zerostao

climate chaos

Recommended Posts

in that instance, I can say never - because the sun will balloon past earth's orbit before such a thing would ever happen - there's simply too much hydrogen here for co2 to ever dominate this atmosphere.  ;)

 

wiping out of ag would require a damned large asteroid!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in that instance, I can say never - because the sun will balloon past earth's orbit before such a thing would ever happen - there's simply too much hydrogen here for co2 to ever dominate this atmosphere.  ;)

 

wiping out of ag would require a damned large asteroid!

 

or a comet, supernova, or hypernova.  All these could blow earth's atmosphere into space.

 

And consider that just a little warming of the planet will increase volcanic activity and this would put vast amounts of CO2 and other deadly gases into the atmosphere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or a comet, supernova, or hypernova.  All these could blow earth's atmosphere into space.

 

And consider that just a little warming of the planet will increase volcanic activity and this would put vast amounts of CO2 and other deadly gases into the atmosphere.

 but I only said that earth will never have ~98 bar of pressure at the surface, and will never have 96% co2 in its atmosphere - your statements dont contradict that ;)

 

  given that I view NASA as completely compromised where the climate is concerned, its always good to   look  for other sources instead of only relying on Never A Straight Answer

 

its silly to think that co2 is the only contributor to ph - it will vary with temperature

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/21/temperature-dependence-of-ocean-ph-shows-co2-may-not-be-driver-of-ocean-acidification/

 

and I'm not surprised that the acidification view is seen as exaggerated

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/01/new-publication-demonstrates-that-scientists-have-routinely-exaggerated-the-evil-twin-of-climate-change-aka-ocean-acidification/

 

common chemical found in sunscreen shown to be toxic to coral (i.e. - that's actually pollution)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/20/oops-it-may-not-be-ocean-acidification-killing-coral-after-all-common-chemical-found-in-sunscreen-is-poisonous-to-coral-reefs/

 

‚ÄėBased on lab experiments and studies of other naturally low pH reef systems, this is the opposite of what we expected,‚Äô

‚ÄėSurprisingly, in Palau where the pH is lowest, we see a coral community that hosts more species, and has greater coral cover than in the sites where pH is normal,‚Äô

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/10/astonishing-finding-coral-reef-thriving-amid-ocean-acidification/

 

 So as usual, you can color me unconvinced :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 but I only said that earth will never have ~98 bar of pressure at the surface, and will never have 96% co2 in its atmosphere - your statements dont contradict that ;)

 

 

I'm actually kind of a middle roader on this issue.  Sure, man has not been and still isn't very kind to the planet that supports us.  We are constantly trashing it.

 

I doubt that I would try to support the concept of "Global Warming" very long.  But I will defend what I have said regarding "Climate Change".

 

But this change isn't only the doings of man.  These are natural changes that have happened before and will happen again with or without man on the planet.

 

But there is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with being environmentally responsible.  You know, like spitting out your chewing gum on the sidewalk so that others will step on it, get it stuck to their shoe and track it to unknown places possibly damaging property.

 

In a recent documentary one of the scientists said that if it were not for the CO2 in our atmosphere it is possible that most life on earth would become extinct.  So we do need some.  How much?  I have no idea but I'm sure there are those who would be willing to define maximum/minimum.

 

Most astro-phisicists I have heard speak to the issue state the Earth is right in the middle of the "Goldilocks" zone and this is one of the reasons Earth has flexibility regarding being able to support complex forms of life.

 

Personally, based on what I have heard lately potable water is going to become more of an issue than is CO2.  Most of this is a result of over-population and climate change.

 

And it's ironic that the Ganges River is the most "Holy" river on the planet but yet it is the most polluted major river on the planet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm...

 

http://www.un.org/climatechange/the-science/     <-- some sciency stuff

 

And can we all just take a moment to understand that 'man-made climate change' is not just about CO2 or greenhouse gases...?

