https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/renewable-electricity-2023
There have been the odd figures thrown about in recent times so here is a >starting point for some figures.
Note that this top link is for all green power generation, wind, solar, >hydro, biomass etc.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/modern-renewable-prod?country=~NZL >https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/modern-renewable-prod
The figures are the power generated, not the installed capacity.
On 3 Jul 2024 22:32:16 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:There is no need to reduce CO2 emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/renewable-electricity-2023
There have been the odd figures thrown about in recent times so here is a >>starting point for some figures.
Note that this top link is for all green power generation, wind, solar, >>hydro, biomass etc.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/modern-renewable-prod?country=~NZL >>https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/modern-renewable-prod
The figures are the power generated, not the installed capacity.
An interesting chart, thanks Gordon. I will explore a bit more, but
found fairly quickly this chart giving the percentage of electricity >production from renewable sources >https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-electricity-production-from-renewable-sources?country=Low-income+countries~Lower-middle-income+countries~Upper-middle-income+countries~High-income+countries~OWID_WRL~NZL
We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions.
We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions.
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:23:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions.
Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
blah@blah.blah says...
Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it
to escape into space.
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
blah@blah.blah says...
Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it
to escape into space.
Ah yes, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Notice how cold it
gets overnight when the sky is clear? That falsifies your BS. So
which part of your sentence was BS? The word "because".
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
blah@blah.blah says...
Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it
to escape into space.
Ah yes, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Notice how cold it
gets overnight when the sky is clear? That falsifies your BS. So
which part of your sentence was BS? The word "because".
In article <hhmd8jlprcrvj8fv7gkt5sthsbnic0tu4e@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...That is not really the topic.
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:23:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions.
Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it
to escape into space.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <hhmd8jlprcrvj8fv7gkt5sthsbnic0tu4e@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:23:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions.
Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing itThat is not really the topic.
to escape into space.
WIth respect to Bill I believe the issue is simply that the amount of CO2 produced by mankind (directly and indirectly) is dwarfed by the amount produced
by nature. My recollection is we are responsible for about 4% only. So why do we want to reduce it particularly when it has been higher in the past and a slightly higher percentage of CO2 will enhance, not degrade growth.
All of those are matters posted here regularly and by experts for decades now.
In article <part1of1.1.vDozWttrfAw6gg@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzAll well and good but we are contributing a tiny percentage of CO2 and there is no definitive evidence, let alone any proof, that an increase of that level of CO2 is a problem. It is just another one of the exaggerations produced by the climate emergency folk. That emergency has not, ever, been demonstrated as fact.
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <hhmd8jlprcrvj8fv7gkt5sthsbnic0tu4e@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blahThat is not really the topic.
says...
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:23:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions.
Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it
to escape into space.
WIth respect to Bill I believe the issue is simply that the amount of CO2
produced by mankind (directly and indirectly) is dwarfed by the amount >>produced
by nature. My recollection is we are responsible for about 4% only. So why >>do
we want to reduce it particularly when it has been higher in the past and a >> slightly higher percentage of CO2 will enhance, not degrade growth.
All of those are matters posted here regularly and by experts for decades >>now.
Nature, for the most part, isn't producing CO2. Its just recycling it.
Gas to tree to gas its just changing form over the decades or centuries.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't increasing over time from
this.
Humans are producing *new* CO2. The carbon we're emitting has been
buried for hundreds of millions of years in deposits that took thousands
or millions of years to form. The carbon coming out coal power plants
hasn't been in the atmosphere since before dinosaurs walked the earth.
And we're not planting an equivalent amount of forestry to take all that
CO2 back out of the air and store it. Instead in recent centuries we've
been felling forests and draining swamps decreasing the environments
ability to pull CO2 from the air. So all that new carbon we're
introducing is just staying in the air or ending up in the ocean as
carbonic acid which threatens marine life that people depend on for food
and income.
In article <66872ce2.3099248156@news.mixmin.net>, wn@nosuch.com says...
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it
to escape into space.
Ah yes, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Notice how cold it
gets overnight when the sky is clear? That falsifies your BS. So
which part of your sentence was BS? The word "because".
