That's why your points about linear regression are irrelevant. Renewable energy is a response because fossil fuels are temporary. Also, renewable energy does not replace fossil fuels for obvious reasons.
Linear regression is only as accurate as the data, and is enhanced by the amount of accurate data. And, renewable energy is a good solution for the individual. And that depends on your location. But for a corporation that is trying to control and meter energy consumption on a grand scale, it makes sense to keep the original systems in place, enhancing it to cut down power losses and slippage. Renewable energy will replace fossil fuel if and only if we run out of it. Then, we'll be forced to absorb the huge cost of retooling the infrastructure. Yes...we'll be forced to absorb the cost. Prices will increase. And who gets hurt by that? The Seniors and the poor.
Correct. Actually we should differentiate linearity from regression. Regression is a means of statistic. It is used to approximate a function to describe a relation of 2 different values (x and y). Here temperature and time. There is not linear regression only. Any kind of function which is more suitable to get the best description can be used. Linearity is assumed to describe the relation of one value PAIR to another. The dark green line in the previous diagram connects each 'point' in the diagram with a straight line. The more pairs of values, the higher the resolution. There is no reason to assume any curvature in between two pairs of values. (The 9 o’clock 11 o’clock example). And finally when people speak of warming they always compare averages to averages in a linear manner. Humans will change their way of self-awareness when the level of suffering is reaching a certain point. Others who have reached a great level of suffering in life already have changed it in a way already. It is 'human' that we do not care for a change when there is no 'noticeable' suffering (yet)... That is the reason why there comes a time in life (actually more times) where one is suddenly totally appalled, because something that is taken for granted is lost at one go. There are many humans who have got (most of their time) their self-awareness as an individual being, separated from 'anything else'. Others have a social identity already and some others have got their self-awareness beyond any subject-object dualism. They perceive harm at nature as a harm at themselves.
For global warming, what you want isn't just linear regression but accounting for over fifty positive feedback loops plus ocean heat content. The last point alone makes debates on linear regression irrelevant. Renewable energy is neither a good solution nor a solution because of low energy quantity and quality, but it is inevitable given lack of resources. The problem is that oil is needed for mining, manufacturing, and even transport of components used for renewable energy. Also, retooling the global economy to move away from oil will take several decades plus a lot of oil because of low energy returns and incredible levels of coordination between countries. I think that's highly unlikely. The cost does not come in the form of prices but lower energy returns: https://www.scientificamerican.com/...l-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth/ In short, we will have to let go of many things, and focus only on necessities. Combine that with increasing human population, then the long-term future will involve around seven people living in one shelter only around 120 sq m, with only around five appliances (perhaps three lights, one cooking appliance, and one electric fan), most work consisting of manual labor and only within 5 km of that shelter, two-thirds of food has to planted in a nearby garden with very few things shipped in, walking and muscle- or animal-powered transport with minimal manufacturing, etc. In short, something like a Third World "ecovillage," but even that might not be good enough if population keeps going up plus the effects of global warming coupled with environmental damage kick in: https://theconversation.com/if-ever...age-the-earth-would-still-be-in-trouble-43905 That is, considering resources overall, ecological footprint on a level that is almost based on subsistence living will still be overshoot compared to biocapacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint
Only bean counters will obsess over how curved or fine lines should be. What's more important is that the line is moving upward and that surface temp. anomaly understates global warming.
we will evolve with what ever problems develop ! when we run low or out of fossil oil we will just develop plant oil to replace it for a lubricant , solar and water power and other sources will improve as needed we develop, improve , and create as we evolve ! and we will always have " the sky is falling " group with us .
There is only one problem. You will need oil and other fossil fuels if you don't start to replace them by other energies... Oil should have its place as mixture of source materials only, not as a fuel. One can calculate the energy input for any device that is manufactured. And one can get the components (fuels) from where the energy has been obtained therefore. If I once had an amount of 80% fossil fuels and 5 years later 75% only then each device consumes 5% less of fossil fuels to become manufactured than 5 years before. Who needs EROI? The argument that one needs fossil fuels to replace fossil fuels is temporarily valid only. The replacement has to go step-wise by considering excess capacities and yearly increment of consumption. This is no global thing to be coordinated. Each country can realize that on its own. Each private person and each company can strike a own balance. At home my electricity is 100% from renewable sources already, for heating I am still using natural gas. For my car I am still using gasoline.....this is the recent balance.
I'm not so sure Nat Gas is a renewable resource in the manner that it is currently consumed in the U.S. today... And Fracking is a whole 'nother ugly story in and of itself
@Joe C look at Yen's sentence structure, do you see a comma there, he never said natural gas is renewable!
@R29k: No he didn't. Fracking is a big concern because of the amount of damage it does to the people and the environment. Find and watch the movie 'Gasland' and you'll understand what I mean.
Yes, natural gas belongs to fossil fuels. I am 100% on the 'renewable side' concerning electricity only. I of course am informed what's possible here where I live. My electricity provider also provides 100% bio-gas. While electricity that's made from 100% renewable sources is IMO affordable, pure bio-gas price strongly depends on region. Since we share the gas supply I have to go for a compromise....at electricity I could realize my own idea. I mean I have the possibility to choose such because there are providers already. It had been an important step for me and I wanted to set an example. Now paying for it I support the progress and expansion for renewable energies. Also I would say that people who have a good salary and foresight should go for it and pay the extra to support renewable energies. There are many people elsewhere who would like to go for it, but there where they live there is no supply (yet). The people have got different opinions about the topic....but finally it's not about to make a drama out of it or to convince others with the own opinion. I frequently do ask myself: What's the goal of somebody who is convinced of anthropogenic warming or even convinced to know its cause = fossil CO2 and propagates this as truth? Has (s)he drawn the necessary consequences already or is (s)he still trying to convince others of 'the truth' while still doing nothing own to support renewable energies practically....? I mean I know some people who do complain about all the pollution and CO2 emission... also about those evil oil capitalists but when I ask what they are doing on their own they actually do nothing but verbally complain...(btw....to save energy is also a measure).... Fracking...is another 'anomaly' of energy production. Such anomalies exist as long as money is in the foreground. The only way to set a sign of change is to make an own example. To give own money away for the support of an alternative. When I create demand there will be supply.
I could use 100% renewable resources to heat my house by using wood, but then I would be contributing to "climate change" Today here in the U.S. we do have Nat Gas and LPG furnaces that run better than 90+ efficiency. That's probably the best we're going to do at this current time in our history. Solar energy is not feasible if you live in the north/ northeast area of the U.S.
Using wood is CO2 neutral if there is reforestation. Woods contribute a lot to produce Oxygen from CO2. If we'd keep the forests areas original by reforestation burning wood would be no problem at all. This applies to bio-mass generally. In other words you can burn what you re-grow in time.
Burning wood also produces smoke and many other by-products of improper combustion, like CO and just plain 'ol dirty C into the atmosphere.
That's right. We’d need to apply technical measures to assure a (almost) complete combustion. Burning wood is not suitable for total replacement but as an addition / temporary addition..I guess the limiting factor would be to guarantee a constant bio-mass either way...considering how long it takes until a tree becomes a tree again and how much wood one person could really burn in a lifetime. From the pure carbon balance it's neutral, though. Also other bio fuels actually are IF their bio-mass remains constant or has been 'added'. I know some people here who have got an additional woodstove. They can get wood controlled by forestry commission office. Their off-gas is controlled as well....
Solar energy is feasible if you go outside the atmosphere, the amount of money spent trying to dig holes in the ground could be used to create a solar energy grid in the outer atmosphere. As I have said before, the Sun sends enough solar energy to Earth in one hour to power humanity for 1 year.