 

Global warming is about these gases. You can deny man-made global warming if you want to -- and if you're a piece of shit, that'll sit OK with you, because who really cares, right? If you're wrong, you'll be dead soon enough anyway. Won't have to deal with the real consequences. (edit: and if you're not a piece of shit, why wouldn't you at least choose the side of caution? "I haven't seen proof that I believe to be infallible, therefore there's definitely no problem?" Fuck..)

 

But climate change is a bigger picture. Denying it is ludicrous. We are, without any shred of doubt, changing our environment, including the worldwide climate, in various and hazardous ways.

 

 

Deforestation

http://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/

http://europe.newsweek.com/brazils-deforestation-rates-are-rise-again-315648?rm=eu

 

Loss of trees, loss of habitat, dried up soil, desertification, water cycle change, temperature change.....

 

 

Pollution

http://www.apis.ac.uk/starters-guide-air-pollution-and-pollution-sources

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/teacher_resources/webfieldtrips/water_pollution/

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/deadzone.html

 

I can tell you first-hand about air and water pollution. Not just from living in Beijing, either -- it's evident in UK cities too.

 

 

Landfills/waste -- I'm not going to bother linking for this. We all know how much we waste every week.

 

 

See also:

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

Edited by dustybeijing
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always think of the planet as a place man has to learn to tame for his own benefit. Nothing is easy. Even gathering berries and nuts brings a degree of danger from the gathering process, to the toxicity of the product. We must compete with other animals and insects which are far better adapted to harvesting and the potential of other organisms which can infest it. Then there is the weather which can reduce a harvest to nothing in a couple of hours. Then there is the opportunity cost. We must consume energy and choose wisely how we expend that energy and the time must be utilised for the best. The harvest must be preserved in some way and that requires additional resource and time, it also requires specific tools and innovation. Sugars and salts, refrigeration, energy, containers, buildings all require resourcing in a similar way.

 

An animal does not care if it strips it's environment bare, but a human develops the concept of sustainability which must form part of the process of survival. A human can think of the concept on the micro level, but is now supposed to consider the macro level. Not only must he survive, but he is told he must do so by limiting any potential damage globally.

 

This is a completely impractical, illogical and hopeless kind of ideology whilst there is common ownership, a lack of private property protection and law. It is in effect communistic philosophy applied to one particular part of human survival. Instead of applying communism to the capitalisation of the production function, this applies communism directly to the production cycle itself. It says that you may grow wheat, but that you may not clear the ground, plough, fertilise, sow, use pesticide or gather the crop in case it causes some untoward damage. You may have the benefits of energy, but you must not mine, drill, burn or extract anything in order to use it and you must not use the energy in any way which will cause any damage whatsoever.

 

It is like telling someone they may have berries and nuts but they mustn't actually pick them for fear of the damage trail left by the process of doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  given that I view NASA as completely compromised where the climate is concerned, its always good to   look  for other sources instead of only relying on Never A Straight Answer

 

its silly to think that co2 is the only contributor to ph - it will vary with temperature

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/21/temperature-dependence-of-ocean-ph-shows-co2-may-not-be-driver-of-ocean-acidification/

 

James Barrante PhD is the writer of the article linked above and the links below are where his so called work has been brought into question. He comes up with statements such as "most climate scientists agree" without offering proof. I seriously doubt the guy is even a research scientist.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/03/blogging-climate-scientists/comment-page-3/

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/03/james-r-barrante-phd-ex-physical.html

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: but you'll give the others a pass for not including a professional statistician in their group, where one's competency would have been most needed

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:lol: but you'll give the others a pass for not including a professional statistician in their group, where one's competency would have been most needed

 

Scientists are well trained in statistical analysis. Your argument doesn't fly given the usual no evidence.

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Scientists are well trained in statistical analysis. Your argument doesn't fly given the usual no evidence.

