PDA

View Full Version : Climate fix



Gremlinzzz
October 2nd, 2011, 02:19 AM
About time they took global warming seriously:popcorn:
A pioneering test of a climate "tech fix" planned for October faces a six-month delay as scientists discuss the issues it raises with their critics.
The project is supported to the tune of £1.6m by UK research councils, including the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), whose independent advisory panel recommended the delay last week.
the shield sounds interesting :popcorn:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15132989

grahammechanical
October 2nd, 2011, 02:11 PM
It will be just my luck that they will test this out and my lovely day at the beach will be spoilt by a drizzle of rain.

Do you want all those sulphate particles coming down in your garden? That is the social aspect of this idea. Let us just set off a few volcanoes. That will cool things down. Do not actually reduce C02 just set up a market to trade vouchers to continue pumping it into the atmosphere.

Says he sitting in England which is right now experiencing the hottest end to September and the start of October since records were started. Iceland volcano, all is forgiven.

And my new Oneiric wallpaper has just changed to a view of a snow covered mountain.

Regards.

Paqman
October 2nd, 2011, 02:44 PM
Geoengineering is a nascent field, and will need decades of very careful R&D before anything could be deployed at a large enough scale to deal with our impending climate problems, by which time we will have had to adjust heavily in other areas. Describing it as a "fix" is hugely premature.

BigCityCat
October 2nd, 2011, 07:52 PM
This is how I feel about it.


The revelations from the e-mails hacked last fall from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have reduced the credibility of one of the world's leading atmospheric institutions to "junk science," Sussman says.

"The e-mails reveal that the world's leading climate scientists were working together to block Freedom of Information requests to review their data, marginalize dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process and obscure, massage or delete inconvenient temperature readings," Sussman says. "One certainly wonders, why? Especially since Al Gore has assured the world that 'the science is settled.'"

As Sussman proves in "Climategate," the science is indeed settled – settled that global warming is a fraud.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 2nd, 2011, 08:11 PM
This is how I feel about it.

The revelations from the e-mails hacked last fall from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have reduced the credibility of one of the world's leading atmospheric institutions to "junk science," Sussman says.

"The e-mails reveal that the world's leading climate scientists were working together to block Freedom of Information requests to review their data, marginalize dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process and obscure, massage or delete inconvenient temperature readings," Sussman says. "One certainly wonders, why? Especially since Al Gore has assured the world that 'the science is settled.'"

As Sussman proves in "Climategate," the science is indeed settled – settled that global warming is a fraud.
http://http://www.celsias.com/media/uploads/admin/head_in_the_sand.jpg

Head in the sand, anybody?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

By the way, are you referring to Barry Sussman (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Barry_Sussman ) or Brian Sussman (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Brian_Sussman )?
I mean, I can clearly see how either a political journalist or a talk radio host are more qualified to talk about climate than just a bunch of stupid scientists...right?
http://http://www.celsias.com/media/uploads/admin/head_in_the_sand.jpg

angryfirelord
October 2nd, 2011, 09:44 PM
This was actually talked about before and one of the issues with the "sulphate particles" is that they could end up damaging the ozone. So it's not clear whether we would be any better off.

zer010
October 2nd, 2011, 10:12 PM
This thread will soon be closed due to the inexorable political connections concerning theory and policy....

drawkcab
October 2nd, 2011, 11:13 PM
This is how I feel about it.

That information is relevant to the issue of whether or not those scientists are credible and/or committed to transparency.

That information is not relevant to the issue of whether or not global warming is real nor is it relevant to the issue of whether or not the scientific community at large is credible.

Gremlinzzz
October 3rd, 2011, 01:10 AM
So are there any other ideas,how to fix it?
or are we going to ignore the tides rising and heat records being broken.
I think the shield might help:popcorn:

GerryB
October 3rd, 2011, 01:23 AM
BigCityCat I'm with you on this one. I wouldn't say climate change is a fraud but IPCC reports on climate change are. Scientists should stick to reporting on the science they know and not become polical scientists. Mankind has lived through much warmer times than now, for example 1,000 years ago (there was a time when Greenland really was green at least seen from the sea and the Vikings established a colony in northern Newfoundland that was very much like their homeland) winter and summer temperatures were much warmer than now. The climate has always changed and will always change, with man or without him. CO2 is but a fraction of the problem and, according to many scientists, might not even be one. Glaciers have been retreating since the last ice age, sometimes slower, sometimes faster. This will continue until the next ice age. I think a lot of decision makers have gotten the real picture - there is no rush. Ocean levels will only rise marginally, hurricanes will not be more abundant or destructive and polar bears will not disappear...I hope the IPCC has realized you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Gremlinzzz
October 3rd, 2011, 02:13 AM
BigCityCat I'm with you on this one. I wouldn't say climate change is a fraud but IPCC reports on climate change are. Scientists should stick to reporting on the science they know and not become polical scientists. Mankind has lived through much warmer times than now, for example 1,000 years ago (there was a time when Greenland really was green at least seen from the sea and the Vikings established a colony in northern Newfoundland that was very much like their homeland) winter and summer temperatures were much warmer than now. The climate has always changed and will always change, with man or without him. CO2 is but a fraction of the problem and, according to many scientists, might not even be one. Glaciers have been retreating since the last ice age, sometimes slower, sometimes faster. This will continue until the next ice age. I think a lot of decision makers have gotten the real picture - there is no rush. Ocean levels will only rise marginally, hurricanes will not be more abundant or destructive and polar bears will not disappear...I hope the IPCC has realized you can't fool all of the people all of the time.



Why has it been so difficult to achieve meaningful solutions? Media pundits, partisan think tanks, and special interest groups funded by fossil fuel and related industries raise doubts about the truth of global warming. These deniers downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, demand policies that allow industries to continue polluting, and attempt to undercut existing pollution standards. :popcorn:

Inodoro Pereyra
October 3rd, 2011, 02:13 AM
So are there any other ideas,how to fix it?
or are we going to ignore the tides rising and heat records being broken.
I think the shield might help:popcorn:

Well, judging by some posts on this thread, and many others, looks like there's a lot of people specifically interested on keeping their heads buried.
But, going back to your first question, I'd say stop wasting energy, minimize contamination, reforest...
I think there are plenty of good ideas, that if instrumented together, may not revert the problem immediately, but should control it in the short-medium term. Either way, any idea is better than combating pollution with more pollution...

Gremlinzzz
October 3rd, 2011, 02:54 AM
Well, judging by some posts on this thread, and many others, looks like there's a lot of people specifically interested on keeping their heads buried.
But, going back to your first question, I'd say stop wasting energy, minimize contamination, reforest...
I think there are plenty of good ideas, that if instrumented together, may not revert the problem immediately, but should control it in the short-medium term. Either way, any idea is better than combating pollution with more pollution...

Those ideas would work and we do need a long term solution.
hope we find one soon .this pollution not only effects the planets health but ours too:popcorn:

GerryB
October 3rd, 2011, 03:08 AM
If pollution is the real concern, then yes, let's eliminate as much of it as possible. Improving technology at all levels should accomplish this - that's where governments should funnel the money or at least establish conditions for private enterprise to move fast on this. Transferring carbon credits like the IPCC would like governments to adopt is part of a hidden agenda. You hit the nail on the head: the issue is pollution not climate change.

Dr. C
October 3rd, 2011, 03:22 AM
Why has it been so difficult to achieve meaningful solutions? Media pundits, partisan think tanks, and special interest groups funded by fossil fuel and related industries raise doubts about the truth of global warming. These deniers downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, demand policies that allow industries to continue polluting, and attempt to undercut existing pollution standards. :popcorn:

Sometimes one has to think out side of the box. Since this is after all Ubuntu Forums some questions that come to mind are:

Does how software is licensed have an impact on the environment?

Is Free Libre Open Source Software better or worse for the environment that Propriety software?

What impact if any does DRM have on the environment?

What impact do locked devices vs unlocked devices have on the environment?

Ewaste is a very fast growing environmental problem, but one also have to consider energy consumption during the lifetime of the device or computer.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 3rd, 2011, 03:38 AM
Those ideas would work and we do need a long term solution.
hope we find one soon .this pollution not only effects the planets health but ours too:popcorn:

The solutions are there already, they just need to be put to use.
Unfortunately, I see lots of people talking about climate change. Lots of people claiming for a solution. But nobody is willing to do anything about it.
More than a month ago, another member of this forum opened a forum specifically dedicated to discussing matters that directly or indirectly affect climate change. At the time, he announced it here. NOBODY from this forum has signed in. I also announced it on several other forums I'm a member of. As of today, that forum has only 2 members: him, and me. Seems it's much easier to gripe about a problem, than to help solve it.


If pollution is the real concern, then yes, let's eliminate as much of it as possible. Improving technology at all levels should accomplish this - that's where governments should funnel the money or at least establish conditions for private enterprise to move fast on this. Transferring carbon credits like the IPCC would like governments to adopt is part of a hidden agenda. You hit the nail on the head: the issue is pollution not climate change.

