Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[dorsetknob]

It's ok he has a toupee.

not a rug its a vajazzle and there i stop

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Its a Merkin because he is a twat.

 

[dorsetknob]

Always wondered why Lots of Americans Shortened American to Merkin

think i now understand

 

[ne6togadno]

Sulfur dioxide is that offensive odor rotting eggs give off.

it is hydrogen sulfide that smells like rotten eggs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide

 

[remixedcat]

I can't find the "mark as spam" button.

Oh wait, this isn't my email.

Hmmm go ahead and belive the hippie crackpots that have no scientific or financial background then

 

[R-T-B]

Hmmm go ahead and belive the hippie crackpots that have no scientific or financial background then

I don't believe anyone on science issues without sources that are reputable.

By the way, I probably qualify as a hippie, sans drugs.

 

[dorsetknob]

By the way, I probably qualify as a hippie, sans drugs.

Or An Athlete ( you could specilise in the Triple jump, high jump, and long jump )

 

[AphexDreamer]

Only 5 min in and I'm not sure what to expect but it seems well produced so far.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

DiCaprio says China "seems to be transitioning to renewables." Bullshit. He clearly did not do his research:
http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...nue-to-use-coal-as-a-major-generating-source/

European and American emissions are down because the manufacturing jobs have been displaced to China. The only way China stays competitive is with cheap energy and that's coal's middle name.

This video is big on pointing figures and short on permanent, reasonable solutions, just like every other.


Now an Indian lady promotes solar. Panels are not cheap and storage is extremely expensive with a short lifespan. It is not a practical solution which is why it's use remains few and far between.


Renewables, renewables, renewables, also known as "blah, blah, blah." Renewables only work where appropriate. They do not represent a "permanent, reasonable solution." I'm not just talking about USA either, I'm talking everywhere, especially Africa and South America that will eventually supplant China as centers for manufacturing.


Let's put solar into context: The most you can reasonably get from a square meter of surface at peak hours of the day is 250w of electricity. I have a really small space heater right next to me that oscillates based on ambient temperature. When it is running, it draws some 1200-1400 watts of electricity. That's five cubic meters of surface area during broad daylight. What of the night when it has to work the hardest? I'm not going to run the numbers but the problem becomes massive, and fast. That's not even considering the environmental costs of building solar panels and batteries. There's only so much the sun can do and while you're doing that, your making the surface under it unusable for plants which are nature's solution to atmospheric carbon. It's a no-win situation. It's a money pit. This is why solar trails behind and always will. Wind is far better in this regard.

I'm not making this shit up. Consult the China graph above. Note the change in solar versus the change in wind. That is not merely a coincidence. It's a physical and economic fact.

For the record, land here costs $13,000 per acre to buy, nevermind all of the taxes and crap that go along with it. No one in their right mind will build solar around here. It just doesn't make sense from any aspect.


Edit: Something related I just realized. I don't really care about rising sea levels (which this video mostly focuses on) because I'm over 1000' above sea level...as are most people that identify as conservatives/republicans. The left? The people that are behaving most alarmist about climate change? Almost exclusively live in coastal regions.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/State-States-Political-Party-Affiliation.aspx
Illinois (most of the population lives in the Chicago area which borders the Great Lakes), Alaska (very low population density), and South Carolina are the only exceptions to the rule.

Interesting chart here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
If you sort by CO2 emissions per capita, the state, you have to go all the way down to the 10th on the list to find a state that doesn't solidly report Republican.

On the flip side, D.C. has little in the way of manufacturing and most of the energy is imported from the surrounding states. Most of their emissions come from traffic but with mass transit systems, even that is relatively low. The one in second has my intrigued: New York. Looking at the chart provided, the reason is obvious: natural gas supplementing nuclear and hydro.

 

[64K]

DiCaprio says China "seems to be transitioning to renewables." Bullshit. He clearly did not do his research:
http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...nue-to-use-coal-as-a-major-generating-source/

European and American emissions are down because the manufacturing jobs have been displaced to China. The only way China stays competitive is with cheap energy and that's coal's middle name.

This video is big on pointing figures and short on permanent, reasonable solutions, just like every other.