Indeed, most scientists are trained in stats -- and (at this holds true for physicists) in error analysis, precision, uncertainty, calibration & significance.

 

One might wonder why I mention those topics in this thread...

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, most scientists are trained in stats -- and (at this holds true for physicists) in error analysis, precision, uncertainty, calibration & significance.

 

One might wonder why I mention those topics in this thread...

 

;)

You done good Brian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/groundwater-contamination-may-end-the-gas-fracking-boom/

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140915095851.htm

 

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Duke-University-Study-Links-Fracking-to-Ground-Water-Contamination.html

 

http://goodwatch.co/item/the-last-mountain/B005WQ2U28

i know there will be backlash against anything rfk jr is involved in, however a fully sustainable wind system that would ultimately produce more energy than the coal taken from the mountain was disregarded by then governor now senator manchin 

i can also cite catastrophes exceeding exxon valdez here in central appalachia that never make mainstream news. 

 

if human life and clean water are less important than mountaintop coal and fracked oil & gas then by all means throw caution to the wind

choices are made all the time

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And still, there are some societies on the planet that are engineering non-fossil fuel sources of energy.  Not all is lost.  Maybe there is hope for humankind after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/groundwater-contamination-may-end-the-gas-fracking-boom/

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140915095851.htm

 

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Duke-University-Study-Links-Fracking-to-Ground-Water-Contamination.html

 

http://goodwatch.co/item/the-last-mountain/B005WQ2U28

i know there will be backlash against anything rfk jr is involved in, however a fully sustainable wind system that would ultimately produce more energy than the coal taken from the mountain was disregarded by then governor now senator manchin 

i can also cite catastrophes exceeding exxon valdez here in central appalachia that never make mainstream news. 

 

if human life and clean water are less important than mountaintop coal and fracked oil & gas then by all means throw caution to the wind

choices are made all the time

No wind or solar system is fully sustainable. You are talking about replacing reliable power with a gamble. Sometimes there wouldn't be sufficient energy and the grid would be shut down. Hospitals, factories, homes, airports, street lighting, shops, ports, fuel stations would all be at the whim of wind and sun. Each would be forced to run back up generation of diesel or gas. This would increase fossil fuel consumption and the cost and maintenance would be astronomical.

 

Also, coal isn't simply an energy source, it is the origin of valuable chemicals, gases and solid products. It is also used to produce coke for steel manufacture and a huge source of carbon and plastics. Wind and solar won't miraculously produce those products. We would still need to mine and crack coal even if we stopped using it for power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Karl, but just think of the savings if wind and solar were primary with fossil fuel as backup/reserve.

 

And many solar systems are solar/thermal making the integration much easier.

 

And there is a lot of research and development in the field of tidal energy today.  If that can be well developed it would be another renewable energy source.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Karl, but just think of the savings if wind and solar were primary with fossil fuel as backup/reserve.

 

And many solar systems are solar/thermal making the integration much easier.

 

And there is a lot of research and development in the field of tidal energy today.  If that can be well developed it would be another renewable energy source.

They can never be primary MH. Its an impossible dream. At most they can make a contribution by reducing overall load at peak times but that would be primarily on domestic property. Thermal isn't a new technology and has been used for a long time in areas which see a lot of sunlight, it can help to reduce some of the energy used for heating water. However this is a tiny decrease in overall energy usage.

 

I have spent some time talking with engineers who are employed in the UK to discover innovative alternatives. These guys are aware of the huge waste of resources wind and solar are but have to support it as Government policy.

 

We are engineering backwards. It is the market that drives innovation and not Government policy. Only the market can do it and the Government can't manufacture one, it can only misdirect production resource into areas of diminishing return. It's a dead end and we may have already wasted far too much effort on old technology. There is not yet anything to suggest we should not continue to discover, recover and utilise the abundant reserves we have. The myth of peak oil has been replaced by the myth of AGW. It is undeniable that resource will dwindle and it may be true that we will have some effect on our own survival by producing excessive Co2, but that isn't a primary concern. We can't go backwards and this is what environmental pressure groups want. They wish to find the same kind of utopia of all ideologues and there are always those who will cash in on that belief.

