M564038 wrote:

So you still do not understand the basic premise of not introducing new(old) carbon into the cycle?

M564038 wrote:

No one is pretending this to be an end all solution, but comparing it to fossils is ridiculous.

M564038 wrote:

The amount one can use, how and where, from which source and properly absorb with planting, and in which time-frame, is something which I rather leave to the experts than to the logic of a climate denier on a internet discussion forum.

A101 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

So you still do not understand the basic premise of not introducing new(old) carbon into the cycle?

It does not matter if the CO2 inthe atmosphere is new or old, CO2 emitted today has the same impact irrespective if it comes from coal or biomass

M564038 wrote:

No one is pretending this to be an end all solution, but comparing it to fossils is ridiculous.

I dont think I have ever said that did :scratchchin:

M564038 wrote:

The amount one can use, how and where, from which source and properly absorb with planting, and in which time-frame, is something which I rather leave to the experts than to the logic of a climate denier on a internet discussion forum.

The basic premises of the fact is that burning biomass made from trees releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than coal does pkWh, the time frame to recapture that excess release of CO2 from replanting is 40–100 years after clearcut, New plantations only capture CO2 when mature depending on the species of tree felled and what species replaces it with most clearcut being replaced with fast growing pine which absords CO2 at a slower rate than most hardwoods

In the end I applauded the reforestation by increasing the size of our natural carbon sinks without clear-felling areas to produce biomass will actually be better for the environment because those areas not cleared are continuing to absorb excess CO2 while new growth establishes itself to continue the process :coffee:

M564038 wrote:

Much of, for your use potentially has already switched away from fossil sources. I know you still drive fossil, but I rather doubt your house is warmed by fossil sources.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

What is the return on investment for us consumers burning fossil fuel?

A warm house, personal and public transport, plastics, pharmaceuticals, roads..............

MohawkWeekend wrote:

According to the US EPA and Coal Ash Industry information, only 64% of coal ash is recycled. It is the one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the US. https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics

There is the monumental cost of cleaning up all the poorly buried coal ash from the last 150 years of consumption. And of course the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in Tennessee which cost over a billion dollars to clean up. Coal is the gift that keeps on giving.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

According to the US EPA and Coal Ash Industry information, only 64% of coal ash is recycled. It is the one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the US. https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics

There is the monumental cost of cleaning up all the poorly buried coal ash from the last 150 years of consumption. And of course the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in Tennessee which cost over a billion dollars to clean up. Coal is the gift that keeps on giving.

A101 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

According to the US EPA and Coal Ash Industry information, only 64% of coal ash is recycled. It is the one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the US. https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics

There is the monumental cost of cleaning up all the poorly buried coal ash from the last 150 years of consumption. And of course the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in Tennessee which cost over a billion dollars to clean up. Coal is the gift that keeps on giving.

Very good so 100% of fly ash is not recycled, yet you will still have the same problem with biomass to even greater extent as you have to burn more than coal for every kWh, yet there is a reason why they are moving to gas fired plant. Industrial waste is a has been problem since the start of the industrial revolution and continues in many industries not just power generation

Yes coal is a gift that keeps on giving as its relatively low cost has pulled a lot of people out of poverty, and I will say in 100 years we will still be mining coal because it still has its uses

M564038 wrote:

But you don't get it. Seriously.

So lets focus on the bit you don't seem to get in very simplistic terms:

The carbon cycle is a closed system. Biomass, and biofuels are a part of this closed circular system in balance.
Fossil fuels are not part of this closed system. By burning fossils we introduce new carbon in the form of CO2 into the system, throwing it out of balance because the system can't bind the excess CO2.
That is the root of the problem of man made climate change.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Coal ash is toxic.

