Is solar green?

[SunEagle]

We emit about 30 GT a year of carbon dioxide. Natural sources account for about 400 GT.

I don't recall mentioning volcanoes.

That 30GT per year is pretty close and has actually been flat the last few years according to this article.

[DanKegel]

We emit about 30 GT a year of carbon dioxide. Natural sources account for about 400 GT.

Are you saying the *net* increase due to natural sources is 400 GT/year?

The 30 GT of human emissions is about right; according to the Global Carbon Project, clobal carbon (C) emissions from fossil fuel use were 9.795 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2014 (or 35.9 GtCO2 of carbon dioxide).
But the *net* natural CO2 increase in the atmosphere is negative; the oceans are absorbing about half of our emissions. Here's a diagram from the latest IPCC report:

Fig6-01.jpg
That 32-odd gigatons of co2 we emit each year is why co2 concentrations in the atmosphere and ocean are rising. Natural sources *definitely* do not swamp human contributions.

It's great that our CO2 emissions have been flat for a couple years; that seems to be due to a shift away from coal and towards natural gas and renewable energy... but even this level of emissions is causing a steady increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations. Unless we reduce emissions significantly, we're likely to see all sorts of nasty consequences (e.g. sea level rise of multiple feet by year 2100; see ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860070/ )

I appreciate that there is significant populist distrust of science; this is nothing new (note the long-standing distrust of evolution, of vaccines, of smoking causing cancer, and lately of the very notion that air pollution can harm health). That's unfortunate, but doesn't affect the validity of the science, and the importance of dealing with the consequences of rising co2 levels. Hard-headed fields like defense, insurance and, increasingly, finance and the legal system are aware of this.

[Mike90250]

J.P.M. doesn't agree with the scientific community's consensus about humans causing climate change, and cons down like a ton of bricks on anyone who does. Don't mind him, he can't help it.

Right, it was cavemen cooking woolly mammoths that ended the last Ice Age. Only cure is to remove the human infestation.

[J.P.M.]

Are you saying the *net* increase due to natural sources is 400 GT/year?

The 30 GT of human emissions is about right; according to the Global Carbon Project, clobal carbon (C) emissions from fossil fuel use were 9.795 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2014 (or 35.9 GtCO2 of carbon dioxide).
But the *net* natural CO2 increase in the atmosphere is negative; the oceans are absorbing about half of our emissions. Here's a diagram from the latest IPCC report:

Fig6-01.jpg
That 32-odd gigatons of co2 we emit each year is why co2 concentrations in the atmosphere and ocean are rising. Natural sources *definitely* do not swamp human contributions.

It's great that our CO2 emissions have been flat for a couple years; that seems to be due to a shift away from coal and towards natural gas and renewable energy... but even this level of emissions is causing a steady increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations. Unless we reduce emissions significantly, we're likely to see all sorts of nasty consequences (e.g. sea level rise of multiple feet by year 2100; see ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860070/ )

I appreciate that there is significant populist distrust of science; this is nothing new (note the long-standing distrust of evolution, of vaccines, of smoking causing cancer, and lately of the very notion that air pollution can harm health). That's unfortunate, but doesn't affect the validity of the science, and the importance of dealing with the consequences of rising co2 levels. Hard-headed fields like defense, insurance and, increasingly, finance and the legal system are aware of this.

Valid science, as you call it, but IMO, wouldn't know it if it bit you in the butt, can still be wrong and dangerous even when mainstream. Asbestos was once thought to be harmless and used as insulation. Physicians and barbers once bled people as a supposed cure for diseases. Opium and heroin were given as cough medicine and freely available to all. As a kid, I walked behind trucks spreading used PCB laden transformer oil on dirt roads as a dust control measure in vacation areas. DDT eradicated malaria from many areas. All in the name of progress and most of it based on (for the time) valid science.

I doubt most folks consider this, but new information changes what's accepted as fact. Valid research on climate change needs to continue and it will. IMO, it's one of the few things that ought to be gov. funded. But it should not be used as a hideout for academics hiding from reality in detached form reality halls or academia - in effect collecting white collar welfare - and doing little more than sucking off the public tit, publishing questionable and non peer reviewed stuff of the type that people like you, who, by your own admission, know little about science, but latch onto if it fits the world view your brain has been molded into to call truth, and beat the drum for.

I don't necessarily distrust science. I just have, like many others who, BTW, want a clean world as much or more than you want one, a higher standard of proof than green mafia intimidation and scare tactics. I also have a different opinion of what science is and how it is done than you seem to have. There is also something sometimes called junk science, different from real science. I doubt you know the difference. Folks with your opinion are often and usually ignorant in the sense that you seem to think science is infallible, particularly if the results fit your usually ignorant world view.

I wish to assure you, science, including what may actually pass muster as valid climate research, is not infallible. As for reduced emissions, coincidence is not causation. Links need hard proof. I again doubt you know the scientific standard of what constitutes "proof", which, and something else you may be clueless about, is different than actionable engineering consensus.