 

If and when fossil fuels begin to require more resource to obtain them than the sustainable market price, then innovation will flower from people and places, in areas of science no one could have predicted. Hobbs continually predicted doom, but the reality was that his predictions never materialised. We have resolved problem after problem with no recourse the Government and we will continue to do so as long as we are free to do so and are not misdirected down blind alleys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not anything there I can honestly argue with.  However, I think you are under-estimating the potential of solar, wind, thermal, and tidal energy.

 

Iceland's energy resources are 85% renewable.  And they are shooting for 100%.  Other nations that have no natural resources of fossil fuels are trying to follow Iceland's example in their own way, primarily with wind and solar.

 

I present myself as an example:

 

I installed solar for the pumps for my fish ponds.  Payback came after five and a half years (about ten years ago).  I did all the work myself.

 

I also had my electric heating and air conditioning unit replaced with an energy efficient heat pump.

 

I save an average of $75 per month on my electric bill.

 

Germany has invested a large amount of money in solar and Germany does get nearly as much sun as many other places on the planet get.

 

True that very few areas of the planet will get away from fossil fuels.  But I think there is still a lot of room for reducing their usage.  That would allow them to be available for a longer time into the future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the effort was made to really get into sun, wind and tidal energy together with normalizing our lifestyle we would not now be were we are. we've lost 30 years but the technology is there to expand and get better, 

 

it's that the effort is not made, as simple as that. And governements can play a role in that by making it hard on dirty energy, in that case the big corporations would spent money on clean energy. simple market-thinking.

 

but somehow the will, the urgency is not there. we'll all pay for that

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not anything there I can honestly argue with.  However, I think you are under-estimating the potential of solar, wind, thermal, and tidal energy.

 

Iceland's energy resources are 85% renewable.  And they are shooting for 100%.  Other nations that have no natural resources of fossil fuels are trying to follow Iceland's example in their own way, primarily with wind and solar.

 

I present myself as an example:

 

I installed solar for the pumps for my fish ponds.  Payback came after five and a half years (about ten years ago).  I did all the work myself.

 

I also had my electric heating and air conditioning unit replaced with an energy efficient heat pump.

 

I save an average of $75 per month on my electric bill.

 

Germany has invested a large amount of money in solar and Germany does get nearly as much sun as many other places on the planet get.

 

True that very few areas of the planet will get away from fossil fuels.  But I think there is still a lot of room for reducing their usage.  That would allow them to be available for a longer time into the future.

It's not the under estimation, but the real world application. Iceland has thermal and hydro energy, has a small population with little heavy engineering. It essentially exports it's pollution to other countries. It's fishing fleet runs on diesel which it has to import.

Well, not anything there I can honestly argue with.  However, I think you are under-estimating the potential of solar, wind, thermal, and tidal energy.

 

Iceland's energy resources are 85% renewable.  And they are shooting for 100%.  Other nations that have no natural resources of fossil fuels are trying to follow Iceland's example in their own way, primarily with wind and solar.

 

I present myself as an example:

 

I installed solar for the pumps for my fish ponds.  Payback came after five and a half years (about ten years ago).  I did all the work myself.

 

I also had my electric heating and air conditioning unit replaced with an energy efficient heat pump.

 

I save an average of $75 per month on my electric bill.

 

Germany has invested a large amount of money in solar and Germany does get nearly as much sun as many other places on the planet get.

 

True that very few areas of the planet will get away from fossil fuels.  But I think there is still a lot of room for reducing their usage.  That would allow them to be available for a longer time into the future.