Wood Ash is actually a fertilizer.
"Ash is also a good source of potassium, phosphorus, and magnesium. In terms of commercial fertilizer, average wood ash would be about 0-1-3 (N-P-K). In addition to these macro-nutrients, wood ash is a good source of many micronutrients needed in trace amounts for adequate plant growth"

A101 wrote:

I also forgot to add that Australia has a coal seam burning underground for the last 5000 years they estimated

Hence the name burning Mountain in NSW

bpatus297 wrote:

Redd wrote:

We've solved the green energy problem, many-a-decade ago. With 'new' and clean nuclear energy (thorium molten salt reactors) there is very little waste, and that waste has a multi-decade long half life (not multi-millennium like current reactors) It's cheap, green and offers infinite energy that can be available to power the whole of the EU in a decade to 15 years, if we started building and implementing today. It's also impossible for the core to have a melt down, so it's pretty much 100% safe, and doesn't require infinite amounts of water to cool. Science brought us a solution decades ago, politics are messing it up. At least China is developing it.

Environmentalists' should be advocating going 100% nuclear where hydroelectric and other renewables are unavailable or impractical. And in the EU, wind and solar are not very practice

I love the idea of Thorium reactors, but with my limited research, there are still some technical issues to work out.

Redd wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Redd wrote:

We've solved the green energy problem, many-a-decade ago. With 'new' and clean nuclear energy (thorium molten salt reactors) there is very little waste, and that waste has a multi-decade long half life (not multi-millennium like current reactors) It's cheap, green and offers infinite energy that can be available to power the whole of the EU in a decade to 15 years, if we started building and implementing today. It's also impossible for the core to have a melt down, so it's pretty much 100% safe, and doesn't require infinite amounts of water to cool. Science brought us a solution decades ago, politics are messing it up. At least China is developing it.

Environmentalists' should be advocating going 100% nuclear where hydroelectric and other renewables are unavailable or impractical. And in the EU, wind and solar are not very practice

I love the idea of Thorium reactors, but with my limited research, there are still some technical issues to work out.

It's an interesting discussion. They had one up and running with no issues back in 1965' to 1969', having it run for a total of 15000 hours or so at Oak Ridge. China is pursuing the technology and many companies as well, including Bill Gates' TerraPower.

The conspiracy theory that rings the loudest behind the reason why uranium reactors were chosen over Thorium, was just that it was good business. Building a 'traditional' power plant is huge money, while molten salt reactor power plants can literally be made to fit in a large shipping container. So the story goes, big business won out in the end.

M564038 wrote:

A101 wrote:

I also forgot to add that Australia has a coal seam burning underground for the last 5000 years they estimated
Hence the name burning Mountain in NSW

And is a part of man-made global warming how, exactly? You seem like you simply refuse to understand that we can’t knowingly continue to introduce more CO2 to the cycle.

The carbon cycle is a closed system. Biomass, and biofuels are a part of this closed circular system in balance.
Fossil fuels are not part of this closed system

M564038 wrote:

How is this hard to fathom?

A101 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

A101 wrote:

I also forgot to add that Australia has a coal seam burning underground for the last 5000 years they estimated
Hence the name burning Mountain in NSW

And is a part of man-made global warming how, exactly? You seem like you simply refuse to understand that we can’t knowingly continue to introduce more CO2 to the cycle.

You said this;

The carbon cycle is a closed system. Biomass, and biofuels are a part of this closed circular system in balance.
Fossil fuels are not part of this closed system

For which i showed you were wrong, earth natural ecosystem burns fossil fuels so its all part of the one system.

Coal is to fossil fuel as trees are to biomass we are burning them on-mass in man made power generations system at a rate that exceeds to what naturally occurs.

M564038 wrote:

How is this hard to fathom?

You refuse to acknowledge that we are burning biomass at a higher rate than we would burn fossil fuel, the CO2 is released in man made quantities via both fossil fuel and biomass

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

What is the return on investment for us consumers burning fossil fuel?

A warm house, personal and public transport, plastics, pharmaceuticals, roads..............

M564038 wrote:

You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.

A101 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

And is a part of man-made global warming how, exactly? You seem like you simply refuse to understand that we can’t knowingly continue to introduce more CO2 to the cycle.

