When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

elderflower · 2018-11-05 05:49:20

Venice's troubles are at least partly of the city's own making. They have pumped a large proportion of the available ground water from beneath the city and lagoon leading to a fall in ground level and they (and the Italian government) have failed to implement adequate protective measures for many years.
Venice is one of the few areas of the Mediterranean that has respectable astronomical tides. when spring tides coincide with a strong southerly wind in the Adriatic La Serenissima has always flooded, but peak flooding has been getting worse over the years and the city has lost some of its serenity.

GW Johnson · 2018-11-05 10:30:10

Most of our problems are of our own making.

Seems silly to say our activities cannot affect climate, when we have transoceanic pollution effects. Too many rats in the box leads to a dirty box (and rats that kill and eat each other and their young).

Biggest problem here is that there's already more people on this planet than it can support. 7 billion is too many. Under 1 billion, not so much of a problem.

So, unless you want to use war and famine to depopulate down under a billion, then you had better start (1) seriously addressing pollution (including greenhouse gas pollution), (2) advocating reducing birth rates below death rates, and (3) figuring out how to make economies work with decreasing populations (something never successful before, with the "big boys" absconding with all the wealth).

GW

Terraformer · 2018-11-05 13:12:29

You also have to make it work at 7 billion, because it takes quite a few decades to get the population down even with a one child policy. Of course, if you can sustain 7 billion, why bother trying to get it down to a billion?

SpaceNut · 2018-11-05 19:13:56

The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×10^18 kg with estimated volume of water is about 3,100 cubic miles (12,900 cubic kilometers), which is roughly just 0.001% of all of the water on Earth. Earths air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. But its the % of oxygen that we breath that is important.

A typical human breathes between 12 and 20 times per minute at a rate primarily influenced by carbon dioxide concentration, altitude over 43,000 ft (13,000 m), where the ambient oxygen concentration is equivalent to 3.6% at sea level, an average individual can perform flying duties efficiently for only 9 to 12 seconds without oxygen supplementation.

Carbon Footprint is measured in tons CO2e/capita which is saying that rich people put out less co2 than a poor person which comes from conversion of energy needs. The global average in 2007 was around 5.7 tons CO2e/cap but EU average for this time was about 13.8 tons CO2e/cap, where as for the U.S., Luxembourg and Australia it was over 25 tons CO2e/cap.

If the global population is around 9-10 billion by 2050 a carbon footprint of about 2 - 2.5 tons CO2e per capita is needed to stay within a 2 °C target.

https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/carbon-footprint/

elderflower · 2018-11-07 04:31:53

I think we can comfortably sustain a population of considerably more than 7 billion, but not with rates of consumption at levels current in the West. For example we must increase the efficiency with which we use power, which is already happening in most industries as they try to drive costs down, and we will have to change our diets to include less meat. This is perfectly possible. Large numbers of Indian people live largely on vegetables and pulses with breads, rice, potatoes etc and the occasional bit of cheese, egg or dried fish. They have developed great ways of flavouring these to make a varied and delicious range of dishes. They don't use people food such as grains or alfalfa to feed animals.
Don't be seduced by the apparent simplicity of Malthusian economics. With every mouth comes a brain and a pair of hands. People are productive and creative and overall wealth is not limited, although particular resources may be.

kbd512 · 2018-11-07 07:26:48

Elderflower,

Thank you for seeing through this anti-human agenda. Human creativity is the only thing that leads to better lives for everyone. Killing people is not a solution to our problems. There are no such simpleton solutions to our current set of problems. We need every bright young mind we can get working to solve our problems. There are no functional limits to what humanity can achieve, except through the limits of our own ingenuity. The prognosticators of the past predicted mass starvation by the year 2000, but that never happened. There is no such thing as fate for humanity. Our fate is what we decide to make it.

Terraformer · 2018-11-07 10:02:19

Cars (auto-centric design), kids (having a next generation), cows (high meat consumption). Pick one.

SpaceNut · 2018-11-20 10:18:31

Climate change will bring multiple disasters at once, study warns

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0315-6

researchers identified 467 distinct ways in which society is already being impacted by increasing climate extremes

They examined the impact on human health, food supplies, water, the economy, infrastructure, and security from multiple factors including rising temperatures, drought, heat waves, wildfires, precipitation, floods, powerful storms, sea level rise and changes in land cover and ocean chemistry.

