| Solar panels 10:32 - Jul 2 with 9052 views | AguycalledJack |
I posted on the new site, but as that appears to be currently down, does anybody have them? Pros and cons? [Post edited 2 Jul 2020 10:33]
|  | | |  |
| Solar panels on 14:48 - Jul 3 with 1115 views | Professor |
There is not a single scientific link there. | | | |
| Solar panels on 15:06 - Jul 3 with 1103 views | LeonWasGod |
| Solar panels on 12:32 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Totally debunked, Tax Breaks that every single industry gets are not subsidies.
Subsidies are paid by the customer and added to the purchase price.
Do you know the actual costs of so called green energy when the subsidies have been added on? |
Are you seriously suggesting that fossil fuels aren't subsidised? |  | | |
| Solar panels on 15:14 - Jul 3 with 1088 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Solar panels on 12:29 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
I agree that reducing pollution is a good thing, nobody wants to breath in rubbish.
But do you believe those numbers, has anyone ever seen "pollution" on a death certificate as a contributary factor?
The key word here is "estimated", they don't actually know, we have see what estimated means in the COVID-19 data, totally wrong most of the time.
Do you know what the description of the Excess Deaths means, it means a possible life reduction of hours, days, months, or maybe years, like I said "estimated".
Did you look at the links that I posted by any chance?
Did you see the reductions that have already been achieved?
If their estimates are actually true, then what were the excess deaths in the recent past when most of the pollutants were 3 to 4 times higher?
How did anyone live through the Smogs of the 1950s and 1960s before the 1956 Clean Air Act had any affect?
I remember those Smogs well, your face, hair and clothing would be covered in Sulphur & Soot, buildings were black with it and you couldn't see more than a yard or so in any direction.
That was real air pollution.
Do you know one of the best methods of reducing city air pollution to do with traffic that is now hardly ever used. Wet road sweeping, studies have shown major reductions in airborne particles when roads sweepers are used.
Another major change is that under the Clean Air Act wood burning in cities was banned and/or controlled, they should never have allowed the return to using wood burning stoves or log burning in open fires. |
I looked up the official figures for UK deaths and they are in the range 28,000 to 36,000 . You only have to look up deaths caused by asthma and other lung dieseases. Everyone knows pollution causes deaths and the countries with highest pollution levels have the highest death rates. | |
| |
| Solar panels on 15:16 - Jul 3 with 1086 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 14:48 - Jul 3 by Professor |
There is not a single scientific link there. |
It is good to see Anthony Watt's (the completely unqualified TV presenter) blog make a return. | | | |
| Solar panels on 15:26 - Jul 3 with 1076 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 15:06 - Jul 3 by LeonWasGod |
Are you seriously suggesting that fossil fuels aren't subsidised? |
Yes. Tax Breaks are not subsidies.
https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-reliefs
Perhaps you are aware of something that Coal, Oil and Gas get in the same category as so called green technology, which is added to the basic price of the commodity and is direct profit to the company subsidised.
Let's take Oil, shall we, how much Direct Taxation is on Oil, especially in the form of Petrol or Diesel, about 70%.
How much Direct Taxation is on Wind power? | | | |
| Solar panels on 15:32 - Jul 3 with 1067 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 14:48 - Jul 3 by Professor |
There is not a single scientific link there. |
How can anyone provide a Scientific link to something that debunks a supposed Scientific paper accepted as bing peer reviewed?
Does the fact that they are not scientific change the Errors in a paper that they display for all to see. The errors are in no way Scientific, they are in process and assumptions, there is no "Science" involved.
But if you want to remain blind so be it.
ps you obviously ignored the first one which references these three papers.
Energy Policy — Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)
Energy Policy — Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)
Science & Education — Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)
Going to answer my question about which atmospheric gas absorbs and emmits LWIR photons? [Post edited 3 Jul 2020 15:34]
| | | |
| Solar panels on 15:33 - Jul 3 with 1066 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Solar panels on 15:26 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Yes. Tax Breaks are not subsidies.
https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-reliefs
Perhaps you are aware of something that Coal, Oil and Gas get in the same category as so called green technology, which is added to the basic price of the commodity and is direct profit to the company subsidised.
