He's a PR guy. He's a spin doctor. This is what he does.
For the oil companies?
And you wonder why I hate philosophy...
Not to mention...the last thing you want to accidently explode in the atmosphere is a rocket full of nuclear wasteAgreed, but future methods of entering orbit won't rely on rockets of today. In effect, the contemporary rocket is the horse and buggy of space flight. Better solutions will come along, but much people of the 17th century imagining a Ford GT40, it's hard to know exactly what the future will look like.
Technological innovation will happen, assuming that the human race is still alive.
Technological progression isn't infinite. While Ford's Model T was vastly different than the horse and buggy that preceded it, modern cars aren't that substantially different from the Model T, only a refinement of the basic principle in how it works. The same can be said about rockets today. Falcon X is vastly superior to Goddard's primitive rocket, but it still works the same way.
As long as getting into orbit involves throwing out 90 percent of your liftoff mass out the rear of your spacecraft, we won't have spaceships like the Millenium Falcon or even the Shuttlecraft Galileo which could be stowed in an automobile garage.
Cars are massively different today. Just consider how well off you'd be in a Model T in a highway crash.
There is no attempting to claim the factual position when you need to try to make this point a fact. At all. This is wrong. Everything you say is wrong. Case in point.
Where's your evidence? Because this is what NASA has to say on the subject:
So, where's your evidence that I'm wrong?
No. Challenging your wacky adherence to absolute pedantic perfection or nothing is not challenging NASA.
It is challenging NASA when the pedantic perfection you're challenging is the one published by NASA. As I just proved beyond the shadow of a doubt.
You don't get it.
The deniers are not inventing conspiracy theories because they are loud. They are inventing conspiracy theories because they need to make claims that go against a vast amount of evidence and going against that much evidence requires a vast and utterly nonsensical conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter that it's nuts, it doesn't matter that it's stupid, it doesn't matter that it makes absolutely no sense: the only two explanations is that there is an insane conspiracy or the environmentalists are right, and if the environmentalists are right then we lose money and we cannot lose money.
And where did I say it is because they are the loudest that they are inventing the conspiracy theories? I said they would rather invent conspiracy theories than compromise.
You cannot and will not change this line of logic by making your facts better, either with the people perpetuating the misinformation or from those who believe it. The facts do not matter because they are not being used.
And? Why is this an obstacle to compromise on actions to get things done? They don't have to believe it as long as they think it'll give them profit. If you're not even trying to convince them they can profit off it, naturally they won't even try to listen to you.
Seriously, this is politics 101. They should cover this in high school.
You cannot equate people that have the facts on their side and those that don't.
Where did I? I clearly blamed one side more than the other.
You cannot equate climate change scientists and clime change deniers
Where did I? Climate change scientists are not the most public of the supporters for it.
You cannot equate Galileo and the pope
I can, did, and showed you the science. It's not my fault you don't believe it.
You cannot equate "slightly inaccurate" with wrong. EVERYTHING is slightly inaccurate in real life. So everyone is wrong, so no one is more right than everyone else. You are calling Galileo wrong for being (at worst) 800,000 kilometers off in a solar system that's 75 BILLION kilometers across. A 0.001% margin of error.
He's slightly inaccurate for one solar system, and massively inaccurate for far more than we can count. That makes him wrong because of the high amount of inaccuracy overall, and one tiny exception does not change that.
By that stanards yes, the climate scientists are wrong. They will be the first ones to tell you that the system is too complicated to predict with that much accuracy.
Ah, now we get to the denialist talking points. I was waiting for this.
Well, here's the thing: They don't try to predict it with that much accuracy either. They don't even rely on one set of predictions. Crack open one of the IPCC reports sometime. You'll notice that, between the models they use, their margin of error is almost the difference between the climates of Canada and Brazil. But they all show the temperature is going up.
And that's the key problem with you bringing that up as an example to try to defend Galileo. If you use the same range of error the climate scientists do, you're talking about (approximately) the range from the center of the Sun to the orbit of Venus. And climate scientists are working every day to better refine our knowledge so they can close this gap.
That is not a useful paradigm for policy. you need to get off of a binary right/wrong paradigm and move on to close enouh to be useful.
And I never argued it is a useful paradigm for policy. Unfortunately, it's the current paradigm for policy. My argument earlier was to instead not focus on proving people right or wrong, but focus on getting people to compromise on action and presenting the idea everyone benefits. If you do X for me, I'll do Y for you. Surprisingly, this works, even on cases where your ultimate goal is detrimental to the people who do X.
A philosophy professor is brought into a room. He's told that on one side of the room is a chair that he'll be placed in. On the other side of the room is a pizza. .every 15 seconds he'll be moved halfway to the pizza. He scoffs "I'll never reach the pizza!" and leaves.
A scientist is brought into the room and told the same deal. They sit down. He's told "but.. you'll never get to the pizza" Scientist shrugs. "I'll get close enough for all intents and purposes"
A lobbyist is brought in and shown a chair. They're told every 15 seconds, they'll be moved halfway to the pizza. They shrug and offer someone else half the pizza to move the pizza to them.
You talk so much about binary thinking that you don't even realize you're trapped in it yourself, as your examples show. You think "they must be arguing for either accurate enough or they must be arguing for right/wrong" without considering that, maybe, they're arguing "let's try an approach that ignores both options." This is the kind of thinking that caused the very polarization I was talking about, caused us to still be at the very beginning of doing something after thirty f&%^ing years, and which is why we're not likely to do anything substantial about climate change until it's far too late.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's slightly inaccurate for one solar system, and massively inaccurate for far more than we can count. That makes him wrong because of the high amount of inaccuracy overall, and one tiny exception does not change that.
Your license to play devils advocate has just been revoked with prejudice.
He's a PR guy. He's a spin doctor. This is what he does.
For the oil companies?
And you wonder why I hate philosophy...
I'm green and science lobbies. Or have you not noticed I've been pro-environment the entire time we've been arguing?
Of course, being pro-environmentalist lobby doesn't prevent you from being in an oil company pocket. ExxonMobil funds half my colleagues, and they've scouted me pretty heavily. Remember what I said earlier about them funding both sides of the argument?
Edit: To add some clarity...
My job is to advocate for science and environmentalism, no matter what. That means today I may be arguing for funding for a new kind of solar panel, and tomorrow I may be arguing for cutting all funding to solar panels because an entirely different research paper says they're portable poison. That's my job: Argue whatever stance I'm being paid to argue to the fullest extent of my ability, to the point that any politician dealing with me is utterly convinced I'm a true believer... even when I think the stance I'm arguing is utter horse&*^*.
This also means that I tend to have a lot more access to science than your average person, and the dirty secrets that come with it. There are things I could tell you about some agencies that would make you wonder if, maybe, the climate deniers are right. And things I could tell you about certain oil companies that would make you convinced there is a massive conspiracy to manipulate climate science for the benefit of the oil companies.
The truth? That's for the historians to sort out. I just have faith.
He's slightly inaccurate for one solar system, and massively inaccurate for far more than we can count. That makes him wrong because of the high amount of inaccuracy overall, and one tiny exception does not change that.Your license to play devils advocate has just been revoked with prejudice.
So pointing out actual science is playing devil's advocate? Nice to know how you really feel about science.
I'm green and science lobbies. Or have you not noticed I've been pro-environment the entire time we've been arguing?
He's a PR guy. He's a spin doctor. This is what he does.
For the oil companies?
And you wonder why I hate philosophy...
No, honestly I haven't.
I can't tell, because you talk about being pro-environment, but do everything possible to equivocate, spin any pro-environment position into a strawman and shoot it down, defend and excuse the businesses opposing it and generally paint both sides as bad.
With enough wiggle room it's hard to pin down. Because you're a pr guy.
That's perfectly fair.
And this is my last argument and post on the subject of environmentalism. Time for me to retire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just skimmed through this most recent...uh posting spree
All I have to throw in is that the Endangered Species Act in no way protects non-native species, which is what unambiguously cows (and sheep, pigs, goats, and domestic cats) are.
Even in the extremely unlikely view that people decided to get rid of cows, rather than reduce production, you would still have the various rewilding/restoration programs to breed back the Aurochs, which are basically "wild cows", and which have been somewhat successful. There are managed herds of Heck's Cattle and several other pseudo-Aurochs roaming preserves in Europe as we speak.
So, where's your evidence that I'm wrong?
You're not wrong you're just nonsequitor.
Your premises are correct but your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Addressing your premise would do nothing to change that.This is why talking to you is so frustrating. your posts are like the very bottom of uncanny valley of thought and logic. You have all the parts there but its mashed up in such a way to be slightly off: a pale imitation of true thought and reason that resembles it that's close enough to superficially resemble it but far enough off to be terrifying.
It's like larry kings "If evolution is true why are there still monkeys" Yes, there are in fact still monkeys, but that doesn't mean that evolution is false.
Why do you question the existance of monkeys? Look! here's a picture of a monkey. I've had a monkey on my shoulder. I know they're real? Why do you deny them?
Yes, there is a difference between the sun and the barycenter of the solar system. Despite the fact that i've said it at multiple times, you continue to make points as if i was contradicting that and I'm not. You straw man my position and attempt every underhanded disingenuous polemic trick to avoid the very simple and direct statement that the barycenter and the sun are close enough together to be close enough for state work, including an exact figure for how off they are.
Where's the center of the solar system: it moves
If this is how you advocate, please.. stop. Leave the underhanded conversational tricks to the side that needs to use them because they don't have evidence, rationale, and science on their side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to assume you are not actually a PR guy, because this is not a good example of spinning or whatever you might call it, nobody's buying it. This seems to be a concerted effort to simply throw things at the wall, and see if anybody jumps on it. You are not discussing in good faith.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for solar and wind. Everyone touts Germany's achievements but haven't they pretty much maxed out their installation of new systems? The rate has certainly dropped off the past two years so they must have hit some sort of "wall".
Yes, it is called government backpedaling. There were changes to the laws such that solar power fed in to the grid is no longer worth as much as fossil fuel power taken out of the grid. Also, utilities are no longer allowed to build solar farms larger than 10 kW and subsidies for renewable energy have been all but eliminated (they decline inversely with the rate of solar power growth) while fossil fuels are being further shored up.
It was getting to the point that renewable sources were generating more electricity than was needed... so conventional fossil fuel plants that cannot shut down quickly were generating electricity they could not sell. The logical solution would have been to start shutting down those conventional power plants, but fossil fuels are still big business so instead they are passing laws to slow the growth of solar as much as possible.
1,000 roofs in the background with no solar but they decide to ugly up the landscape instead. What gives?
What gives?
Putting solar panels on 1,000 roofs requires the action of 1,000 home owners. Putting solar panels on a patch of land requires the action of one land owner.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's not obvious is why homeowners chose solar.
Did you carefully examine every single building in the town to confirm that there were no solar panels?
Really, Germany is on average more liberal than the USA when it comes to attitudes towards alt power and AGW, so why should their individual track records be as bad (on average) as the USA's?
More fiction you just made up. This is IMO the biggest problem facing the world... even bigger than climate change. It has become common practice for people to have their own 'facts', custom made to support their pre-defined conclusions. This is making it impossible to get anything done, because too many people want to fix problems that do not exist... with 'solutions' that do nothing to address the supposed issue... while dismissing real issues as 'alarmism'.
Reality: Domestic solar use in Germany is much higher than in the US. Indeed, in 2012 they had 5x as much residential solar power installed despite having only one fourth the population.
The answer is the same reason you get climate advocates that aren't vegetarian (or better yet, vegan).
Because diet has very little impact on climate change?
The same reason that Al Gore jet-sets for vaca and hobnobs with the ultra rich
Because air travel has very little impact on climate change?
and lives in a ginormous home that certainly has rooms in it he hasn't personally visited in years.
Because empty unused rooms in a single building have so little impact on climate change as to be ridiculous?
The same reason our CO2 load will take average global temps well past the 2°C mark and likely no less than about 3.5°C above pre-industrial readings.
Because dishonest people keep obfuscating the real issues with nonsense?
|
|
Oh but I did examine every building in the picture I linked to in my previous post. You link to another picture that apparently has some. Good for you.