SpaceNut · 2018-11-23 21:41:03

Report says climate change will batter US economy

Climate Science Special Report Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://oehha.ca.gov/climate-change/rep … california

The report presents 36 indicators that show how climate change is affecting California. The report is intended to promote scientific analysis to inform decision-making on mitigating and adapting to climate change and to serve as a resource for decision makers, scientists, educators, and the public.

https://climate.nasa.gov/

SpaceNut · 2018-11-28 19:17:15

There are several greenhouse gasses and methane is on that list.
Observing the development of a deep-sea greenhouse gas filter

SpaceNut · 2018-12-02 22:20:14

Scientists reveal substantial water loss in global landlocked regions

"Recent Global Decline in Endorheic Basin Water Storage,"

Another impact due to the atmosphere heating is that it expands and with that the earths hold on it grows weaker so we are starting to loss some of what we are breathing.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/To_im … h_999.html

SpaceNut · 2018-12-06 18:38:10

Louis wrote:

I'm agnostic on how carbon emissions affect climate - I am not convinced we really know. But if you are convinced that carbon emissions are going to cause global catastrophe, then catastrophe is a cost and if you offset the cost through CO2 sequestration, that would be an economic gain.

That is just the reason for why Norway does not have any snow this year as the temperatures are up thanks to the sets of California wild fires and all of the others due to being to dry and not cleared before they start by maintenance of the forests.

The map in the above post showed where it was too dry and that is also where the fires were.

SpaceNut · 2019-04-24 18:25:06

Greenland ice sheet is now shrinking so fast that it's 'a bit scary' melting six times faster than it was in the 1980s.

kbd512 · 2019-04-24 18:37:18

SpaceNut,

If people are "scared" of the Greenland ice melt, then maybe they should be working on solutions instead of watching a slow motion train wreck. I guess that would take real effort. It's easier to go "Ooh! Ooh! Look at that!" than it is to problem solve. If they think there's a real problem, then they don't need to point to it because that doesn't do anything at all to solve the problem.

SpaceNut · 2019-04-30 19:36:41

Its Greenland the joke of the vikings where Iceland was part 2 of the naming of those places that they have gone before.
Illuminating Gases in The Sky: NASA Technology Pinpoints Potent Greenhouse Gases

The instrument is called the High Altitude Lidar Observatory (HALO). It uses light detection and ranging (lidar), which works by shooting a pencil-thin laser beam through the atmosphere.
Light from the pulsed laser bounces off molecules and particles suspended in the atmosphere, revealing what the human eye cannot see. The intensity of the signal reflected back to the lidar instrument gives the team the information they need to directly measure water vapor, as well as aerosol and cloud profiles.
Water vapor is the most abundant and potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It warms the air by trapping heat emitted from Earth, but also cools by forming bright clouds that reflect heat radiated by the Sun. HALO's data will help scientists as they research the extent of each of these processes.

So what about above the flight levels being done?

Understanding the water vapor in the earth atmosphere will also be looked at in terms of venus and mars as well so lets build more of these units and get them deploy in the atmospher of venus and mars on a balloon. With mars being able to confirm the data with maven....

SpaceNut · 2019-05-18 18:51:03

Several attempts later to find this topic success....

The alarms is sounding on the levels of co2 in earths atmospher but the issue is more than that as The air we breathe is full of heavy particulates that are causing damage to us when in close proximity to these power polluting plants.

Co2 is not the only one as nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide as well as many more which are as problematic.

Orbiting NASA instrument to examine Boston's carbon emissions, plant life

A quarter of glacier ice in West Antarctica is now unstable

We know that the ice is thinning as we have had some huge ice bergs break off and thats due to warming of the air and water....

Water cycle wrapped

SpaceNut · 2019-05-21 19:42:00

BP Investors Back Climate-Change Proposal Amid Activist Greenpeace Climate Protests Won’t Change BP. Shareholders

SpaceNut · 2019-05-26 19:45:07

Scientists are baffled by a giant spike in this greenhouse gas (it’s not CO2)

Scientists look at 55 greenhouse gases, including methane an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, absorbing heat 25 times more effectively than CO2.

kbd512 · 2019-05-27 13:58:29

SpaceNut,

This entire climate change agenda of solar panels and wind turbines and magic pixie dust (also known as making energy so expensive that our poor people can't afford it) won't work at all if other developing countries decide they don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. For whatever reason, that's exactly what former President Obama signed his name to, without bothering to ratify an international treaty through our Congress. Your guess about why it was done that way is as good as mine is.

How scientists unraveled the mystery behind the return of a banned greenhouse gas

While everyone is wetting their panties over this little trade dispute with China, the Chinese industrial base continues to pollute Earth's environment at a rate far in excess of anything that the US ever managed to do, all in the name of manufacturing something for a few pennies cheaper than the other countries that do adhere to established international environmental treaties. Unnecessarily handicapping the American economy to create this new energy infrastructure using technology we can't afford, that ultimately makes no difference to Earth's environment or climate when the rest of the developing world continues to pollute without consequence, is just absurd.