You said this;

The carbon cycle is a closed system. Biomass, and biofuels are a part of this closed circular system in balance.
Fossil fuels are not part of this closed system

Every time a global alarmist uses "scientific consensus" I cringe. Maybe the term political consensus should be used instead.


For which i showed you were wrong, earth natural ecosystem burns fossil fuels so its all part of the one system.

Coal is to fossil fuel as trees are to biomass we are burning them on-mass in man made power generations system at a rate that exceeds to what naturally occurs.

M564038 wrote:

How is this hard to fathom?

You refuse to acknowledge that we are burning biomass at a higher rate than we would burn fossil fuel, the CO2 is released in man made quantities via both fossil fuel and biomass

M564038 wrote:

You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

According to the US EPA and Coal Ash Industry information, only 64% of coal ash is recycled. It is the one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the US. https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics

There is the monumental cost of cleaning up all the poorly buried coal ash from the last 150 years of consumption. And of course the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in Tennessee which cost over a billion dollars to clean up. Coal is the gift that keeps on giving.

bpatus297 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of the byproduct was desirable for weapons production as well.

M564038 wrote:

You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.

The group argues that EU institutions have failed to take account of scientific evidence showing that forest biomass harvesting and combustion for energy purposes exacerbates climate change by causing deforestation outside of Europe.

“The treatment of biomass as carbon neutral runs counter to scientific findings” [showing that burning wood for energy typically emits 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3 times more than natural gas, the plaintiffs point out.

The renewable energy directive was agreed last year despite warnings from a group of more than[800 scientists who said that deliberately harvesting wood for burning “will increase carbon in the atmosphere and warming for decades to centuries – even when wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas.”

Because trees take time to regrow, harvesting them for energy use increases the world’s “carbon debt” for decades if not centuries, according to a research paper published in scientific journal Nature in September. Wood “typically emits 1.5x the CO2 of coal and 3x the CO2 of natural gas because of wood’s carbon bonds, water content and lower burning temperature,” they wrote.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

A101 - here is an article in today's USA Today that explains why biomass fuel works for some communities
"Switching to a pellet stove helps Maine in more ways than one" https://www.yahoo.com/news/switching-pe ... 00102.html

A101 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.

What you think I just pluck the information out of thin air?

EU dragged to court for backing forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... le-energy/

The group argues that EU institutions have failed to take account of scientific evidence showing that forest biomass harvesting and combustion for energy purposes exacerbates climate change by causing deforestation outside of Europe.

“The treatment of biomass as carbon neutral runs counter to scientific findings” [showing that burning wood for energy typically emits 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3 times more than natural gas, the plaintiffs point out.

The renewable energy directive was agreed last year despite warnings from a group of more than[800 scientists who said that deliberately harvesting wood for burning “will increase carbon in the atmosphere and warming for decades to centuries – even when wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas.”

Because trees take time to regrow, harvesting them for energy use increases the world’s “carbon debt” for decades if not centuries, according to a research paper published in scientific journal Nature in September. Wood “typically emits 1.5x the CO2 of coal and 3x the CO2 of natural gas because of wood’s carbon bonds, water content and lower burning temperature,” they wrote.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

A101 - here is an article in today's USA Today that explains why biomass fuel works for some communities
"Switching to a pellet stove helps Maine in more ways than one" https://www.yahoo.com/news/switching-pe ... 00102.html

Don’t get me wrong there is a place for burning wood, after all I used wood in my own wood heater using dead or fell trees knocked over on my property from severe weather events

Aesma wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

According to the US EPA and Coal Ash Industry information, only 64% of coal ash is recycled. It is the one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the US. https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics

There is the monumental cost of cleaning up all the poorly buried coal ash from the last 150 years of consumption. And of course the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in Tennessee which cost over a billion dollars to clean up. Coal is the gift that keeps on giving.

