Mr. Hay, I agree 100% with you that we need courteous, open debate on these topics. And these gentlemen demonstrated an openness for actual discussion. Beyond that, the debate was not so impressive, and I lost patience with it.
By way of background, my career has been as a materials research engineer. Most of that career has been working on materials used in energy systems. I've spent years on critical materials. [For those reading this that may not have been exposed to the definition of a critical material, in a nutshell it is 1) the material is required to make something; 2) there are no current viable substitutes; 3) there is some sort of supply constraint. ] I've spent years in a working group dedicated to working on the challenges associated with integrating "other" energy sources into the existing grid. In doing all this I have acquired some understanding specific to this topic.
This is the reality that is almost never recognized, and if it was covered in that debate I'd be surprised (as acknowledged, I gave up). We lack the critical materials to make any wide scale use of the intermittent (what NREL terms variable renewable) energies (VREs) for base load power. It doesn't matter if we have unanimity in intent, it doesn't matter if we spend all the money. Materials (and energy) balances mean that it is not going to happen with current technology, or anything in the visible pipeline.
Given that, a common response is "well, sure we need to include everything, but we should try to maximize the VREs." What does it mean to maximize them? Due to the frequency/curtailment issues, most grids start having some real problems above 20% (well documented in literature and real-world experiences in Europe and several states). With a lot more storage (assuming materials availability!), more is possible, but then the next challenge is encountered. Fossil power plants have a range in which they operate. Depending on the type of power plant, 50% - 60% is generally the floor. Ramping them up and down to deal with VREs is like driving a car in traffic - not as good as on the highway!
If we can't use VREs for baseload, and maybe will struggle to get them even into the 20% - 50% range, then it should be obvious that the bigger question is what to use for base load power.
Further, as a thought experiment imagine we did have the materials, could provide 100% of base load with VREs and have EVs for most traffic. During 2020 when we were all driving less, electricity rose to 30% of energy consumption in the US. If we converted most traffic to EVs we might get it up to 50%. That leaves 50%. Which brings us back to the VREs.
The suggestion that VREs are cheaper is wrong. Period. The only way to get that impression requires some funny accounting. We don't even need to dive into the nature of the accounting problem - look at the real world. In both Europe and the US, electricity costs rise with an increase in % from VREs.
Which leads us to the idea that by restricting production of fossil fuels, making them more expensive, will somehow make VREs more competitive. This is so far off, it is looking up at "wrong." It is well documented that the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for VREs is much lower than for fossil fuels or nuclear. What this means is that the VREs will be disproportionally impacted by increases in the cost of the energy needed for input. Mining and transport will 100% be non-VRE powered. High pressure and high temperature materials processing can only use VREs to the extent that the industrial process gets its electricity from VREs. In addition to the VREs getting hit harder by rising energy costs, fossil is needed for the materials. Both coal and oil are required inputs for the materials used in solar and wind components. Raising input costs for materials does not improve cost-competitiveness.
Bringing this all back to the debate, I think Dr. Dessler ventured into areas in which he lacked some critical information. If he had stuck to his area and said "my interpretation of the existing data and predictive hypotheses is X" then it would have been better. I know Dr. Koonin has broader exposure, but with a little more depth could have made stronger arguments (I was having flashback's to Smil's arguments which caused me to lose patience).
Sorry for going on so long (short for me), but thanks to anybody who had the patience to wade through this.
I believe Dr Koonin has the more balanced argument. It is essential that we have dense energy, and we have seen that we can't count on wind and solar when it is needed, nor do we have adequate storage capabilities. Dr Dressler's comment on China's solar usage is a half-truth. To quote Power Engineering, 3/29/21, "Coal-fired power’s generation and carbon-intensity are both falling somewhat around the world, but China has emerged far and away as the dominant driver in its rising relevance for the developing world.
A new Global Electricity Review by climate and energy think tank Ember released Monday estimated that global coal-fired electricity fell a record 4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year. This fall was matched by a same level rise in wind and solar capacity (totaling more than 314 terawatt hours (TWh) in output).
In China, however, coal-fired power gained 2 percent in 2020. Worldwide, China now accounts for 53 percent of the overall coal-fired generation portfolio."