Now an Indian lady promotes solar. Panels are not cheap and storage is extremely expensive with a short lifespan. It is not a practical solution which is why it's use remains few and far between.


Renewables, renewables, renewables, also known as "blah, blah, blah." Renewables only work where appropriate. They do not represent a "permanent, reasonable solution." I'm not just talking about USA either, I'm talking everywhere, especially Africa and South America that will eventually supplant China as centers for manufacturing.


Let's put solar into context: The most you can reasonably get from a square meter of surface at peak hours of the day is 250w of electricity. I have a really small space heater right next to me that oscillates based on ambient temperature. When it is running, it draws some 1200-1400 watts of electricity. That's five cubic meters of surface area during broad daylight. What of the night when it has to work the hardest? I'm not going to run the numbers but the problem becomes massive, and fast. That's not even considering the environmental costs of building solar panels and batteries. There's only so much the sun can do and while you're doing that, your making the surface under it unusable for plants which are nature's solution to atmospheric carbon. It's a no-win situation. It's a money pit. This is why solar trails behind and always will. Wind is far better in this regard.

I'm not making this shit up. Consult the China graph above. Note the change in solar versus the change in wind. That is not merely a coincidence. It's a physical and economic fact.

I guess DiCaprio hasn't spent much time in Beijing

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/beijing-pollution-before-after-smog-pictures/

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yeah, USA emits a lot of carbon dioxide but it is mostly soot free. We've gone to great lengths to curb particulate matter in the air and it shows. China needs to do the same but they can't because of economic pressures. It would cost money including ongoing costs that would make production in China less profitable so the producers will get their product made elsewhere. It's a catch-22.

I'm with Freeman Dyson on this. The solution to climate change is technology. Instead of trying to attack carbon dioxide directly, money should be channeled to investments in next generation energy and food production. I think the equivalent of a Manhattan Project for fusion energy would accomplish this. Once solutions are discovered, efforts need to be redoubled to make it safe and cheap so it can be rapidly deployed all over the world (including third world nations) so there's no incentive to burn coal anymore. Finally, triple-down on the effort to make the technology compact enough to be deployed widely in vehicles. I believe, by 2100, we could literally not produce any energy from fossil fuels anymore. By 2200, CO2 levels would return to 1700s levels. CH4 may still be a problem though. I'm glad DiCaprio touched on that point.


Edit: So their other solution is carbon tax so take from Peter and give to Elon Musk so he can build giant battery factories. Elon Musk failed to note that those "Gigafactories" require a massive mining and refining operation. Picture the operations we have now for coal but instead of black, the resource is white. Even without considering the environmental impact of that, consider the fact that the lithium supply right now already can't compete with demand (electric cars, smartphones, tablets, watches, etc.): The era of the electric car promises a lithium mining boom, but new lithium startups are floundering. He didn't talk at all about how they intend to charge these batteries and that has its own environmental cost.


Edit: Not-so-fun fact, lithium-ion batteries only last about 2-3 years regardless of use. Instead of an oil addiction, if Musk has his way, we'll have a lithium addiction.


Edit: Still think nuclear fusion is the future and nothing else. The future is very bleak without it. On that front, some good news earlier this year I missed:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/18/scientists-make-another-breakthrough-in-nuclear-fusion/

 

[AphexDreamer]

In response to Ford.

China's renewable is growing. That doesn't mean its gone from 0 to 200 in one night.
Yes China is still heavily using non-renewable but that doesn't negate the fact that their renewable sector is growing.
"Data from China's National Energy Administration (NEA) shows installations were up 60 percent in 2014, and up 35 percent in the first nine months of 2015, to 37.45 GW."

Renewable might not currently be a 100% end all solution to fossil fuels, but there is no reason to utilize it to its full extent to minimize the need for fossil fuels.
The film wasn't trying to say America did this this, India did that, it was just trying to show the impacts of green house gases, how we are all responsible for it and how we should be pushing harder then ever to minimize our use of fossil fuels.

For example I don't think it would be to far-fetched to cover the cost of AC using solar energy. Especially when considering how the sun must be shining to make those hot days really unbearable. I'm actually exploring doing this myself once I save up.

Lets see...

