So what’s the wrap?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and man made CO2 emissions have probably added about 0.8 degreees of warming if we subtract out natural effects. The whole period between 1945 and 2024 is dubious because of aerosols. Warming was depressed and then spiked faster because of increase of aresol use and then aerosol cessation.
0.8 degrees and rising at a rate that's accelerating. There is nothing dubious about the 1945-2024 period. Aerosols did temporarily depress warming up till around the 1970's but that cooling affect was overcome in the 1980's and temperatures started to go up before the issue of aerosols was really tackled in the 1990/2000's. In the US and Europe aerosols peaked in the 1980 in the 1990s, while that didn't happen in China till the 2000's with peak emissions over China estimated to have occurred somewhere around 2005-2010. The time frames don't match up for the warming to be cause by aerosols. There is multiple other reasons that rule out the current temperature rise as not being a bounce back from aerosols like aerosols have a much shorter life span of days to weeks in the atmosphere and there affects being localised, so any temperature rises would be temporary and localised. Aerosols in the atmosphere have been most stable for a few years (Covid 19 caused an exception), but yet the rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate. There is also zero peer reviewed papers that support the theory that present warming is being driven by a bounce back from aerosols.
This increase has had minimal effect on our lives and we have used almost half of the recoverable fossil fuels. Right now mankind would be in an existential crisis if these resources weren’t available. There are many applications like plastics and flight for which there are no good alternatives. We have to start replacing oil in low priority applications to push these reserves further into the future.
Correction the affect has a minimal effect on your live. That's not the case of everyone.
But to do so effectively requires an honest approach to the problem. Using the other half fossil fuel reserves is unlikely to harm our planet meaningfully. We should be conserving the resource for other reasons. Politically motivated actions like banning the internal combustion engine need to stop. Incentivize hybrids….people will use the battery first.
You're not being honest, you approaching the topic from a completely politicised and ideological viewpoint.
Our best immediate course is to define when and where solar and wind are net effective…..that’s not everywhere. And it’s not all the time. They are ephemeral in nature.
They mostly are built in area's where they are net effective. It's not too uncommon for them not to be built in the most efficient area, but there can be a myriad of reasons for this, such as proximity to the area that is using the energy offsetting the loss of energy in transmissions, land availability, energy security and for environmental reasons.
To be serious about the issue we must put nuclear on a priority build. Continuing to run 1950s nuclear plants while placing bureaucratic barriers in the way of new much safer plants makes no sense. Build nuclear to provide all base line electricity except for that which can be supplied by hydro plants and the limited times/places where wind and solar are really effective solutions.
Nuclear power plays a role. Several countries are expanding their nuclear capability, with global nuclear power capacity expected to double by 2050. But building nuclear power planets is a pricey and time consuming process and it often goes against public opinion as it gets a bad rep, whether unfair or not, that's reality.
And let’s look at the measurement system. Stop changing, select a limited number of sites away from heat islands and measure the same way every time. We need honesty in this most crucial task, not political posturing and biased research.
No, the measurements are fine. You not liking what they are is not a reason to change them.
For example the positives of warmer temperatures are always downplayed, but the only historically proven truth is that mankind grows in warm periods and stops growing in cold periods.
Nope, according to research the optimum temperature for human population growth is 13 degrees.
If we don’t solve our looming energy problem mankind is facing a crisis, not of climate but of survival.
We can transition to other forms of energy, we can't move to another planet.
Why are solar stocks underperforming?
Critical tax subsidies that have made solar energy economical in the U.S. look like they are on their last legs, and that's sending solar energy stocks lower in 2025. But the drop may continue as the companies involved face the reality of a much smaller solar market.
……
There you have in a nutshell these companies struggle to make a profit with subsidies. Without subsidies they drop in value. Not because of political consideration but because many of them simply use more resources than they produce. Of the top 10 green energy companies only half make a profit despite all of them having subsidy boosts
Helpful Pollyanna?
Yes the reduction of subsidies has played a roll in the relatively poor present stock market performance of Solare energy companies along with uncertainty about environmental policy as well as caution among investors due to rising interest rates and energy price volatility but at the same time analysts do expect those companies to do well in the medium to long term.
But lets look away from the US stock market for the moment, because this is a global issue you know. Oh and what do we see but exponential growth of solar power across the world, 20th year in a row it's the fastest growing energy source, with expectations that it will provide 30% of the worlds electricity in the 2030/2040 and in doing so become the dominate source of energy on the planet.
Solar is doing just fine.
Do you have an electric car Anger. Hell do you even have a car? I have 3 in my Florida home, one of which is electric. It becomes the default car, no maintenance, no visits to the gas station, serenity, speed.
Irrelevant.
Hybrids are used 45% to 65% in hybrid mode according to Chat. Make the battery more powerful and that number will increase. But look at it this way if you had a fleet of Phevs and legislate that every car that’s electric capable needs to use the battery in city areas that includes 85% of all driving.
So you see I do have something to base my views on….hard facts.
No that's opinion. You have no idea what/when an optimum transition point in moving from an ICE care to a hybrid or fully electric car would of been in terms of emission reduction. It may have significantly delayed the development and usage of electric cars and left us on a intermediate step for longer. No one has researched this their is nor hard data, it's just you taking a politically motivated position, an excuse to attack climate change action.
It is:
It's not, nothing is assumed. That's not how science works despite the your attempts at mispresenting it. Scientists go research and measure the causes of warming. The rest of your post shows show the climate scientist do factor in the natural causes of pre 1945 heating.
So extrapolating that Chat GTP conclusion we have 0.9 degrees of warming over the 49 years from 1975 to 2024. And the claim is natural factors played little effect….a little bothersome given these factors were important in the 1910 to 1940 period, but let’s accept it.
Oh your up to 0.9 degrees now...so you have gone to half/almost half to just a third and now your at just a quarter.
But there was also the reversal of the aerosol protective effect, estimated at 0.2 to 0.3 degrees. Call it 0.25 and man made effects are estimated at 0.65 degrees.
No we are still at 0.9. That 0.2 to 0.3 degrees of warming is still caused by CO2. Aerosols masked CO2 temperature rise not natural temperature rise. There have been several models used to show projections for temperature that factor in only natural causes. They all come in around 0.0 or -0.1 degrees.
Next we note that 35% to 40% of recoverable reserves have been used to date. More if all coal reserves aren’t used. And Chat estimates 5% of recoverable reserves were used by 1975. So somewhere in the 30% to 35% of fossil fuel accessible reserves were used to produce a 0,65 degree increase.
Nope 0.65 degrees is wrong. Back up 0.9 please, you were doing so well.
setting aside non linear feedback effects
Hahahahahha, that's convenient.
or diminishing returns from increased carbon beyond this point….that would suggest a final man made effect of roughly 3 times the warming between 1975 and 2024, after taking aerosols into account. …or 3 times 0.65 degrees.
Call it 2.0 degrees, 1.2 we have already experienced comprised of 0.3 of natural causes and 0.9 of carbon release increases (assuming natural causes never continued beyond 1945). And the strong El Nino which has added 0.1 to 0.2 to 2024 temps is expected to normalize…. which suggests the 2.0 degree number might be high.
No lets call it 2.7 degrees which might be a low number.
If this is directionally correct…if we use everything in the ground we would have another 0.8 degrees of warming to deal with having dealt with 0.9 degrees of ….which sounds sustainable.
Even if 0.8 degrees was correct that still would have a sufficient effect. You might be relatively unaffected over in Chicago or Miami with the money to afford a nice air conditioned home, but not everyone's has that luxury. But we are heading for far worse than 0.8 degrees at the moment.