Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[ReconNyko]

Freon gas is damaged Ozone Layer this is TRUE

 

[Rockarola]

Watched it and agreed with it. I really don't have anything to argue against.


Cook is a political activist, not a climate scientist. I've gone over the BS "study" so many times, I'd rather gouge my own eyes out than do it again.


Fact: Almost all of the heat on the Earth originates from the sun.
Fact: Solar spots have a direct correlation with climate on Earth.
Fact: 95% of greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor.
Fact: Clouds can have both a warming and cooling effect depending on type.
Fact: Cosmic radiation is related to cloud formation.
Fact: Climate modeling of clouds in these CO2-heavy models is terrible.
Fact: It is nearly impossible to get environment research money without mentioning "global warming" or "climate change" in your proposal.

Your last "fact" is not really a fact, since I can counter it with:
Fact: The Koch Brothers will pay good money to any denier.

Both are "facts", as they do contain a little truth...neither should be mentioned in a serious discussion.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Judith Curry (Ph. D. in geophysical sciences)

There is much discussion and angst over industrial funding of climate research (see my post on the Grijalva inquisition), but there seems to have been little investigation of the potential for federal research funding to bias climate research – a source of funding that is many orders of magnitude larger than industrial funding of climate research.

Is the Government Buying Science or Support?

Our point is simply that while commercially induced bias is already a significant research area, the investigation of potential federally induced bias is not an active research area. There appears to be a major gap in bias research.

In some areas, especially regulatory science, Federal funding is by far the dominant source. Clearly the potential for funding-induced bias exists in these cases.

Re: federal funding in "climate change:"

The notion of cascading systemic bias, induced by government funding, does not appear to have been studied much. This may be a big gap in research on science. Moreover, if this sort of bias is indeed widespread then there are serious implications for new policies, both at the Federal level and within the scientific community itself.

One special focus here is the climate change debate, especially as modulated by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Note that the USGCRP is not a program in the sense of an agency program, as described above. Founded in 1990, the USGCRP is an inter-agency coordination effort that includes most of the climate science research programs run by thirteen different federal agencies. The USGCRP is presently funded at over two billion dollars a year and accounts for a significant fraction of climate research worldwide.

 

[Rockarola]

Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Judith Curry (Ph. D. in geophysical sciences)

You are quoting a scientist who complains about her work on social media not being regarded as serious by acedemia...she might be right, but she comes off as a flake!
Let's say that the chance of global climate change is about 50/50 of being caused by humans.
Are you willing to bet the future of your children on a 50% chance, simply for a slight economic gain? (said gain might be a loss, if everybody is making so much money off bad science)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You are quoting a scientist who complains about her work on social media not being regarded as serious by acedemia...she might be right, but she comes off as a flake!

Character assassinations do not lead to better science. Einstein was relentlessly attacked for going against the flow and aren't we happy now that science prevailed?

Let's say that the chance of global climate change is about 50/50 of being caused by humans.
Are you willing to bet the future of your children on a 50% chance, simply for a slight economic gain? (said gain might be a loss, if everybody is making so much money off bad science)

As referenced above, the federal government is blowing $2 billion/year on researching climate when they could be investing in permanent solutions to the alleged problem with technologies like hydrogen fuel cells and fusion reactors. But no, that $2 billion/year is funding to protect ethanol, wind, solar, and biodiesel subsidies (along with a lot I'm forgetting).

This isn't about chance; this is about being pragmatic. Compounding bias on top of bias accomplishes nothing but waste. What is pragmatic about replacing 1000+ MW nuclear reactors with ~80% capacity factor with 534 5 MW wind turbines with ~30% capacity factor? What is pragmatic about increasing fuel taxes instead of developing an affordable alternative that doesn't require fuel at all? What is pragmatic about asking politicians to punish the very molecule we exhale instead of launching a global effort to modernize third world countries so they don't feel likely their only option is destroying their environment? The focus now is yielding archaic solutions to archaic problems instead of forward thinking solutions for today and centuries in the future.

 

[Assimilator]

Scientists Develop Liquid Fuel That Can Store The Sun's Energy For Up to 18 Years: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-develop-liquid-that-sucks-up-sun-s-energy

No matter how abundant or renewable, solar power has a thorn in its side. There is still no cheap and efficient long-term storage for the energy that it generates.

The solar industry has been snagged on this branch for a while, but in the past year alone, a series of four papers has ushered in an intriguing new solution.

Scientists in Sweden have developed a specialised fluid, called a solar thermal fuel, that can store energy from the sun for well over a decade.

"A solar thermal fuel is like a rechargeable battery, but instead of electricity, you put sunlight in and get heat out, triggered on demand," Jeffrey Grossman, an engineer works with these materials at MIT explained to NBC News.

The fluid is actually a molecule in liquid form that scientists from Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden have been working on improving for over a year.

This molecule is composed of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, and when it is hit by sunlight, it does something unusual: the bonds between its atoms are rearranged and it turns into an energised new version of itself, called an isomer.

Like prey caught in a trap, energy from the sun is thus captured between the isomer's strong chemical bonds, and it stays there even when the molecule cools down to room temperature.

When the energy is needed - say at nighttime, or during winter - the fluid is simply drawn through a catalyst that returns the molecule to its original form, releasing energy in the form of heat.

"The energy in this isomer can now be stored for up to 18 years," says one of the team, nanomaterials scientist Kasper Moth-Poulsen from Chalmers University.

...

After a series of rapid developments, the researchers claim their fluid can now hold 250 watt-hours of energy per kilogram, which is double the the energy capacity of Tesla's Powerwall batteries, according to the NBC.

...

If all goes as planned, Moth-Poulsen thinks the technology could be available for commercial use within 10 years.

 

[StrayKAT]

Scientists Develop Liquid Fuel That Can Store The Sun's Energy For Up to 18 Years: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-develop-liquid-that-sucks-up-sun-s-energy

This is something I'd hope we all get behind, no matter our stance.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Scientists Develop Liquid Fuel That Can Store The Sun's Energy For Up to 18 Years: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-develop-liquid-that-sucks-up-sun-s-energy

It's interesting but I'm not going to hold my breath for it. Exotic materials are often toxic and it's effectiveness is concerning:

...they can absorb up to 10% of the solar spectrum with a measured energy storage density of up to 577 kJ/kg...

...they don't say watts per meter squared either which is curious because that's how the sun works. The numbers they do give us do not indicate depth.

 

[Vayra86]

It's interesting but I'm not going to hold my breath for it. Exotic materials are often toxic and it's effectiveness is concerning:

...they don't say watts per meter squared either which is curious because that's how the sun works. The numbers they do give us do not indicate depth.

Regardless, even if it needs a lot of space, you can put a tank under each house easily and it'll cover domestic use quite fine.

Looks promising to me. This, along with some form of being able to generate our own energy comes together nicely. Self sufficiency at this scale... pretty cool.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Looking closer at one of the papers, the measured, charged density was 155 Wh/kg (roughly equal to lithium-ion batteries). By comparison, gasoline is 12,222 Wh/kg. On top of that, their catalyst was frozen to -80 C before the experiment. Assuming this is required, that's an operational load on the system (might require more energy to operate than it produces).

Edit: Better link that's more descriptive: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...e-solar-energy-turn-it-liquid-fuel-ncna930676

"We've run it though 125 cycles without any significant degradation," Moth-Poulsen says.

That's not many (a third of a year) considering this stuff isn't likely cheap to manufacture. People likely are going to want it to last 5-10 years to be cost effective.

On top of it all, it's a thermal energy so they're mostly talking about using it for heat. Which is ironic, because when heat is most needed is in the winter when solar capacity factor is weakest. Keeping the liquid in line of sight without being obstructed by snow and ice is a major problem as well (because it remains cool until reacted); it will not be warm enough to keep itself clear.

And what of converting it to electricity? Well, that's a problem in itself. The most efficient forms of electric generation involve steam, turbines, and condensers. It doesn't sound like the output of this reaction is even hot enough to produce steam. Not to mention that these sorts of systems aren't exactly practical for homes and are counter-productive without massive amounts of insulation in the summer (because heat).

Yeah...don't get your hopes up. There's a reason why they said "10 years." It may be practical for utility-scale solar power plants to use instead of batteries or natural gas in deserts (need high ambient temperature to get steam)...maybe some large businesses too...but households? Not so much.

 

[Vya Domus]

Anyone who doubts that Global warming is real just needs to look at the amount of water vapour in our atmosphere.

Replace global warming with climate change and I am sold to the idea. The undeniable fact is that climate change occurred many, many times in the past. Both in short and long time spans.

There's no apex predators left to keep us in check so we're obligated to do it ourselves.

Were there ever predators that where capable of decimating us in the first place ? Didn't we, from the moment we evolved into our current iteration, became the apex predator ?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Were there ever predators that where capable of decimating us in the first place ? Didn't we, from the moment we evolved into our current iteration, became the apex predator ?

No animal hunts to kill other than humans. They hunt to feed.

Other than natural causes of death like old age, cancer, heart disease, and so forth, disease is about the only thing that has killed humans en masse. Parasites, bacteria, and viruses can turn our own flesh against us and cause deaths by the millions. We can't expect one to manifest itself to deal with overpopulation.

 

[Vya Domus]

hey hunt to feed.

Animals hunt for various other reasons as well. There was a predatory bird of which name I can't remember that would hunt small lizards and such, impale them on small branches on trees and sometimes leave them there.

We can't expect one to manifest itself to deal with overpopulation.

I always wondered if overpopulation is even the right word for this. The real issue seems to be the highly unequal distribution of population and it's density rather than the overall number itself.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

We're using about 15% of arable land for human food consumption. If we did not use anhydrous fertilizer, that would be 50%; moreover, starvation is a thing so the population we do have is not necessarily satisfied by the crops we do grow. Realize that every percent of those numbers is removing habitat from native species. To raise it to 100% means the death of many land-dwelling species.

There is no correct answer but everything has a cost.

For the record, CIA was doing overpopulation analysis in the 1980s:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...935-a50a-15209411f1cd/?utm_term=.88b6431c5d36

For example, the CIA report, titled "Population, Resources & Politics in the Third World: The Long View," predicts that Mexican-U.S. relations may be the most complex problem that the United States faces at the turn of the century because of migrant traffic across the border, and water and pollution problems.

The CIA says that the population explosion also may have enough of an impact on Turkey to destabilize NATO; lead Honduras and El Salvador into war; cause Vietnam to expand into underpopulated Laos and Kampuchia, perhaps bringing the Soviets and China to the brink of war; and create a variety of problems for Middle East allies of the United States, notably Israel and Egypt. (Egypt, Mexico, El Salvador and Vietnam are four countries listed as "outgrowing" their borders.)

Sound familiar? I added links to those quotes to illustrate many of those predictions came to fruition.

 

[Assimilator]

Sound familiar?

Almost as familiar as the GOP's irrational anti-abortion stance.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Ironic that USA funds numerous birth control programs around the world but the topic is always contentious within.

Native populations in many countries are declining for a variety of economic, physiological, psychological, and sociological reasons. There may come a time that countries may have to start welcoming immigrants in order to buffer against native population decline. In the distant future, countries may have to incentivize families to have more kids.

Anyway, this is getting off topic.

 

[Vya Domus]

There may come a time that countries may have to start welcoming immigrants in order to buffer against native population decline.

Except we all know that is not what's going to happen, immigrants will always want to migrate to wealthier countries and most of them on that list aren't. This problem will fall yet again on the shoulders of western countries.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's already happening. Five Years of Population Loss in Rural and Small-Town America May Be Ending (because of immigration).

Historically, nonmetro population grew because high rates of natural increase always offset any net migration loss. For example, net out-migration was more severe during the 1980s than in 2010-15, but overall population change remained positive because natural increase contributed roughly 0.5 percent growth annually, compared with 0.1 percent today. The Great Recession contributed to a downturn in natural increase, as fewer births occur during times of economic uncertainty. Lowering rates of natural change from 2008 to 2013 resulted in over 250 nonmetro counties experiencing natural decrease for the first time during 2010-15.

 

[Vya Domus]

And it proves what I am saying. Meanwhile for the rest of the countries that face the same problem but who are also poorer it's only going to get worse no matter how lax their immigration polices will get.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Rural populations tend to be operationally poor (inability to cover daily expenses) but asset rich (own land, vehicles, and other property).

Point is, native populations in the "West" are declining. The reason why their overall population numbers are increasing is because of immigration. This article goes into detail about the problem in the USA. It gives 2060 projections for state populations if immigration were completely banned (overall increase of 6.1% over 45 years).

With fertility rates falling and Baby Boomer deaths soon to be rising, immigration will surpass natural increase as the major driver of U.S. population growth within ten years.

By the 2040s immigration will account for more than 80% of annual population growth, a far larger share than during the Great Wave prior to World War I.

Absent a change in our policies, immigration is likely to be the major driver of U.S. population growth for the rest of the 21st Century.

A dead man likely won his election in Nevada because of water (or lack thereof):
The Ghost of Dennis Hof Haunts the G.O.P. in the Nevada Midterms
It's not so much a climate problem as much as over utilization of finite resources. Build a city of millions in a desert and it runs out of water, whodathunkit?

 

[SoNic67]

Yep. It was argued when I was in school the only sustaibable viable alternative was fish farms, basically. Aquaculture.

I always wondered if overpopulation is even the right word for this

Overbreeding, lack of natural predators, rules in place to keep stupids from hurting themselves...
As for the "sustainable" methods of feeding more people, that will just help breeding even more people, making more "human-made" pollution (they will need all energy to live, make products).
Africa is the largest issue here, but nobody wants to address. They breed over the sustainability of their lands and now they are invading other places that solved that problem (Europe has a negative population growth).
South America is close second, and their land can sustain them only if the massively de-forest and plant crops.

 

[R-T-B]

That's speciesist

And?

but not members of your own species?

Damn, it's almost like that's the case.

 

[Rockarola]

Character assassinations do not lead to better science. Einstein was relentlessly attacked for going against the flow and aren't we happy now that science prevailed?


As referenced above, the federal government is blowing $2 billion/year on researching climate when they could be investing in permanent solutions to the alleged problem with technologies like hydrogen fuel cells and fusion reactors. But no, that $2 billion/year is funding to protect ethanol, wind, solar, and biodiesel subsidies (along with a lot I'm forgetting).

This isn't about chance; this is about being pragmatic. Compounding bias on top of bias accomplishes nothing but waste. What is pragmatic about replacing 1000+ MW nuclear reactors with ~80% capacity factor with 534 5 MW wind turbines with ~30% capacity factor? What is pragmatic about increasing fuel taxes instead of developing an affordable alternative that doesn't require fuel at all? What is pragmatic about asking politicians to punish the very molecule we exhale instead of launching a global effort to modernize third world countries so they don't feel likely their only option is destroying their environment? The focus now is yielding archaic solutions to archaic problems instead of forward thinking solutions for today and centuries in the future.

Heh, you are asking Democrats to stop being dogmatic and Republicans to stop supporting (outdated) industries...can I get a pretty pony as well?
I am sorry, I thought that your issue with GCC was ideological, not practical...I was wrong, I'll try to do better next time. (I am not sarcastic, I was wrong about your motivations)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Heh, you are asking Democrats to stop being dogmatic and Republicans to stop supporting (outdated) industries...can I get a pretty pony as well?

Republicans are the most likely demographic to support nuclear power.

Reminder: Fukashima melted down in 2011. I'm not sure why there was such a big fall off of support in 2016.

Edit: I have a theory. 2016, there was a massive ad campaign ran by big oil in favor of natural gas. They hit so hard, so heavy, and for so long, people were programmed to think natural gas was the best thing since sliced bread. Seems like it worked.


Edit: Our energy technology is regressing, not progressing:

Solar's influence is everywhere from architecture to drying laundry (as a power source, 1700s).

There was documented use of wind to propel boats in 1600 BC (likely goes back further than that).

Coal was used by the Chinese to smelt copper in 1000 BC.

Natural gas was used by the Chinese in 500 BC to desalinate water for sea salt.

Hydropower was used by lumber mills in the middle ages.

The first battery were perhaps developed in antiquity but as a practical tool, late 1700s.

Fuel cells were discovered in 1838 with a working prototype in 1939.

First nuclear reactor went critical in 1942.

RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator) which uses plutonium decay to produce small amounts of electricity over extended periods of time (a favorite power source for deep space satellites). Discovered in 1954, shortly after nuclear. Not really sutiable for mass power generation.

Am I forgetting any?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

President Trump can't stop U.S. coal plants from retiring

More U.S. coal-fired power plants were shut in President Donald Trump’s first two years than were retired in the whole of Barack Obama’s first term, despite the Republican’s efforts to prop up the industry to keep a campaign promise to coal-mining states.

In total, more than 23,400 megawatts (MW) of coal-fired generation were shut in 2017-2018 versus 14,900 MW in 2009-2012, according to data from Reuters and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The squeeze is hitting nuclear too:

Cheap natural gas and the rising use of renewable power like solar and wind have kept electric prices relatively low for years, making it uneconomic for generators to keep investing in older coal and nuclear plants.

Generators said they plan to shut around 8,422 MW of coal-fired power and 1,500 MW of nuclear in 2019, while adding 10,900 MW of wind, 8,200 MW of solar and 7,500 MW of gas, according to Reuters and EIA data.

Still producing over 200,000 MW of power from coal though and that is expected to remain true through 2025.

“There will be a limit to what increasingly cheap renewable power and continuously cheap natural gas can deliver with respect to emissions reductions,” said John Larsen, a director at Rhodium Group who leads the firm’s power sector research, noting the rising use of gas to produce power as coal plants shut. Natural gas emits about half the carbon as coal.