Question about climate change

https://www.google.com.au/search?so...33i22i10i29i30j33i10i21j33i10i160.qz2NBV3tq2I

 

How much of China’s installed base is actually utilized ?? They install but don’t actually use. Why is that ??

 

Problems with connecting the plants to the grid.

Nevertheless:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/countries-behind-global-renewable-energy-growth/

"Among the top three nations, China is the undisputed renewable growth leader, accounting for over 40% of the total global clean energy mix by 2022. This is due to meeting various capacity targets and addressing concerns about the country’s air pollution".

 

The problem is that they won’t connect them to the grid. They install but don’t use. Why ?? Because by installing they create the false “understanding” that China is committed to solar. They continue to sell low priced solar technology to the western democracies resulting in reduced economic growth which facilitates their goal of world domination.

 

You answered your own question by merely repeating your assertion about world domination (as previously noted, the pot calling the kettle black).

I'll get the facts on the failure to connect some capacity to the grid, and get back to you.

Meanwhile it's clear: China has no choice but to transition from filthy fossil to green, (regardless of the CO2 controversy), owing to its population density.

ie forced to go green to "address concerns about the country’s air pollution".

That transition can be slow and costly, or fast, free, and environmentally sustainable for all of us - as outlined in my post #76 - remembering China and India alone account for more than a third of the world's population.

 

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/10775-China-s-solar-industry-is-at-a-crossroads

You will discover: nothing to do with "world domination", everything to do with the technicalities and costs associated with balancing increasing reliance on intermittent solar with decreasing reliance on cheap base-load coal in the national grid.

Perhaps I can put your conspiracy theory finally to rest by noting that neither the Chinese people, nor the American people are interested in "world domination" in the 21st century, though certainly neocons on either side (ie in the US or China) do fantasize about it (it's a tribal, Neanderthal, instinctive impulse from the Right everywhere).

 

All they have to do is clean up their existing coal fired plants if they are actually serious about air pollution. That's much more cost effective than solar and wind power.

 

You answered your own question. The Chinese solar installations are faux. They have built them to create the impression that they are serious about green energy which they hope will drive the western democracies to further commit to green and further reduce their economic growth. Meanwhile the Chinese continue to build fossil fired energy production plants and grow their economy at greater than 6% per year.

The Chinese government prays for those who hang on to the belief that they are not working toward being the only global super power. The Chinese were given many trade and economic advantages by the WTO on the belief that they would transition to a western style democratic government. That has not and will not ever happen. Wake up !!!!

 

I am awake: I see a global dystopia unless we institute an international rules based system to, inter alia, oversee transition from filthy fossil to clean green, with the prize of free electricity for the entire globe for the taking (as outlined in my post #76).

[You agreed the problem is political, not economic; and in any case the supposed superiority of the Western democracies has to be questioned, with many of them (eg including the US with its frequent govt. shutdowns) revealing crippling political hyper-partisanship and increasing civil unrest - problems magnified across the globe by the lack of an international rules-based system].

Cheaper to clean up coal than to go green (or even technically possible)?

You're kidding. With their citizens already donning gas masks on some days, the Chinese would have certainly gone there already, if it was possible.

 

Yes it is possible. It is being done every day in the US. The Chinese are laughing hysterically at the likes of AOC in the western democracies. Those moronic green energy actions are playing right into their plans to become the dominant global economy and the western democracies are actually paying the Chinese for the solar panels that contribute to the Chinese plan. Wake up !!!

 

Can you supply a link demonstrating success (in the US or anywhere else) with current technology that can eradicate particulate matter, soot, oxides of sulphur and nitrogen damaging to human health, which result from the burning of coal?

 

All those are controlled to below safety threshold limits.

The 2.5 micron particulate regulation is based on one paper in which the raw data has not been released for scientific review, has never been repeated, and no people have been shown to have suffered ill effects from. If you believe the Obama EPA conclusions every one in Northern California would have died due to exposure to the diluted smoke in the air from the wildfires in the last couple of years.

 

Considering your grasp of information purporting to show that burning fossil fuels has no relation to climate change, the paucity of your reply re non-CO2 pollution is astounding - although of course I should not be surprised.

https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics

Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems. Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream. Of these, particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles or PM2.5, pose the greatest risk to health. Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States, including many of our treasured national parks and wilderness areas.

In other words, negative effects on health and environment are not limited to particles < 2.5 microns.

