Global warming tipping points

[jc456]

Hence no incremental change in waste heat from electricity usage when switching from fossil fuels to solar.

but you aren't switching, you're adding. How can you replace that which has never been there before?

 

[ding]

let me ask a bit different, if solar panels is adding electricity to the grid, it is also adding the heat from the new electricity right? Let's start there.

Incorrect. It is replacing the waste heat from using electricity generated from fossil fuels as electricity from solar is displacing electricity from fossil fuels.

 

[ding]

but you aren't switching, you're adding. How can you replace that which has never been there before?

Their goal is to replace electricity generated from fossil fuels with electricity generated from renewables. So it has been and will continue to displace electricity generated from fossil fuels.

 

[jc456]

Incorrect. It is replacing the waste heat from using electricity generated from fossil fuels as electricity from solar is displacing electricity from fossil fuels.

No, I'm correct, you are adding power to an existing grid. Why else are you adding it if the draw is still the same? It's added for demand.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Speaking of tipping points

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Incorrect. The waste heat from using electricity generated from solar power replaces the waste heat from using electricity generated from fossil fuels. So there is no change in waste heat from electricity usage. But there will be an incremental cooling effect from converting photons into electricity when replacing electricity generated from fossil fuels to solar power.

The waste heat from using electricity generated from solar power replaces the waste heat from using electricity generated from fossil fuels.

Your original stupid claim was that using solar would trigger a glacial cycle, because photons turned into electricity can't heat the planet. Have you admitted your FLoT violating error yet?

Now it's eliminating fossil fuels will trigger a new glacial cycle?.

Are you amending your original stupid claim?

But there will be an incremental cooling effect from converting photons into electricity

I guess not. LOL!
There is no cooling effect. In fact, because of lower albedo, solar panels will heat the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What you and Todd are doing is more akin to masturbation.

Getting your ass kicked this hard may be sexually gratifying to you, it's just funny to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even though the panels may reflect less solar radiation, the photons being converted into electricity more than offset the increased solar radiation absorbed by the lower albedo PV cells. Which is why there was less infrared heat emitted at the solar farms after the panels were installed.

Even though the panels may reflect less solar radiation, the photons being converted into electricity more than offset the increased solar radiation absorbed by the lower albedo PV cells.

FLoT proves your error. Turning photons into electricity doesn't "offset" anything.
The electricity turns right back into heat. You're still left with extra heat from the lower albedo.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See? Even you admit there was an incremental cooling effect measured at 6 solar farms.

My fridge does the same thing.
Where are the advancing glaciers?

 

[jc456]

Their goal is to replace electricity generated from fossil fuels with electricity generated from renewables. So it has been and will continue to displace electricity generated from fossil fuels.

That makes no sense when the grid is already peeking

 

[Captain Caveman]

Can you explain why you're not worried the least little bit?

I was born in the sixties, UK. I've always experienced bizarre weather, from hose pipe bans, snow drifts, floods, the whole lot. But after the year 2000, winds and rain are given people's names and lesser events are covered by coloured alerts. Now the winds and rain "Grip" the nation according to the news. Weather forecasts where covered after the news on a green/yellow picture of the UK, but now warm forecasts that were cooler than what was historically shown on the green/yellow map, means that area of the UK is now coloured in red.

Records are like the Olympics, every now and then, someone beats a record, but we have fuck all records before the Olympics. Same with the weather/climate.

As for co2 ppm, we're in a co2 drought compared to history, plus temps have been some 10c higher previously. I know the alarmists are freaking out at the rate of change, they need to practice what they preach if they're having a melt down that the sky is falling.

Blimey, anyone living 100 years will only experience a tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of the earth's history.

 

[Ringo]

From the life of the crazy people

MSN

 

[Crick]

You'd have a tough row to hoe if you actually wanted to show that New Zealanders were crazy.

 

[Ringo]

Australia's largest bank says it will stop
banking with companies that do not have a climate change plan. Without going into the details of his commitment, the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) Paul O'Malley told shareholders that the bank takes its climate commitments seriously. “Climate change is the focus of the Board of Directors and management,” O'Malley said at the October 12 general meeting of shareholders.