Let's take Oil, shall we, how much Direct Taxation is on Oil, especially in the form of Petrol or Diesel, about 70%.
How much Direct Taxation is on Wind power? |
“ A new International Monetary Fund (IMF) study shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The equivalent of over 6.5% of global GDP of that year, it also represented a half-trillion dollar increase since 2015 when China ($1.4 trillion), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion) were the largest subsidizers.
The report explains that fossil fuels account for 85% of all global subsidies“ | | | |
| Solar panels on 15:50 - Jul 3 with 1062 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 15:33 - Jul 3 by londonlisa2001 |
“ A new International Monetary Fund (IMF) study shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The equivalent of over 6.5% of global GDP of that year, it also represented a half-trillion dollar increase since 2015 when China ($1.4 trillion), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion) were the largest subsidizers.
The report explains that fossil fuels account for 85% of all global subsidies“ |
Look at the actual study to see what they class as FF Subsidies.
You just couldn't make it up, but they could and did.
You can find the study here and if you agree with their estimates and classification of what FF subsidies are then your brainwashing is complete.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subs | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Solar panels on 15:57 - Jul 3 with 1060 views | londonlisa2001 |
Oh, so you’ve gone from no subsidies’ to the ‘wrong calculation of subsidies’.
Lol.
Just want ‘direct subsidies’?
“The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that Fossil-fuel subsidies were around $490 billion in 2014, but would have been $610 billion without reforms that have been enacted since 2009. This is based on the gap between what consumers pay and the actual cost of supply, but doesn’t consider the environmental and health costs.
The OECD calculates that direct budgetary support and tax expenditure for fossil fuel consumption and production in OECD countries amounted to $50-90bn annually between 2005 and 2011.“
The US, Australia, China, Russia all have enormous direct subsidies for fossil fuels.
“ For every $1 spent to support renewable energy, another $6 are spent on fossil fuel subsidy and only 8 per cent of the money spent on fossil-fuel consumption subsidies reaches the poorest 20 per cent."
IEA, World Energy Outlook 2015” [Post edited 3 Jul 2020 15:57]
| | | |
| Solar panels on 16:01 - Jul 3 with 1058 views | LeonWasGod |
| Solar panels on 15:26 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Yes. Tax Breaks are not subsidies.
https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-reliefs
Perhaps you are aware of something that Coal, Oil and Gas get in the same category as so called green technology, which is added to the basic price of the commodity and is direct profit to the company subsidised.
Let's take Oil, shall we, how much Direct Taxation is on Oil, especially in the form of Petrol or Diesel, about 70%.
How much Direct Taxation is on Wind power? |
Why are you linking information on income tax relief for people hit by Covid-19? | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:03 - Jul 3 with 1055 views | LeonWasGod |
| Solar panels on 15:57 - Jul 3 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh, so you’ve gone from no subsidies’ to the ‘wrong calculation of subsidies’.
Lol.
Just want ‘direct subsidies’?
“The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that Fossil-fuel subsidies were around $490 billion in 2014, but would have been $610 billion without reforms that have been enacted since 2009. This is based on the gap between what consumers pay and the actual cost of supply, but doesn’t consider the environmental and health costs.
The OECD calculates that direct budgetary support and tax expenditure for fossil fuel consumption and production in OECD countries amounted to $50-90bn annually between 2005 and 2011.“
The US, Australia, China, Russia all have enormous direct subsidies for fossil fuels.
“ For every $1 spent to support renewable energy, another $6 are spent on fossil fuel subsidy and only 8 per cent of the money spent on fossil-fuel consumption subsidies reaches the poorest 20 per cent."
IEA, World Energy Outlook 2015” [Post edited 3 Jul 2020 15:57]
|
Standard obfuscation through semantics. It's how the 'denier' or 'debunker' sites work (or whatever you want to call them).