3500 watts for central 2.5 ton AC unit.
255 watt solar panel that takes up about 1 square meter (With a rating of 232W PTC).
So 3500 / 232 = 15 panels so less than 15 square meters of space.
I've got more than enough space on my roof to place those.
Will cost me a just shy of $3500 just for the panels.

Panels have a 20 year warranty and are known to generally lose a 1% of efficiency every year so I'd probably add 1 or 2 panels more.
Then I'd need a charge controller + 500
Power Inverter + 400 or so.
Storage Battery + 400 or so.

So total 4800 lets say 5000 for everything wires and tax and what not.
When can I expect to get that paid off?
Depends on much I use the AC. Lets say I use the AC 18 hours a day.
Lets say I typically pay 12 cents per kilowatt per hour.
That is $1972.35 per year I save on AC alone.
So within 2 and a half years I'll have made the money back I put into the project, only have lost about 2.5 % efficiency in my panels.
I will have minimized my green house gas emissions and my lowered my bill for some time there after.
I'll be investing in renewable energy.
Once the 20 years are up I will have saved 34,000 on my AC assuming no damage to the panels.

Now realistic threats to this project?
Bird poop/Stains of sorts in general?
Hurricane damage/Damaging Weather in general?
Legal battles/HOA.

Its not science fiction people are successfully harnessing the energy of the Sun.
This project in particular might be a bit ambitious but still possible.

Solar Technology is improving and potential costs and maintenance can go down with time.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

China's renewable is growing. That doesn't mean its gone from 0 to 200 in one night.
Yes China is still heavily using non-renewable but that doesn't negate the fact that their renewable sector is growing.
"Data from China's National Energy Administration (NEA) shows installations were up 60 percent in 2014, and up 35 percent in the first nine months of 2015, to 37.45 GW."

You missed the point: China is going to add far more natural gas capacity in the next 20 years than renewable energy capacity. China is the poster child of what not to do. His goal was to say "look at this country" and "we can do that too." Denmark is a far better example than China.

Renewable might not currently be a 100% end all solution to fossil fuels, but there is no reason to utilize it to its full extent to minimize the need for fossil fuels.
The film wasn't trying to say America did this this, India did that, it was just trying to show the impacts of green house gases, how we are all responsible for it and how we should be pushing harder then ever to minimize our use of fossil fuels.

Investing in nuclear fusion makes far more sense. All of that money squandered on building turbines and solar panels becomes trash the moment fusion becomes a deployable technology.

For example I don't think it would be to far-fetched to cover the cost of AC using solar energy. Especially when considering how the sun must be shining to make those hot days really unbearable. I'm actually exploring doing this myself once I save up.

Lets see...

3500 watts for central 2.5 ton AC unit.
255 watt solar panel that takes up about 1 square meter (With a rating of 232W PTC).
So 3500 / 232 = 15 panels so less than 15 square meters of space.
I've got more than enough space on my roof to place those.
Will cost me a just shy of $3500 just for the panels.

Panels have a 20 year warranty and are known to generally lose a 1% of efficiency every year so I'd probably add 1 or 2 panels more.
Then I'd need a charge controller + 500
Power Inverter + 400 or so.
Storage Battery + 400 or so.

So total 4800 lets say 5000 for everything wires and tax and what not.
When can I expect to get that paid off?
Depends on much I use the AC. Lets say I use the AC 18 hours a day.
Lets say I typically pay 12 cents per kilowatt per hour.
That is $1972.35 per year I save on AC alone.
So within 2 and a half years I'll have made the money back I put into the project, only have lost about 2.5 % efficiency in my panels.
I will have minimized my green house gas emissions and my lowered my bill for some time there after.
I'll be investing in renewable energy.
Once the 20 years are up I will have saved 34,000 on my AC assuming no damage to the panels.

One huge problem: solar panels only produce their stated capacity (255w) at peak hours of the day. You're going to need more panels and batteries. Batteries only last a few years and they're costly to replace.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/solar-energys-duck-curve/

 

[AphexDreamer]

You missed the point: China is going to add far more natural gas capacity in the next 20 years than renewable energy capacity. China is the poster child of what not to do. His goal was to say "look at this country" and "we can do that too." Denmark is a far better example than China.


Investing in nuclear fusion makes far more sense. All of that money squandered on building turbines and solar panels becomes trash the moment fusion becomes a deployable technology.


One huge problem: solar panels only produce their stated capacity (255w) at peak hours of the day. You're going to need more panels and batteries. Batteries only last a few years and they're costly to replace.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/solar-energys-duck-curve/

I agree fusion is a fantastic concept and deserves investing as well and thankfully there are strides being made there too.
China just recently kept fusion going for a full minute I believe?
That however has no ETA and should be explored in tandem with other renewable technologies.

I realize that issue which is why I chose AC as my first choice.
I'll only run it when its hot and it should be especially hot when its sunny. Of course it can still be cloudy and hot hence batteries.

The duck curve you mention shouldn't be an issue for my single house electricity usage pattern.
However, I can see it being a valid point if everyone were to have the same pattern of electrical usage.
By that type of mass adoption rate I'd hope to see the Grid be a rare last resort for most homes while most relying on battery storage (most likely) or wind (less likely but still possible) rather than the Grid when sun is down.

As far the degradation of batteries I'm sure they will degrade. Although Tesla is about to release the solar roof shingles and a new battery until then assuming the battery lasts 2-3 years and cost me an extra 400-500, the cost of maintenance for the system still yields a profit.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Savings, not profit. You're also not figuring everything else like cooking appliances, garage door openers, computers, ghost devices (plugged in, drawing power, not in use), and so on.

In my case, energy consumption is the least in the summer and the most in the winter. Solar doesn't help here. You need the power at night and snow covering the panels is a perpetual problem. If you went strictly solar, it could literally kill you in a blizzard where you can't clean the panels.

Wind is generally a better power source but wind is, at times, unpredictable.

I think if a nation were truly serious about massively deploying a gridless energy system, the best solution is a wind + gas turbine combination, no batteries. Yes, you need to buy natural gas but the turbine only spools up to fill in gaps in current. It can produce reliable electricity without the efficiency lost in batteries. What's more, in periods where power is too much, both turbines can stop themselves so you don't need a grid to consume the excess.

Don't forget the environmental cost of dead batteries.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Savings, not profit. You're also not figuring everything else like cooking appliances, garage door openers, computers, ghost devices (plugged in, drawing power, not in use), and so on.

In my case, energy consumption is the least in the summer and the most in the winter. Solar doesn't help here. You need the power at night and snow covering the panels is a perpetual problem. If you went strictly solar, it could literally kill you in a blizzard where you can't clean the panels.

Wind is generally a better power source but wind is, at times, unpredictable.

I think if a nation were truly serious about massively deploying a gridless energy system, the best solution is a wind + gas turbine combination, no batteries. Yes, you need to buy natural gas but the turbine only spools up to fill in gaps in current. It can produce reliable electricity without the efficiency lost in batteries. What's more, in periods where power is too much, both turbines can stop themselves so you don't need a grid to consume the excess.

Don't forget the environmental cost of dead batteries.

I think your missing my point.

Which is to minimize fossil fuel usage, that much is possible in some respects.
Yes savings makes sense. I see it as a profit as well since electricity costs money and this is generating me money at no extra cost once I break even.

I'm not figuring everything else because that is not what my goal is (currently at least). Ideally I'd like everything to run on renewable but realistically I see it possible to start of on specifics and hope to work my way up. AC being the first milestone or perhaps something else useful but smaller.

Yes I can see winter being tougher for solar panel but also not impossible. We keep snow off of many things we can keep snow off of panels as well. Heck Alaska uses solar although I'm not sure to what extent. I know they have a 2 kW solar array for a village.

I'm not sure why you rule out batteries? Unless its just that you rule it out based on current modern battery technologies?
The batteries can be recycled I know of a place that takes them near me.

I'm all for other methods as long as the end result is a less negative impact on the environment.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Most power companies will charge you for putting in panels so, no, you don't make profit. Reason: the duck bill. You're giving them current when they don't need it and you're creating a problem after the sun goes down that they have to deal with lest transformers explode. You're investment is directly and indirectly costing them money and, so far, the power companies have won the argument that they need to be paid.


