Again, you stumbled upon a paper you thought would back your claims without reading it.
Now upon being shown it is in fact the opposite, and confirms the first result with another study. A study specifically designed to solve the problem you claimed in the first one. Whats the chance you now accept 2 independent studies that show 97% agree with manmand climate change? And that the agreement is increasing.
I can almost guarantee you will go with option 2. Pretend you never saw or just dismiss out of hand all evidence that doesn't already fit what you want to believe.
It's clear you just don't understand science, and cling to any crazy idea you can so you can keep being a true believer/denier.
Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97% global warming consensus
A new paper by GWPF's Richard Tol accidentally confirms the results of last year's 97% global warming consensus study"
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
So you agree with me that America having a 25% import tax on SUV's, light trucks etc in America, is worse than China's much smaller 10% tax on parts like engines? And he tried to pull a fast one by not mentioning it to his gullible supporters. German companies seem to have no problem selling cars in China. Maybe America just design cars Chinese people don't like.
China still has a quite sizable higher end market. It's not all cheap cars.
China remains the biggest single market for all three of the German premium brands, as well as for mass-market producers like Volkswagen's namesake marque.
All German luxury cars sell higher volumes in China than the US.
There is clearly a market for luxury cars in China. Even Tesla expects China to be it's biggest market in the future.
Because the initial problem the big battery was meant to solve the problem of the link between the states having problems/ being disconnected. As an added bonus it makes the entire countries grid more stable, but that wasn't its main role. Mostly it was put in because they are relying heavily on wind/solar and need the balancing due to that. If the link goes down again, they can stabilise their own section instead of having a blackout of the entire state.
All those potential sites, and still they went with the biggest battery in the world instead...
Even with potential sites, you still need to find enough 'potential water' to make use of them.
Australia is pretty flat. Also where the battery is, South Australia is known as 'the driest state in the driest continent on Earth'. (they don't count Antarctica).
Don't expect water to be much help there.
potential - look it up, be amazed.
A hamburger on a plate is actually worthless. Imagine a hamburger on a plate that isn't eaten. What is the value in that? Nothing. It is when someone is hungry and eats it that it becomes useful.
No, it's already useful to have a hamburger ready to eat when you are hungry, even if you aren't hungry right now.
Yes, you are much better at polluting. If other countries catch up to even half your level it will be extremely bad for the world.
You seem to be a little bit thick, so I guess I'll have to remind you that you are still part of the world, even if you think you are extra special.
The problem in places like China is they are replacing OLD coal plants with new ones that are multiple sizes bigger, and will burn 2-5x as much coal.
What kind of stupid argument is this?
Show somewhere credible that predicts China will use 2-5 times as much coal?
China already has oodles of spare capacity, if it's 'master plan' as you think it, is just to burn more coal, they would already be doing it. They are trying to cut back. Hundreds of plants have been cancelled. If they were planning for 5x the coal, why would they do that? You just aren't credible WindBourne.
Capacity isn't use. It's quite important for you to understand this so I'll tell you again. Capacity isn't use.
New plants are all more efficient than the old ones. They can and will burn coal cleaner, produce more electricity from the same amount of coal.
The number of plants doesn't matter, it's how much coal you burn in them...Fewer bigger plants are better than lots of little ones spread about anyway.
The main reason your argument is stupid though is that the US is only running it's coal plants at about 50% capacity. You could burn 2x the coal as well without building another coal plant (using older dirtier plants to boot). That's if you are entertaining your fantasy scenarios. Back in the real world, neither actually will.
American households waste an extreme amount of electricity. You could cut back from your current more than 3 times the world average to say Australian levels of just twice the world average, and drop a massive amount of coal. Maybe even enough to drop down to China's levels.
But you just don't want to do it. It's far easier to just complain about other people catching up.Rather than stop to think why you are so far ahead in the first place.
Don't pat yourself on the back too hard WindBourne.
America's CO2 emissions are going back up in 2018
In 2018, however, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation, power plants, homes and businesses should climb about 2.2 percent, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said. That increase would be due to forecasts for a colder winter, higher economic growth and rising gas prices, the EIA said.
It's likely dinosaurs didn't have big ears.
Of course, they knew it wasn't manual. But those [far right / far left] dinosaurs got to write the dictionary and that was the common usage at the time.
Now I can't stop imagining a t-rex trying to put it's collar on with its iddy biddy Trump hands.
Even if they cant choose to use solar or gas to heat water or cook. (they usually can) They still get to decide how much electricity to use. Rich people levels or be a little less wasteful.
In before some troll comes along to say America is all clean and green. A quote from the above link.
In 2018, however, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation, power plants, homes and businesses should climb about 2.2 percent, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said. That increase would be due to forecasts for a colder winter, higher economic growth and rising gas prices, the EIA said.
Slashdot Mirror
It took 10's of thousands of years back then (possibly a million), we are still getting warmed up.
Again, you stumbled upon a paper you thought would back your claims without reading it.
Now upon being shown it is in fact the opposite, and confirms the first result with another study. A study specifically designed to solve the problem you claimed in the first one. Whats the chance you now accept 2 independent studies that show 97% agree with manmand climate change? And that the agreement is increasing.
I can almost guarantee you will go with option 2. Pretend you never saw or just dismiss out of hand all evidence that doesn't already fit what you want to believe.
It's clear you just don't understand science, and cling to any crazy idea you can so you can keep being a true believer/denier.
The first link says this...
Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97% global warming consensus A new paper by GWPF's Richard Tol accidentally confirms the results of last year's 97% global warming consensus study"
The second is paywalled
The third link ...
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
etc etc
So you agree with me that America having a 25% import tax on SUV's, light trucks etc in America, is worse than China's much smaller 10% tax on parts like engines? And he tried to pull a fast one by not mentioning it to his gullible supporters. German companies seem to have no problem selling cars in China. Maybe America just design cars Chinese people don't like.
China remains the biggest single market for all three of the German premium brands, as well as for mass-market producers like Volkswagen's namesake marque.
All German luxury cars sell higher volumes in China than the US.
There is clearly a market for luxury cars in China. Even Tesla expects China to be it's biggest market in the future.
Are you agreeing with me again?
Pumped hydro is a bit more than largely proven as well.
Where are those documents stored? How hard is it to 'lose' some of them or change them later?
Are you sure you are holding it right?
You must be exceptionally useless if it had to be escalated past 1st tier support. Like the post you replied to was talking about...
Because the initial problem the big battery was meant to solve the problem of the link between the states having problems/ being disconnected. As an added bonus it makes the entire countries grid more stable, but that wasn't its main role. Mostly it was put in because they are relying heavily on wind/solar and need the balancing due to that.
If the link goes down again, they can stabilise their own section instead of having a blackout of the entire state.
Apparently they do.
= Yes you are right.
All those potential sites, and still they went with the biggest battery in the world instead...
Even with potential sites, you still need to find enough 'potential water' to make use of them.
Australia is pretty flat. Also where the battery is, South Australia is known as 'the driest state in the driest continent on Earth'. (they don't count Antarctica).
Don't expect water to be much help there.
potential - look it up, be amazed.
A hamburger on a plate is actually worthless. Imagine a hamburger on a plate that isn't eaten. What is the value in that? Nothing. It is when someone is hungry and eats it that it becomes useful.
No, it's already useful to have a hamburger ready to eat when you are hungry, even if you aren't hungry right now.
If America is doing enough how come your transport energy use has been going up every year for the last 5 years?
Americans are like the morbidly obese person complaining to the average weight Chinaman, and anorexic Indian, that the food is running out.
Yes, you are much better at polluting. If other countries catch up to even half your level it will be extremely bad for the world.
You seem to be a little bit thick, so I guess I'll have to remind you that you are still part of the world, even if you think you are extra special.
How original. Did you think you were the only person to confuse climate with weather?
You are a special little snowflake.
The problem in places like China is they are replacing OLD coal plants with new ones that are multiple sizes bigger, and will burn 2-5x as much coal.
What kind of stupid argument is this?
Show somewhere credible that predicts China will use 2-5 times as much coal?
China already has oodles of spare capacity, if it's 'master plan' as you think it, is just to burn more coal, they would already be doing it. They are trying to cut back. Hundreds of plants have been cancelled. If they were planning for 5x the coal, why would they do that? You just aren't credible WindBourne.
Capacity isn't use. It's quite important for you to understand this so I'll tell you again. Capacity isn't use.
New plants are all more efficient than the old ones. They can and will burn coal cleaner, produce more electricity from the same amount of coal.
The number of plants doesn't matter, it's how much coal you burn in them...Fewer bigger plants are better than lots of little ones spread about anyway.
The main reason your argument is stupid though is that the US is only running it's coal plants at about 50% capacity. You could burn 2x the coal as well without building another coal plant (using older dirtier plants to boot). That's if you are entertaining your fantasy scenarios. Back in the real world, neither actually will.
American households waste an extreme amount of electricity. You could cut back from your current more than 3 times the world average to say Australian levels of just twice the world average, and drop a massive amount of coal. Maybe even enough to drop down to China's levels.
But you just don't want to do it. It's far easier to just complain about other people catching up.Rather than stop to think why you are so far ahead in the first place.
In 2018, however, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation, power plants, homes and businesses should climb about 2.2 percent, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said. That increase would be due to forecasts for a colder winter, higher economic growth and rising gas prices, the EIA said.
It's likely dinosaurs didn't have big ears.
Of course, they knew it wasn't manual. But those [far right / far left] dinosaurs got to write the dictionary and that was the common usage at the time.
Now I can't stop imagining a t-rex trying to put it's collar on with its iddy biddy Trump hands.
Even if they cant choose to use solar or gas to heat water or cook. (they usually can)
They still get to decide how much electricity to use. Rich people levels or be a little less wasteful.
So I'm trying to understand
You win Lynwood, your joke is much funnier than mine.
I agree with you WindBourne, China's businesses and government are both better than America's ;)
If I'm following you right and that's why America is far dirtier... not because they are richer and consume/waste more...
In 2018, however, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation, power plants, homes and businesses should climb about 2.2 percent, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said. That increase would be due to forecasts for a colder winter, higher economic growth and rising gas prices, the EIA said.