Quite bizarre to try and argue fossil fuels aren't subsidised. | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:10 - Jul 3 with 1054 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 16:01 - Jul 3 by LeonWasGod |
Why are you linking information on income tax relief for people hit by Covid-19? |
Sorry wrong link. | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:27 - Jul 3 with 1051 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 15:57 - Jul 3 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh, so you’ve gone from no subsidies’ to the ‘wrong calculation of subsidies’.
Lol.
Just want ‘direct subsidies’?
“The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that Fossil-fuel subsidies were around $490 billion in 2014, but would have been $610 billion without reforms that have been enacted since 2009. This is based on the gap between what consumers pay and the actual cost of supply, but doesn’t consider the environmental and health costs.
The OECD calculates that direct budgetary support and tax expenditure for fossil fuel consumption and production in OECD countries amounted to $50-90bn annually between 2005 and 2011.“
The US, Australia, China, Russia all have enormous direct subsidies for fossil fuels.
“ For every $1 spent to support renewable energy, another $6 are spent on fossil fuel subsidy and only 8 per cent of the money spent on fossil-fuel consumption subsidies reaches the poorest 20 per cent."
IEA, World Energy Outlook 2015” [Post edited 3 Jul 2020 15:57]
|
Well seeing as you just can't be bothered to read the documant yourself I will copy the explanation of their "subsidies" and a couple of examples.
Definitions of Fossil Fuel Subsidies
It is helpful to distinguish two different notions of fossil fuel subsidies. One is a narrow measure, termed pre-tax subsidies, reflecting differences between the amount consumers actually pay for fuel use and the corresponding opportunity cost of supplying the fuel. In contrast, a broader measure, termed post-tax subsidies, reflects differences between actual consumer fuel prices and
how much consumers would pay if prices fully reflected supply costs plus the taxes needed to reflect environmental costs and revenue requirements. The post-tax measure therefore
corresponds to the definition of subsidies used in this paper, although the international debate (e.g., at the 2009 G20 meeting in Pittsburg) typically focuses on the narrower notion of pre-tax subsidies. Where prices exceed supply costs or efficient prices, then pre-tax and post-tax subsidies respectively are counted here as zero (rather than negative), given our focus on underpricing.
The discussion is primarily about consumer price distortions, but producer subsidies also arise when firms receive direct or indirect support (e.g., prices above supply costs, preferential tax treatment, direct government budget transfers, or paying input prices below supply costs) that is
not passed forward to lower consumer prices (OECD, 2018). Producer subsidies are included in pre-tax subsidies below, but they are relatively small. Subsidies for non-fossil fuels are excluded from our calculations.
This what they consider should be included in the costs and are therefore subsidies.
B. Environmental Costs
Climate Change
Local Air Pollution
Broader Vehicle Externalities | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:30 - Jul 3 with 1049 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Does all that sound like sticking an extra 60 quid on the price of Wind generated electricity to ensure they make a profit?
Or paying over priced values to people who provide Solar powered electricity?
Or cutting £5000 off the price of an EV and let them get away with paying absolutely no fuel duty? | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:36 - Jul 3 with 1045 views | Professor |
| Solar panels on 15:32 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
How can anyone provide a Scientific link to something that debunks a supposed Scientific paper accepted as bing peer reviewed?
Does the fact that they are not scientific change the Errors in a paper that they display for all to see. The errors are in no way Scientific, they are in process and assumptions, there is no "Science" involved.
But if you want to remain blind so be it.
ps you obviously ignored the first one which references these three papers.
Energy Policy — Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)
Energy Policy — Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)
Science & Education — Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)
Going to answer my question about which atmospheric gas absorbs and emmits LWIR photons? [Post edited 3 Jul 2020 15:34]
|
I did-both carbon dioxide and methane do. As does water. Ozone absorbs UV in the upper atmosphere.