1. The EPA was corrupted by Obama?

2. Your theory that China is persisting with coal - while facilitating the rest of the world to go green - in order to achieve world domination is preposterous, and characteristic of the level of political debate in the Western democracies.

 

Who has claimed that Human CO2 emissions have no effect on global warming.

Name someone who has been harmed from breathing in low concentrations of 2.5 micron particles. Name someone who has bee harmed by breathing air with 10 micron particles.

Why won’t the data be released ??

Obama appointees absolutely corrupted the EPA. Their clean air act is not backed up by any data which has been completely disclosed or repeated. It was designed for one purpose - to kill coal. The EPA claimed that one breath of particulate matter would result in death but at the same time ran tests using humans as guinea pigs.

China loves people who think like you. Wake up!!!

 

So you are claiming that we simply have to adapt to global warming, whatever its causes? Whatever.

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils

Particulate matter (soot) emissions produce haze and can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and elevated occurrence of premature death. In 2010, it is estimated that fine particle pollution from US coal plants resulted in 13,200 deaths, 9,700 hospitalizations, and 20,000 heart attacks. The impacts are particularly severe among the young, the elderly, and those who suffer from respiratory disease. The total health cost was estimated to be more than $100 billion per year [41].

Do I detect your adoption of the tobacco lobby's defence style?

The estimates above not good enough?

So you assert.

I say again, visit China or India and other large coal consumers with significant population densities, and see if you are happy to breathe the air.

Actually I would urge China to sign up to an international rules based system, while maintaining their own one-party meritocracy if they wish.
Not sure China would "love people who think like me", though.

 

Global warming is beneficial.

Name anyone who has been adversely affected by EPA levels of 2.5 micron particulates. Lisa Jackson stated that exposure would shorten life but authorized testing on humans. Was she immoral and unethical or did she know her statements was BS.

Estimates are not data.

What do the carcinogens in tobacco smoke have to do with this discussion ??

China doesn’t care about air quality which is actually quite good outside of Beijing. My son travels to Heyuan regularly which is very clean. BTW life expectancy in Beijing is higher than the US.

 

Better than fake data....

Nope. They might not have enough water, but it is not going to get too hot. In fact, higher global temperatures mean an accelerated hydrological cycle with more rainfall. So if it gets hotter, they will likely be able to increase production. They just need to build better hydrological infrastructure to make use of the increased rainfall. But that is a political problem, not a climate problem.

But it won't. It will be up, because there will be more rainfall and higher temperatures as well as more CO2, like ... drumroll... A FRICKIN' GREENHOUSE. Why do you think farmers use greenhouses, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

But net plus, which is why periods of warm global climate were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

If you tell people that have to give up their comforts or the world will end, it makes the nonsense true.

Of course the warming is real. We had a century of the highest solar activity in thousands of years, right after centuries of some of the lowest.

 

And of course which the alarmists refuse to acknowledge at a rate of global temperature increase of ~ 0.1 - 0.2 deg C per decade there will be plenty of time to adapt to the increasing temperature unless of course the alarmists completely gut economic growth for their green energy policies. Fortunately policies which would even moderately reduce CO2 emissions are not politically possible in a democratic republic. The only way they could be implemented is in a totalitarian government system such as China which is installing faux solar and wind but not actually using it. They are however making a mint selling solar and wind to the morons running the EU and the US who subsidize the intermittent green energy technology and thus reduce economic growth. China economically benefits and politically benefits in their plan for global domination.

 

They are actually quite analogous.

Wrong. It is the governing dynamic behind Ice Ages.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! You just proved you know nothing of the ice-albedo feedback mechanism, which is limited by latitude: the intensity of sunlight varies as the cosine of latitude. You don't know any science, so you can't understand what that means. I'll explain it to you: at high latitude, the angle of the sun is so low that there is very little heat in it, not enough to melt ice. In addition, at very high latitudes there are long periods in the winter with no sun at all, so the ice builds up. At lower latitudes, sunlight is much stronger, and it shines every day of the year, so the ice-albedo feedback is easily powerful enough to produce the cycle of ice ages and interglacials.

The arrangement of the continents blocked ocean circulation.

No, the continents drifted into new configurations, ocean circulation was restored, the earth warmed up because of the ice-albedo feedback, and then the CO2 level rose.

Wrong on both counts.

Hehe. Climategate 2 conclusively puts the lie to warmmonger claims that the conspiracy is paranoid gibberish. It has again been proved fact.

 

As you should be aware by now, I'm staying out of that argument.

While I might not accuse you of climate denialism (I'm staying out of that argument), I will certainly accuse you of denying the non-CO2 effects of the filthy fossil industry on human health (the tobacco lobby used similar tactics in dealing with statistics - get it?).

See above; because identification of particular cause of death in a particular individual is complex, you choose to ignore the health data and stats as they relate to the community.

Unsurprisingly, you can't see the connection...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China#Particulates

In an attempt to reduce air pollution, the Chinese government has made the decision to enforce stricter regulations. After record-high air pollution in northern China in 2012 and 2013,[47] the State Council issued an Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution in September 2013. This plan aims to reduce PM2.5 by over 10% from 2012 to 2017.[48] The most prominent government response has been in Beijing, aiming to reduce PM2.5 by 25% from 2012 to 2017.[49] As the capital of China, it is suffering from high levels of air pollution. According to Reuters, in September 2013, the Chinese government published the plan to tackle air pollution problem on its official website.[50] The main goal of the plan is to reduce coal consumption by closing polluting mills, factories, and smelters, and switching to other eco-friendly energy sources.[49]

These policies have been taking effect, and in 2015, the average PM2.5 in 74 key cities in monitoring system is 55 μg/m3, showing a 23.6% decrease as of 2013.[51] Despite the reduction in coal consumption and polluting industries, China still maintained a stable economic growth rate from 7.7% in 2013 to 6.9% in 2015.[52]

Blowing your Chinese world domination conspiracy theory out of the water.

Something to do with the governance style (extreme neoliberalism) in the US?

eg, introduce a sugar tax or fat tax on the beverage and processed food industries? Forget it.

"You are living in poverty, your neighbourhoods are like war zones, your young men are in prison, your schools and hospitals are broken...." (Donald Trump). This in the richest nation on earth.

 

So you can’t name anyone ??

And you buy into the fallacy of “filthy fossil fuel power plants” ??

The Wikipedia (who wrote that) shows nothing. There’s no reliable data about coal consumption and substitution technologies. The data coming out of China on coal consumption is always proven to show less than reality.

You argue that China is not seeking to be the dominant world super power ?? That’s amazingly naive.

 

"According to the World Health Organization in 2012, urban outdoor air pollution, from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is estimated to cause 3 million deaths worldwide per year and indoor air pollution from biomass and fossil fuel burning is estimated to cause approximately 4.3 million premature deaths.

Obviously you will dismiss WHO stats as well, but reasonable people are taking note. ​

I actually said "fossil fuel industry"; ie, the problem is bigger than air pollution from fossil power plants alone.

More on filthy fossil:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/germany...38-in-bid-for-climate-friendly-economy-77077/

"In its highly anticipated phase-out proposal, the country’s (ie Germany) coal commission said the world’s fourth largest economy could also wean itself off coal by 2035 if conditions are right".

ie, regardless of the CO2 issue; and:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/end-of-the-road-are-diesel-cars-on-the-way-out-in-europe

"The German developments are already ricocheting across the EU, where diesel engines are a major contributor to an acute urban air pollution problem, says Margherita Tolotto of the European Environmental Bureau, an umbrella advocacy group based in Brussels. Forty-eight of 80 EU cities tested last year exceeded nitrogen dioxide emissions limits.

And the Germans, not known for falsifying data, must be simply deluded for wishing to exit coal and petroleum?

I have no illusions about nationalist (Neanderthal/ tribalist) neoCONS, whether in China or the US.

However, the Chinese have a right to aspire to 1st world prosperity (hopefully without the egregious poverty and inequality in the US). If China achieves that goal, its economy could be four times the size of the US....

Then even you might decide to support an international rules base system....

 

Name one ??

Estimates from computer models are not data.

The Germans are now building coal (lignite) plants to replace nuclear. They are going in the wrong direction. Energy storage technology development will never make wind and solar economically viable.

 

That's a fine fantasy. But, as is always the case, we note the total lack of any data to back up your fantasy. That would be why nobody pays any attention to more or less anything you say -- it's all just stuff you made up.

According to your idiot theory, it shouldn't have warmed up at all previously, as you say all the hearing goes into making more rain. But it did warm up. The pesky reality has contradicted your theory, meaning your theory is wrong.

We get it already. The leaders of you political told you to be afraid of the imaginary socialist bogeyman, in order to keep you obedient and compliant. Their strategy worked.

 

The planet is greening as it warms. How much data do you need ???

Computer model estimates are not data.

Global warming is net beneficial. As it has always been.

In the entire natural history of the earth their is no correlation between global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration.