman do you know what my host government uses?  In any case, I don't need to stay awake another night knowing I'm the only one in the world that's not doing my part with solar on my roof.

Nope, I don't know, but it is most likely hydrocarbons and not "renewables".

[Rashed ALSAYED + 11]

1 minute ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Nope, I don't know, but it is most likely hydrocarbons and not "renewables".

agree with you mate

[Billyjack + 58]

Tom, you cannot present facts to the flock of the religion of Secular Socialism, whose deity is government. You would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than impune their religion's dogma.If you really want to confuse them when they begin spouting their epistle provided by their clergy throw some mathematics at them. Then they really resort to cries of heretic.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Billyjack said:

Tom, you cannot present facts to the flock of the religion of Secular Socialism, whose deity is government. You would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than impune their religion's dogma. If you really want to confuse them when they begin spouting their epistle provided by their clergy throw some mathematics at them. Then they really resort to cries of heretic.

Heh heh, well worded, BillyJack.  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.

Some noobs have given me bright red downvotes here when I say something they disagree with, and that amuses me greatly.

Commenting on anon forums is good practice for me, for sorting through wheat from chaff.  On anon forums, everyone is equal, and it's ideas that count.  Here is a comment copy & pasted from an anon forum, for your consideration:

============================

There's a bit of a difference with 8ch though. It's quite cleverly designed to be mostly uncensorable. The only things that will get "censored" are things that are demonstrable illegal.

The other sites for widespread discussion are owned by agenda pushers so they can censor free thought with the click of button or a clever algorithm.

The reason they have to do that is because their position is either indefensible to start with, or they lack the capacity to debate effectively for a position they are trying to push forward. 

Shills here can try and flood the thread, put up any arguments they want because at the end of the day they can't actually censor opposing views. And if the opposing views are reasoned, logical, and provable then all their arguments are for nothing. The truth will out, as they say. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

And now for a commercial interruption.

For a 10 MB ultra hi-res version of this ^ poster go here.

 

And for a few pages of text that help explain critical thinking mistakes, here is an appendix:

Critical Thinking Mistakes.pdf

Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking aimed at deciding what to believe and what to do. Throughout this book, we have identified mistakes that a good critical thinker should avoid. Some are mistakes that can arise in clarifying or defining a view. Others are mistakes that can arise as we collect or rely on evidence or reasons for a view. Still others arise when we try to draw conclusions for our evidence. And there are even mistakes that can arise as we assess other people’s views or reasons. Knowing what they are will help us to avoid them in our own reasoning. But it will also help to make it clear just what the value is in being a critical thinker: thinking critically is valuable in part because it helps us to avoid some mistakes. This appendix lists all of the mistakes we have discussed. ...

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, mthebold said:

Nice try, but pay attention to the details: an Ad Hominem is when one ignores opposing arguments and directly attacks a person.  In this case, I first analyzed your arguments.  It was your arguments, specifically, that warranted skepticism of your motives.

Twice now, nearly everything you've said could be considered a misleading rhetorical technique.  I wish there were a way to know if you're doing this on purpose or if you really don't know how to think critically.

It was a great response, but really I just wanted to use the new "Great Response" button.

[zerogrid + 8]

I have narrowed the whole issue down to a few simple facts ! Yes, I know, who'd have thought it eh!

Who paid for the' facts' to be issued. Who benefits from the 'facts' being issued!?

It reminds me of a statement in the British Press about how red wine can benefit Type 2 Diabetes because of the Polyphenols in the Grape. The Booze Industry paying for that brilliant piece of information. Until of course you factor in the alcohol which negates any benefit whatsoever, as alcohol is chemically poisonous to a Biochemical body, an attractively packaged poison, no doubt. Why not just eat the grape and benefit from a whole spectrum of nutrition , not destroyed by alcohol. Who would benefit from that though, eh !?

So therefore, my original thoughts about putting solar panels on roofs of houses and not in fields ( subsidised by the tax payer) would still be a cheaper and better way of reducing emissions and saving us all a ton of  sheckels...but then I guess you have to follow the money trail to see who benefits more than the people! So all these 'facts' issued to 'inform' us all merely misdirects the entire argument into reproducing utter crap in the first place. And, the latest magical scientific 'facts' being offered by the 'Scientific Community' is that by 2070 the Earth will be 5 degrees warmer. Now ask these same people to do a 3 month weather forecast....and they will scream that Long Range weather forecasting is not reliable. (You can extrapolate any data to suit your intentions !!)