I can put any old tosh on a PDF and say its a think tank policy. | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:44 - Jul 3 with 1040 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Solar panels on 16:30 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Does all that sound like sticking an extra 60 quid on the price of Wind generated electricity to ensure they make a profit?
Or paying over priced values to people who provide Solar powered electricity?
Or cutting £5000 off the price of an EV and let them get away with paying absolutely no fuel duty? |
“ Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263. Active). This provision allows companies to deduct a majority of the costs incurred from drilling new wells domestically. In its analysis of President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that eliminating tax breaks for intangible drilling costs would generate $1.59 billion in revenue in 2017, or $13 billion in the next ten years.
Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613. Active). Depletion is an accounting method that works much like depreciation, allowing businesses to deduct a certain amount from their taxable income as a reflection of declining production from a reserve over time. However, with standard cost depletion, if a firm were to extract 10 percent of recoverable oil from a property, the depletion expense would be ten percent of capital costs. In contrast, percentage depletion allows firms to deduct a set percentage from their taxable income. Because percentage depletion is not based on capital costs, total deductions can exceed capital costs. This provision is limited to independent producers and royalty owners. In its analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the JCT estimated that eliminating percentage depletion for coal, oil and natural gas would generate $12.9 billion in the next ten years.
Credit for Clean Coal Investment Internal Revenue Code § 48A (Active) and 48B (Inactive). These subsidies create a series of tax credits for energy investments, particularly for coal. In 2005, Congress authorized $1.5 billion in credits for integrated gasification combined cycle properties, with $800 million of this amount reserved specifically for coal projects. In 2008, additional incentives for carbon sequestration were added to IRC § 48B and 48A. These included 30 percent investment credits, which were made available for gasification projects that sequester 75 percent of carbon emissions, as well as advanced coal projects that sequester 65 percent of carbon emissions. Eliminating credits for investment in these projects would save $1 billion between 2017 and 2026.
Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit (Internal Revenue Code § 45. Inactive). Sunsetted in 2014, this tax credit was created by the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 to promote domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Although amendments to the act limited the list of qualifying fuel sources, this credit provided $12.2 billion to the coal industry from 2002-2010.”
Those are just direct subsidies in the US.
Want some more?
Foreign Tax Credit (26 U.S. Code § 901. Active). Typically, when firms operating in foreign countries pay royalties abroad they can deduct these expenses from their taxable income. Instead of claiming royalty payments as deductions, oil and gas companies are able to treat them as fully deductible foreign income tax. In 2016, the JCT estimated that closing this loophole for all American businesses operating in countries that do not tax corporate income would generate $12.7 billion in tax revenue over the course of the following decade.
“ Master Limited Partnerships (Internal Revenue Code § 7704. Indirect. Active). Many oil and gas companies are structured as Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs). This structure combines the investment advantages of publicly traded corporations with the tax benefits of partnerships. While shareholders still pay personal income tax, the MLP itself is exempt from corporate income taxes. More than three-quarters of MLPs are fossil fuel companies. This provision is not available to renewable energy companies.” | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:47 - Jul 3 with 1039 views | legoman |
Hey, AguycalledJack, I bet you wish you hadn't feckin bothered to ask now? |  |
| "M'sieur, you said your dog did not bite!"
"That's not my dog" |
| |
| Solar panels on 18:40 - Jul 3 with 1017 views | LeonWasGod |
| Solar panels on 16:47 - Jul 3 by legoman |
Hey, AguycalledJack, I bet you wish you hadn't feckin bothered to ask now? |
I can give a sensible answer. I got some last year, even if I did sell my soul by accepting Satan's Subsidy and abandoning the holy trinity of oil, goal and gas.
As a homeowner you don't get much £ in the tariff payments, but it depends what you use/generate (I was running serious amounts of lights on fish tanks, so it saved a fortune on eleccy bills). We got in just before the tariffs changed last spring. The rates were nowhere near as good as they had been, but better than now of course.
I would recommend doing it if you want to, but not as an investment. Also if you've an electric car (or thinking of getting one) it would probably be a good idea if you can charge during the day (or also get battery storage).