I'm not sure what your mistake is. Are you claiming that CO2 does not
reduce the amount of heat radiated into space? Or are you imagining that
I claimed that any amount of Co2 blocks all infrared radiation?
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <66872ce2.3099248156@news.mixmin.net>, wn@nosuch.com says...
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it >> >to escape into space.
Ah yes, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Notice how cold it
gets overnight when the sky is clear? That falsifies your BS. So
which part of your sentence was BS? The word "because".
I'm not sure what your mistake is. Are you claiming that CO2 does not >reduce the amount of heat radiated into space? Or are you imagining that
I claimed that any amount of Co2 blocks all infrared radiation?
I'm going to humour your pretense of not actually knowing the answer
to this, so here is the explanation just as though you were a noob:
Over a baseline of (say) 350ppm, additional CO2 does not meaningfully
reduce the heat radiated into space. Duh.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.vDozWttrfAw6gg@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <hhmd8jlprcrvj8fv7gkt5sthsbnic0tu4e@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >> >says...That is not really the topic.
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:23:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >> >> wrote:
We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions. >> >>Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it >> >to escape into space.
WIth respect to Bill I believe the issue is simply that the amount of CO2 >> produced by mankind (directly and indirectly) is dwarfed by the amount >>produced
by nature. My recollection is we are responsible for about 4% only. So why >>do
we want to reduce it particularly when it has been higher in the past and a
slightly higher percentage of CO2 will enhance, not degrade growth.
All of those are matters posted here regularly and by experts for decades >>now.
Nature, for the most part, isn't producing CO2. Its just recycling it.
Gas to tree to gas its just changing form over the decades or centuries. >The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't increasing over time from
this.
Humans are producing *new* CO2. The carbon we're emitting has been
buried for hundreds of millions of years in deposits that took thousands
or millions of years to form. The carbon coming out coal power plants >hasn't been in the atmosphere since before dinosaurs walked the earth.
And we're not planting an equivalent amount of forestry to take all that >CO2 back out of the air and store it. Instead in recent centuries we've >been felling forests and draining swamps decreasing the environments >ability to pull CO2 from the air. So all that new carbon we'reAll well and good but we are contributing a tiny percentage of CO2 and there is
introducing is just staying in the air or ending up in the ocean as >carbonic acid which threatens marine life that people depend on for food >and income.
no definitive evidence, let alone any proof, that an increase of that level of
CO2 is a problem.
It is just another one of the exaggerations produced by the
climate emergency folk. That emergency has not, ever, been demonstrated as fact.
I am all for smartening up our act with the obvious things like better waste management etc. But I do not support the extreme acts that are being suggested
like reducing llivestock farming, and I will not do so until I see proof that an emergency or anything approaching one is provided, it has not been provided
to date.
Climate emergency is an industry driven by money and political extremism and not by evidence.
In article <hhmd8jlprcrvj8fv7gkt5sthsbnic0tu4e@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:23:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions.
Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it
to escape into space.
In article <66879298.3125286921@news.mixmin.net>, wn@nosuch.com says...
Over a baseline of (say) 350ppm, additional CO2 does not meaningfully
reduce the heat radiated into space. Duh.
So 350ppm has some insulating effect, but doubling it to 700ppm wouldn't >double that insulating effect? Is that what you're claiming?
In article <part1of1.1.mlFkl91pa9aQUQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzDavid, I made no such claim. You really do seem to misunderstand what people write.
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.vDozWttrfAw6gg@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzAll well and good but we are contributing a tiny percentage of CO2 and there >>is
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <hhmd8jlprcrvj8fv7gkt5sthsbnic0tu4e@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >> >> >says...That is not really the topic.
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:23:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:
We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions. >> >> >>Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it >> >> >to escape into space.
WIth respect to Bill I believe the issue is simply that the amount of CO2 >> >> produced by mankind (directly and indirectly) is dwarfed by the amount
produced
by nature. My recollection is we are responsible for about 4% only. So
why
do
we want to reduce it particularly when it has been higher in the past and >> >>a
slightly higher percentage of CO2 will enhance, not degrade growth.
All of those are matters posted here regularly and by experts for decades >> >>now.
Nature, for the most part, isn't producing CO2. Its just recycling it.
Gas to tree to gas its just changing form over the decades or centuries.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't increasing over time from
this.
Humans are producing *new* CO2. The carbon we're emitting has been
buried for hundreds of millions of years in deposits that took thousands
or millions of years to form. The carbon coming out coal power plants
hasn't been in the atmosphere since before dinosaurs walked the earth.
And we're not planting an equivalent amount of forestry to take all that
CO2 back out of the air and store it. Instead in recent centuries we've
been felling forests and draining swamps decreasing the environments
ability to pull CO2 from the air. So all that new carbon we're
introducing is just staying in the air or ending up in the ocean as
carbonic acid which threatens marine life that people depend on for food
and income.
no definitive evidence, let alone any proof, that an increase of that level >>of
CO2 is a problem.
We've almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the
industrial revolution. To claim this should have no effect is to claim
CO2 has no effect at all.
Nonsense. There is no scientific basis, it is political and greed driven. Show me the science and I will be convinced.It is just another one of the exaggerations produced by the
climate emergency folk. That emergency has not, ever, been demonstrated as >>fact.
Its been demonstrated plenty which is why *most* governments and people >accept it as fact. The reason you don't think it hasn't been
demonstrated is an entirely different issue.
So? How does that negate what I wrote.I am all for smartening up our act with the obvious things like better waste >> management etc. But I do not support the extreme acts that are being >>suggested
like reducing llivestock farming, and I will not do so until I see proof >>that
an emergency or anything approaching one is provided, it has not been >>provided
to date.
Climate emergency is an industry driven by money and political extremism and >> not by evidence.
The oil and gas industry generates a couple trillion in revenue every
year. The coal industry is another couple trillion. Entire economies are >built on these industries.
Surely if money were a motivation, it would be the fossil fuel industry >pushing climate change denialism to protect their vast revenues, not the >~100bn solar panel industry or whatever trivial money the wind turbine >manufacturers make trying to put one of the largest industries in theStill nom science I see!
planet out of business by claiming CO2 is a problem when it isn't. CO2
has been held up as the problem since before those industries even
really existed.
And as for politics, what motivation do you think there is? Why would a >politician choose to push for this when doing nothing is surely easier?Still no science.
What is there to gain when there are so many other issues they could be >campaigning to fix?
It seems pretty bold to claim money and political "extremism" is behindNot at all - people are making fortunes out of this and the politics of the WEF and the WHO speak for themselves.
the climate emergency while ignoring the very strong motivation the
vastly wealthy fossil fuel industry has to convince people of the
opposite.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:So show us proof that it is not true . . .
In article <part1of1.1.vDozWttrfAw6gg@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...All well and good but we are contributing a tiny percentage of CO2 and there is
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <hhmd8jlprcrvj8fv7gkt5sthsbnic0tu4e@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>> >says...That is not really the topic.
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:23:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>> >> wrote:
We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions. >>> >>Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it >>> >to escape into space.
WIth respect to Bill I believe the issue is simply that the amount of CO2 >>> produced by mankind (directly and indirectly) is dwarfed by the amount >>>produced
by nature. My recollection is we are responsible for about 4% only. So why >>>do
we want to reduce it particularly when it has been higher in the past and a >>> slightly higher percentage of CO2 will enhance, not degrade growth.
All of those are matters posted here regularly and by experts for decades >>>now.
Nature, for the most part, isn't producing CO2. Its just recycling it.
Gas to tree to gas its just changing form over the decades or centuries. >>The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't increasing over time from
this.
Humans are producing *new* CO2. The carbon we're emitting has been
buried for hundreds of millions of years in deposits that took thousands
or millions of years to form. The carbon coming out coal power plants >>hasn't been in the atmosphere since before dinosaurs walked the earth.
And we're not planting an equivalent amount of forestry to take all that >>CO2 back out of the air and store it. Instead in recent centuries we've >>been felling forests and draining swamps decreasing the environments >>ability to pull CO2 from the air. So all that new carbon we're
introducing is just staying in the air or ending up in the ocean as >>carbonic acid which threatens marine life that people depend on for food >>and income.
no definitive evidence, let alone any proof, that an increase of that level of >CO2 is a problem. It is just another one of the exaggerations produced by the >climate emergency folk. That emergency has not, ever, been demonstrated as fact.