Now, consider the energy expended on mining for rare earth metals around the Globe for the magnets of Wind Turbines, the elements in electric car batteries and see the total carbon expenditure for these small facets of the larger project. And we all know how the scientifically wondrous the diesel engine turned out and the lying of the Industries' about the benefits of fuel efficiencies etc.

 

Do you ever get the feeling you are being taken for a complete and utter twat, albeit, through the means of clever words and statements from your Corporate machine that revels in Customer Service etc etc etc We are being lied to constantly by everyone who makes statements about how things will get worse or get better, because as we all know, when you think really, really hard....nothing has truly propelled the species into magnificence and wonder since the last Industrial revolution......it's all Bread and Circus !

Edited November 29, 2018 by zerogrid

[Auson + 123]

On 11/23/2018 at 11:33 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

So I'm just going to quietly wait over here for the cries of outrage, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and assorted brickbats.

Another report reluctantly admits that 'green' energy is a disastrous flop

Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

Tom Kirkman,

But Elon is going to change all that he even said so !

The world relies on Elons success so I sure hope he won't let us down.

[DA? + 301]

9 hours ago, Billyjack said:

Tom, you cannot present facts to the flock of the religion of Secular Socialism, whose deity is government. You would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than impune their religion's dogma.If you really want to confuse them when they begin spouting their epistle provided by their clergy throw some mathematics at them. Then they really resort to cries of heretic.

Nor can you present a reality that goes against the Cult of the Dinosaur Juice that goes against their religion. And it seems as simple physics may be a bit to much for one of these cult members.  

[DA? + 301]

13 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Nope, I don't know, but it is most likely hydrocarbons and not "renewables".

Now that depends on the variables, but give it a few more years and the equation gets a lot easier. 

[DA? + 301]

3 hours ago, zerogrid said:

Now ask these same people to do a 3 month weather forecast....and they will scream that Long Range weather forecasting is not reliable. (You can extrapolate any data to suit your intentions !!)

You need to brush up on the difference between weather and climate, very different. If you need it simple my wife teaches primary she maybe able to help.

[DA? + 301]

3 hours ago, zerogrid said:

Now, consider the energy expended on mining for rare earth metals around the Globe for the magnets of Wind Turbines, the elements in electric car batteries and see the total carbon expenditure for these small facets of the larger project. And we all know how the scientifically wondrous the diesel engine turned out and the lying of the Industries' about the benefits of fuel efficiencies etc

That's beginning to change, those mining companies are going for electric as well.

[DA? + 301]

21 minutes ago, Auson said:

Tom Kirkman,

But Elon is going to change all that he even said so !

The world relies on Elons success so I sure hope he won't let us down.

Face palm time, Elon is part of a much bigger effort that's beginning to pay off. The world is turning electric, fossil fuels are going to be history soon.

[zerogrid + 8]

Yes, DA?.....Unfortunately, your attempt to diminish my comment with childish reference to 'Primary' that your wife teaches, according to you.....pushes home the point I made in the entirety of my comment. Whereas the difference is purely 'Time'..The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time....and then see my comment about ''  And, the latest magical scientific 'facts' being offered by the 'Scientific Community' is that by 2070 the Earth will be 5 degrees warmer. Now ask these same people to do a 3 month weather forecast....and they will scream that Long Range weather forecasting is not reliable. (You can extrapolate any data to suit your intentions !!).....merely underlines the fact of taking things out of their context produces childish retorts such as yours. I will not be around to see your comment as I thought this forum was a more grown up platform with energy professionals and not the usual twats trying to get one over the other. Don't waste your time replying as I won't be here to see it......but I know that won't stop you will it !?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

39 minutes ago, DA? said:

Nor can you present a reality that goes against the Cult of the Dinosaur Juice that goes against their religion. And it seems as simple physics may be a bit to much for one of these cult members.  

There are plenty of places we can go to get a dose of your reality.  The fact that we are on an Oil and Gas website might be your first clue as to the fact that we might not be looking for a dose.

DA?, I for one am here to discuss interesting topics with interesting, non-condescending, people.  It is rude to constantly attack people in a place they have chosen to spend their spare time with friends, or at least like-minded people.  We don't appreciate your constant anti-whatever is against your way of life or thinking or whatever.  Please go to where there are other people that think like you and wish to discuss topics that are interesting to both of you.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

47 minutes ago, DA? said:

Now that depends on the variables, but give it a few more years and the equation gets a lot easier. 

Eloquently put.  Did you think of that by yourself?  Bless your heart.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

46 minutes ago, DA? said:

You need to brush up on the difference between weather and climate, very different. If you need it simple my wife teaches primary she maybe able to help.

You have to forgive us, we just can't figure some things out like that.  Because, as you know, we are pretty much hopelessly ignorant.  Incapable of such high thought processes.  Or using reference materials.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

46 minutes ago, DA? said:

That's beginning to change, those mining companies are going for electric as well.

Is that right?  Well, I never!  When did this happen?  Was anyone else aware of such news?  Goodness gracious, and thank goodness DA? is here to enlighten us poor souls to such developments.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, DA? said:

Face palm time, Elon is part of a much bigger effort that's beginning to pay off. The world is turning electric, fossil fuels are going to be history soon.

Don't slap your face too hard.  We know this is difficult for you, but don't hurt yourself.  We have heard that Elon is a Great One.  And to know that his rocket science is yielding results?  Well, that's just Priceless.

Fossil fuels are going to be history soon, everybody!  You heard it here first!

Edited November 29, 2018 by Dan Warnick

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

Trump and others have explained that the freezing cold on Thanksgiving was a proof there was no Global Warming.

It's true that the weather was colder than usual in North America but just look at the big picture.

This map shows the difference between the temperature on Octobre 2018 and the mean temperature between 1951 and 1980.

You can see there are only three colder spots on North America, part of Antarctic and Hymalaya. The rest of the world is hotter.

[Rodent + 1,424]

There is nothing that stirs up a heated debate more than a conversation about climate change or the debate over renewables vs fossil fuels. 

I think most enjoy the lively debate, provided it can be done without attacking the person who you are debating against. There is nothing that diminishes an argument more than when one has to attack the person rather than the idea presented. It sucks the credibility out of your argument if you can not debate the facts and instead must disparage the person. 

I will not comment here on climate change. First I feel I don't have the scientific background to properly assess both sides of the argument, but probably more importantly there is no way that I'm going to change anybody's opinion on such a passionate topic. I could spew facts all day long and I am not going to win anybody over. Likewise neither will you. 

I will say with a dose of reality, which is scary I know, that I live somewhat near a massive wind farm. it's awe inspiring. it is also nothing I would live near, ever. and I can't imagine what this massive wind farm did to the property values nearby. Of course there are hazards with wind farms and to deny that is just silly. They're noisy for starters. They chop up unsuspecting birds. Of course there are hazards with oil wells too; to deny that is also silly. Personally I wouldn't want to live near either. Solar farms are also hazardous, they incinerate birds, which seems equally as tragic as oil soaked birds. 

Yes, our life of luxury comes with a price, regardless of how are you obtain that luxury. You might pay a different price and in a different way, but you will pay it. Or other people pay it for you I guess depending on how you look at it. I enjoy the luxuries of fossil fuels. I also live in the middle of nowhere surrounded by trees, fields, and wildlife. I guess you could say that that is not fair. 

But in this new day and age, I challenge anyone who would judge me for not feeling guilty about my lifestyle to apply your progressive non-judgy ways to me also. 

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Government-Issues-New-Permits-To-Eagle-Killing-Wind-Farms.html

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Ivanpah-Solar-Plant-Becomes-Bird-Incinerator-Graveyard.html

 

[DA? + 301]

59 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

There are plenty of places we can go to get a dose of your reality.  The fact that we are on an Oil and Gas website might be your first clue as to the fact that we might not be looking for a dose.

DA?, I for one am here to discuss interesting topics with interesting, non-condescending, people.  It is rude to constantly attack people in a place they have chosen to spend their spare time with friends, or at least like-minded people.  We don't appreciate your constant anti-whatever is against your way of life or thinking or whatever.  Please go to where there are other people that think like you and wish to discuss topics that are interesting to both of you.

I was responding in like to the post made. I suggest getting a spine if you find my view point upsetting, I thought I was the snow flake.