Human sensibility with respect to time is poor. Recent ( ~ 200-400 years) is a fly spec in time with respect to earth's climate history. What you and a lot of others sees as an unmitigated disaster may be no more than a created marketing opportunity. REAL science is our best - but not infallible - hope of getting at some form of "truth" as to what's happening, but, IMO only, you and others with your simpleton hand wringing outlook are more of a hindrance than a help at getting there.

[Sunking]

I can prove Dan and other hard lefties do not believe in Climate Change and it is nothing more than a plot to gain power and money. Any damn fool can see through it. Example CNN is one of the biggest conspirators and in 2009 predicted Manhattan would be under water by 2015. Why then did CNN move its operations from Atlanta well above sea level to Hudson Yards of Manhattan when they predict it would be under water?

Al Bore same thing bought a city block of real-estate in the Marina district of San Francisco. Why would someone do something so foolish? Just like Dan who lives in LA, why the hell would he stay and not sell out while his property while it is still worth something if he believes in Global warming?

Because it is a SCAM. Who cares if the earth has warmed up a degree. That makes for a greener planet that can support more life. Not a damn thing anyone of you can do to stop it. There is no amount of money you can throw at it to change a damn thing.Man has only kept records on temps for 140 years. That accounts for about .0000000000000000001% of earths climate history. I may have left out a few zeros. It has already been proven Climate Scientist cooked the books in 2009 and again in 2011.

[J.P.M.]

I can prove Dan and other hard lefties do not believe in Climate Change and it is nothing more than a plot to gain power and money. Any damn fool can see through it. Example CNN is one of the biggest conspirators and in 2009 predicted Manhattan would be under water by 2015. Why then did CNN move its operations from Atlanta well above sea level to Hudson Yards of Manhattan when they predict it would be under water?

Al Bore same thing bought a city block of real-estate in the Marina district of San Francisco. Why would someone do something so foolish? Just like Dan who lives in LA, why the hell would he stay and not sell out while his property while it is still worth something if he believes in Global warming?

Because it is a SCAM. Who cares if the earth has warmed up a degree. That makes for a greener planet that can support more life. Not a damn thing anyone of you can do to stop it. There is no amount of money you can throw at it to change a damn thing.Man has only kept records on temps for 140 years. That accounts for about .0000000000000000001% of earths climate history. I may have left out a few zeros. It has already been proven Climate Scientist cooked the books in 2009 and again in 2011.

Look: I don't know if the planet is warming due to human activity or not. My opinion is that others don't know either, but that SERIOUS research ought to continue if for no other reason than to yield more information, and in so doing allow perhaps more insight into how the planet operates. I'm not denying the possibility that a smoking gun may be found that we can all agree passes muster as to what's actually happening.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reality, if/when/where some version of it might be found, might look like something that's a lot less dichotomous than either human activity is the death knell of civilization as we know it, or there's nothing we can do that will affect climate either good or bad.

I also don't give as much as a wet fart where media or political slugs call home, and I sure don't call such information proof of anything having to do with conspiracy. Hypocrisy maybe, but that'd be a stretch for me. Such talk is, IMO only, B.S. that does nothing to help the search for knowledge that will help point the way forward in a more meaningful and hopefully productive way.

I do believe the histrionics on all sides are not helping to find or get at something that most of us, on all sides of the issue, can agree looks closer to reality, and can be tested as required by science, at least science as I think I learned it.

Added to the complexity is the usual oversupply of hucksters on all sides making a buck off people's ignorance.

It also doesn't help that we're turning into a nation, and maybe a world, full of missing link, mouth breathing knuckle draggers when it comes to critical thinking skills. From where I sit, that just makes the con men's job easier. Anyone who believes that sea level rise could be that abrupt might fit that description of what we've probably become.

[DanKegel]

SERIOUS research ought to continue if for no other reason than to yield more information, and in so doing allow perhaps more insight into how the planet operates. I'm not denying the possibility that a smoking gun may be found that we can all agree passes muster as to what's actually happening.

And serious research is indeed ongoing in the US, at least for now; from what I hear, the current Congress and Administration would like to stop all climate research and data gathering. And that would be a shame.

Whether everyone can agree on that smoking gun is another matter. When science found that human behavior is causing climate change, many people mistakenly took that as a partisan attack on their way of life. It would take one heckuva smoking gun to overcome human nature like that.

A more likely way forward is for us to continue encouraging clean energy and making the solutions to the problem cheaper and more widely available. As more people drive carbon-emissions-free vehicles and use carbon-emissions-free grid power etc., fewer people will feel threatened by talk of the need to lower carbon emissions.

[J.P.M.]

And serious research is indeed ongoing in the US, at least for now; from what I hear, the current Congress and Administration would like to stop all climate research and data gathering. And that would be a shame.

Whether everyone can agree on that smoking gun is another matter. When science found that human behavior is causing climate change, many people mistakenly took that as a partisan attack on their way of life. It would take one heckuva smoking gun to overcome human nature like that.

A more likely way forward is for us to continue encouraging clean energy and making the solutions to the problem cheaper and more widely available. As more people drive carbon-emissions-free vehicles and use carbon-emissions-free grid power etc., fewer people will feel threatened by talk of the need to lower carbon emissions.