This information is over a year old, but it shows that China is moving in both directions, in a balanced manner. We can't stop what is working until we can replace it with something that works at least equally well. This 'sky is falling, hair on fire' approach to changing our energy effectiveness will leave the US looking like Germany if we let the alarmists have their way. Calm, measured and rational changes are needed. Thanks for sharing.
I think both have good points and both have inconsistencies. My take is that we should make strides toward decarbonization (IMO I don't know how vaporizing tens millions of years fossil fuel accumulations in a span of a couple centuries won't have a large effect, especially considering they dwarf average emissions from volcanoes). However to make a large rapid push for EVs is foolish--there simply isn't enough lithium on Earth to build out with our current technology. Solid state batteries are much more practical but we're not there yet. As far as energy sources solar and wind are convenient in certain situations as adjunct power but when you combine their cost PLUS cost of storage they get quite expensive for reliable power. We will indeed need oil and NG for the foreseeable future but they too will have finite supplies and the cost will skyrocket when supplies dwindle. Nuclear makes the most sense to me--consistent power, lower costs with modular SMRs, and green. We can at least replace coal, NG, and oil burning power plants and hope more efficient and lower cost battery systems are available down the road for transportation (solar and wind do make a nice pairing with H² fuel cells if we can fix the corrosion problem without expensive rare Earth elements). Also, if we can get some thorium plants up and running we can use most of the existing nuclear waste stockpiles as fuel--wouldnt that be great!
Agree with Mr. Rose. Dr. Dressler’s comments on China amount to cherry picking, as China clearly has an “all of the above” approach and is actively building out a significant amount of coal fired (as well as nuclear) generating capacity ahead of their peak emissions target.
I am also unconvinced that society can simply stop if renewables aren’t working. We’re already seeing the deleterious effects of shutting down baseload capacity, including carbon free nuclear. This switchover is difficult to stop or reverse on a dime.
Credit to Mr. Koonin for a convincing performance. He needs to be a part of this conversation more than ever.
I am an agriculture research biologist that has worked in the life science industry for 20 years. I have heard these debates all throughout my career. In my opinion Dr. Koonin has the more balanced argument. Dr. Koonin is aware on the energy return on investment which should be the building block of either positions. I am concerned that the investment in renewable energy is simply just a ploy to shift carbon emmissions from one sector to another. I am concerned that the renewable energy benefits are based on cheap hydrocarbon energy of today compared to potentially much higher prices in the future. Most solar panels are produced in China using coal powered electricity.
Carbon emmissions from the entire manufacturing process of renewable energy should be acknowledged in the debate.
I truly suggest that you take just a short bit of time (approx. 18 min.) to listen to Tony Heller's three snippets on you tube entitled " The World's Largest Industry" presented in three parts. And then read the World Climate Declaration signed by over 1100 scientists and professionals from across the world. It seems like all political fiction to me....
I understand that China is also building a larger number (quantity ???) of coal fired plants as well so I am not sure how virtuous their behavior is. ... neither proponent addressed the giant in the room, at least to my understanding, and that would be increasing the efforts to minimize the escape of methane better as well as an appropriate amount of carbon dioxide ... that way the developing countries can continue to develop.... There is also the problem recently faced by California (and which the whole of the U.S. will eventually face if we indeed continue down the EV path) .... terrible electrical transmission lines that start amazingly large forest fires ... essentially failing their objective. I cannot afford an EV, and there are millions of others who cannot, developed country or not.
I believe Dr. Koonin has more creditablilty than any climate scientist due to the fact that I have never reaf anywhere that climate science is not able to explain past climate fluctuations of the past. In addition those who demand the we eliminate all CO2 releases will not allow the metals and minerals to be mined to produce the green energy they say we must have and are the same people who have removed nuclear power that could solve the problem. This leads me to believe they are ignorant and do not actually believe their own fears are acurate. Also the costs of the transition the demand is far beyond the worlds financial abilities!
I am in the Koonin camp. His points are more common sense that is so lacking in today’s world. Dessler is another climate alarmist. They use fear porn as their main driver. While mankind influences climate, that fact is that climate changes naturally. It does not remain constant. It cannot remain constant.
Having lived half of my almost 70 years in the Chicago area and half in North and East Texas, in both locations I have seen hot and mild summers, beastly cold and mild winters, periods of very wet weather and very dry. Pacific currents produce La Niña and El Niño weather patterns. To say man is solely responsible for changes in weather/climate is irrational. A common sense approach to control man’s effect on our environment is needed. Everyone wants clean water and air. Green technologies are fine as a compliment to fossil fuels but to believe solar and wind will replace fossil fuels is lunacy and will crush our way of life. Electric power needs to come from fossil fuels, green technology, and especially nuclear. The market will figure out the proportion and pace of change in the various forms of energy. Transportation power will be powered by fossil fuels and for those who live in locations where EVs make sense and can afford the cost, fine. Mandating EVs by 2035 like that lunatic Newsome is absolutely insane.
Let common sense reign. Let the market work. Let’s look at data on climate change from all camps and develop plans and policies accordingly. Let’s incorporate new technologies as the market moves them. Quit the fear mongering, solve problems with real science and data, and let market forces advance new technologies as they evolve.
Dressler's cherry-picking China's solar development without mentioning China's new coal plants is a conscious attempt to downplay the minimal effect any changes in the US is likely to have. Unless he is claiming there is no wind that will spread the effects of more coal across the planet.
Point already made by others but worth repeating, especially given Dressler's "“Unjustified, immoral, and fantastical…” comment about Koonin.
We are subject to regular cycles that occur outside of our planet as a result of nearby celestial objects. Our oceans move in synch with the moon. Our weather moves in synch with the Sun's position relative to the earth in a regular cycle, seasonally and over longer time periods as the sun and earth tilt away from each other and then back again. We cyclically move in and out of La Nina and El Nino events with consequences for our North American weather. Many of these Solar and other extraterrestrial driven cycles last for decades. The droughts in America and Britain of the past several years correspond to similar problems in the 1920's and 30's at a similar point of the Solar cycle we are in now. In fact droughts were worse in the 1920's in Britain than this year. I remember as an engaged student in 1970 being attracted to the first Earth day. Our knowledge at that time posited a future that was driven largely by cold, our planet was not burning, the future vision was of the coming ice age that we needed to stop by changing our behaviors. It is difficult for people to accept some events as beyond our control and something requiring adaptation. It is easier for us to have blind belief in a future vision, which as it turns out, has not been consistent through the course of the last 50 years. We have in my lifetime gone from cold to heat in synch with changes in the Solar cycles and will return to a cooler planet again as the current cycle continues. Does carbon impact the Solar Cycle is an interesting question. Our production of carbon, good or bad, will not change the Solar cycle. The sun and earth's synchronized movements will not change based on how much or how little carbon we produce. Should we be concerned about carbon? A good camper always leaves a clean campsite. As a practice in stewardship there are good reasons to be concerned. For example Coal produces particulates which can hover in the atmosphere and reflect sunlight. Reducing particulates such as coal is going to provide more sunlight and therefore warmth and energy. However, current events inform us of the fact that moving exclusively to less dense energy sources means a complete redo of our lives and technologies. That wholesale energy change, to be borne largely by the masses, will not fix the appearance of Prairie droughts in synch with a La Nina. Nor will it change the relative position of the sun and earth. Our planet and it's weather will always move in cycles, even in the future when we as a species have long since been replaced.
Interested parties would do well to read the work of @ProfSteveKeen. He not only claims that our mainstream economic models are wrong as a result of conventional academic biases, but also because they ignore the necessary input of energy in a modern economy. He has made numerous speeches debunking the debunkers who claim that the economy's response to gently rising temperatures is a linear one - he believes, and demonstrates, tipping points which Nordhaus et al. refuse to consider.
While I believe that Mankind needs to do better Pollution-wise, I have a very hard time ignoring the Laws of Physics to entertain the "Climate Change" story. As a Second Class Power Engineer, I have difficulty buying into the Climate Crisis Narrative. Our Planet is surrounded by a Deep Freeze that is set at Absolute zero (-273 degrees Fahrenheit...). The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that Heat ALWAYS and Forever goes to Cold. Does it not stand to reason that it would be incredibly difficult for Our Planet to "overheat"? And before anyone regales me with the statement that "Carbon Dioxide acts like a blanket...", need I remind everyone that blankets are solid while CO2 is a gas and has a heat retention coefficient of 5/100,000s of a second. That's right. 5 Microseconds, so how can CO2 possibly be responsible for so-called "Global Warming"? Even with particulate matter, water vapour, Cosmic dust, Volcanic ash, smoke, etc., our Atmosphere is constantly shedding all this matter via Rainfall, Lightening, Ozone and Gravity in keeping with Nature always seeking a balance. Krakatoa's eruption put up enough ash to blanket the Earth several times over. Guess what? Everyone alive at that time who wasn't in the vicinity of the Eruption survived. We will survive as well. Until we Humans develop and learn to harness a new source of cheap, abundant, transferable and RELIABLE energy like Dark Matter, We are just chasing our tails if We continue to use Ancient Technology such as Wind and Solar. Have a great weekend, All.
P.S. Our Planet WILL eventually burn up...(In about 500 Million Years when our Sun goes Super Nova!!!).
Dressler ignores Germany shutting down its grid to the point that they will likely be burning wood! this winter. China continues to ramp up coal production. E&P companies are returning cash to shareholders because the current administration has denied 4400 drilling permits and seems to want to put those companies out of business. Of course it’s hot in a concrete jungle like Manhattan and Chicago, etc. The local newspaper reports record high and low temps every day- while some have occurred recently, most of the record highs typically occurred in the 1980s, 1939s and believe it or not- early 1900s. Wish someone could explain that to me.
Far from settled, many climate scientists have believed for decades that sunspots control the weather on earth. I know that according to climate alarmists that has been “debunked” but no one seems able to explain exactly how 🤔. Sunspots suggest global cooling is much more likely in a decade.
Bank of America put the cost of reaching net zero at $150 trillion over a 30-year period. Janet Yellen has estimated the cost in the same range. Now nobody can know the number, but that is a lot of money. In addition, what are the non-monetary costs of reaching net zero?
We need to have the conversation, but one side seems not to want to do that. For that side it is a Pascal argument. I will take Dr. Koonin on my side.
im watching this and if even 1/2 of what is said here is correct (and given my knowledge and experience, virtually all of it is, this should debunk the wind/solar is the answer debate once and for all
Mr. Hay, I agree 100% with you that we need courteous, open debate on these topics. And these gentlemen demonstrated an openness for actual discussion. Beyond that, the debate was not so impressive, and I lost patience with it.
By way of background, my career has been as a materials research engineer. Most of that career has been working on materials used in energy systems. I've spent years on critical materials. [For those reading this that may not have been exposed to the definition of a critical material, in a nutshell it is 1) the material is required to make something; 2) there are no current viable substitutes; 3) there is some sort of supply constraint. ] I've spent years in a working group dedicated to working on the challenges associated with integrating "other" energy sources into the existing grid. In doing all this I have acquired some understanding specific to this topic.
This is the reality that is almost never recognized, and if it was covered in that debate I'd be surprised (as acknowledged, I gave up). We lack the critical materials to make any wide scale use of the intermittent (what NREL terms variable renewable) energies (VREs) for base load power. It doesn't matter if we have unanimity in intent, it doesn't matter if we spend all the money. Materials (and energy) balances mean that it is not going to happen with current technology, or anything in the visible pipeline.
Given that, a common response is "well, sure we need to include everything, but we should try to maximize the VREs." What does it mean to maximize them? Due to the frequency/curtailment issues, most grids start having some real problems above 20% (well documented in literature and real-world experiences in Europe and several states). With a lot more storage (assuming materials availability!), more is possible, but then the next challenge is encountered. Fossil power plants have a range in which they operate. Depending on the type of power plant, 50% - 60% is generally the floor. Ramping them up and down to deal with VREs is like driving a car in traffic - not as good as on the highway!
If we can't use VREs for baseload, and maybe will struggle to get them even into the 20% - 50% range, then it should be obvious that the bigger question is what to use for base load power.
Further, as a thought experiment imagine we did have the materials, could provide 100% of base load with VREs and have EVs for most traffic. During 2020 when we were all driving less, electricity rose to 30% of energy consumption in the US. If we converted most traffic to EVs we might get it up to 50%. That leaves 50%. Which brings us back to the VREs.
The suggestion that VREs are cheaper is wrong. Period. The only way to get that impression requires some funny accounting. We don't even need to dive into the nature of the accounting problem - look at the real world. In both Europe and the US, electricity costs rise with an increase in % from VREs.
Which leads us to the idea that by restricting production of fossil fuels, making them more expensive, will somehow make VREs more competitive. This is so far off, it is looking up at "wrong." It is well documented that the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for VREs is much lower than for fossil fuels or nuclear. What this means is that the VREs will be disproportionally impacted by increases in the cost of the energy needed for input. Mining and transport will 100% be non-VRE powered. High pressure and high temperature materials processing can only use VREs to the extent that the industrial process gets its electricity from VREs. In addition to the VREs getting hit harder by rising energy costs, fossil is needed for the materials. Both coal and oil are required inputs for the materials used in solar and wind components. Raising input costs for materials does not improve cost-competitiveness.
Bringing this all back to the debate, I think Dr. Dessler ventured into areas in which he lacked some critical information. If he had stuck to his area and said "my interpretation of the existing data and predictive hypotheses is X" then it would have been better. I know Dr. Koonin has broader exposure, but with a little more depth could have made stronger arguments (I was having flashback's to Smil's arguments which caused me to lose patience).
Sorry for going on so long (short for me), but thanks to anybody who had the patience to wade through this.
I believe Dr Koonin has the more balanced argument. It is essential that we have dense energy, and we have seen that we can't count on wind and solar when it is needed, nor do we have adequate storage capabilities. Dr Dressler's comment on China's solar usage is a half-truth. To quote Power Engineering, 3/29/21, "Coal-fired power’s generation and carbon-intensity are both falling somewhat around the world, but China has emerged far and away as the dominant driver in its rising relevance for the developing world.
A new Global Electricity Review by climate and energy think tank Ember released Monday estimated that global coal-fired electricity fell a record 4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year. This fall was matched by a same level rise in wind and solar capacity (totaling more than 314 terawatt hours (TWh) in output).
In China, however, coal-fired power gained 2 percent in 2020. Worldwide, China now accounts for 53 percent of the overall coal-fired generation portfolio."
This information is over a year old, but it shows that China is moving in both directions, in a balanced manner. We can't stop what is working until we can replace it with something that works at least equally well. This 'sky is falling, hair on fire' approach to changing our energy effectiveness will leave the US looking like Germany if we let the alarmists have their way. Calm, measured and rational changes are needed. Thanks for sharing.
I think both have good points and both have inconsistencies. My take is that we should make strides toward decarbonization (IMO I don't know how vaporizing tens millions of years fossil fuel accumulations in a span of a couple centuries won't have a large effect, especially considering they dwarf average emissions from volcanoes). However to make a large rapid push for EVs is foolish--there simply isn't enough lithium on Earth to build out with our current technology. Solid state batteries are much more practical but we're not there yet. As far as energy sources solar and wind are convenient in certain situations as adjunct power but when you combine their cost PLUS cost of storage they get quite expensive for reliable power. We will indeed need oil and NG for the foreseeable future but they too will have finite supplies and the cost will skyrocket when supplies dwindle. Nuclear makes the most sense to me--consistent power, lower costs with modular SMRs, and green. We can at least replace coal, NG, and oil burning power plants and hope more efficient and lower cost battery systems are available down the road for transportation (solar and wind do make a nice pairing with H² fuel cells if we can fix the corrosion problem without expensive rare Earth elements). Also, if we can get some thorium plants up and running we can use most of the existing nuclear waste stockpiles as fuel--wouldnt that be great!
Agree with Mr. Rose. Dr. Dressler’s comments on China amount to cherry picking, as China clearly has an “all of the above” approach and is actively building out a significant amount of coal fired (as well as nuclear) generating capacity ahead of their peak emissions target.
I am also unconvinced that society can simply stop if renewables aren’t working. We’re already seeing the deleterious effects of shutting down baseload capacity, including carbon free nuclear. This switchover is difficult to stop or reverse on a dime.
Credit to Mr. Koonin for a convincing performance. He needs to be a part of this conversation more than ever.
I am an agriculture research biologist that has worked in the life science industry for 20 years. I have heard these debates all throughout my career. In my opinion Dr. Koonin has the more balanced argument. Dr. Koonin is aware on the energy return on investment which should be the building block of either positions. I am concerned that the investment in renewable energy is simply just a ploy to shift carbon emmissions from one sector to another. I am concerned that the renewable energy benefits are based on cheap hydrocarbon energy of today compared to potentially much higher prices in the future. Most solar panels are produced in China using coal powered electricity.
Carbon emmissions from the entire manufacturing process of renewable energy should be acknowledged in the debate.
I truly suggest that you take just a short bit of time (approx. 18 min.) to listen to Tony Heller's three snippets on you tube entitled " The World's Largest Industry" presented in three parts. And then read the World Climate Declaration signed by over 1100 scientists and professionals from across the world. It seems like all political fiction to me....
Strongly endorse Tony Heller's analysis. Such common sense is rare especially amongst some University senior lecturers and professors.
I understand that China is also building a larger number (quantity ???) of coal fired plants as well so I am not sure how virtuous their behavior is. ... neither proponent addressed the giant in the room, at least to my understanding, and that would be increasing the efforts to minimize the escape of methane better as well as an appropriate amount of carbon dioxide ... that way the developing countries can continue to develop.... There is also the problem recently faced by California (and which the whole of the U.S. will eventually face if we indeed continue down the EV path) .... terrible electrical transmission lines that start amazingly large forest fires ... essentially failing their objective. I cannot afford an EV, and there are millions of others who cannot, developed country or not.
I believe Dr. Koonin has more creditablilty than any climate scientist due to the fact that I have never reaf anywhere that climate science is not able to explain past climate fluctuations of the past. In addition those who demand the we eliminate all CO2 releases will not allow the metals and minerals to be mined to produce the green energy they say we must have and are the same people who have removed nuclear power that could solve the problem. This leads me to believe they are ignorant and do not actually believe their own fears are acurate. Also the costs of the transition the demand is far beyond the worlds financial abilities!
I am in the Koonin camp. His points are more common sense that is so lacking in today’s world. Dessler is another climate alarmist. They use fear porn as their main driver. While mankind influences climate, that fact is that climate changes naturally. It does not remain constant. It cannot remain constant.
Having lived half of my almost 70 years in the Chicago area and half in North and East Texas, in both locations I have seen hot and mild summers, beastly cold and mild winters, periods of very wet weather and very dry. Pacific currents produce La Niña and El Niño weather patterns. To say man is solely responsible for changes in weather/climate is irrational. A common sense approach to control man’s effect on our environment is needed. Everyone wants clean water and air. Green technologies are fine as a compliment to fossil fuels but to believe solar and wind will replace fossil fuels is lunacy and will crush our way of life. Electric power needs to come from fossil fuels, green technology, and especially nuclear. The market will figure out the proportion and pace of change in the various forms of energy. Transportation power will be powered by fossil fuels and for those who live in locations where EVs make sense and can afford the cost, fine. Mandating EVs by 2035 like that lunatic Newsome is absolutely insane.
Let common sense reign. Let the market work. Let’s look at data on climate change from all camps and develop plans and policies accordingly. Let’s incorporate new technologies as the market moves them. Quit the fear mongering, solve problems with real science and data, and let market forces advance new technologies as they evolve.
Dressler's cherry-picking China's solar development without mentioning China's new coal plants is a conscious attempt to downplay the minimal effect any changes in the US is likely to have. Unless he is claiming there is no wind that will spread the effects of more coal across the planet.
Point already made by others but worth repeating, especially given Dressler's "“Unjustified, immoral, and fantastical…” comment about Koonin.
We are subject to regular cycles that occur outside of our planet as a result of nearby celestial objects. Our oceans move in synch with the moon. Our weather moves in synch with the Sun's position relative to the earth in a regular cycle, seasonally and over longer time periods as the sun and earth tilt away from each other and then back again. We cyclically move in and out of La Nina and El Nino events with consequences for our North American weather. Many of these Solar and other extraterrestrial driven cycles last for decades. The droughts in America and Britain of the past several years correspond to similar problems in the 1920's and 30's at a similar point of the Solar cycle we are in now. In fact droughts were worse in the 1920's in Britain than this year. I remember as an engaged student in 1970 being attracted to the first Earth day. Our knowledge at that time posited a future that was driven largely by cold, our planet was not burning, the future vision was of the coming ice age that we needed to stop by changing our behaviors. It is difficult for people to accept some events as beyond our control and something requiring adaptation. It is easier for us to have blind belief in a future vision, which as it turns out, has not been consistent through the course of the last 50 years. We have in my lifetime gone from cold to heat in synch with changes in the Solar cycles and will return to a cooler planet again as the current cycle continues. Does carbon impact the Solar Cycle is an interesting question. Our production of carbon, good or bad, will not change the Solar cycle. The sun and earth's synchronized movements will not change based on how much or how little carbon we produce. Should we be concerned about carbon? A good camper always leaves a clean campsite. As a practice in stewardship there are good reasons to be concerned. For example Coal produces particulates which can hover in the atmosphere and reflect sunlight. Reducing particulates such as coal is going to provide more sunlight and therefore warmth and energy. However, current events inform us of the fact that moving exclusively to less dense energy sources means a complete redo of our lives and technologies. That wholesale energy change, to be borne largely by the masses, will not fix the appearance of Prairie droughts in synch with a La Nina. Nor will it change the relative position of the sun and earth. Our planet and it's weather will always move in cycles, even in the future when we as a species have long since been replaced.
Interested parties would do well to read the work of @ProfSteveKeen. He not only claims that our mainstream economic models are wrong as a result of conventional academic biases, but also because they ignore the necessary input of energy in a modern economy. He has made numerous speeches debunking the debunkers who claim that the economy's response to gently rising temperatures is a linear one - he believes, and demonstrates, tipping points which Nordhaus et al. refuse to consider.
While I believe that Mankind needs to do better Pollution-wise, I have a very hard time ignoring the Laws of Physics to entertain the "Climate Change" story. As a Second Class Power Engineer, I have difficulty buying into the Climate Crisis Narrative. Our Planet is surrounded by a Deep Freeze that is set at Absolute zero (-273 degrees Fahrenheit...). The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that Heat ALWAYS and Forever goes to Cold. Does it not stand to reason that it would be incredibly difficult for Our Planet to "overheat"? And before anyone regales me with the statement that "Carbon Dioxide acts like a blanket...", need I remind everyone that blankets are solid while CO2 is a gas and has a heat retention coefficient of 5/100,000s of a second. That's right. 5 Microseconds, so how can CO2 possibly be responsible for so-called "Global Warming"? Even with particulate matter, water vapour, Cosmic dust, Volcanic ash, smoke, etc., our Atmosphere is constantly shedding all this matter via Rainfall, Lightening, Ozone and Gravity in keeping with Nature always seeking a balance. Krakatoa's eruption put up enough ash to blanket the Earth several times over. Guess what? Everyone alive at that time who wasn't in the vicinity of the Eruption survived. We will survive as well. Until we Humans develop and learn to harness a new source of cheap, abundant, transferable and RELIABLE energy like Dark Matter, We are just chasing our tails if We continue to use Ancient Technology such as Wind and Solar. Have a great weekend, All.
P.S. Our Planet WILL eventually burn up...(In about 500 Million Years when our Sun goes Super Nova!!!).
Dressler ignores Germany shutting down its grid to the point that they will likely be burning wood! this winter. China continues to ramp up coal production. E&P companies are returning cash to shareholders because the current administration has denied 4400 drilling permits and seems to want to put those companies out of business. Of course it’s hot in a concrete jungle like Manhattan and Chicago, etc. The local newspaper reports record high and low temps every day- while some have occurred recently, most of the record highs typically occurred in the 1980s, 1939s and believe it or not- early 1900s. Wish someone could explain that to me.
Far from settled, many climate scientists have believed for decades that sunspots control the weather on earth. I know that according to climate alarmists that has been “debunked” but no one seems able to explain exactly how 🤔. Sunspots suggest global cooling is much more likely in a decade.
Bank of America put the cost of reaching net zero at $150 trillion over a 30-year period. Janet Yellen has estimated the cost in the same range. Now nobody can know the number, but that is a lot of money. In addition, what are the non-monetary costs of reaching net zero?
We need to have the conversation, but one side seems not to want to do that. For that side it is a Pascal argument. I will take Dr. Koonin on my side.
im watching this and if even 1/2 of what is said here is correct (and given my knowledge and experience, virtually all of it is, this should debunk the wind/solar is the answer debate once and for all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_uBiHoIZIw