Iceland uses geothermal and hydroelectric which is abundant on the Island. It also has very few inhabitants. It's fishing industry still requires imported diesel, it relies on bulk aluminium imports which must also arrive via diesel bulk carriers. The aluminium ore has to be mined and blasted abroad using diesel trucks and diggers. It must export using diesel cargo ships. It's reliant on air transport which requires millions of gallons of fossil derived aviation fuels. Oil, greases, plastics, insulation, drugs, cosmetics, tyres are all derived from fossil fuels.

 

A country like Iceland is resource rich in terms of energy and this is a great example of the market working. Aluminium Smelting occurs there because power is cheap in comparison to other areas that need to import uranium, oil, coal and gas.

 

Hydro and geothermal are consistent energy sources unlike wind and solar.

 

You save money on your energy bills and that's fine, that's the market working. That isn't what's happening when the state interferes. When that happens the market stops working. The government acts like an entrepreneur, but it has no risk so it doesn't care if it makes huge losses, meanwhile people get greedy for the money the Government hands out, or the contracts it awards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the effort was made to really get into sun, wind and tidal energy together with normalizing our lifestyle we would not now be were we are. we've lost 30 years but the technology is there to expand and get better, 

 

it's that the effort is not made, as simple as that. And governements can play a role in that by making it hard on dirty energy, in that case the big corporations would spent money on clean energy. simple market-thinking.

 

but somehow the will, the urgency is not there. we'll all pay for that

Funnily enough the mess we are in (the UK) was caused by closing down coal power stations and allowing our nuclear power plants to become obsolete. We wasted huge amounts of tax payers money on useless wind turbines that produce less than 1% of our energy needs at a very high cost. You can't move around our country without encountering a wind turbine, they are everywhere, even spoiling our coastlines and beautiful scenery. They kill thousands of native birds every year and are responsible for creating noise that has driven residents insane.

 

The cost of all this ideology has been the destruction of much of our heavy engineering and put great numbers of the population into fuel poverty. Meanwhile the wealthy and the retired get subsidised solar cells and rental on wind turbines, all paid for by the tax payer. This is certainly the mess we are in and it is going to get worse. There are forecasts of brown outs and possible blackouts coming in the near future. New power stations will take years to build and in the meantime we have been forced to utilise short term gas fired stations which are highly inefficient and produce tons of carbon. Our single replacement nuclear power station has not even been started and potentially it never will, even if it does it will take 25 years to build, even if it can be built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't argue with anything you said.

 

But I still stand by what I said, we can develop alternative sources of energy and that will allow our fossil fuel resources to last longer.

 

I agree that governments, in the most part, are hindering the development of alternative sources of energy by supporting the big fossil fuels industries.

 

I do my part.  It's up to others to do theirs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't argue with anything you said.

 

But I still stand by what I said, we can develop alternative sources of energy and that will allow our fossil fuel resources to last longer.

 

I agree that governments, in the most part, are hindering the development of alternative sources of energy by supporting the big fossil fuels industries.

 

I do my part.  It's up to others to do theirs.

I'm sure we can, but only once the state gets out of the way. The fossil fuel industry is just as invested in green power and have also been busily financing it. It's important to understand the big picture here. We no longer have free markets, the world is based on debt, markets are created and financed by the same people who deliver your news, teach your children and Govern your country. In between the cracks grows the remnants of capitalism.

 

You saved yourself some money surely ? What part did you play ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You saved yourself some money surely ? What part did you play ?

I made choices Karl.  And I took action based on those choices.  I saved myself money and reduced fossil fuels emissions.  My carbon footprint is less than most people's is.

 

Does it matter to anyone else?  I doubt it but then I don't care either.

 

BTW  I did not ask my government if I could install solar panels.  And I did not ask my government if I could rebuild the solar-assist electric car I have and drive locally for shopping runs.  (I drive that car about once a week and I have not had to recharge the batteries during the past four months because the solar system handles all the demand.  And yes, that saved me money too.)

Edited by Marblehead
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites