Global Warning/Climate Change

[temporal1]

Page 40:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political organization, not a scientific body.

Of this, I agree.

[temporal1]

2022:

Renewables will never supply enough power with current technologies.

Nuclear is the only way to go. If one really wants to remove fossil fuels, nuclear is a must.
Safe, clean and efficient.

2017:

Wayne in Maine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:42 pm

Redistribution of wealth, among other things.
Some environmental organizations are pushing for particular energy sources such as wind and solar (certainly not nuclear,
there is though a consensus among scientists that nuclear is the best option to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions).

I'll let other speak to this.

Great minds.

2023:
IFI / Green Energy: Greatest Wealth Transfer to the Rich in History
https://illinoisfamily.org/climate-chan ... n-history/

“Since 2000, the world has spent more than $5 trillion on green energy.
More than 300,000 wind turbines have been erected, millions of solar arrays were installed, more than 25 million electric vehicles (EVs) have been sold, hundreds of thousands of acres of forest were cut down to produce biomass fuel, and about three percent of agricultural land is now used to produce biofuel for vehicles.”

We are in the midst of history’s greatest wealth transfer.
Government subsidized wind systems, solar arrays, and electric vehicles overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy members of society and rich nations. The poor and middle class pay for green energy programs with higher taxes and higher electricity and energy costs. Developing nations suffer environmental damage to deliver mined materials needed for renewables in rich nations.

Since 2000, the world has spent more than $5 trillion on green energy.
More than 300,000 wind turbines have been erected, millions of solar arrays were installed, more than 25 million electric vehicles (EVs) have been sold, hundreds of thousands of acres of forest were cut down to produce biomass fuel, and about three percent of agricultural land is now used to produce biofuel for vehicles. The world spends about $1 trillion per year on green energy. Government subsidies run about $200 billion annually, with more than $1 trillion in subsidies spent over the last 20 years.

World leaders obsess over the need for a renewable energy transition to save the planet from human-caused global warming. Governments deliver an endless river of cash to promote adoption of green energy. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided $370 billion in subsidies and loans for renewables and EVs. But renewable subsidies and mandates overwhelmingly favor the rich members of society at the expense of the poor.

Wind systems receive production tax credits, property tax exemptions, and sometimes receive payments even when not generating electricity. Landowners receive as much as $8,000 per turbine each year from leases for wind systems on their land.
Lease income can be quite high for a landowner with many turbines. In England, ordinary taxpayers pay hundreds of millions of pounds per year in taxes that are funneled as subsidies to wind companies and wealthy land owners.

In the U.S., 39 states currently have net metering laws.
Net metering provides a credit for electricity generated by rooftop solar systems that is fed back into the grid.
Solar generators typically get credits at the retail electricity rate, about 14 cents per kilowatt-hour.
This is a subsidized rate, which is more than double the roughly five cents per kilowatt-hour earned by power plants. Apartment residents and homeowners that cannot afford to install rooftop solar pay higher electricity bills to subsidize homes that receive net metering credits. Rooftop solar owners also receive federal and state tax incentives, another wealth transfer from ordinary citizens.

U.S. federal subsidies of up to $7,500 for each electric car purchased, along with additional state subsidies, directly benefit EV buyers. The average price of an EV in the U.S. last year was $66,000, which is out of reach for most drivers. A 2021 University of Chicago study found that California EV owners only drive 5,300 miles per year, less than half the mileage for a typical car.
Most electric cars in the U.S. are second cars for the rich.

A mid-size electric car needs a battery that weighs about a 1,000 pounds to provide acceptable driving range.
Because of battery weight, EVs tend to be about 50 percent heavier than gasoline cars, which causes increased road damage.
But EVs don’t pay the road tax included in the price of every gallon of gasoline. EVs should pay higher road taxes than traditional cars, but today this cost is borne by everyday gasoline car drivers.

Renewable systems require huge amounts of special metals.
Electric car batteries need cobalt, nickel, and lithium to achieve high energy density and performance.
Magnets in wind turbines require rare earth metals, such as neodymium and dysprosium.
Large quantities of copper are essential for EV engines, batteries, wind and solar arrays, and electricity transmission systems to connect to remote wind and solar sites.
According to the International Energy Agency, an EV requires about six times the special metals of a gasoline or diesel car.
A wind array requires more than ten times the metals of a natural gas power plant on a delivered-electricity basis.
The majority of these metals are mined in developing countries.

Almost 70 percent of cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Indonesia produces more than 30 percent of the world’s nickel.
Chile produces 28 percent of the copper.
China produces 60 percent of the rare earth metals.
These nations struggle with serious air and water pollution from mining operations.
Workers in mines also suffer from poor working conditions and the use of forced labor and child labor practices.
But apparently no cost is too great so that rich people in developed nations can drive a Tesla.

To top it off, the European Union recently approved a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
The CBAM will tax goods coming from poor nations which aren’t manufactured using low-carbon processes.
CBAM revenues will be a great source of funds for Europe’s green energy programs that benefit the wealthy.

In January, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Washington proposed a wealth tax on billionaires.
It’s interesting to note that all seven of these states mandate and heavily subsidize wind and solar arrays and electric vehicles, which transfer wealth from poor and middle-class residents to those same billionaires.

To repeat, i’ve never been tempted with millions/billions/trillions of dollars. i’m sure the temptation is powerful.
After all, in the Garden, it was an apple. A bite of an apple.
God have mercy.

“1 Trillion: $1,000,000,000,000”
viewtopic.php?t=4096
To begin, public mention of 1 Trillion Dollars was gasp-worthy. Unthinkable. Not long ago.
Today, Congress is far beyond a singular trillion, MULTIPLES of trillions are thrown around in “news” reporting, as-if these numbers can be understood. God understands.

i don’t believe humans have the ability to comprehend what they’re playing with here. Not Congress!
i believe doing so represents irresponsibility on a grand scale. i understand the horrifying power of temptation.
i pray for the souls involved. they need it.

[Robert]

One person's opinion. Interesting points.

[Robert]

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/05/05 ... are-built/

Several studies over two decades have found that wind turbines impact local meteorological conditions by raising temperatures at the surface level.

The impacts are different from the warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions from oil, gas and coal in that they only last while the wind turbines are in operation. However, driven by federal subsidies, wind farms are being built across Wyoming at a rapid pace.

As these spread across the Cowboy State, there’s a growing concern of the cumulative impacts all these projects will produce.

Anne Brande, executive director of the Albany County Conservancy, told Cowboy State Daily there are 13 wind projects planned around Laramie alone.

“I’m concerned about the impacts, as are the conservancy members. And no one is really taking a look at all this,” Brand said.

The Science

A 2004 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that “large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer.”

The authors of the study also state that large amounts of wind across the continent will produce a pronounced impact on climate, but that reducing carbon dioxide emissions produce a net benefit to the climate.

In a 2010 study, University of Illinois researcher Somnath Roy found that wind farms affect temperatures and humidity near the surface.

Roy warns that the “explosive growth” of future wind farms, which has occurred since the study was done, could impact agriculture. Roy was co-author on a 2013 study that found the same impacts.

“More and more wind farms are being constructed on agricultural land that is sensitive to changes in the microclimate,” the authors write.

Roy was also co-author on a 2015 study that found wind farms raise nighttime temperatures.

A 2011 Purdue study found increased temperatures at the surface as a result of wind farms, as did a 2016 study in Scotland.

A 2018 study in Joule estimated that generating the United States’ electricity demand with wind power would warm surface temperatures by 0.24 degrees celsius, which is nearly one-fourth of the amount of warming the globe has seen since 1800.

[Robert]

https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/17/2059/2023/

Our results show that, over the 11 years from 2009 to 2019, ice shelves in Antarctica gained a modest 0.4 % (or 5305 km2) of their total ice area (Table 1; Fig. 1). This area gain was dominated by significant 14 028 km2 (1.5 %) ice shelf area gains on the two largest Antarctic ice shelves, Ronne–Filchner and Ross, and a 3532 km2 (1.3 %) area gain on the East Antarctic ice shelves. This counteracted the large reduction in ice shelf area on the Antarctic Peninsula, where 7.0 % (−6692.5 km2) of ice was lost, and West Antarctica, where ice shelves lost 5.5 % (−5563 km2) of their 2009 area.

[Ken]

https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/17/2059/2023/

Our results show that, over the 11 years from 2009 to 2019, ice shelves in Antarctica gained a modest 0.4 % (or 5305 km2) of their total ice area (Table 1; Fig. 1). This area gain was dominated by significant 14 028 km2 (1.5 %) ice shelf area gains on the two largest Antarctic ice shelves, Ronne–Filchner and Ross, and a 3532 km2 (1.3 %) area gain on the East Antarctic ice shelves. This counteracted the large reduction in ice shelf area on the Antarctic Peninsula, where 7.0 % (−6692.5 km2) of ice was lost, and West Antarctica, where ice shelves lost 5.5 % (−5563 km2) of their 2009 area.

This article doesn't say what you think it says. Or if you are pulling it from another source they are being deliberately deceptive.

The article is talking specifically about "ice shelves" which are portions of ice that are floating at sea connected to the Antarctic continent. When it comes to global warming and sea level rise, the relevant question is whether Antarctica's total ice sheets are shrinking or growing, most of which are sitting on top of the continent in the form of glaciers, not ice shelves.

The article is talking about the blue and red areas on this map from the article, and just their geographic extent, not the total ice sheets and thickness which includes all the interior white areas as well:



If you look at total ice sheet volume in Antarctica over time you find a different story.

Nasa says we are losing an average of 149 BILLION tons of Antarctic ice per year and even more from Greenland: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/



And the European Space Agency agrees. This is their current assessment from April 20, 2023: https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observ ... new_record

A report, released today, states that ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica has increased fivefold since the 1990s, and now accounts for a quarter of sea-level rise.

It is without doubt that climate change is causing our polar ice sheets to melt, thereby driving up sea levels and putting coastal regions around the world at risk.

Since 1992, when satellite records of ice-sheet melt began, the polar ice sheets have lost ice every single year. The highest rates of melt have occurred in the past decade.

Scientists use data from satellites such as ESA’s CryoSat and the European Union’s Copernicus Sentinel-1 to measure changes in ice volume and flow, as well as satellites that provide information on gravity, to work out how much ice is being lost.

A team of scientists compile these records in the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Intercomparison Exercise (IMBIE), which is funded by ESA and NASA. This is used widely, including by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to understand and respond to the climate crisis.

The latest IMBIE assessment, which was published today, states that between 1992 and 2020, the polar ice sheets lost 7560 billion tonnes of ice – equivalent to an ice cube measuring 20 km each side.



The polar ice sheets have together lost ice in every year of the satellite record, and the seven highest melting years have occurred in the last decade.

Melting peaked in 2019, when the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a staggering 612 billion tonnes of ice.

This was driven by summer heatwave in the Arctic, which led to a record 444 billion tonnes of ice being lost from Greenland that year. Antarctica lost 168 billion tonnes of ice – the sixth highest year on record – owing to the continued speedup of glaciers in West Antarctica and record melting from the Antarctic Peninsula. East Antarctic Ice Sheet remained close to a state of balance, as it has throughout the satellite era.

Melting of the polar ice sheets has caused a 21 mm rise in global sea level since 1992.

Ice loss from Greenland is responsible for almost two-thirds (13.5 mm) of this rise, and ice loss from Antarctica is responsible for the other third (7.4 mm).

In the early 1990s, ice sheet melting accounted for only a small fraction (5.6 %) of sea-level rise. However, there has been a fivefold increase in melting since then, and they are now responsible for more than a quarter (25.6 %) of all sea-level rise.

If the ice sheets continue to lose mass at this pace, the IPCC predicts that they will contribute between 148 and 272 mm to global mean sea level by the end of the century.

[JimFoxvog]

It looks like we are experiencing record warmth in the oceans.
Choose the North Atlantic area to see the stronger effect.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/

[MaxPC]

It looks like we are experiencing record warmth in the oceans.
Choose the North Atlantic area to see the stronger effect.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/

Tectonic activity can do this as can earth wobbling on its axis. Change is a constant in earth's climate throughout history; even when there was a minimal human population. Knowing this constant, I am not interested in the ramblings of alarmists who are deceived or are deceiving, with hidden political agendas. God is in control and perfects all things. No worries.

[Ken]

It looks like we are experiencing record warmth in the oceans.
Choose the North Atlantic area to see the stronger effect.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/

Tectonic activity can do this as can earth wobbling on its axis. Change is a constant in earth's climate throughout history; even when there was a minimal human population. Knowing this constant, I am not interested in the ramblings of alarmists who are deceived or are deceiving, with hidden political agendas. God is in control and perfects all things. No worries.

So which fundamental principles of science to you disagree with or believe are false?

• That carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas with the ability to trap heat in the earth's atmosphere? (true or false?)

• That humans have enormously accelerated emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels? (true or false?)

• That global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are steadily rising to levels not seen since the Mid-Pliocene over 3 million years ago when the earth was 5-7 degrees F warmer than today? (true or false?)

• That the earth's oceans and atmosphere are currently warming (true or false?)

• That global sea levels are directly correlated to the temperature of the earth's oceans and atmosphere? (true or false?)

[Josh]

Back in the 1970s the scientists predicted a doomsday from global cooling a new ice age.