Another nice consequence of coal mining, pumps that have to be run forever : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LseK5gp66u8

M564038 wrote:

Your linked article says exactly the same I have been saying all along. They problematize breaking the cycle with net deforrestation, which is the same as bringing new CO2 (fossil fuels) into it. We can't do either of those.

A101 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.

What you think I just pluck the information out of thin air?

EU dragged to court for backing forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... le-energy/

The group argues that EU institutions have failed to take account of scientific evidence showing that forest biomass harvesting and combustion for energy purposes exacerbates climate change by causing deforestation outside of Europe.

“The treatment of biomass as carbon neutral runs counter to scientific findings” [showing that burning wood for energy typically emits 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3 times more than natural gas, the plaintiffs point out.

The renewable energy directive was agreed last year despite warnings from a group of more than[800 scientists who said that deliberately harvesting wood for burning “will increase carbon in the atmosphere and warming for decades to centuries – even when wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas.”

Because trees take time to regrow, harvesting them for energy use increases the world’s “carbon debt” for decades if not centuries, according to a research paper published in scientific journal Nature in September. Wood “typically emits 1.5x the CO2 of coal and 3x the CO2 of natural gas because of wood’s carbon bonds, water content and lower burning temperature,” they wrote.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

A101 - here is an article in today's USA Today that explains why biomass fuel works for some communities
"Switching to a pellet stove helps Maine in more ways than one" https://www.yahoo.com/news/switching-pe ... 00102.html

Don’t get me wrong there is a place for burning wood, after all I used wood in my own wood heater using dead or fell trees knocked over on my property from severe weather events

Indeed, the directive incorporates the view that forest biomass is inherently carbon neutral if harvested sustainably, wrote the signatories of the Nature article. “But sustainable does not equal low carbon,” they warn, saying harvesting and burning biomass reduces forests’ ability to absorb carbon and adds CO2 to the air “just like burning any other carbon fuel”.

the scientific consensus that burning wood is not carbon neutral is now overwhelming. “Trees do not grow back fast enough to compensate for these initial emissions, which means the wood is not generally a sensible alternative to fossil fuels,”

A101 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Your linked article says exactly the same I have been saying all along. They problematize breaking the cycle with net deforrestation, which is the same as bringing new CO2 (fossil fuels) into it. We can't do either of those.

A101 wrote:

What you think I just pluck the information out of thin air?

EU dragged to court for backing forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... le-energy/








Don’t get me wrong there is a place for burning wood, after all I used wood in my own wood heater using dead or fell trees knocked over on my property from severe weather events

Biomass is not the answer to fossil fuels either but using fossil fuels produce less C02 to the environment for which you want to reduce now not in 40-100years time

Indeed, the directive incorporates the view that forest biomass is inherently carbon neutral if harvested sustainably, wrote the signatories of the Nature article. “But sustainable does not equal low carbon,” they warn, saying harvesting and burning biomass reduces forests’ ability to absorb carbon and adds CO2 to the air “just like burning any other carbon fuel”.

the scientific consensus that burning wood is not carbon neutral is now overwhelming. “Trees do not grow back fast enough to compensate for these initial emissions, which means the wood is not generally a sensible alternative to fossil fuels,”

And remember you are adding 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3times more than gas.
After every harvest and burn it’s rinse and repeat like a self licking lollipop

LCDFlight wrote:

People are endlessly trying to complicate the problem. What matters is:

How much CO2 do we allow to be emitted
How much CO2 is being sucked up by plants or man made devices (not enough?)

That’s it. That’s the entire issue (substitute other greenhouse gases as needed). The details about mode choice don’t matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the carbon, and did you pay for a permit to emit the carbon.

Aesma wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of the byproduct was desirable for weapons production as well.

Yes, that was the main reason. And some technologies were furthermore chosen for that reason for early plants.

Now about molten salts reactors, they require the salts to be chemically processed "online", continuously. This is something that I have a hard time wrapping my head around. And in the US, nuclear waste reprocessing is illegal, I hear.