Should we start a war with them over this silliness?

How about India (one of America's allies in that region), too?

And every other developing country in the world?

If not, then maybe we should start seriously pursuing more practical alternatives. The batteries and solar panels aren't getting the job done. They're still a joke compared to the amount of power we ultimately need to live in a practical technologically advanced civilization built using existing technology.

When I told Josh he changed my opinion on this, I meant every word of it. However, I demand practical alternatives that work using existing technology. That was why I proposed using LNH3 fuel cells, which are more than good enough to continue to power civilization and drastically reduce both total greenhouse gas emissions and the sheer number of source emitters. LNH3 is the only CO2-free Hydrogen energy carrier alternative to liquid hydrocarbons that uses existing technology and infrastructure and doesn't spew more CO2 into the atmosphere. When combined with Haber-Bosch CO2 sequestration for CNT manufacture, it's a synergistic approach to the problem that combines vastly lighter and stronger materials, mechanically superior in every way that matters for load bearing structures, with vastly cleaner fuels. Equally important is that "the plan" provides like-kind energy and power density for all existing internal combustion engines of every description, except rocket engines. The rocket engines contribute so little to pollution that we can safely ignore any greenhouse gas contributions from their limited use.

If someone propose that we solve the world's energy problems with fusion power, then I demand to see a working fusion reactor. So far as I know, there aren't any, there never have been, and we have no time table for when we might see a functional fusion reactor that can produce commercial electric power. If solar panels and wind turbines and batteries were going to swoop in and "save the day", then countries like Germany wouldn't still be burning coal. If nuclear technologies are to be ignored, then the practical alternatives for 24/7 power are liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons converted into LNH3 and CNT. I argued for using nuclear power purely based upon how well it works and how little it pollutes. All the solar panels and wind turbines in the world still can't reliably provide 24/7 power, which is what we require. So... There it is- the fundamental nature of the problem.

So, what would you do about all these developing countries. We aren't providing any practical alternatives to fossil fuels.

Think it might be time to start investing in fuel cells, or are we still waiting for miracle batteries (batteries that match liquid hydrocarbons in terms of effective power and energy density) that simply don't exist?

I still haven't received an answer to that last question. If scientists think we're in deep trouble, then maybe they should start proposing practical solutions.

SpaceNut · 2019-05-27 15:40:03

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
This entire climate change agenda of solar panels and wind turbines and magic pixie dust (also known as making energy so expensive that our poor people can't afford it)
maybe we should start seriously pursuing more practical alternatives. The batteries and solar panels aren't getting the job done. They're still a joke compared to the amount of power we ultimately need to live in a practical technologically advanced civilization built using existing technology.
When I told Josh he changed my opinion on this, I meant every word of it. However, I demand practical alternatives that work using existing technology. That was why I proposed using LNH3 fuel cells, which are more than good enough to continue to power civilization and drastically reduce both total greenhouse gas emissions and the sheer number of source emitters.

I have started looking at how to change my energy use of which I know that winter is higher than in summer but beyond that what does not need to be own, what can be operated at a lower level of wattage and getting that item changed out, looking to use single solar with lights to do the job with sensors for motion and night time detection rather than full scale root top panels....

I would love a fuel cell application for home use but thats even more costly or be able to build one...
Even electrolysis and use of brown gas may be the way to go with an ICE generator for creating power but even that is not without issues....

kbd512 · 2019-05-27 16:25:05

SpaceNut,

There are issues with every alternative. There are no simple solutions because the totality of the problem is mind-blowingly complicated. For every question I answer, at least two more pop up. I'm purely interested in the practicality of replacing the greatest emitters of CO2, by total tonnage of CO2 emitted and by sheer quantity of emitters, with a practical CO2-free or CO2-captured alternatives. I read about better batteries / solar panels / wind turbines / fuel cells at least once a day, but I'm not overly interested in things that don't exist right now. I don't think we've completely tapped out better combustion engine efficiency, but we're all aware of the Carnot efficiency limitations of heat engines. As such, I spend a lot more time on technologies that don't already come with that limitation baked into them. I'm a number cruncher by trade, so I take what I know- which is never as much as I'd like to know, crunch numbers, analyze the result, and repeat. Lately, I've been looking less at basic technologies and more at technology trade spaces, market shares, and potential replacement or revitalization when existing vehicles or power plants reach the end of their useful service lives.