2022 Commonwealth Bank AGM: Chairman's address

Address by Paul O’Malley, Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, at the Bank’s 2022 Annual General Meeting.

www.commbank.com.au

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

no correlation between CO2 and temperature

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)​

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)

<p>Even during a period of long term warming, there are short periods of cooling due to climate variability. Short term cooling over the last few years is largely due to a strong La Nina phase in the Pacific Ocean and a prolonged solar minimum.</p>

skepticalscience.com

Jul 17, 2015 · There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature " Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War.

 

[Crick]

no correlation between CO2 and temperature

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)​

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)

<p>Even during a period of long term warming, there are short periods of cooling due to climate variability. Short term cooling over the last few years is largely due to a strong La Nina phase in the Pacific Ocean and a prolonged solar minimum.</p>

skepticalscience.com

Jul 17, 2015 · There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature " Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War.

What I take away from this is that you don't understand the statistical meaning of the term "correlate". You are attempting a play with the word "always" when looking at two mildly chaotic function to suggest that because they are not in absolute lockstep at all scales, there is no correlation. Sorry but this is incorrect. For starters, it's not a binary value. There is a very high degree of correlation between temperature and CO2 over a wide range of time scales. There are mountains and mountains of data to show this and I'm quite sure you knew that when you posted this falsehood.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

What I take away from this is that you don't understand the statistical meaning of the term "correlate". You are attempting a play with the word "always" when looking at two mildly chaotic function to suggest that because they are not in absolute lockstep at all scales, there is no correlation. Sorry but this is incorrect. For starters, it's not a binary value. There is a very high degree of correlation between temperature and CO2 over a wide range of time scales. There are mountains and mountains of data to show this and I'm quite sure you knew that when you posted this falsehood.

So what caused the climate changes before the industrial revolution?

 

[ReinyDays]

What I take away from this is that you don't understand the statistical meaning of the term "correlate". You are attempting a play with the word "always" when looking at two mildly chaotic function to suggest that because they are not in absolute lockstep at all scales, there is no correlation. Sorry but this is incorrect. For starters, it's not a binary value. There is a very high degree of correlation between temperature and CO2 over a wide range of time scales. There are mountains and mountains of data to show this and I'm quite sure you knew that when you posted this falsehood.

You certainly don't understand correlation ... there are strict mathematical definitions, none of which you have ever availed yourself to ...

The binary test is the easiest ... when CO2 goes up and temps go up is a positive ... when CO2 goes up and temps go down is a negative ... and this is assumed unless you state something different ... and you'll have to, because this simple test only gives a 59% coefficient of correlation for 1880-2020, where coin flipping is 50% correlation ...

I've asked for this "mountains and mountains of data" before ... will you be willing to provide this now? ...

 

[Crick]

You certainly don't understand correlation ... there are strict mathematical definitions, none of which you have ever availed yourself to ...

The binary test is the easiest ... when CO2 goes up and temps go up is a positive ... when CO2 goes up and temps go down is a negative ... and this is assumed unless you state something different ... and you'll have to, because this simple test only gives a 59% coefficient of correlation for 1880-2020, where coin flipping is 50% correlation ...

I've asked for this "mountains and mountains of data" before ... will you be willing to provide this now? ...

Sure. Go to www.ipcc.ch and look up the reports of Working Group I, all titled "The Physical Science Basis" for Assessment Reports 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

And, are you suggesting that you also believe there to be no correlation between temperature and CO2 in the historical record? I wager correlation is pretty poor between now and 12 hours ago. Or it might be very good. Hard to say. I DID suggest strongly that both functions (temperature and CO2) have chaotic elements and thus will NOT correlate on ALL time scales, but they will correlate quite well on anything from a couple decades to a billion years.

 

[ReinyDays]

Sure. Go to www.ipcc.ch and look up the reports of Working Group I, all titled "The Physical Science Basis" for Assessment Reports 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

And, are you suggesting that you also believe there to be no correlation between temperature and CO2 in the historical record? I wager correlation is pretty poor between now and 12 hours ago. Or it might be very good. Hard to say. I DID suggest strongly that both functions (temperature and CO2) have chaotic elements and thus will NOT correlate on ALL time scales, but they will correlate quite well on anything from a couple decades to a billion years.

"Go look it up" ... like I said ... YOU don't understand correlation ... or you would simple state how WG1 determines correlation ... you've made no comment on the mathematical basis I've presented ... why are you bringing up stupid shit from a political organization? ... how are you determining mathematical correlation? ...

=====

What does this do to demonstrate causation? ... or are these just statistical arts ... yeah, epicycles work fine, so what? ...