Thorium reactors can't start by themselves (that's why they're safe, they literally can't get critical), you need other more radioactive elements to start them.

I have no problem with billions being spent into looking into all kinds of solution though, in fact there is an argument that too much money has been spent on wind turbines in particular, not in research but in subsidizing them, to the detriment of research on nuclear energy.

Dutchy wrote:

M564038 wrote:

You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.

unfortunately, some in society don't take facts and scientists too seriously as we have seen on many occasions .

windy95 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

M564038 wrote:

You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.

unfortunately, some in society don't take facts and scientists too seriously as we have seen on many occasions .

The quasi-religious cult of global warming always shouts the words science or consensus in order to silence dissent.

LCDFlight wrote:

A101 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Your linked article says exactly the same I have been saying all along. They problematize breaking the cycle with net deforrestation, which is the same as bringing new CO2 (fossil fuels) into it. We can't do either of those.

Biomass is not the answer to fossil fuels either but using fossil fuels produce less C02 to the environment for which you want to reduce now not in 40-100years time

Indeed, the directive incorporates the view that forest biomass is inherently carbon neutral if harvested sustainably, wrote the signatories of the Nature article. “But sustainable does not equal low carbon,” they warn, saying harvesting and burning biomass reduces forests’ ability to absorb carbon and adds CO2 to the air “just like burning any other carbon fuel”.

the scientific consensus that burning wood is not carbon neutral is now overwhelming. “Trees do not grow back fast enough to compensate for these initial emissions, which means the wood is not generally a sensible alternative to fossil fuels,”

And remember you are adding 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3times more than gas.
After every harvest and burn it’s rinse and repeat like a self licking lollipop

People are endlessly trying to complicate the problem. What matters is:

How much CO2 do we allow to be emitted
How much CO2 is being sucked up by plants or man made devices (not enough?)

That’s it. That’s the entire issue (substitute other greenhouse gases as needed). The details about mode choice don’t matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the carbon, and did you pay for a permit to emit the carbon.

A101 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

A101 wrote:

Biomass is not the answer to fossil fuels either but using fossil fuels produce less C02 to the environment for which you want to reduce now not in 40-100years time





And remember you are adding 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3times more than gas.
After every harvest and burn it’s rinse and repeat like a self licking lollipop

People are endlessly trying to complicate the problem. What matters is:

How much CO2 do we allow to be emitted
How much CO2 is being sucked up by plants or man made devices (not enough?)

That’s it. That’s the entire issue (substitute other greenhouse gases as needed). The details about mode choice don’t matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the carbon, and did you pay for a permit to emit the carbon.

Simple in theory; complicated in practice that’s the problem

LCDFlight wrote:

A101 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

People are endlessly trying to complicate the problem. What matters is:

How much CO2 do we allow to be emitted
How much CO2 is being sucked up by plants or man made devices (not enough?)

That’s it. That’s the entire issue (substitute other greenhouse gases as needed). The details about mode choice don’t matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the carbon, and did you pay for a permit to emit the carbon.

Simple in theory; complicated in practice that’s the problem

The US could implement carbon taxes fairly easily. I don’t see it as very complicated. There would be a tax on natural gas, agricultural products, liquid fuels, coal, electricity. Most of these products are already overseen by the government, so changing the amount of tax is fairly easy… but I think people just don’t want to pay, So, they panic and start making stuff up. Some even say it is “too complicated.” Emissions are pretty easy to quantify. But I agree that mitigations are hard to quantify. That will be hard. This is all IF we care about carbon… or if this is about politics.

Dutchy wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

People are endlessly trying to complicate the problem. What matters is:

How much CO2 do we allow to be emitted
How much CO2 is being sucked up by plants or man made devices (not enough?)

That’s it. That’s the entire issue (substitute other greenhouse gases as needed). The details about mode choice don’t matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the carbon, and did you pay for a permit to emit the carbon.

Exactly, how much carbon or better carbon equivalents, can we admit before we reach the 1,5 degrees and that's not much anymore.

Dutchy wrote:

Unless we remove carbon from the atmosphere, not cheap, we cannot admit too much carbon before we have reached the limits of our common carbon budget.

Dutchy wrote:

And that's why academics reached the logical conclusion that half the world's fossil fuel 'assets' are worthless.

windy95 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

M564038 wrote:

You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.

unfortunately, some in society don't take facts and scientists too seriously as we have seen on many occasions .

The quasi-religious cult of global warming always shouts the words science or consensus in order to silence dissent.

A101 wrote:

windy95 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

unfortunately, some in society don't take facts and scientists too seriously as we have seen on many occasions .

The quasi-religious cult of global warming always shouts the words science or consensus in order to silence dissent.

Yep the public theme of climate emergency and that "Our House is On Fire" and being unquestioned by most mainstream media and the "Sky is Falling Down" on our heads brigade

M564038 wrote:

A101 wrote:

windy95 wrote:

The quasi-religious cult of global warming always shouts the words science or consensus in order to silence dissent.

Yep the public theme of climate emergency and that "Our House is On Fire" and being unquestioned by most mainstream media and the "Sky is Falling Down" on our heads brigade

There are no one in the know that are doubting the precarious situation.

A101 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yep the public theme of climate emergency and that "Our House is On Fire" and being unquestioned by most mainstream media and the "Sky is Falling Down" on our heads brigade

There are no one in the know that are doubting the precarious situation.

And that its far from being remotely true, hence @windy95 comment and my own

As the notable climatologist Roy Spencer. Ph. D said "Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

M564038 wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -by-humans
As for the 0.1%? That is a suprisingly low number considering the prevalence of mental illness, it might just be the strongest cosensus you can find on any topic outside 1+1=2.

M564038 wrote:

As for Roy Spencer. You are looking to a discredited and de-bunked researcher working for these guys, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C. ... _Institute, to be a serious, neutral source for your (strong and bizarre)opinion in the matter?

The quasi-religious cult of global warming always shouts the words science or consensus in order to silence dissent.

Climate science research and assessments under the umbrella of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have misused scenarios for more than a decade. Symptoms of misuse have included the treatment of an unrealistic, extreme scenario as the world’s most likely future in the absence of climate policy and the illogical comparison of climate projections across inconsistent global development trajectories. Reasons why such misuse arose include (a) competing demands for scenarios from users in diverse academic disciplines that ultimately conflated exploratory and policy relevant pathways, (b) the evolving role of the IPCC – which extended its mandate in a way that creates an inter-relationship between literature assessment and literature coordination, (c) unforeseen consequences of employing a temporary approach to scenario development, (d) maintaining research practices that normalize careless use of scenarios, and (e) the inherent complexity and technicality of scenarios in model-based research and in support of policy. Consequently, much of the climate research community is presently off-track from scientific coherence and policy-relevance. Attempts to address scenario misuse within the community have thus far not worked. The result has been the widespread production of myopic or misleading perspectives on future climate change and climate policy. Until reform is implemented, we can expect the production of such perspectives to continue, threatening the overall credibility of the IPCC and associated climate research. However, because many aspects of climate change discourse are contingent on scenarios, there is considerable momentum that will make such a course correction difficult and contested - even as efforts to improve scenarios have informed research that will be included in the IPCC 6th Assessment.

A 2015 literature review found almost 900 peer-reviewed studies published on breast cancer using a cell line derived from a breast cancer patient in Texas in 1976. But in 2007 it was confirmed that the cell line that had long been the focus of this research was actually not a breast cancer line, but was instead a skin cancer line. Whoops.

Even worse, from 2008 to 2014 — after the mistaken cell line was conclusively identified — the review identified 247 peer-reviewed articles putatively on breast cancer that were published using the misidentified skin cancer cell line. A cursory search of Google Scholar indicates that studies continue to be published in 2020 mistakenly using the skin cell line in breast cancer research.

The lesson from this experience is that science has momentum, and that momentum can be hard to change, even when obvious and significant flaws are identified. This is particularly the case when the flaws exist in databases that underlie research across an entire discipline.

M564038 wrote:

Feel free to have a look on his former employers position on consensus in the matter:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

M564038 wrote:

Or give your local university or one of the following a call, and have them explain things to you:
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

M564038 wrote:

Or give your local university or one of the following a call, and have them explain things to yo

JJJ wrote:

M564038 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

All those smart engineers is changing the entire transportation system to electrical right now, thank you very much.
Volkswagen, Audi, Mercedes, BMW all having declared they are fullt transeferring their efforts to electric. Those good enough for you?

....for developed countries.

The developing world will be fossil for decades to come, and their energy needs will only increase.

Air transport, maritime transport, military applications, space launches, etc. will still be fossil in our lifetimes.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

In the Civilian Aviation thread, there is a discussion on United Airlines flying the first passenger flight in the US with 100% sustainable aviation fuel.

This same debate is taking place regarding whether of not SAF is carbon neutral. Important as it's what the entire airline industry is counting on over the next 20 years to reduce their impact. Is it Greenwashing or a real improvement?

Aquila3 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

M564038 wrote:

All those smart engineers is changing the entire transportation system to electrical right now, thank you very much.
Volkswagen, Audi, Mercedes, BMW all having declared they are fullt transeferring their efforts to electric. Those good enough for you?

....for developed countries.

The developing world will be fossil for decades to come, and their energy needs will only increase.

Air transport, maritime transport, military applications, space launches, etc. will still be fossil in our lifetimes.

And electric cars as well.

Since we do not want a nuclear power station for each middle sized city, I do not see another practical way to generate all the power needed for charging our thirtsy batteries in this century. Probably the C02 realease will set new records, because the electric generation and transport infrastructure will not be ready for decades, creating great inefficiences.
I hope to be wrong, but I do not see practically how else we will end up. That is sad, because with less ideology and more practical sense we could do much better until we wait for the Fusion (or any other holy grail to come). Yes, I mean humble things other posters have already discussed like Natural (or recycling) Gas, Hybrid with brake regeneration, biomass fuels including , ( OMG! I said that) diesel and kerosene.
Ah cars manufactures love electric for only one reason: it costs them less and sells for 50% more (incuding maintenence , read battery replacement). That guy that sells eco-friendly things like flamethrowers ans space trips is not stupid.

M564038 wrote:

Sorry, but you are making things up.

Electrification of road transport barely makes a dent in electricity consumption. We are already well under way over here, and it doesn't register on the total grid usage. Full electrification would be around 1-2%
The average draw for a car, would be in the range of changing 2 incadescent bulbs to LEDs in your home.

And even if it did take a small nuclear plant in each city, so be it. Bring it on!

Aquila3 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

....for developed countries.

The developing world will be fossil for decades to come, and their energy needs will only increase.

Air transport, maritime transport, military applications, space launches, etc. will still be fossil in our lifetimes.

And electric cars as well.

Since we do not want a nuclear power station for each middle sized city, I do not see another practical way to generate all the power needed for charging our thirtsy batteries in this century. Probably the C02 realease will set new records, because the electric generation and transport infrastructure will not be ready for decades, creating great inefficiences.
I hope to be wrong, but I do not see practically how else we will end up. That is sad, because with less ideology and more practical sense we could do much better until we wait for the Fusion (or any other holy grail to come). Yes, I mean humble things other posters have already discussed like Natural (or recycling) Gas, Hybrid with brake regeneration, biomass fuels including , ( OMG! I said that) diesel and kerosene.
Ah cars manufactures love electric for only one reason: it costs them less and sells for 50% more (incuding maintenence , read battery replacement). That guy that sells eco-friendly things like flamethrowers ans space trips is not stupid.

Aquila3 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Sorry, but you are making things up.