I've no regrets, but they won't be making me rich. And it's quite cool to play with the app in real time to see how much you're generating! | | | |
| Solar panels on 20:00 - Jul 3 with 994 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 16:44 - Jul 3 by londonlisa2001 |
“ Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263. Active). This provision allows companies to deduct a majority of the costs incurred from drilling new wells domestically. In its analysis of President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that eliminating tax breaks for intangible drilling costs would generate $1.59 billion in revenue in 2017, or $13 billion in the next ten years.
Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613. Active). Depletion is an accounting method that works much like depreciation, allowing businesses to deduct a certain amount from their taxable income as a reflection of declining production from a reserve over time. However, with standard cost depletion, if a firm were to extract 10 percent of recoverable oil from a property, the depletion expense would be ten percent of capital costs. In contrast, percentage depletion allows firms to deduct a set percentage from their taxable income. Because percentage depletion is not based on capital costs, total deductions can exceed capital costs. This provision is limited to independent producers and royalty owners. In its analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the JCT estimated that eliminating percentage depletion for coal, oil and natural gas would generate $12.9 billion in the next ten years.
Credit for Clean Coal Investment Internal Revenue Code § 48A (Active) and 48B (Inactive). These subsidies create a series of tax credits for energy investments, particularly for coal. In 2005, Congress authorized $1.5 billion in credits for integrated gasification combined cycle properties, with $800 million of this amount reserved specifically for coal projects. In 2008, additional incentives for carbon sequestration were added to IRC § 48B and 48A. These included 30 percent investment credits, which were made available for gasification projects that sequester 75 percent of carbon emissions, as well as advanced coal projects that sequester 65 percent of carbon emissions. Eliminating credits for investment in these projects would save $1 billion between 2017 and 2026.
Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit (Internal Revenue Code § 45. Inactive). Sunsetted in 2014, this tax credit was created by the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 to promote domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Although amendments to the act limited the list of qualifying fuel sources, this credit provided $12.2 billion to the coal industry from 2002-2010.”
Those are just direct subsidies in the US.
Want some more?
Foreign Tax Credit (26 U.S. Code § 901. Active). Typically, when firms operating in foreign countries pay royalties abroad they can deduct these expenses from their taxable income. Instead of claiming royalty payments as deductions, oil and gas companies are able to treat them as fully deductible foreign income tax. In 2016, the JCT estimated that closing this loophole for all American businesses operating in countries that do not tax corporate income would generate $12.7 billion in tax revenue over the course of the following decade.
“ Master Limited Partnerships (Internal Revenue Code § 7704. Indirect. Active). Many oil and gas companies are structured as Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs). This structure combines the investment advantages of publicly traded corporations with the tax benefits of partnerships. While shareholders still pay personal income tax, the MLP itself is exempt from corporate income taxes. More than three-quarters of MLPs are fossil fuel companies. This provision is not available to renewable energy companies.” |
What you posted in no way answers the questions I posed about the IMF document that you originally posted where they consider some nebulous future costs should be used as an avoided cost and therefore a subsidy.
Despite what the sites you use for data call Tax Deduction or credits they are not subsidies.
I don't know how many times I have to say it to get through to you.
So I will post some links and leave it at that.
https://fee.org/articles/tax-breaks-arent-subsidies/
https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-subsidies
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-sub [Post edited 3 Jul 2020 20:01]
| | | |
| Solar panels on 20:28 - Jul 3 with 981 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 12:47 - Jul 3 by Scotia |
So that's a yes then, and confirmation of anthropogenic climate change. Even if a tiny amount, which it isn't by the way.
Anyway how about nitrous oxide? Yes or no.
It's a shame the sites you copy your "science" from concentrate on Co2 because it suits their agenda.
Back on topic, I don't have solar panels as my house faces east, otherwise I would. My office has quite a large array and they generate a good deal of power. Under the right conditions our office (of about 120 people) gets power exclusively from them. |
Thought I'd post this again to see if AFD has managed to find anything to demonstrate that Methane and Nitrous Oxide have no impact on climate change?
I note neither question I've asked so far has been answered. | | | |
| Solar panels on 21:25 - Jul 3 with 967 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 20:28 - Jul 3 by Scotia |
Thought I'd post this again to see if AFD has managed to find anything to demonstrate that Methane and Nitrous Oxide have no impact on climate change?
I note neither question I've asked so far has been answered. |
Because it is not measurable, Methane does note stay around very long because it is converted in to water by hydroxyl radicals.
Nitrous Oxide in the atmosphere is a miniscule amount measured in parts per billion.
As to the claim that it is 300 times more potent than CO2 is patently bull shit.
They base that on the fact that it stays around so long.
Let me give you an example from here
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11092019/nitrous-oxide-climate-pollutant-expl
Quote
"Like other greenhouse gases, nitrous oxide absorbs radiation and traps heat in the atmosphere, where it can live for an average of 114 years, according to the EPA. That puts it in a sort-of middle ground of super pollutants.
Compared with carbon dioxide, which can live in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, nitrous oxide is around a relatively short time. But it stays in the atmosphere longer than other short-lived climate pollutants like black carbon (which exists in the atmosphere for days) or methane (which is around for 12 years)."
So it isn't around so long, there is very little of it and the crunch is that it is competing for the same LWIR photons as Water Vapour, Methane and CO2.
Seeing as you insisted that I answer your will you answer the question that I asked prof.
Do you know what being a greenhouse gas means, ie that it's molecules absorb and then re-emitt a Long Wave Infra Red photon? | | | |
| Solar panels on 21:30 - Jul 3 with 962 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 16:36 - Jul 3 by Professor |
I did-both carbon dioxide and methane do. As does water. Ozone absorbs UV in the upper atmosphere.
I can put any old tosh on a PDF and say its a think tank policy. |
Thank you for the reply.
Where is CO2 active where it is not by passed by convection?
At the top of the troposhere, where there is very little water vapour, do you agree? | | | |
| Solar panels on 21:38 - Jul 3 with 957 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 21:25 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Because it is not measurable, Methane does note stay around very long because it is converted in to water by hydroxyl radicals.
Nitrous Oxide in the atmosphere is a miniscule amount measured in parts per billion.
As to the claim that it is 300 times more potent than CO2 is patently bull shit.
They base that on the fact that it stays around so long.
Let me give you an example from here
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11092019/nitrous-oxide-climate-pollutant-expl
Quote
"Like other greenhouse gases, nitrous oxide absorbs radiation and traps heat in the atmosphere, where it can live for an average of 114 years, according to the EPA. That puts it in a sort-of middle ground of super pollutants.
Compared with carbon dioxide, which can live in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, nitrous oxide is around a relatively short time. But it stays in the atmosphere longer than other short-lived climate pollutants like black carbon (which exists in the atmosphere for days) or methane (which is around for 12 years)."
So it isn't around so long, there is very little of it and the crunch is that it is competing for the same LWIR photons as Water Vapour, Methane and CO2.
Seeing as you insisted that I answer your will you answer the question that I asked prof.
Do you know what being a greenhouse gas means, ie that it's molecules absorb and then re-emitt a Long Wave Infra Red photon? |
My question was simple. A yes or no would do. I didn't ask how much of it there was, how long it was around for or what it was competing with. Let's go for a binary answer to these questions:-
Does carbon dioxide contribute to climatic change?
Does methane contribute to climatic change?
Do nitrous oxides contribute to climatic change? | | | |
| Solar panels on 10:58 - Jul 4 with 919 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 21:38 - Jul 3 by Scotia |
My question was simple. A yes or no would do. I didn't ask how much of it there was, how long it was around for or what it was competing with. Let's go for a binary answer to these questions:-
Does carbon dioxide contribute to climatic change?
Does methane contribute to climatic change?
Do nitrous oxides contribute to climatic change? |
No, No & no. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