I am all for smartening up our act with the obvious things like better waste >management etc. But I do not support the extreme acts that are being suggested >like reducing llivestock farming, and I will not do so until I see proof that >an emergency or anything approaching one is provided, it has not been provided >to date.Of course it has, you just prefer not to believe that it is true.
Climate emergency is an industry driven by money and political extremism and >not by evidence.Do you have evidence of that?
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 06:49:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't be so silly. I cannot prove something is not true, and nor can you.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:So show us proof that it is not true . . .
In article <part1of1.1.vDozWttrfAw6gg@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...All well and good but we are contributing a tiny percentage of CO2 and there >>is
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <hhmd8jlprcrvj8fv7gkt5sthsbnic0tu4e@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>> >says...That is not really the topic.
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:23:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>> >> wrote:
We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions. >>>> >>Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it >>>> >to escape into space.
WIth respect to Bill I believe the issue is simply that the amount of CO2 >>>> produced by mankind (directly and indirectly) is dwarfed by the amount >>>>produced
by nature. My recollection is we are responsible for about 4% only. So why >>>>do
we want to reduce it particularly when it has been higher in the past and >>>>a
slightly higher percentage of CO2 will enhance, not degrade growth.
All of those are matters posted here regularly and by experts for decades >>>>now.
Nature, for the most part, isn't producing CO2. Its just recycling it. >>>Gas to tree to gas its just changing form over the decades or centuries. >>>The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't increasing over time from
this.
Humans are producing *new* CO2. The carbon we're emitting has been
buried for hundreds of millions of years in deposits that took thousands >>>or millions of years to form. The carbon coming out coal power plants >>>hasn't been in the atmosphere since before dinosaurs walked the earth.
And we're not planting an equivalent amount of forestry to take all that >>>CO2 back out of the air and store it. Instead in recent centuries we've >>>been felling forests and draining swamps decreasing the environments >>>ability to pull CO2 from the air. So all that new carbon we're >>>introducing is just staying in the air or ending up in the ocean as >>>carbonic acid which threatens marine life that people depend on for food >>>and income.
no definitive evidence, let alone any proof, that an increase of that level >>of
CO2 is a problem. It is just another one of the exaggerations produced by the >>climate emergency folk. That emergency has not, ever, been demonstrated as >>fact.
Show me the proof or go away.I am all for smartening up our act with the obvious things like better waste >>management etc. But I do not support the extreme acts that are being >>suggestedOf course it has, you just prefer not to believe that it is true.
like reducing llivestock farming, and I will not do so until I see proof that >>an emergency or anything approaching one is provided, it has not been >>provided
to date.
Yes - you are proof in your own childish obedient way, however the antics of the WEF are demonstrable proof.Climate emergency is an industry driven by money and political extremism and >>not by evidence.Do you have evidence of that?
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <66879298.3125286921@news.mixmin.net>, wn@nosuch.com says...
Over a baseline of (say) 350ppm, additional CO2 does not meaningfully
reduce the heat radiated into space. Duh.
So 350ppm has some insulating effect, but doubling it to 700ppm wouldn't >double that insulating effect? Is that what you're claiming?
Correct. The CO2 effect is already saturated. This has been found
and published by true scientists, and ignored by the corrupt zealots.
In article <66885ff1.3177856000@news.mixmin.net>, wn@nosuch.com says...
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
So 350ppm has some insulating effect, but doubling it to 700ppm wouldn't
double that insulating effect? Is that what you're claiming?
Correct. The CO2 effect is already saturated. This has been found
and published by true scientists, and ignored by the corrupt zealots.
I see. So the reason Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further
from the sun is caused by something other than all the CO2 in its
atmosphere?
Or are you claiming there is a gap? A little CO2 has an effect, a medium >amount of CO2 has no effect, and a lot of CO2 has an effect again?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:21:47 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,317 |
| Posted today: | 1 |