Electrification of road transport barely makes a dent in electricity consumption. We are already well under way over here, and it doesn't register on the total grid usage. Full electrification would be around 1-2%
The average draw for a car, would be in the range of changing 2 incadescent bulbs to LEDs in your home.

And even if it did take a small nuclear plant in each city, so be it. Bring it on!

Aquila3 wrote:

And electric cars as well.

Since we do not want a nuclear power station for each middle sized city, I do not see another practical way to generate all the power needed for charging our thirtsy batteries in this century. Probably the C02 realease will set new records, because the electric generation and transport infrastructure will not be ready for decades, creating great inefficiences.
I hope to be wrong, but I do not see practically how else we will end up. That is sad, because with less ideology and more practical sense we could do much better until we wait for the Fusion (or any other holy grail to come). Yes, I mean humble things other posters have already discussed like Natural (or recycling) Gas, Hybrid with brake regeneration, biomass fuels including , ( OMG! I said that) diesel and kerosene.
Ah cars manufactures love electric for only one reason: it costs them less and sells for 50% more (incuding maintenence , read battery replacement). That guy that sells eco-friendly things like flamethrowers ans space trips is not stupid.

Sorry but I would love to see your numbers. I really hope you show me wrong like you easyly did by words. Really.
Here are mine, in a simplified example. I do not pretend to be accurate, just an example.
A normal small car would have a 50KW engine. Commuting to work 1 hour a day, shopping, etc and using it at average 50% of power I will burn 25Kwh a day. Like 2 Kg of the good old gas, not bad. I will have to charge it practically every day, though.
In my household I consume about 10Kwh a day for light, apparates, etc. I have no AC, like many (were) in Central EU and I heat with gas, ooops.
Nevertheless my car would consume 2.5 times the electric energy of my household.
Or using your numbers + 250%
And like everybody I will connecting it to the grid when I arrive home, around 6 pm. No significant sun at that time, year around. Wind, maybe.
The peak power will probably be even worse, so , since the infrastructure must be dimensioned for peak it will need probably to be quadrupled. It means that the copper wires of my mains line that are now 2.5 sq mm will go to 10 sq mm, and at the same rate all the way along until where there is some significant energy accumulation (that today there is almost none) . I hope it will be always a windy night, (like almost never in places like Milan metropolitan area, 4 M people and cars). Otherwise I will have to draw that energy from some far away place, most probaly a French nuclear plant, losing some 30% of it along the way.
Where we are? +330% electric?
So we will have to dig all our roads and install all that copper (that is so... carbon neutral to refine) and build trice monster high voltage lines on towers and poles.. Then think to densely populated areas, where peple lives in blocks and has no own park place. Entire district of our old cities are like that. I wonder where they will charge their e-cars. No , the populace will have to take the bike, at best an e-bike, that they can charge in their small bedroom.

Does this look insignificant to you? Do you really think that there is a solution by 2036? Or that we come close by 2030?
Ah, Greta will not let you build any new Nukes that, BTW takes an average of 20 years to build if all goes well and no NIMBYs show up. I can understand her.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

We have the science and technology to 'have it all'. Reduce the use of fossil fuel as fast as we can (building, ground transportation, and industry), give aviation incentives AND a CO2 tax to facilitate their share, maybe off-sets. We have the ability to see that the world is fed, that much disease and death can be avoided, the people can be safely housed, and that people the world around can easily make it to 75 years of age. There are challenges, but mostly of a political nature dealing with the inherent selfishness of the human animal.

A101 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

We have the science and technology to 'have it all'. Reduce the use of fossil fuel as fast as we can (building, ground transportation, and industry), give aviation incentives AND a CO2 tax to facilitate their share, maybe off-sets. We have the ability to see that the world is fed, that much disease and death can be avoided, the people can be safely housed, and that people the world around can easily make it to 75 years of age. There are challenges, but mostly of a political nature dealing with the inherent selfishness of the human animal.

It seems like you are looking for utopia?