global warming - it's real, dummies!

The point of alarmists firmly believing in agw, and also firmly insisting more bodies / increased populations do not have any impact on agw.

Population growth is greatest from warmer countries, or the old fashioned term third world as pretzel mentions.

Your final two remarks pretzel are in error.

What makes you think I believe population has no role in AGW. Read my posts again - I have never said that. 

nobody said it has not impact on agw. they just say it isn't the main problem. wrong again. just because countries are warmer doesn't mean they contribute more to global warming. wrong again. population growth doesn't mean greater per capita co2 emissions. wrong again. 

Unless anyone can run things with the 1% solar/wind and they believe fossil is causing agw then population growth is the greatest problem.

no, it's fossil fuel emissions that are the greatest problem, as the science shows. the highest per capita emitters are still the west, and part of why china is emitting more is because we outsourced our industry to them. whether we can run things with solar and wind or not (and renewable energy is a hell of a lot more than 1%), fossil fuel emissions still cause the climate to change.

I've heard this "renewable fuels (which includes all solar, wind, biomas, and nuclear) only produce 1% of the world's energy!" Nonsense for quite a while now. Can I have some sources? (Sorry if you've already provided them, if so could you give me the rough page or comment, or re-post?)

Okay scrap that you only say it's 1% of solar+ wind. I stand corrected. Sorry.

But can I still see the sources?

And although that maybe a world-wide figure, look at the number in developed countries, and how fast it is growing- that is a big thing.

Also why just include wind/solar? What about biomas, nuclear, (kind of), geo-thermal, and hydro-electric? Those together are more then 1%!

And what problem is population growth causing - global warming? Wow, if you believe that, you must be an AGW "alarmist" too. FYI, the "A" in AGW stands for Anthropogenic, so everyone who accepts the science of AGW already knows, by definition, that global warming is caused by the human population.

Population growth would be much more of a problem for fossil fuels (which are unquestionably limited) than for renewables (where the limits are so large as to be eventually capable of providing the needs of any realistic population for literally billions of years), except that the problem of climate change (not to mention ocean acidification) is even more pressing.

Regarding the crucial significance of the growth in capacity of renewables, rather than where they are now, solar energy grew by an amazing more than 50% last year, due mainly to very attractive economics. To get a handle on this rate, it would take less than 12 years to turn 1% into 100% if this continued (obviously the reality will be less, but can be expected to be extremely dramatic, especially as costs are going to fall further).

Looking more broadly at renewables, the IEA anticipates that total renewable capacity will already be over 50% that of coal in 4 years time, because of its domination of new generating capacity in recent years.

Someone likes a glossy headline, maybe report back when solar reaches 2% or even 1% for that matter, keep you quiet for a few years.

@ rocky thanks for the info, who would have thought that.

@ vv IEA

@ pretzel China per capita higher than many western countries. and approaching a third of all emissions. Maybe will have to thank them for a milder climate if agw is going to be the deal promised by some.

Good to know that you admit you're an AGW "alarmist" as well.

Professor Richard Lindzen, recently retired head of the M.I.T. environmental studies department, probably knows a trillion times more about the global warming issue than everyone posting here combined, and yet he says global warming is nonsense. 

I find it quite interesting that on such a complex scientific topic as this, people who know they have no scientific talent or training whatsoever are nonetheless so passionately sure that global warming is real.  They aren't willing to state whether an object accelerated to a speed approaching the speed of light contracts in the direction of motion, for example, or whether the Schwarzschild equations hold in the region of a black hole, but global warming, well, they're experts on that, even though they'd have trouble reciting Newton's laws of motion.

I also find it odd that so many people who identify as on the left side of the political spectrum are also so eager to affirm global warming without thinking that if global warming were true, this would destroy the left, since if the economy had to contract drastically to combat climate change, it would be impossible to redistribute parts of the shrinking economic pie from the rich to the poor, since people would cling frantically to whatever they had.

 

That is the key. The only people not accepting the science are conspiracy theorists or people that stand to gain financially from fossil fuels.

So you think you know more about climate change than Lindzen's colleagues at the MIT, who collectively indicated that he is dead wrong on the issue?

http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/08/mit-professors-denounce-their-colleague-letter-trump-for-denying-evidence-climate-change/86K8ur31YIUbMO4SAI7U2N/story.html

 

Richard Lindzen has said that co2 is a greenhouse gas (calling people who dispute this 'nutty') and human activity is warming the planet. He also has a theory that other mechanisms will come into play that will mitigate this warming. But he is one opinion and just about all the other experts disagree with him. 

On the question of people being experts - you can level that to either side of the debate - deniers claim to 'know' that AGW is false despite being mostly very ignorant and unscientific.

I choose to accept the science and what almost all scientists are saying - precisely because I'm not an expert. I dont feel that I can challenge them and trust that they have it right - I would rather trust them than some conspuracy theorist with a you-tube channel. It is also worth noting that most deniers have no data or physical evidence for their opinions - they are just that - speculation. 

On your last point about left leaning politics (bearing in mind we are not meant to debate politics according to chess.com rules) - it is mistaken to think that a transition to new technologies and energy types will result in economic hardship. It is what we have always done - at one time coal was used to power steam trains then a better way was found. Also, carrying on with fossil fuels will result in much greater financial hardship in the long run. More storms, extreme weather, flood defences, movement of people and infrastructure, loss of agriculture  - if you take the long term view, carrying on with fossil fuels will be very expensive. 

Why are you so uncomfortable about the 50% increase in installed PV in a year? Originally, I thought it was because you hate the idea of taking into account the massive global cost of carbon emissions. But since renewable generation has become cheaper than new fossil fuel generation even without taking this cost into account, it has become clear that you are prejudiced without even a false basis.

Go tell the IEA to be quiet when they say renewable generation will be more than 50% of coal in 2022, substantially due to growth in solar and wind. And similarly for the expectation that more than 50% of total generation will be solar and wind by 2040, with much of the rest being other renewables.

Time for you to spout another misleading, psychologically soothing mantra for passionate lovers of coal and its associated pollution.

The issue about population is a simple practical one. Populations are going to rise, and probably peak as much as 50% above current levels. There is no serious prospect of having a huge effect on this. Meanwhile there is the real potential to slash carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 50%, 75% and more. So one factor is an inevitable contributor to the problem that can scarcely be affected and the other can be affected to a very large extent.

Hope that clears things up.

Co2 is plant food!!! Billions of us exhale it everyday!!! Co2 levels in the past have been higher than they are now!!! If the world was going to end because of co2 it would’ve happened already!!! Carbon taxes are not a conspiracy theory!!! Denmark has been paying them since 1992!!! Look up weather manipulation!!! Look up cloud seeding!!! There’s a lot more going on here than big bad Co2!!! The only science that’s settled when it comes to man made global warming is the politically motivated fake/pseudo science that’s being used to eventually get every country like Denmark to sign onto a multi trillion dollar global carbon tax. Carbon taxes are not a conspiracy theory

your first 3 assertions are irrelevant to the problem of global warming. nobody said carbon taxes are a conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory is that every single major science organization on the planets in part of a conspiracy to raise taxes. therefore, it doesn't matter if denmark has carbon taxes or not, for the purposes of the point you tried to make. weather manipulation and cloud seeding have nothing to do with global warming. you follow up with more blather.

Hey pretzel. Polar bear populations have been increasing for the past ten plus years due to new over hunting laws being put into place. Didn’t someone tell us that they were going to all die off because of man made global warming?