The image you posted has the town in the far background at an acute angle. Most of the buildings are little more than dots. From that there is no way you could possibly determine whether they had solar panels or not.
Really, Germany is on average more liberal than the USA when it comes to attitudes towards alt power and AGW, so why should their individual track records be as bad (on average) as the USA's?
Reality: Domestic solar use in Germany is much higher than in the US. Indeed, in 2012 they had 5x as much residential solar power installed despite having only one fourth the population.
REAL reality: USA will overtake Germany in solar over the next few years, even with Trump as Pres and the House and Senate under Republican control.
Your new statement, about the future, being true does not make your old statement, about the past, any less false.
From the article on air travel;
"For many people reading this, air travel is their most serious environmental sin. One round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco creates a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person. The average American generates about 19 tons of carbon dioxide a year; the average European, 10."
...and yet, air travel represents less than 2% of global CO2 emissions. Thus tidily proving that human air travel, food consumption, AND living space are all minor issues when it comes to global warming.
Electricity generation and ground transportation are each vastly more important.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's slightly inaccurate for one solar system, and massively inaccurate for far more than we can count. That makes him wrong because of the high amount of inaccuracy overall, and one tiny exception does not change that.Your license to play devils advocate has just been revoked with prejudice.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My job is to advocate for science and environmentalism, no matter what.
Hi. I'm a scientist, who happens to work in the environmental field. If your recent posts in this thread are any evidence of your work, PLEASE STOP "HELPING" -- you would advocate far better by taking up a different career.
On an unassociated note. Still not sure I'll keep doing this for the next year or not, but once again, reporting in on the current climate check for the local area.
VICTORY is for starters. It seems that despite a LOT of political pressure and stupidity from some major media and press entities...the cold (and it really is cold) hard facts of the local area are finally coming to play. It was finally acknowledged that it is actually COLDER than normal in our region that we monitor.
I expect it's because, even those who aren't monitoring this stuff kind of notice how cold it is recently in our area, and no matter how one shouts it's warmer...when it is obvious it is not...that sort of makes people to wonder.
However, I didn't think it would be as cold as it was on our last trip. Holy Heck and frostbite central. It was insane. We ended up going out in the snow storm of the century it seems (actually, that's a major exaggeration, it was NOT the snow storm of the century, or even the decade...it just snowed a lot).
Temperatures were down again. It looks like the current forecast (which sometimes is like rolling the dice) says that there probably will be 3 more months of colder than average weather (for our region)...BUT...until it happens there is no way to verify. It could be that a few people are just so gunshy after getting it so completely wrong on last year's temps...that they are jumping the gun on this one.
I'm back, and it actually seems excessively warm (though I'm not sure if it's actually warmer than normal now...or if it's just the almost 50 degree difference between where I was, and where I am now). To me it even seems warmer than it would be normally, but that could just be my human perceptions due to the vast differences in environment from where I was, to where I am now.
I did get to read an interesting hypothesis (which was referred to in a post above I believe) about how the various changes in climate may be affecting more than just our region, and may affect many of the Northern regions and actually make them colder, while making the global temperature hotter. Some of it deals with the collapse of various different currents/streams. The post someone made above I think deals with the Atlantic, but it is also a possibility in regards to other oceans and currents around the globe. That doesn't even touch on other things in regards to air currents and the like. It could get VERY cold for some, even as warming in other areas makes it very hot for others.
It's an interesting take I'd say. I sure hope that doesn't happen in my lifetime, it seems plenty cold already to me right now!
Was passing by our local Shoprite, noticed a new sign, presumably for the benefit of the fire department and utilities company.
SOLAR PANEL ON ROOF, DISCONNECT AT REAR OF BUILDING.
There was an article I read late last year that summarized all of the abandoned wind farms across the USA installed during the 1970's, 80's and 90's. Most were in California iirc. Decisions of similar stupidity, though much greater magnitude, went into the construction of most of those as well.
On the other hand,across the Pond...
Wind power produced the equivalent of 42.1% of Denmark's total electricity consumption in 2015,increased from 33% in 2013, and 39% in 2014. In 2012 the Danish government adopted a plan to increase the share of electricity production from wind to 50% by 2020,and to 84% in 2035.
Does anyone have a backup of the EPA data that the current administration had removed?
Does anyone have a backup of the EPA data that the current administration had removed?
If it was on the Internet, the WayBack Machine should have preserved it.
The important issue is not the disappearance of the web sites, but the silencing of the organisation itself, especially when this was preceded by an inquiry for the names of everyone who had worked on, or published work on the subject.
It's important to note that pretty much if any of the other Republicans had been elected, they'd be doing much of the same thing, but under less scrutiny.
~grimaces~ I know. Is there anything I can do to help? Other than to vote in the 2018 and 2020 elections? This is bad news for everyone.
~grimaces~ I know. Is there anything I can do to help? Other than to vote in the 2018 and 2020 elections? This is bad news for everyone.
Run for local office? I'm not kidding. the reason the Republicans have all but taken over this country is that they've been pretty much unopposed on the local level.
I know it seems like small potatoes, but you have to think of recovering from this as a generational project, not a quick fix.
Obama has stated that among his post-office projects would be working with new upcoming politicians, after he's spent some quality time with his family...and his golf swing.
On an unassociated note. Still not sure I'll keep doing this for the next year or not, but once again, reporting in on the current climate check for the local area.
VICTORY is for starters. It seems that despite a LOT of political pressure and stupidity from some major media and press entities...the cold (and it really is cold) hard facts of the local area are finally coming to play. It was finally acknowledged that it is actually COLDER than normal in our region that we monitor.
I expect it's because, even those who aren't monitoring this stuff kind of notice how cold it is recently in our area, and no matter how one shouts it's warmer...when it is obvious it is not...that sort of makes people to wonder.
However, I didn't think it would be as cold as it was on our last trip. Holy Heck and frostbite central. It was insane. We ended up going out in the snow storm of the century it seems (actually, that's a major exaggeration, it was NOT the snow storm of the century, or even the decade...it just snowed a lot).
Temperatures were down again. It looks like the current forecast (which sometimes is like rolling the dice) says that there probably will be 3 more months of colder than average weather (for our region)...BUT...until it happens there is no way to verify. It could be that a few people are just so gunshy after getting it so completely wrong on last year's temps...that they are jumping the gun on this one.
I'm back, and it actually seems excessively warm (though I'm not sure if it's actually warmer than normal now...or if it's just the almost 50 degree difference between where I was, and where I am now). To me it even seems warmer than it would be normally, but that could just be my human perceptions due to the vast differences in environment from where I was, to where I am now.
I did get to read an interesting hypothesis (which was referred to in a post above I believe) about how the various changes in climate may be affecting more than just our region, and may affect many of...
Don't be fooled by local trends, despite some major snow storms we had last year, globally, 2016, like the last several years, has beaten the previous one as the hottest on record.
I think most of the pro- con- on human-influenced climate change is irrelevant. The U.S. climate itself has markedly changed in my lifetime with the entry of tropical diseases and insects. But it doesn't matter, the governments of the world are INCAPABLE of responding coherently even if some kind of agreement was reached. For some, marked climate change would an advantage, for others disaster. So, relevant action is inherently impossible. Any response will only be a result of massive population decline due to climate change or other causes -- most likely disease, i.e. massive and multiple pandemics. Even then there will never be an actual effective response dealing with climate change, instead government actions will be focused on controlling their own populations or appropriating resources from others. Any significant possible impact by humans on climate will be due to incidental technological change which will only be significant after massive population decline. Any amelioration of this scenario will only be due to technological innovation -- not political action -- and it will not affect the root cause, which is unsustainable population growth.
|
|
But it doesn't matter, the governments of the world are INCAPABLE of responding coherently even if some kind of agreement was reached.
The governments of the world are responding coherently.
Did you miss 2016?
For some, marked climate change would an advantage, for others disaster.
Very very few countries would see a net benefit from climate change beyond the 2C warming thresh-hold. In fact, Greenland is probably the ONLY one. If it gets much warmer than that then even Greenland will be worse off overall.
Any significant possible impact by humans on climate will be due to incidental technological change which will only be significant after massive population decline.
Agriculture and fossil fuel combustion both represent "impact by humans on climate". Neither came "after massive population decline", and indeed... both led to massive population increases.
Wind and solar power are now emerging as technologies through which humans will again impact climate. Again, there has been no preceding massive population decline. Again, they will likely enable continued population growth.
Any amelioration of this scenario will only be due to technological innovation -- not political action -- and it will not affect the root cause, which is unsustainable population growth.
Malthus has been wrong for 218 years and counting.
If the current rate of change (i.e. declining from 1.55% annual growth in 1995 to 1.18% in 2015) continues, then global population will peak at around 11.2 billion circa 2100.
I think most of the pro- con- on human-influenced climate change is irrelevant. The U.S. climate itself has markedly changed in my lifetime with the entry of tropical diseases and insects. But it doesn't matter, the governments of the world are INCAPABLE of responding coherently even if some kind of agreement was reached. For some, marked climate change would an advantage, for others disaster. So, relevant action is inherently impossible. Any response will only be a result of massive population decline due to climate change or other causes -- most likely disease, i.e. massive and multiple pandemics. Even then there will never be an actual effective response dealing with climate change, instead government actions will be focused on controlling their own populations or appropriating resources from others. Any significant possible impact by humans on climate will be due to incidental technological change which will only be significant after massive population decline. Any amelioration of this scenario will only be due to technological innovation -- not political action -- and it will not affect the root cause, which is unsustainable population growth.
Great argument. China however begs to disagree, but if the United States is willing to abdicate it's leadership position on solar technology and the solar industry in total, they will be quite happy to take up the slack. China has been aggressive in developing energy sources other than fossil fuels. The steps they may have taken might not have been all that I would agree with, but there is no doubt they consider the problem real and are taking real steps to address it.
The only real roadblock when it comes to international agreement on this issue as been the United States of America. But that's becoming less and less relevant as the USA under trump continues to crawl inside it's own shell.
Wind power produced the equivalent of 42.1% of Denmark's total electricity consumption in 2015,increased from 33% in 2013, and 39% in 2014. In 2012 the Danish government adopted a plan to increase the share of electricity production from wind to 50% by 2020,and to 84% in 2035.
That something can be done has no relevance whatsoever as to whether it should be done..... science ethics 101
Wind farms can be a serious bight on the countryside/seascape and have serious repurcussions on local wildlife..... bird and bat mortaility rates being significantly impacted.
|
|
That something can be done has no relevance whatsoever as to whether it should be done..... science ethics 101
Wind farms can be a serious bight on the countryside/seascape and have serious repurcussions on local wildlife..... bird and bat mortaility rates being significantly impacted.
Wind turbines can kill bats and birds if improperly sited. However, even in the worst cases, they kill fewer than comparable fossil fuel power generation... and none of the many other species that fossil fuels impact.
Denmark's wind power plans will be a massive environmental boon.
Doesn't change the fact that China is poised to become the leader in solar power technology as the United States Under Trump stands poised not only stop our progress but to deliberately undermine and short circuit those states and cities who are making incredible strides in going solar.
China already produces more solar panels than every other country on the planet combined.
|
|
Problem is we've already emitted enough gas to warm the planet by at least 2.5°C ... well, we'll be lucky (as a species) to only see a 3.0°C rise by the year 2100.
Looks to me, based on all the lectures at Yale, Stanford, Oxford, etc., TED Talks, etc., that I've watched and all the papers by climatologists that I've read, that the final value will be closer to 3.5°C.
And that assumes there isn't some sort of tipping point that will push the value to 5.0°C regardless of further human improvements to gas emissions.
Do you have a source for the figure of 2.5C by 2100 based on existing CO2 levels? The other values are reasonable assuming continued growth of fossil fuel use (though that is, itself, now an unreasonable assumption), but that one is well above mainstream estimates.
and with China funding coal (outside China of course being the responsible global citizens that they are),
The US is funding coal (both internationally AND domestically) too... that doesn't change the fact that it is a dying power source. Both countries (and others) are just trying to squeeze as much funding from it as they can before it ceases to be a valuable resource.
India still investing in it
Apparently this is some other India than the one which is ending all coal power construction.
and many other places around the globe investing in and/or continuing to use coal and natural gas
Not so much. Pretty much everyone agrees that fossil fuel use is reaching a peak. The only point of debate is how soon. Generally ranging from about three years from independent analysts to as much as 15 or 20 from fossil fuel companies themselves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wind power produced the equivalent of 42.1% of Denmark's total electricity consumption in 2015,increased from 33% in 2013, and 39% in 2014. In 2012 the Danish government adopted a plan to increase the share of electricity production from wind to 50% by 2020,and to 84% in 2035.
That something can be done has no relevance whatsoever as to whether it should be done..... science ethics 101
Wind farms can be a serious bight on the countryside/seascape and have serious repurcussions on local wildlife..... bird and bat mortaility rates being significantly impacted.
For reference, wind turbines currently account for approximately 200,000 to 400,000 bird deaths every year.
Cell towers: 6,800,000 per year
Power Lines (which we'll have regardless of energy type): 175,000,000
Cats (domestic and feral): 1,400,000,000 per year (possibly as high as 3,700,000,000)
Of note, wind turbines do have a greater effect on certain species over others, but it is possible to better design turbines and have better placement to minimize impact. Several studies have shown that it isn't expensive to reduce bird fatalities by 50%, and have less than a 1% impact on energy production.
|
|
The problem with funding coal anywhere to any degree is that we are already using enough coal to hit the 2.0°C-2.5°C right now. Stop cold turkey on coal, globally, and we will still exceed 2.0°C by the year 2100.
Way back yesterday you had it at 2.5C with no further fossil fuel (not just coal) emissions. Now you're down to just 2C with potentially continuing emissions from oil and natural gas.
CBD asks for citations. I've given dozens of them up thread.
Not for the "we've already emitted enough gas to warm the planet by at least 2.5°C" claim that I asked you to source.
I don't care if ONE paper published in Science or ONE lecture at Yale says, "we are headed for 2.0°C 2100" or "we are headed for 3.0°C by 2100". I'm taking all the expert lectures I've watched and published papers I've read and they average out to a rise in global temperature of no less than 2.0°C above pre-industrial times and given current trends (and NO I'm not talking Trump here) more likely a 2.5°C increase.
We're headed for no less than 2C and very likely more than 2.5C based on continued CO2 emissions. 2C was very much a best case scenario if all the countries of the world acted as aggressively as plausible from here on out. The election of Donald Trump pretty much guarantees that isn't going to happen.
However, you have again shifted the goalposts. I'll accept your statement above that we will likely end up with at least 2.5C based on continuing CO2 emissions as acknowledgement that your previous statement that we would reach that result based on current CO2 levels was erroneous.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For reference, wind turbines currently account for approximately 200,000 to 400,000 bird deaths every year.
Cell towers: 6,800,000 per year
Power Lines (which we'll have regardless of energy type): 175,000,000
Cats (domestic and feral): 1,400,000,000 per year (possibly as high as 3,700,000,000)
Another way to look at it is by deaths per amount of electricity generated;
Wind: ~0.27 birds per GWh
Nuclar: ~0.6 birds per GWh
Fossil fuels: ~9.4 birds per GWh
So, if we replaced all fossil fuel power with wind power we'd be vastly reducing the number of birds killed... though cats, windows, and pesticides each kill more birds every year than all forms of power generation combined.
As you noted, bird deaths from wind power are also declining as we learn more about how to install wind power without impacting them. From just 2009 to 2012 this resulted in a ~24% reduction in the kill rate from wind power generation.
In short, the 'wind power is environmentally harmful because it kills birds' claim is nonsense. Switching from fossil fuel power to wind power would reduce bird deaths. Ditto for bats. Ditto for countless other species (e.g. humans). Ditto for solar power (including CSP).
IMHO I think that it will be higher than 2.5 degrees C. Sadly the human race does not usually think long term. The few that do are often opposed by the greedy, self centered, short sighted people. I do hold out hope in my heart, but the realistic part of me does not. Sorry. I do hope that I am wrong. I really do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. I haven't shifted goalposts.
Saturday: "we've already emitted enough gas to warm the planet by at least 2.5°C"
Sunday: "Stop cold turkey on coal, globally, and we will still exceed 2.0°C by the year 2100."