Enjoy some light reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_recycling

Recycling is a complicated, costly process. Just because a place "takes batteries" doesn't mean they actually recycle them.

I know they have a 2 kW solar array for a village.

Likely built on a millionaires vacation house. 2 kW is literally 10 meters squared of panels...virtually nothing.

 

[SK-1]

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

* * *
* * * * * *
I must apologize.

I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported
by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 93 years ago.

This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence?


Oh...and all the violent weather... smh
https://weather.com/storms/tornado/news/tornadoes-low-2016-fall-update

Now...8 continuous months of cooling...

 

[magibeg]

I don't think I've ever seen graphs that look like that for those periods of time, where did you find them?

 

[Ahhzz]

I don't think I've ever seen graphs that look like that for those periods of time, where did you find them?

It's a really, really dark place.. kinda stinky at times......



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201606


"Warmer to much-warmer-than-average conditions dominated across much of the globe's surface, resulting in the highest temperature departure for June since global temperature records began in 1880. This was also the 14th consecutive month the monthly global temperature record has been broken—the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping. The June 2016 combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous record set in 2015 by 0.02°C (0.04°F). June 2016 marks the 40th consecutive June with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average."

 

[SK-1]

I don't think I've ever seen graphs that look like that for those periods of time, where did you find them?

It's a really, really dark place.. kinda stinky at times......

No...I didn't pull this from Al Gore's asshole...
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/rss-land/

 

[magibeg]

It's a really, really dark place.. kinda stinky at times......



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201606


"Warmer to much-warmer-than-average conditions dominated across much of the globe's surface, resulting in the highest temperature departure for June since global temperature records began in 1880. This was also the 14th consecutive month the monthly global temperature record has been broken—the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping. The June 2016 combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous record set in 2015 by 0.02°C (0.04°F). June 2016 marks the 40th consecutive June with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average."

Alright then, I'm extra confused now haha. I clicked all links and seem to have missed where those graphs have come from. I'm not 100% sure what the baseline for them is because it doesn't make sense if you were keeping track of historical averages.

 

[Ahhzz]

Alright then, I'm extra confused now haha. I clicked all links and seem to have missed where those graphs have come from. I'm not 100% sure what the baseline for them is because it doesn't make sense if you were keeping track of historical averages.

I was being flippant. The statement I made had absolutely nothing to do with the graphs/links I posted, and everything to do with where he pulled the graph from.
The graph he's constructed supposedly comes from those links. They deal with weighted temperatures in different layers of the atmosphere, and even those pages say specifically "The plot shows the warming ot the troposphere over the last 3 decades which has been attributed to human-caused global warming" (.165K/decade) as well as "The plot shows the cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past 3 decades. This cooling is caused by a combination of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases. During the most recent decade, the rate of cooling has reduced substantially. "
Thanks for reinforcing Global Warming

 

[magibeg]

I was being flippant. The statement I made had absolutely nothing to do with the graphs/links I posted, and everything to do with where he pulled the graph from.
The graph he's constructed supposedly comes from those links. They deal with weighted temperatures in different layers of the atmosphere, and even those pages say specifically "The plot shows the warming ot the troposphere over the last 3 decades which has been attributed to human-caused global warming" (.165K/decade) as well as "The plot shows the cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past 3 decades. This cooling is caused by a combination of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases. During the most recent decade, the rate of cooling has reduced substantially. "
Thanks for reinforcing Global Warming

It is just getting very difficult to follow the global warming denier crowd as the data continues to pile up.

 

[SK-1]

It is just getting very difficult to follow the global warming denier crowd as the data continues to pile up.

Dude, I can relate..It's even MORE difficult for all us "Round Earthers" to follow the Corrupt Data and Crooked Scientists crowd!
For instance.

Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after poring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton.
"We know that sea ice in the Antarctic has increased slightly over the past 30 years, since satellite observations began. Scientists have been grappling to understand this trend in the context of global warming, but these new findings suggest it may not be anything new."
The findings demonstrate that the climate of Antarctica fluctuated significantly throughout the 20th century and indicates that sea ice in the Antarctic is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than that of the Arctic, which has experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th century.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...gbooks-prove-antarctic-sea-ice-not-shrinking/