The key applications for this new energy economy are mass transportation technologies, as defined by either the number of vehicles or the size of the vehicles in question, and commercial electric power plants that currently use coal or gas. Banning gas powered power tools or the use of commercial aircraft is just ignorant beyond belief. If that's the kind of "alternative solutions" that our society's "creative thinkers" are coming up with to curb CO2 emissions, then they need to go back to the drawing board. We don't solve the problem of an uneven foundation beneath our home by burning down the house. That kind of nonsense has no place in the discussion about what we should do about climate change.

SpaceNut · 2019-06-01 11:23:46

I recall the arguement of measurement was in the acuracy and means not from the source methods which for a long period from satelites had not been.
New Studies Increase Confidence in NASA's Measure of Earth's Temperature

GW Johnson · 2019-06-01 14:58:34

The Manhattan Project was created to address the problem of Nazi Germany possibly developing an atomic bomb that we did not possess. Among many other things, its success demonstrates that concerted action with a scientific basis produces results.

That same sort of thing is needed to solve the intermittency problem with wind power and solar power. We need a grid scale storage solution to get through the intervals when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. The science is there to do this.

Texas is the national leader in wind power production, and by far, reportedly about 25% of the total national production. We already know it is economic, and it is about 16% of all the electric energy production in the state.

The experience of others before we got to this point suggests that intermittent renewables should comprise about 15% at most of your mix. Precisely because of grid capacity shortfalls when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine. This is confirmed by ERCOT predicting for 2019 summer about 7% margin in production vs the 13% margin desired, attributable directly to the risks of intermittency.

You can take all the pro-fossil and anti-fossil politics and throw it in the trash can. What that really says is do a "Manhattan Project" and fix the grid-scale storage problem. That entirely removes the intermittency constraint of max 15% renewables. Then the market can operate as it usually does to favor the optimal mix. Whatever that really is.

I fail entirely to understand how anybody could argue with a strategy like that.

GW

kbd512 · 2019-06-01 15:29:45

GW,

I think I can make a pretty succinct argument about why what you proposed is a bad strategy.

Scientists have been researching better battery technology for longer than nuclear weapons or nuclear power have existed, yet we're still more than an order of magnitude short of a battery chemistry with an energy density that competes with fossil fuels. The battery technology that we do have costs as much as an entire fossil fuel powered car to make, whereupon someone still has to pay for the rest of the car.

The fuel cells do not require a massive basic research project in order to move forward. The technology is only more expensive than combustion engines because it's not mass manufactured in the same way that combustion engines are mass manufactured. The fuel cells are no more complicated to manufacture than batteries, certainly less complicated than modern combustion engines, and the Alkaline fuel cells use very cheap and abundant catalysts and structural materials. Scaling up production is certainly not as difficult as researching, developing, and then manufacturing a fundamentally new battery chemistry that we have yet to even identify through more decades of basic research than nuclear technologies have benefited from.

If the goal is to do something effective about the climate change problem before it gets worse than it already is, then maybe we should put more effort into existing suitable fuel cell technology, which already produces energy density matching or exceeding fossil fuels burned in combustion engines.

SpaceNut · 2019-06-01 17:07:29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_ … equivalent

A gallon of gasoline (roughly 4.5 liters) weighs approximately 6 pounds (less than 3 kilos), occupies a mere 230 cubic inches but contains the equivalent of 36 kWhs of electrical energy. For better or worse, this is the energy density standard to which the driving public has gotten accustomed over the years. Anything heavier, bulkier or with less energy density would be considered inferior, hence the main obstacle to popularity of PEVs. Current batteries suffer from four limitations, limited range, heavy weight, long charging time and limited charge-discharge cycles – among others.

https://www.ocean.washington.edu/course … umbers.pdf

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#376 2018-11-05 05:49:20

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#377 2018-11-05 10:30:10

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#378 2018-11-05 13:12:29

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#379 2018-11-05 19:13:56

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#380 2018-11-07 04:31:53

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#381 2018-11-07 07:26:48

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#382 2018-11-07 10:02:19

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#383 2018-11-20 10:18:31

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#384 2018-11-23 21:41:03

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#385 2018-11-28 19:17:15

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#386 2018-12-02 22:20:14

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#387 2018-12-06 18:38:10

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#388 2019-04-24 18:25:06

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#389 2019-04-24 18:37:18

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#390 2019-04-30 19:36:41

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#391 2019-05-18 18:51:03

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#392 2019-05-21 19:42:00

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#393 2019-05-26 19:45:07

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#394 2019-05-27 13:58:29

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#395 2019-05-27 15:40:03

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#396 2019-05-27 16:25:05

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#397 2019-06-01 11:23:46

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#398 2019-06-01 14:58:34

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#399 2019-06-01 15:29:45

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#400 2019-06-01 17:07:29

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Board footer