Some serious research is indeed ongoing. However, too much of what is claimed to be research is of questionable value, and to the degree it is of questionable value ought to be seriously questioned.

As for encouraging "clean" energy, and without getting into useless arguments with you about what exactly "clean" means, note that rather than addressing the large quantity of energy that's simply wasted, which is a bigger problem, a larger source of available energy, and more cost effective to get at, as well as being more reliable, the decoy red herring of R.E. is promoted by the scammers and shilled by the likes of you.

I would disagree with your statement that "science found that human behavior is causing climate change". Nice try. If there is a link between human endeavors and climate change, and I'm not saying there is or isn't such a link, the scope of the effects, if they exist are: 1.) yet to be determined, and 2.) of a scope and degree of magnitude with respect to other sources and causes of the effects so far observed that is yet to be determined.

Try simply using and wasting less before you get on your high horse about systems and methods that first of all you know nothing about, and second, are mostly confined to those of us in the developed world who can afford to waste more. We don't have a climate crisis. We have a lazy and stupid people waste crisis. Depending on who's numbers you like, it seems pretty clear, to me anyway, that the U.S. wastes a lot of energy, something like 30-60% of what's produced or imported, depending on who's counting. If PV. and wind supply, say 10% of the energy used in the U.S., and that's a very generous estimate, Common sense might tell me that more and easier or lower hanging fruit might be available by reducing waste, probably in excess of all the current non hydro R.E. production, at least in the U.S. Example: I've no way to prove it, but I've seen estimates that building infiltration losses cost a couple hundred billion $$/yr. in the U.S. .Most of that could be eliminated by simple sealing. Other examples abound. You might find a few yourself if you'd quit cherry picking.

[SunEagle]

Simple formulas. Waste less energy = need less energy. Need less energy = need to generate less energy. Need to generate less energy = more options to generate and store energy when needed.

Low hanging fruit. I am not saying go live off grid in a yurt but there are ways to use less if we stop thinking RE is free energy which allows us to use more. That is the wrong path to take.

[J.P.M.]

Simple formulas. Waste less energy = need less energy. Need less energy = need to generate less energy. Need to generate less energy = more options to generate and store energy when needed.

Low hanging fruit. I am not saying go live off grid in a yurt but there are ways to use less if we stop thinking RE is free energy which allows us to use more. That is the wrong path to take.

And with that, can we now close this thread and get on to productive discussions ?

[DanKegel]

the U.S. wastes a lot of energy, something like 30-60% of what's produced or imported

Sure, there's lots of waste. Reducing that waste would help the climate change problem in two ways -- it'd directly reduce carbon emissions, and it'd reduce how much solar and other clean energy infrastructure we have to build.

Telling people they *should* waste less isn't very effective, though, if the products on sale aren't very efficient.
(It's kind of like telling kids they shouldn't have sex )

Efficiency regulations can help a lot, and have helped greatly there; if it weren't for the fuel efficiency regulations started after the 1970's oil crisis, light cars and trucks would still be using twice as much fuel as they do now. Yet here again, the current administration and congress want to get rid of anything that encourages energy efficiency. Sigh.

[DanKegel]

I would disagree with your statement that "science found that human behavior is causing climate change".

Then you'd be disagreeing with the US National Academies of Science; see nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices
which says
"Further climate change is inevitable; if emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated, future changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far."

You can disagree with science about the physical world, but you'd be foolish to bet against it.

[J.P.M.]

Then you'd be disagreeing with the US National Academies of Science; see nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices
You can disagree with science about the physical world, but you'd be foolish to bet against it.

Give it up Dan. Let it go. Walk away. Crawl back in your hole. Stay there.

[DanKegel]

Give it up Dan. Let it go. Walk away. Crawl back in your hole. Stay there.

Intimidation and namecalling don't always work, sorry. These issues are important, and speak directly to the poster's question of whether "solar is green".

It'd be sad if the moderator locked the thread and deleted posts that weren't politically correct from the right-wing point of view, but that's what they've done in the past when you suggested closing the thread.

[J.P.M.]

Intimidation and namecalling don't always work, sorry. These issues are important, and speak directly to the poster's question of whether "solar is green".

It'd be sad if the moderator locked the thread and deleted posts that weren't politically correct from the right-wing point of view, but that's what they've done in the past when you suggested closing the thread.

Not intimidation or name calling. Simply a suggestion of something to think about to perhaps help you reduce the probability of you making more of a fool of yourself.

As for the Mods., they do what they see fit. FWIW, I've had posts yanked too, usually for calling B.S. on your B.S. Not good/bad and not sad. I consider your interpretation of why they do things as presumptuous and therefore rude as I also do when you pull the same stuff on me. I don't do people's thinking for them. Try asking.

As for the original poster's question, IMO, it was a B.S. question anyway. I'm sorry I ever got into it. All this bloviating by me and everyone else proved nothing, resolved nothing and added nothing to the body of knowledge that's the sign over the door. Another good example of how emotion trumps logic every time, and also more than a few good examples of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

One more time: Give it up Dan. Let it go. Walk away. Crawl back in your hole. Only this time. Take a deep breath first.