Sure. And we're all a bunch of idiots, coming here with no other purpose than to let you manipulate us.
Pollution is the reason climate change has become a problem, and yes, we need to stop polluting, in order to minimize, and eventually stop climate change.
But yes, let's all sit on our hands, and wait for the government to solve everything. After all, they have been so forthcoming and effective in the past, what could we have not to trust them?:rolleyes:

inobe
October 3rd, 2011, 03:50 AM
If pollution is the real concern, then yes, let's eliminate as much of it as possible. Improving technology at all levels should accomplish this - that's where governments should funnel the money or at least establish conditions for private enterprise to move fast on this. Transferring carbon credits like the IPCC would like governments to adopt is part of a hidden agenda. You hit the nail on the head: the issue is pollution not climate change.

the issue is in fact pollution.

coal for example powers 51% of the united states, the amount of mercury and other toxic pollutants, well, it's mind blowing.

this is not including petroleum, the 350 million vehicles using it on a daily basis in the u.s. alone.

the obvious says a lot, besides individual opinions on the matter, we should all look past our fence beyond our backyards.

Dr. C
October 3rd, 2011, 03:51 AM
The solutions are there already, they just need to be put to use.
Unfortunately, I see lots of people talking about climate change. Lots of people claiming for a solution. But nobody is willing to do anything about it.
More than a month ago, another member of this forum opened a forum specifically dedicated to discussing matters that directly or indirectly affect climate change. At the time, he announced it here. NOBODY from this forum has signed in. I also announced it on several other forums I'm a member of. As of today, that forum has only 2 members: him, and me. Seems it's much easier to gripe about a problem, than to help solve it.



Sure. And we're all a bunch of idiots, coming here with no other purpose than to let you manipulate us.
Pollution is the reason climate change has become a problem, and yes, we need to stop polluting, in order to minimize, and eventually stop climate change.
But yes, let's all sit on our hands, and wait for the government to solve everything. After all, they have been so forthcoming and effective in the past, what could we have not to trust them?:rolleyes:

My first thought here is think global and act local. Acting local in this community means focusing more on how we use computers, devices and software and what the environmental impact of our choices are.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 3rd, 2011, 04:07 AM
My first thought here is think global and act local. Acting local in this community means focusing more on how we use computers, devices and software and what the environmental impact of our choices are.

Exactly. Focusing on how we use computers..., and lights, and fuel, and pretty much everything. Using CFL's instead of incandescent bulbs would make a big difference in your energy consumption. Leaving your big SUV in your garage, and using a smaller, 30 or more mpg car for your daily commute, buying your food locally, instead of buying food that comes from halfway around the World, and a looooong list of other things. If a large enough portion of the population did that consistently, not only we copuld control climate change, but we'd all live better while we're at it.

Dr. C
October 3rd, 2011, 04:36 AM
Exactly. Focusing on how we use computers..., and lights, and fuel, and pretty much everything. Using CFL's instead of incandescent bulbs would make a big difference in your energy consumption. Leaving your big SUV in your garage, and using a smaller, 30 or more mpg car for your daily commute, buying your food locally, instead of buying food that comes from halfway around the World, and a looooong list of other things. If a large enough portion of the population did that consistently, not only we copuld control climate change, but we'd all live better while we're at it.

Some times it is not that simple. Here in North Central BC the advantage of a CFL over an incandescent for home use is more often than not minimal. Why because we have long summer days and long winter nights. So one ends up using the lights mostly during the normal heating season, and so called "wasted heat" from the incandescent helps heat your home. At the same time CFLs use more toxic materials than incandescents. Go south 1000km and CFLs make sense, go north 1000km and CFLs do not make sense at all. LEDs are a better technology than both in any case. Walking to work and driving a Hummer once every two weeks may be better than diving a small car every day to work. Here in the winter because of the snow the choice is more often than not a heavier vehicle, pickup truck, SUV, etc or a good pair of winter boots. A small car will get stuck in the snow more often than not.

Paqman
October 3rd, 2011, 05:42 AM
So are there any other ideas,how to fix it?


Short term: set harsh targets for reductions in greenhouse gases. Drive efficiency improvements (eg: high speed rail, CHP+district heating/cooling, switch from coal to gas CCGTs, etc)
Medium term: invest heavily in the low-carbon energy options available using current or emerging technologies (carbon capture and sequestration, fuel cells, hydrogen from fossil fuels, wind/wave/tidal/solar/biomass, etc)
Long term: transition to an entirely low or zero carbon economy (eg: hydrogen from renewables, fusion, etc)

Some of this is being done already, although it's not happening fast enough to avoid a major crunch over fossil fuels towards the middle of the century. That's when you'll start to see the biggest changes, due to the climbing prices of fossil fuel energy.

I don't really see geoengineering making a credible contribution within this time frame. I think we're more likely to get fusion online before then (which is saying something!)

Inodoro Pereyra
October 3rd, 2011, 05:44 AM
Some times it is not that simple. Here in North Central BC the advantage of a CFL over an incandescent for home use is more often than not minimal. Why because we have long summer days and long winter nights. So one ends up using the lights mostly during the normal heating season, and so called "wasted heat" from the incandescent helps heat your home. At the same time CFLs use more toxic materials than incandescents. Go south 1000km and CFLs make sense, go north 1000km and CFLs do not make sense at all. LEDs are a better technology than both in any case. Walking to work and driving a Hummer once every two weeks may be better than diving a small car every day to work. Here in the winter because of the snow the choice is more often than not a heavier vehicle, pickup truck, SUV, etc or a good pair of winter boots. A small car will get stuck in the snow more often than not.

Hmmm...no. It doesn't matter how minimal the advantage is, it's still an advantage. That's exactly the argument most people use to justify doing nothing.
As per CFLs using toxic materials, a CFL uses between 3 and 5 milligrams of mercury, which is fully recyclable. Meanwhile, it saves several times that amount of mercury from being released into the atmosphere, by the coal powered plants that provide you with electricity. Meanwhile, incandescent bulbs have tungsten filaments that are not recyclable (actually, as far as I know, there's no program whatsoever to recycle incandescent bulbs, at all), consume several times more than CFLs (and therefore, produce much more pollutants), and their expected lifetime is a fraction that of CFLs.
Of course, LED lights are a much better technology, but they're expensive. If you can afford them, that'd be perfect, but many people can't.
As per the "wasted heat", believe me when I tell you, unless you live in a shoe box, it doesn't make a difference. You would get far better results just upgrading your insulation.
Walking every day to work would be perfect, if you work close enough to your place, but most people don't have that luxury. For those people, having a small car would make a big difference, not only for the environment, but also for their wallet.
Finally, I still can't understand why North Americans in general (Canadians and Americans) seem to think they're the only people in the World to have snow and mountains. EVERYBODY ELSE in the World can deal with the snow, and with mountains that, in many cases, are much taller, and much more difficult to drive across, and nobody needs big trucks, or huge 6 or 7L engines to do so.

Paqman
October 3rd, 2011, 05:51 AM
So one ends up using the lights mostly during the normal heating season, and so called "wasted heat" from the incandescent helps heat your home.

You want to heat your home using expensive electricity? By mounting tiny inefficient heaters at ceiling level? Hardly the most efficient way to heat your home.

You'd save both money and energy by switching to CFLs and using a proper heating system. If you don't have piped gas where you are then thermostatically controlled resistance heaters (or better yet a heat pump) would be much more efficient at heating your home using electricity.

But yes, more insulation is the first place to start. Get 250mm+ into your loft, insulate your walls, replace any single glazing with double, and cut down on air leaks and you'd get a lot warmer than you would cuddling up to a lightbulb.

Dr. C
October 3rd, 2011, 06:45 AM
Hmmm...no. It doesn't matter how minimal the advantage is, it's still an advantage. That's exactly the argument most people use to justify doing nothing.
As per CFLs using toxic materials, a CFL uses between 3 and 5 milligrams of mercury, which is fully recyclable. Meanwhile, it saves several times that amount of mercury from being released into the atmosphere, by the coal powered plants that provide you with electricity. Meanwhile, incandescent bulbs have tungsten filaments that are not recyclable (actually, as far as I know, there's no program whatsoever to recycle incandescent bulbs, at all), consume several times more than CFLs (and therefore, produce much more pollutants), and their expected lifetime is a fraction that of CFLs.
Of course, LED lights are a much better technology, but they're expensive. If you can afford them, that'd be perfect, but many people can't.
As per the "wasted heat", believe me when I tell you, unless you live in a shoe box, it doesn't make a difference. You would get far better results just upgrading your insulation.
Walking every day to work would be perfect, if you work close enough to your place, but most people don't have that luxury. For those people, having a small car would make a big difference, not only for the environment, but also for their wallet.
Finally, I still can't understand why North Americans in general (Canadians and Americans) seem to think they're the only people in the World to have snow and mountains. EVERYBODY ELSE in the World can deal with the snow, and with mountains that, in many cases, are much taller, and much more difficult to drive across, and nobody needs big trucks, or huge 6 or 7L engines to do so.

I'll stick with my winter boots for commuting. As for LED lights they are dropping fast in price so this debate will soon be moot.

There is however another topic quite different and a with huge environmental impact that is not recognized even by some of the major environmental organizations. This is the licensing of software and the policies of Microsoft and Apple. I visited the ewaste page for Greenpeace International http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/the-e-waste-problem/ and they mention


The average lifespan of computers in developed countries has dropped from six years in 1997 to just two years in 2005.

Mobile phones have a lifecycle of less than two years in developed countries.

The question is why are people throwing away so many computers and other devices? Take the pricing for Microsoft software for example:
Windows 7 Pro Full retail: $324.99
Office 2010 Pro Full Retail $649.87
Total Full Retail $979.86
Windows 7 Pro OEM: $149.98
Office 2010 Pro OEM $297.00
Total OEM $446.98
These are prices I found in Canada in Canadian dollars from various retailers.

The difference in price comes to over $500 more than enough to buy a new computer and throw the old one away. In short the way Microsoft licenses and prices its software provides a huge incentive for the creation of ewaste in the marketplace. When one considers Microsoft's world wide market dominance it is hardly surprising that we have a huge and growing ewaste problem.

Apple is even worse since in order to license their Operating System one has to purchase a new computer. Furthermore a very significant part of their business model is selling locked down devices.

In the phone case my question becomes: How many of these discarded phones were locked to a particular service provider and were sold under a contract where the end user is offered another phone rather than a drop in price at the end of the contract?

The real environmental problem here is not the hardware manufactures that everyone including the environmental movement is focusing on, but rather propriety software, movie, phone, and other content companies that use DRM and content licensing policies to promote the creation of ewaste on a massive worldwide scale. Microsoft, Apple, AT&T or the MPAA members may actually be responsible for a greater environmental damage than BP or the Tokyo Electric Power Company.

There is one very simple option here. Promote FLOSS including GNU / Linux and DRM free content as the green alternative, while at the same time raising the awareness of some on the leaser known environmental culprits.

GerryB
October 3rd, 2011, 01:05 PM
the issue is in fact pollution.

coal for example powers 51% of the united states, the amount of mercury and other toxic pollutants, well, it's mind blowing.

this is not including petroleum, the 350 million vehicles using it on a daily basis in the u.s. alone.

the obvious says a lot, besides individual opinions on the matter, we should all look past our fence beyond our backyards.

And think of what India, China and Brazil will consume, to mention only the most dynamic economies. The answer has to be better technology.

angryfirelord
October 3rd, 2011, 11:46 PM
Hmmm...no. It doesn't matter how minimal the advantage is, it's still an advantage. That's exactly the argument most people use to justify doing nothing.
As per CFLs using toxic materials, a CFL uses between 3 and 5 milligrams of mercury, which is fully recyclable. Meanwhile, it saves several times that amount of mercury from being released into the atmosphere, by the coal powered plants that provide you with electricity. Meanwhile, incandescent bulbs have tungsten filaments that are not recyclable (actually, as far as I know, there's no program whatsoever to recycle incandescent bulbs, at all), consume several times more than CFLs (and therefore, produce much more pollutants), and their expected lifetime is a fraction that of CFLs.
Ah, but there is a slight twist to that (no pun intended). While it's true that CFLs consume far less power, they require far more energy when they are made. It also extends to recycling, which is a very energy intensive process. In addition, you also have to watch out for cheap bulbs, as when the bulb nears the end of its life, there's a risk that the ballast doesn't fail gracefully and can catch fire. CFLs are a good first step, but it shouldn't be looked at as the final solution. LEDs will be a lot better, but they're still "alpha" technology in terms of replacing a standard incandescent. So we're kind of stuck in terms of what is the better tradeoff.

But I do agree that insulation is a great way to save energy. My dad and I put R-5 insulation board and R-13 fiberglass around the perimeter of the basement and it's quite amazing at how little the furnace runs. We've had a few nights in the 40s and the thermometer has not gone below 64F. Normally, it would have dropped down to what we set it at, which is 58F. It certainly is worth the investment.

This thread will soon be closed due to the inexorable political connections concerning theory and policy....
Actually, I'd say it's not too bad, although I'd rate the situation a Defcon 3 right now. :)

Lucradia
October 3rd, 2011, 11:49 PM
There has been many things to help stop global warming, however, the most efficient, and easiest, and cost-effective way is to pump trace amounts of sulfur into the air to cool the earth's atmosphere.

whenever a volcano explodes, sulfur is shot into the air. However, because volcanoes, and I mean the big ones, haven't been so active recently, we're running out of that stuff.

What they proposed was simple, run a hose high into the sky, and stick holes into the side, and then pump sulfur into the air, of course, then you'd need to rig up a support beam and put red blinking lights on its corners so planes don't fly into it.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 4th, 2011, 12:00 AM
As for LED lights they are dropping fast in price so this debate will soon be moot.

I hope so. Affordable LED technology would be a huge step forward.


There is however another topic quite different and a with huge environmental impact that is not recognized even by some of the major environmental organizations. This is the licensing of software and the policies of Microsoft and Apple. I visited the ewaste page for Greenpeace International http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/the-e-waste-problem/ and they mention

The question is why are people throwing away so many computers and other devices? Take the pricing for Microsoft software for example:
Windows 7 Pro Full retail: $324.99
Office 2010 Pro Full Retail $649.87
Total Full Retail $979.86
Windows 7 Pro OEM: $149.98
Office 2010 Pro OEM $297.00
Total OEM $446.98
These are prices I found in Canada in Canadian dollars from various retailers.

The difference in price comes to over $500 more than enough to buy a new computer and throw the old one away. In short the way Microsoft licenses and prices its software provides a huge incentive for the creation of ewaste in the marketplace. When one considers Microsoft's world wide market dominance it is hardly surprising that we have a huge and growing ewaste problem.

Apple is even worse since in order to license their Operating System one has to purchase a new computer. Furthermore a very significant part of their business model is selling locked down devices.

In the phone case my question becomes: How many of these discarded phones were locked to a particular service provider and were sold under a contract where the end user is offered another phone rather than a drop in price at the end of the contract?

The real environmental problem here is not the hardware manufactures that everyone including the environmental movement is focusing on, but rather propriety software, movie, phone, and other content companies that use DRM and content licensing policies to promote the creation of ewaste on a massive worldwide scale. Microsoft, Apple, AT&T or the MPAA members may actually be responsible for a greater environmental damage than BP or the Tokyo Electric Power Company.

There is one very simple option here. Promote FLOSS including GNU / Linux and DRM free content as the green alternative, while at the same time raising the awareness of some on the leaser known environmental culprits.

I've been wondering how long it'd take for somebody to turn this thread into a gripe against Microsoft and Apple. 24 posts. I'm impressed.:lol::lol:
Linux is not more popular because of linux, not because of Microsoft or Apple. As long as Linux based OS's are meant for experts, they will never compete .


The answer has to be better technology.

Better technology may be the answer in the long term. However, the technologies to take care of climate change are already here, and some have been here for a long time.

Dr. C
October 4th, 2011, 12:40 AM
I've been wondering how long it'd take for somebody to turn this thread into a gripe against Microsoft and Apple. 24 posts. I'm impressed.:lol::lol:
Linux is not more popular because of linux, not because of Microsoft or Apple. As long as Linux based OS's are meant for experts, they will never compete.

ewaste is one of the fastest growing growing environmental problems right now. As for Microsoft and Apple they need to be held accountable for the environmental damage they cause with their software licensing polices just like any other company. As for GNU / Linux including Ubuntu, it can be part of the solution. Check out FreeGeek (http://www.freegeek.org/) and find out why.


Better techbnology may be the answer in the long term. However, the technologies to take care of climate change are already here, and some have been here for a long time.

I agree better technologies are only part of the solution. What is needed is better polices and in particular holding polluters accountable for the cost of cleaning up the mess they make. Once the cost of polluting is passed on to the polluter the marketplace can take care of the rest.

KiwiNZ
October 4th, 2011, 12:47 AM
ewaste is one of the fastest growing growing environmental problems right now. As for Microsoft and Apple they need to be held accountable for the environmental damage they cause with their software licensing polices just like any other company. As for GNU / Linux including Ubuntu, it can be part of the solution. Check out FreeGeek (http://www.freegeek.org/) and find out why.



I agree better technologies are only part of the solution. What is needed is better polices and in particular holding polluters accountable for the cost of cleaning up the mess they make. Once the cost of polluting is passed on to the polluter the marketplace can take care of the rest.

http://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling

Dr. C
October 4th, 2011, 01:41 AM
http://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling

The link does make some valid points but one also makes some very flawed assumptions. One is a seven year product lifecycle which is actually attributed to DELL, a competitor!. For consumer computer and devices this assumption is way off. Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/the-e-waste-problem/) places this figure at two years in the developed world in 2005 down from six years in 1997. The other assumption is what happens to the computer that the new Mac replaces? If that computer is capable of running Mac OS X, then the Apple licensing restriction comes into play. I have a computer that is capable of running Mac OS X, I wish to run Mac OS X, but I have to buy a new computer that I do not need just because of the licensing and "recycle" the old one. The best outcome for the environment is reuse first, and only then recycle. Unfortunately licensing restrictions in propriety software prevent and obstruct reuse.

The problem is that people are throwing out perfectly good computers and devices way ahead of any reasonable end of life for the device because they are looking for different software and services.

By the way I am writing this on a Pentiom M 1.8 GHz laptop running Ubuntu 10.04 that still has its Windows 2000 logo.

KiwiNZ
October 4th, 2011, 01:44 AM
The problem is that people are throwing out perfectly good computers and devices way ahead of any reasonable end of life for the device because they are looking for different software and services.

By the way I am writing this on a Pentiom M 1.8 GHz laptop running Ubuntu 10.04 that still has its Windows 2000 logo.

That is not the fault of the Sellers, it is the fault of the consumers.

inobe
October 4th, 2011, 01:48 AM
the pentium M is still a beast.

Dr. C
October 4th, 2011, 01:55 AM
the pentium M is still a beast.

I added RAM to bring the RAM up to 1 GB and a wireless N card, and it is serving me well running Ubuntu 10.04. It even has a floppy drive.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 4th, 2011, 02:25 AM
As for GNU / Linux including Ubuntu, it can be part of the solution. Check out FreeGeek (http://www.freegeek.org/) and find out why.

As it is right now, it can't.
There's a phrase that's been repeated ad nauseam on these forums:


Linux assumes you know exactly what you're doing.

That phrase is the ultimate clue as to why Linux based OS's will never replace Windows and Apple OS's. Because, while Linux does make that assumption, Microsoft and Apple assume the customer is a RETARD. And that is exactly what the consumer wants.
Whether you programmer types decide to take notice or not, when most people get a computer, they don't do it to learn how to make their OS work. They want it to work, period.
While, for some people, it may be "fun" to spend hours, or days, to install an app, for most of us it's incredibly frustrating.

Linux has the one advantage Microsoft or Apple will never have: the price. That, and the fact that, at least Ubuntu, is much better than Windows in almost every respect, should be more than enough for people to switch over, and never look back. However, every time somebody even mentions Ubuntu, or other Linux based OS, on a forum not devoted to them, the most common response is "Ubuntu (or Linux) is good if you only want to use your computer to check your email, or surf the web." As somebody who has been going crazy for weeks now, trying to make Tor and Polipo work together under 10.04 from a flash drive, the longer I try, the more I agree with that statement.

Dr. C
October 4th, 2011, 04:20 AM
... That phrase is the ultimate clue as to why Linux based OS's will never replace Windows and Apple OS's. Because, while Linux does make that assumption, Microsoft and Apple assume the customer is a RETARD. And that is exactly what the consumer wants.
Whether you programmer types decide to take notice or not, when most people get a computer, they don't do it to learn how to make their OS work. They want it to work, period.
While, for some people, it may be "fun" to spend hours, or days, to install an app, for most of us it's incredibly frustrating...

I will agree with this but there is a very important difference, Microsoft understands this and then sets out to take an unfair advantage of the unsophisticated user, while Apple produces products that a sophisticated computer user will buy and use right out of the box, and does not set out to take advantage of an unsophisticated user

To any one who thinks that Ubuntu does not meet the needs of unsophisticated computer user consider this: Microsoft Windows Vista on 480 MB of RAM! This is is slow and I mean real slow. To make matters even worse the OEM added all sorts of bloated trailware, and "utilities" to slow down the computer even further. This was sold by a major retailer, the OEM was a major manufacturer, Acer, and had the official Microsoft Windows Vista logo. The user was very frustrated with this computer and was considering "defenestrating" it by throwing it of a window. I suggested Ubuntu 8.04 at the time and installed it on a dual boot configuration. The result a computer that actually worked. A year and a half later the user begged me to remove Vista from the hard drive as the space was needed to store files. At that time the upgrade to Ubuntu 10.04 was also completed. By the way adding RAM was not an option as the user did not have the funds.

When one considers this, it is hardly surprising that so many computers end up as ewaste only a few months after they are sold. Furthermore the fault does not lie with the consumer it lies with Microsoft and its OEM partners pushing horribly mis-configured systems on unsuspecting and unsophisticated consumers.

I have come across many other horror stories including people buying another computer once the trial of Microsoft Office runs out! So yes GNU / Linux and Ubuntu with all of its quirks is part of the solution.

KiwiNZ
October 4th, 2011, 04:36 AM
This thread is drifting off topic

Dr. C
October 4th, 2011, 04:51 AM
This thread is drifting off topic

Good point.

A computer sold to an unsophisticated user with Windows Vista running on 480 MB of RAM is so utterly useless that it has a very high chance of ending up as ewaste right out of the box, and becoming a blight on the environment before it is even used once.

KiwiNZ
October 4th, 2011, 05:00 AM
Good point.

A computer sold to an unsophisticated user with Windows Vista running on 480 MB of RAM is so utterly useless that it has a very high chance of ending up as ewaste right out of the box, and becoming a blight on the environment before it is even used once.

This thread is about .....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15132989

Now can we please get back on topic.

Ranko Kohime
October 4th, 2011, 07:43 AM
About time they took global warming seriously
And why should anyone take a conspiracy theory seriously?

Climate Gate demonstrates that "anthropogenic global warming" violates the very first rule of critical thought. Go research Climate Gate, anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.

On the article specifically, my response is: So acid rain is better than "global warming"?

ETA: anthropogenic, as the Earth's climate does change in protracted cycles

Paqman
October 4th, 2011, 07:56 AM
On the article specifically, my response is: So acid rain is better than "global warming"?

I was wondering this. Sulphur oxides are a nasty pollutant, and responsible for a vast amounts of environmental damage. Like most geoengineering solutions I've seen mooted this idea seems extremely dangerous, and would need very lengthy studies to determine the impact before it could be deployed at any large scale.

So no, this is not a solution to our short to medium term problems, although I guess the idea is to deal with the long term issue of the effects of the carbon we've already stuffed into the atmosphere. Atmospheric carbon has a lot of inertia, our current emissions will be having an effect for a long time yet, even if we emit nothing more.

As for climate change being a conspiracy: it's a fact that CO2 levels have risen recently, and it's a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is this really such a difficult or controversial idea?

Ranko Kohime
October 4th, 2011, 09:21 AM
As for climate change being a conspiracy: it's a fact that CO2 levels have risen recently, and it's a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is this really such a difficult or controversial idea?
The former "fact" is not borne out in evidence, so yes.

Paqman
October 4th, 2011, 10:46 AM
The former "fact" is not borne out in evidence, so yes.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure the consensus is that it is.

What do you think is happening to all the extra carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere? It has to go somewhere. To prove that it's going anywhere except the atmosphere you'd need concrete evidence that the oceans (or something else?) are soaking it up instead. From what I've read, oceanic carbon levels have risen, but not at the kind of levels that would suggest all the atmospheric carbon is going to dissolve any time soon. Some of the geoengineering options in fact do centre around increasing the speed the oceans take up the carbon, because the oceans aren't doing it fast enough to help out.

GerryB
October 4th, 2011, 12:08 PM
Take a look at this: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_gases_make_up_the_earth%27s_atmosphere
and now tell me why I should be worried about CO2 levels?

Inodoro Pereyra
October 4th, 2011, 06:10 PM
And why should anyone take a conspiracy theory seriously?

Climate Gate demonstrates that "anthropogenic global warming" violates the very first rule of critical thought. Go research Climate Gate, anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.

Really? Is that your source?:rolleyes:
I'll tell you what "climate gate" demonstrates:

1. go to the "about us" link on the Climate gate site.http://www.climategate.com/about

How can you give any credibility to a site which very first line states "This site/domain name will entertain offers for sale in the low to mid $xx,xxx range."?



Why is it that, if they're so qualified to talk about climate change, they don't state their names and credentials for everyone to check? But, more importantly, why is it that the ONLY PERSON who does state his name (Lord Crhistopher Monckton) is a politician and a journalist, not a scientist?( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_B renchley (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_B renchley)) What makes him any more qualified to talk about climate change than Bush, or Al Gore?


On the article specifically, my response is: So acid rain is better than "global warming"?

No, it's not. What does that prove? Are you implying that climate change is good because it's not worse than acid rain?





As for climate change being a conspiracy: it's a fact that CO2 levels have risen recently, and it's a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is this really such a difficult or controversial idea?

The former "fact" is not borne out in evidence, so yes.

Really, again? You think over 800 000 years of analyzed ice core samples is not evidence? What evidence do you have to the contrary?


Take a look at this: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_gases_make_up_the_earth%27s_atmosphere
and now tell me why I should be worried about CO2 levels?

What's your point?


That's the air composition at GROUND LEVEL.
If the concentration of a given gas doubles, the importance of that variation is not necessarily related to the initial and final concentration of the gas, but to the EFFECT that concentration increase has.
CO2 is not the ONLY greenhouse gas, it's just the only one everybody talks about. Water vapor is far more dangerous, and methane and NOx are just as bad.

Lucradia
October 4th, 2011, 07:56 PM
Sulphur oxides

I didn't say sulfur oxide you know. I also said high in the atmosphere as well, IE: Jet stream / higher. it would be integrated into the atmosphere before it would come down to us. Plus, I also said "Trace amounts" you can't just throw a ton in at once, it has to be gradual.

whiskeylover
October 4th, 2011, 08:43 PM
Really, again? You think over 800 000 years of analyzed ice core samples is not evidence? What evidence do you have to the contrary?



I've observed that a lot of Americans oppose the idea of global warming. It's mostly politically influenced and I don't want to get into the details of it. It's very difficult to convince some people what the scientists in the rest of the world have been saying for years.

KiwiNZ
October 4th, 2011, 09:01 PM
Here in the South Pacific we are very aware of climate change, the Ozone hole, very weird weather and many of our neighbors facing oblivion due to rising sea levels, fresh water emergencies ,Tokelau and Tuvalu have declared fresh water emergencies.

Lucradia
October 4th, 2011, 09:11 PM
Here in the South Pacific we are very aware of climate change, the Ozone hole, very weird weather and many of our neighbors facing oblivion due to rising sea levels, fresh water emergencies ,Tokelau and Tuvalu have declared fresh water emergencies.

In Sheboygan County in Wisconsin, if you watch the weather channel, it will have the "Local on the 8s" now, one of the screens it has s the "Pollutant" with the red, yellow, green, etc. warning indicator. However, the Pollutant is "Ozone" and when that's on red, you'd better not go outside. The air is very thick when that occurs. Also, during the summer, it can become unbearable.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 4th, 2011, 09:56 PM
Here in the South Pacific we are very aware of climate change, the Ozone hole, very weird weather and many of our neighbors facing oblivion due to rising sea levels, fresh water emergencies ,Tokelau and Tuvalu have declared fresh water emergencies.

Same as in most of the World, But here in the US, as Whiskeylover accurately said, the whole problem has been turned into a political issue, and, of course, all the tools fell for it.
Here in Miami, there's a part of South beach in which people wake up almost every day to flooded streets. To my knowledge, that has been happening for at least the last 3 years. I've been talking with a guy who lives there, less than a month ago. He refuses to see the floods may have any connection with climate change. Every time I mention it, I'm a "liberal treehugger"...:rolleyes:

KiwiNZ
October 4th, 2011, 10:01 PM
Same as in most of the World, But here in the US, as Whiskeylover accurately said, the whole problem has been turned into a political issue, and, of course, all the tools fell for it.
Here in Miami, there's a part of South beach in which people wake up almost every day to flooded streets. To my knowledge, that has been happening for at least the last 3 years. I've been talking with a guy who lives there, less than a month ago. He refuses to see the floods may have any connection with climate change. Every time I mention it, I'm a "liberal treehugger"...:rolleyes:

With respect to those in the US that will lose some land , but the US will survive, but there is many Pacific Nations that will vanish as will some Indian Ocean Nations.

Dr. C
October 4th, 2011, 10:48 PM
With respect to those in the US that will lose some land , but the US will survive, but there is many Pacific Nations that will vanish as will some Indian Ocean Nations.

Bangladesh comes to mind here. We are talking of a population of over 150 million in a very impoverished country, that is a very low lying delta and also very susceptible to salt water encroaching the fresh water supply.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 5th, 2011, 12:45 AM
With respect to those in the US that will lose some land , but the US will survive, but there is many Pacific Nations that will vanish as will some Indian Ocean Nations.
Bangladesh comes to mind here. We are talking of a population of over 150 million in a very impoverished country, that is a very low lying delta and also very susceptible to salt water encroaching the fresh water supply.

Let's hope not. I don't know to which point we may be able to avoid that, but let's hope we can wake up early enough to at least minimize it...

GerryB
October 5th, 2011, 12:46 AM
From what I've read, if the current trend of global warming continues, oceans levels shouldn't rise more than 1 to 2 mm per year... This is very difficult for the average guy to take seriously ( just one hurricane can wipe out an entire beach area within a few days). I would also like to find any kind of evidence of disappearing low lying areas on this planet during the last 200 years or to simplify things, any area in the U.S. that has been adversely affected by rising tides within this period of time.

Ranko Kohime
October 5th, 2011, 01:10 AM
Really? Is that your source?:rolleyes:
I'll tell you what "climate gate" demonstrates:

1. go to the "about us" link on the Climate gate site.http://www.climategate.com/about
I have not visited that website, and cannot vouch for it's authenticity or lack thereof. I was using Climate Gate as an overall descriptor of the situation, same as one would refer to Water Gate. Hence my lack of a link thereto.

On nearly every topic one could imagine, there are likely to be a few garbage websites without any demonstrable proof. "I Feel Lucky" doesn't always return the cream of the crop in Google. ;)

Having personally read some of the e-mails in the leak from 2 years ago, (a leak which CRU employees confirmed WAS their e-mails, verbatim), I conclude that CRU is not in the business of objective science, and is rather merely a propaganda arm of government. I can find no other "qualified" organizations talking about anthropogenic global warming.


No, it's not. What does that prove? Are you implying that climate change is good because it's not worse than acid rain?
I'm implying that an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, from an organization with a questionable agenda, is less important than a real, tangible threat to our existence.


Really, again? You think over 800 000 years of analyzed ice core samples is not evidence? What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Every piece of evidence I've seen on the matter shows that carbon FOLLOWS temperature.

EDIT: Mixed up CRU and IPCC

Inodoro Pereyra
October 5th, 2011, 02:28 AM
Really? Is that your source?:rolleyes:
I'll tell you what "climate gate" demonstrates:

1. go to the "about us" link on the Climate gate site.http://www.climategate.com/about

I have not visited that website, and cannot vouch for it's authenticity or lack thereof. I was using Climate Gate as an overall descriptor of the situation, same as one would refer to Water Gate. Hence my lack of a link thereto.

No, you weren't.
What you were doing is much simpler (and a lot more common) than that: You cited a "source", hoping everybody would take your word for it, or, if they did search for the site, that they would go straight for the "570 climate articles" link. <snip>
Nice way out on the "lack of a link thereto", though...

By the way: there's no such thing as "Water Gate". The "Watergate" building was where the Democratic National Committee headquarters was based, and where the Nixon scandal happened. That's the reason that scandal is known as "Watergate".


On nearly every topic one could imagine, there are likely to be a few garbage websites without any demonstrable proof. "I Feel Lucky" doesn't always return the cream of the crop in Google. :wink:

I don't use Google, and didn't hit (obviously) the "I feel lucky" button. I use Duck Duck Go!, and searched specifically for "climate gate".


Having personally read some of the e-mails in the leak from 2 years ago, (a leak which CRU employees confirmed WAS their e-mails, verbatim), I conclude that CRU is not in the business of objective science, and is rather merely a propaganda arm of government. I can find no other "qualified" organizations talking about anthropogenic global warming.

Really? Where are they? Or maybe we should take your word for it?
But, most important, what does that prove? How does the (disputed) "fact" that some of the scientists may have had a hidden agenda invalidate the science?




No, it's not. What does that prove? Are you implying that climate change is good because it's not worse than acid rain?

I'm implying that an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, from an organization with a questionable agenda, is less important than a real, tangible threat to our existence.

Again, where's your proof?
Cite a link to an "organization without a questionable agenda", showing definitive, scientific proof that climate change is not real.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's suppose climate change was really unsubstantiated (which is, of course, far from true). What do we do? Do we ignore it? What happens if we do ignore it, and it happens to be real (you do know that the fact that something isn't proven doesn't mean it isn't real, don't you?). What do we do then?



Really, again? You think over 800 000 years of analyzed ice core samples is not evidence? What evidence do you have to the contrary?

Every piece of evidence I've seen on the matter shows that carbon FOLLOWS temperature.


Where is it? Show us that "evidence" you talk about<snip>.

nothingspecial
October 5th, 2011, 08:13 AM
Let's keep this thread nice discussion please please.

Paqman
October 5th, 2011, 01:01 PM
From what I've read, if the current trend of global warming continues, oceans levels shouldn't rise more than 1 to 2 mm per year... This is very difficult for the average guy to take seriously

Sure, because in your lifetime it won't make much difference. But changes in the climate take place over hundreds of years. Even if we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases tomorrow, the atmosphere would continue to warm and sea would continue to rise for a long time.

The risk is that some climatic systems will enter a positive feedback loop and accelerate the rate of increase in temperature rise.

Concurrently with higher mean sea levels, you've also got the problem of more extreme weather (due to extra heat in the atmosphere). I'm inclined to think the latter is more of an issue for low-lying coastal areas, but the higher sea level sure doesn't help.

GerryB
October 5th, 2011, 01:01 PM
I think it's make a lot of sense to keep our air and water as clean as possible and most people would agree with that. Climate change, on the other hand, is a totally different matter. I find it hard to believe that mankind can do very much about it and I'll tell you why. Right where I'm sitting now, an ice sheet approximately 3 km thick was carving valleys and turning rock into boulders. There was such an accumulation of water in this ice sheet which covered parts of North America and Europe that sea levels were low enough to create a land bridge between Asia and North America. Ancestors of our native Americans crossed this land bridge about 20,000 years ago (some estimate it at 30,000 years ago). This is much more “settled science” than anthropogenic global warming. Then abruptly, and I mean extremely abruptly, this ice sheet started to melt about 10,000 years ago. Within a few 1,000 years it had melted to less than half its size. The land bridge disappeared and closed the link between Asia and North America for good. Populations on either side developed different cultures and different languages. I call that global warming on a scale unimaginable! Within 10,000 years, the only leftover signs of it are the ice cap in Greenland and a few glaciers here and there. There is evidence of this cataclysmic event all around us here – The Great Lakes are what's left of this melt water slowly emptying into the ocean and we can still see thousands of lakes and rivers when we fly across this country. So, I ask myself, if man does have some kind of influence on the rate of global warming, how significant can it be? If it weren't for global warming, would we even exist? How long do we have until the next ice age? Since we've adapted to changing global conditions for the past 10,000 years, what's to stop us from adapting again?

Paqman
October 5th, 2011, 01:58 PM
Since we've adapted to changing global conditions for the past 10,000 years, what's to stop us from adapting again?

Nothing, we can and will have to adapt.

But:

There's a moral difference between disruption due to natural processes and disruption due to human negligence and lack of forethought
Our infulence on the climate is not currently under any form of control. That's not a sound long-term plan. It would be prudent to bring it under control.


Change is inevitable, but runaway uncontrolled change should be avoided if possible. The key concept is sustainability. Our current energy situation is not sustainable. That's stupid of us, and we should elect to change voluntarily and in a way that is manageable and relatively painless, before we're forced to change in a way that isn't.

Pujims
October 5th, 2011, 02:43 PM
The natural cycle is understood by examining the paleo records (http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/what-we-know-paleoclimatology-records). The fact that the earth goes in and out of ice ages distinctly outlines the natural cycles of earths climate. This occurs about every 100,000 years. We are currently in a warm period. Generally, the earth spends about 80-90,000 years in an ice age and around 10-20,000 years (or so) in a warm period.


Global warming=chicken little

KiwiNZ
October 5th, 2011, 06:58 PM
The natural cycle is understood by examining the paleo records (http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/what-we-know-paleoclimatology-records). The fact that the earth goes in and out of ice ages distinctly outlines the natural cycles of earths climate. This occurs about every 100,000 years. We are currently in a warm period. Generally, the earth spends about 80-90,000 years in an ice age and around 10-20,000 years (or so) in a warm period.


Global warming=chicken little


Global warming + chicken little = head in sand

Inodoro Pereyra
October 5th, 2011, 07:44 PM
Global warming=chicken little

Global warming + chicken little = head in sand

Yup.
You know what the worst part is, for me?
That all those lazy, irresponsible " " (insert adjective of choice here) will ultimately benefit from the effort of those of us who will do whatever is necessary to control this situation. Living like that is easy: just letting other people fix things for you, while you keep on living like a king.

earthpigg
October 5th, 2011, 10:06 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period

Correlated with (30-50 year lag):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_middle_ages

And when things cooled off (30-50 year lag):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_death


Has scientific consensus been achieved that being able to grow crops in Greenland and Northern Germany (as was once possible) is such a horrid thing, and that longer growing seasons are also a bad thing?

Social science interests me more than hard science, so that is the bias inherent in the question I asked.

Paqman
October 5th, 2011, 10:24 PM
Has scientific consensus been achieved that being able to grow crops in Greenland and Northern Germany (as was once possible) is such a horrid thing, and that longer growing seasons are also a bad thing?


I don't think anybody's suggesting that there won't be any winners from climate change. But we certainly don't need to increase the Earth's temperature, and we don't fully understand the implications of doing so, nor are we in control of the process. Therefore, it's not very smart to keep doing it.

As I've said before in this thread, geoengineering is a nascent science. Emitting greenhouse gases on the scale we are constitutes a massive, sustained, uncontrolled geoengineering experiment, which sounds like a really, really unwise thing to do if you ask me. We're messing about with things we don't fully understand

wirepuller134
October 5th, 2011, 10:33 PM
The whole problem I have with the situation is I don't trust either side. Oil says it doesn't exist, keep purchasing from us. The global warming/global cooling/climate change sides say we have to do something, we have alternatives, as in carbon credits. Just give us your money. both sides seem to be motivated by money. I'm not referring to anyone here of course, I honestly believe everyone here is motivated to do something about it for the sake of human kind. I'm referring to the larger organizations that are working to stop global warming/global cooling/climate change.
The email release was just a small group of everyone working on this, but was from some key people and caused me to loose respect for many people.
My opinion here on this board is irrelevant as I would either be hiding my head in the sand or be labeled chicken little so fourth. But from a home point of view, we have changed to all LED lighting at this time, our televisions are LED as well as our monitors. We track our in house KWH usage per devise to compare to our billing to track where we are using the most power and then work to improve it. Everyone has a set amount of time per day they can have their computer turned on or television. We have motion detection on all light switches. We do use a central electric air conditioning and heated water for central heating. We have changed to all blown in insulation and our electric bill averages around 160 a month, which isn't bad for living in the South US using all electric.
We do still drive a SUV, a Durango with a modified ECM that averages 23 mpg in town. It works for us as we can transport our disabled son and equipment in it using only one vehicle to make a trip and pass an emissions test (this is relevant because it is a 2000 with 193K miles on it). We used to have to take 2 cars to take the family anywhere.
So everyone keep up the banter from both sides, if enough people from both sides get excited enough globally, maybe some decisions can be made to it existence or not and if it exist, some solutions.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 6th, 2011, 12:30 AM
The whole problem I have with the situation is I don't trust either side. Oil says it doesn't exist, keep purchasing from us. The global warming/global cooling/climate change sides say we have to do something, we have alternatives, as in carbon credits. Just give us your money. both sides seem to be motivated by money. I'm not referring to anyone here of course, I honestly believe everyone here is motivated to do something about it for the sake of human kind. I'm referring to the larger organizations that are working to stop global warming/global cooling/climate change.
The email release was just a small group of everyone working on this, but was from some key people and caused me to loose respect for many people.
My opinion here on this board is irrelevant as I would either be hiding my head in the sand or be labeled chicken little so fourth. But from a home point of view, we have changed to all LED lighting at this time, our televisions are LED as well as our monitors. We track our in house KWH usage per devise to compare to our billing to track where we are using the most power and then work to improve it. Everyone has a set amount of time per day they can have their computer turned on or television. We have motion detection on all light switches. We do use a central electric air conditioning and heated water for central heating. We have changed to all blown in insulation and our electric bill averages around 160 a month, which isn't bad for living in the South US using all electric.
We do still drive a SUV, a Durango with a modified ECM that averages 23 mpg in town. It works for us as we can transport our disabled son and equipment in it using only one vehicle to make a trip and pass an emissions test (this is relevant because it is a 2000 with 193K miles on it). We used to have to take 2 cars to take the family anywhere.
So everyone keep up the banter from both sides, if enough people from both sides get excited enough globally, maybe some decisions can be made to it existence or not and if it exist, some solutions.

For what you said, I'd say you're already doing plenty.
What most people seem to not understand is precisely that the big organizations are not the only solution to the problem. Everyone can make changes to their lifestyle (and not necessarily bad, or uncomfortable ones), and, that way, contribute to the solution. Not only the things you already did, but there are plenty of other things that would help, while at the same time, saving you money.
No matter how you look at it, doing nothing is just plain dumb, not only from a self preservation point of view, but also from a purely economical standpoint. Fortunes are already being made (in some cases, out of virtually nothing -look at the "worm poop" phenomenon-) on things directly or indirectly related to climate change. Lots of people are saving money on fuel, electricity, food, etc, while at the same time, having access to better lives.
The technology is there. The means to do it are there. It's all a matter of people making a decision. Expecting the government or the big organizations to solve all our problems is just not realistic.

Ranko Kohime
October 6th, 2011, 04:04 AM
No, you weren't.
What you were doing is much simpler (and a lot more common) than that: You cited a "source", hoping everybody would take your word for it, or, if they did search for the site, that they would go straight for the "570 climate articles" link. <snip>
Nice way out on the "lack of a link thereto", though...

By the way: there's no such thing as "Water Gate". The "Watergate" building was where the Democratic National Committee headquarters was based, and where the Nixon scandal happened. That's the reason that scandal is known as "Watergate".
Well pardon me for my rigid English-language education inadvertently causing a misunderstanding. :roll:


Really? Where are they? Or maybe we should take your word for it?
But, most important, what does that prove? How does the (disputed) "fact" that some of the scientists may have had a hidden agenda invalidate the science?
FOI2009.zip is the name of the file, available from a variety of sources (you may choose whichever you feel most confident in). Merely Goog... Pardon, Duck Duck Go! it.

First, there are climate scientists of three categories: Those in the employ of the oil industry, those in the employ of government, (IPCC, CRU et al), and then there are those with no connections either way. The former 2 are equally questionable. My searching has found none from the latter group making any claims as to AGW. Global warming as a natural occurrence in cycles, yes, but AGW, no.


Again, where's your proof?
Cite a link to an "organization without a questionable agenda", showing definitive, scientific proof that climate change is not real.
Climate change is real. AGW is not. It is an astounding arrogance to think that we as a race are capable of long-lasting changes to the Earth. If we were to go into nuclear Armageddon tomorrow, the Earth would recover itself, and take it's sweet time doing it, probably longer than any of these data samples (millions of years).


But, just for the sake of argument, let's suppose climate change was really unsubstantiated (which is, of course, far from true). What do we do? Do we ignore it? What happens if we do ignore it, and it happens to be real (you do know that the fact that something isn't proven doesn't mean it isn't real, don't you?). What do we do then?
Continue studying it. I'd honestly like to see if we can even make a blip in the charts once said charts encompass any significant amount of data. The Earth is, how many billions of years old, according to the theory of evolution?

Billions of years, and we have data from less than a million. The Earth was many degrees hotter during the reign of the dinosaurs, I will not be concerned prior to achieving that level.

Regardless, our current pollution output is not sustainable, not because of the negative effects on our environment, but because what we're burning is running out. Coal and crude oil and natural gas, at the current known levels (and we have some very sophisticated equipment for finding substantial deposits) are going to become so scarce as to be nonviable for mass use within my lifetime, no matter how many MPG your car gets or how many CFL's you install in your home or how low you keep your heat in the winter and going without air conditioning in the summer.

GerryB
October 6th, 2011, 12:01 PM
Assuming we even got to the point where we thought mankind should do something about global warming, who would do the planning? Or, a more poignant question would be, who would we trust to do the planning?

Inodoro Pereyra
October 6th, 2011, 02:21 PM
@ Ranko Kohime: I was about to start replying to your post, point by point, when, upon reading it again, I realized you're just a troll.
You've been asked to present proof of your statements repeatedly. I guess the fact that you haven't, and, instead, kept going in circles, is the best possible proof about the validity of your claims.
Hope you had your fun. As far as I'm concerned, it ends here.

@ GerryB: Why would we need anybody to plan anything?
For us, regular Joes, it's a personal decision, whether we do it for environmental reasons, to save money, to have a better life, or whatever. Some of the things we can do are already regulated (like ethanol production, for example), others are just a matter of doing some research, and start moving forward, and, finally, others are just about investing some money, to reap the benefits later.
As per the National scale, most governments already have people working on it, very actively in some cases (like some European countries), and, unfortunately, not so much in others.

Gremlinzzz
October 7th, 2011, 01:16 AM
If you give up...they give up....STOP GLOBAL WARMING!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jezcd6xB984&feature=related

GerryB
October 7th, 2011, 01:41 AM
How about turning this discussion around now? A lot of people have come up with arguments showing their disbelief about anthropogenic global warming. If we knew more about why you believe that global warming is man made or that it could lead to a catastrophe, things could become a lot clearer.

Gremlinzzz
October 7th, 2011, 01:47 AM
How about turning this discussion around now? A lot of people have come up with arguments showing their disbelief about anthropogenic global warming. If we knew more about why you believe that global warming is man made or that it could lead to a catastrophe, things could become a lot clearer.

The time for arguments and finger pointing is over, time to do something about it ,its real!Climate fix
Here we go again more pollution
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15197757

Container ship stranded off New Zealand leaking oil

GerryB
October 7th, 2011, 12:45 PM
O.K. then...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
What is happening to science?

Gremlinzzz
October 7th, 2011, 01:07 PM
The ice thaw is predicted by a team of international researchers whose Arctic Climate Impact Assessment suggested in 2004 that the summer ice cap could melt completely before the end of this century because of global warming.

The Russians are leading a new "gold rush" in the high north, with a bold attempt to assert a claim to oil, gas and mineral rights over large parts of the Arctic Ocean up to the North Pole.

I don't care about the political view being fed by cable so called news channels.there just protecting there benefactors interest.
the weather has changed for the worst and you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows :popcorn:

4 years ago news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6925853.stm

pommie
October 7th, 2011, 03:41 PM
Two year old news, from here, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6606227/Antarctic-temperatures-between-ice-ages-6C-warmer-than-today.html

Antarctic temperatures between ice ages '6C warmer than today'
Temperatures in Antarctica during warm periods between ice ages soared to up to 6C warmer than the present day, a study has shown.

8:00AM GMT 20 Nov 2009

The findings could help us understand more about rapid climate changes, scientists said.

Until now temperatures during the warm periods between ice ages - known as interglacials - were thought to be only slightly warmer than those of the present day, British Antarctic Survey (BAS) scientists explained.

But the findings, published this week in journal Nature, show brief spikes in temperature, which recur roughly every 100,000 years and last a few thousand years, seem to have been a lot warmer.

------------------------------------------------


Global warming is part of the Earths natural cycle and I, unlike others, am not arrogant enough to think mankind can alter that, maybe speed it up by a couple of centuries but thats it.


Pollution on the other hand needs fixing fast, the only trouble is that it is in the hands of politician's, and they can only think as far as the next election and how much they can scr erm tax us :(


Cheers David

Paqman
October 7th, 2011, 03:56 PM
Global warming is part of the Earths natural cycle

Correlation doesn't imply causality. You have to go further than merely stating the Earth's temperature has changed, because that's obvious. You need to show evidence that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is not due to man, or that it won't cause temperatures to rise and that the warming we're seeing is due to another cause. Otherwise the premise that all the CO2 we're emitting will cause a rise in temperature looks pretty solid.

GerryB
October 7th, 2011, 11:26 PM
Correlation doesn't imply causality. You have to go further than merely stating the Earth's temperature has changed, because that's obvious. You need to show evidence that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is not due to man, or that it won't cause temperatures to rise and that the warming we're seeing is due to another cause. Otherwise the premise that all the CO2 we're emitting will cause a rise in temperature looks pretty solid.
One of the great mysteries is if it's because of CO2 which should equalize throughout the atmosphere, Antarctica's sea ice is now shown to be expanding slightly while the arctic sea ice is diminishing. Is the CO2 increase due to a thawing permafrost or is it the cause of global warming or both at the same time? There are some studies on the effect of soot (another form of pollution) on sea ice and snow which seem to be more drastic than CO2. I haven't had time to look into that yet but maybe someone here has.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 7th, 2011, 11:50 PM
One of the great mysteries is if it's because of CO2 which should equalize throughout the atmosphere, Antarctica's sea ice is now shown to be expanding slightly while the arctic sea ice is diminishing. Is the CO2 increase due to a thawing permafrost or is it the cause of global warming or both at the same time? There are some studies on the effect of soot (another form of pollution) on sea ice and snow which seem to be more drastic than CO2. I haven't had time to look into that yet but maybe someone here has.

And that's the problem when you get your science from the rags everybody's been linking here.
CO2 is not "the" cause of climate change: it's "one" of the causes. There are many other pollutants (water vapor, methane, NOx, CFC's, etc) that contribute to the problem.
And climate change does not mean the temperature is going to go up all around the World: it means the average planet temperature is going up, and the climate patterns are changing. That's one of the reasons the term "global warming" was dropped, and is now only used by those against it.

dh04000
October 8th, 2011, 02:29 AM
And that's the problem when you get your science from the rags everybody's been linking here.
CO2 is not "the" cause of climate change: it's "one" of the causes. There are many other pollutants (water vapor, methane, NOx, CFC's, etc) that contribute to the problem.
And climate change does not mean the temperature is going to go up all around the World: it means the average planet temperature is going up, and the climate patterns are changing. That's one of the reasons the term "global warming" was dropped, and is now only used by those against it.

It makes me happy that some people out there (you) actually get what climate change means. It makes us scientists feel like we are actually getting thru all of the corporate campaigns and political wrangling.

Some of the posts in this thread makes me sad for humanity.... Why do people not trust scientists? Would you ignore your doctor and listen your uncle instead for medical advice? Why won't people trust the people WHOM are EXPERTS in their field? Its insanity. We are the best regulated source of information in the entire world. We actively hunt down and root out bad science and scientists. Does any industry or politician do this? NO WAY! Lie'ing is how business and politics make money! Scientists make money by telling the truth, we lost our careers if caught lie'ing, and let me tell you, a liar will be found. There is NO way to find it. We publish our work. All you have to do is try to repeat someone else's work(which we do on a dialy basis, we plan our work on others) and you'll find the lie.

If you love open source, you love science. Its the same thing. We make new knowledge(code) and then we publish it(GPL it). We are good people.

OK, that's off my chest. Now the mods will come and shut this thread down, cuz its getting WAY too political.

GerryB
October 8th, 2011, 02:55 AM
So according to you, as a scientist, is climate change a natural phenomenon or due to man's activity on this planet? Can we really slow down the warming process? What's your personal view on what individuals should do, on what governments should do?

Porcini M.
October 8th, 2011, 06:49 AM
Here's an interesting blurb re the economics of climate science:

http://slashdot.org/submission/1810950/whos-bankrolling-the-climate-change-deniers

GerryB
October 8th, 2011, 12:49 PM
There's probably some truth to this but it's not complete. Have a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

Inodoro Pereyra
October 8th, 2011, 02:18 PM
It makes me happy that some people out there (you) actually get what climate change means. It makes us scientists feel like we are actually getting thru all of the corporate campaigns and political wrangling.

Some of the posts in this thread makes me sad for humanity.... Why do people not trust scientists? Would you ignore your doctor and listen your uncle instead for medical advice? Why won't people trust the people WHOM are EXPERTS in their field? Its insanity. We are the best regulated source of information in the entire world. We actively hunt down and root out bad science and scientists. Does any industry or politician do this? NO WAY! Lie'ing is how business and politics make money! Scientists make money by telling the truth, we lost our careers if caught lie'ing, and let me tell you, a liar will be found. There is NO way to find it. We publish our work. All you have to do is try to repeat someone else's work(which we do on a dialy basis, we plan our work on others) and you'll find the lie.

If you love open source, you love science. Its the same thing. We make new knowledge(code) and then we publish it(GPL it). We are good people.

OK, that's off my chest. Now the mods will come and shut this thread down, cuz its getting WAY too political.

Thank you Dh04000, it's nice to know I'm not alone.:p
Actually, this thread is not half bad, comparatively.
The whole "global warming conspiracy" has been a pet peeve of mine for years now. I have participated in 40+ page long flame wars about it, on other forums, and, to be honest, the level of knowledge most people display here is refreshing.
Of course, for whatever the reason, you will never find consensus on an Internet forum, especially about a topic like this one. There's a great deal of ignorance around it, I think partially promoted by scientists themselves, but mostly by politicians, journalists, and all the other self proclaimed "experts".

That said, I'm not a scientist. I wanted to be, but, sometimes, life gets in the way. However, the one thing I do know about science is that things are seldom simple, especially when you're studying a system as big, and with as many variables as a whole planet. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge about climate change, but the one thing I do know about it is that it's way too complex to be discussed on a forum, or on one of those articles the "experts" seem to be so fond of.

Bottom line, at least when it comes to informing people, I think, over the last 5 or so years, there's been a lot of progress. Now the problem is that, even between the people who realize climate change is a reality, very few are actually willing to do anything about it. This is a threat that won't wait on us. We need to start moving forward, fast.


Here's an interesting blurb re the economics of climate science:

http://slashdot.org/submission/1810950/whos-bankrolling-the-climate-change-deniers

It's funny they mention the big tobacco campaign. That's always been my perception on the model being used by the climate change deniers. Amazingly enough, even when the whole tobacco issue didn't happen so long ago (and it's still very much alive today), a lot of people don't seem to see the correlation, and seem happy to allow those with a hidden agenda, to manipulate them.

dh04000
October 8th, 2011, 02:19 PM
So according to you, as a scientist, is climate change a natural phenomenon or due to man's activity on this planet? Can we really slow down the warming process? What's your personal view on what individuals should do, on what governments should do?

In 3 easy steps:

1) Reduce your own personal energy use. IE: Car Pool, ride the bus. Turn down the thermostat in winter, up in summer, ect. Recycle, Reuse, Don't buy stuff you know your just going to throw away. It saves you money, so there is an incentive. Don't give up your modern life style, thats too extreme, but just cut back a little.

2) Politicians need to stop claiming scientists of wrong doing. This war on science in congress and in schools has to STOP! The public needs to trust us for anything we say to reach anyone. The public trusted scientists when physicists saved our country from a long drawn out war with japan using fission power(IE: big man, little boy) The public HAS to trust us, or our work might as well as be worthless.

3) Once people and congress trust science and scientists again, then we can get the grants we need to research alternative energies. Also the grants small companies need to start up trial companies. Right now, if a scientists wants to research alternative energy, he has to get a grant in a different branch of science and misuse it to research alternative energy. (This behavior is punished by refusal by universities and the feds to give that scientist any more grants, so is dangerous for their career...) There are so few grants that there is no way for anyone to get one. Congress pulled the plug on 90% of alternative energy grants years ago.

4) Yes, I know I said only 3 steps. Finally, after some number of years, with congress and public support, we will find the energy production system/systems that best fits our country and its existing technologies and current infrastructures with the least impact on our life styles and economy. And it it works out, we SHOULD be even better off for it. Over time, the excess CO2 we added to the air will sequestered, and the planet will self right. The planet is doing that already, but just can't keep up with the amount we are pumping into the air.

My bets for the energy systems will be:
Solar Thermal, Wind, Nuclear for most of the electricity
Algea oil to power our personal cars and our planes(since diesel engines are current tech)
Carbon Monoxide/Hydrogen(what ever gas is easier to make, I think CO gas) to power our homes heating, aka act as natural gas.

Elfy
October 8th, 2011, 02:38 PM
Thank you Dh04000, it's nice to know I'm not aloneYou never were - just that some of us don't see any point in trying to put it across - I've generally felt despair every time I see one of these threads in here.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 8th, 2011, 02:44 PM
My bets for the energy systems will be:
Solar Thermal, Wind, Nuclear for most of the electricity
Algea oil to power our personal cars and our planes(since diesel engines are current tech)
Carbon Monoxide/Hydrogen(what ever gas is easier to make, I think CO gas) to power our homes heating, aka act as natural gas.


Hmmm...I agree on solar and wind. I'd like to add geothermal, sea currents, tides, and a few other alternatives to the list. Hell, even a biodiesel powered Diesel generator is better than what we have now.
About nuclear, I disagree. Nuclear power creates a huge problem about the disposal of spent fuel.

Algae derived biodiesel and ethanol may very well be the (at least, near) future, but, so far, the technology is still in its infancy. Meanwhile, there are plenty of other feedstocks that can be used, and other alternative fuels (biobutanol, biomethane) that can fill the gap.

Carbon monoxide? Can you elaborate about that? CO is not a fuel...
I'd think natural gas would be a good, far less polluting option for home heating, and maybe biomethane for those that can produce it. About hydrogen, as of now, it's not an option, as it damages the metals in contact with it (Google "hydrogen damage"), and personally, I don't think it will ever be, as it has a very poor energy density, and generates an enormous amount of pollution to produce.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 8th, 2011, 02:54 PM
You never were - just that some of us don't see any point in trying to put it across - I've generally felt despair every time I see one of these threads in here.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I usually feel the same.
But I think it's my duty to try to help others understand the gravity of this situation.
This can very well become a matter of survival for most of us, as well as for many other species, over the next few decades. If we don't wake up soon, our future may not be as bright as we would like.:(

pommie
October 8th, 2011, 04:27 PM
Can anyone tell me how small the polar ice got during the 'warm ages', if it didn't disappear altogether, also how hot did it get and for how long, saying that the Human race has/is causing climate change without all the facts is not scientific, it seems strange that we know all about the ice age cycles, exactly how cold it got, how much of Earth was covered in ice, and for how long, but know very little about in between the ice ages (warm ages ?).

Should we do whatever we can to try and slow down climate change, sure, but other than cleaning up the pollution, both man made and maybe even some natural, which is a good thing in its own right, I can't see us doing much except slowing down what we accelerated, I would love to be wrong, but Mother Nature is a powerful force and if she decides its time for change I think we are pretty much helpless to stop her.

Remember if it was not for Global Warming the human race would very likely be confined to a very narrow strip around the equator, to busy feeding itself and staying alive to become "civilized"

As far as trusting scientist's because they know the truth, lets see, the Earth is flat, the Sun and stars revolve around the Earth, dark matter, etc etc, don't get me wrong, I will listen to a scientist that starts off with "According to current data that we have, we believe that...", but when scientists say "Trust me, I am a scientist" I hear "You are to dumb to know so just believe me."

Cheers David

Inodoro Pereyra
October 8th, 2011, 05:00 PM
Should we do whatever we can to try and slow down climate change, sure, but other than cleaning up the pollution, both man made and maybe even some natural, which is a good thing in its own right, I can't see us doing much except slowing down what we accelerated, I would love to be wrong, but Mother Nature is a powerful force and if she decides its time for change I think we are pretty much helpless to stop her.

There are plenty of things we can do to slow down, and eventually stop (and maybe revert) climate change. Stopping pollution is one of them. Another big change would be reforesting the zones we're depleting, for example, and minimizing the environmental impact of our engineering, cleaning out our past messes (like the several neighborhoods around the country that have been cordoned off because of toxic spills and the like), etc. it's not just a matter of replacing our light bulbs.


As far as trusting scientist's because they know the truth, lets see, the Earth is flat, the Sun and stars revolve around the Earth, dark matter, etc etc, don't get me wrong, I will listen to a scientist that starts off with "According to current data that we have, we believe that...", but when scientists say "Trust me, I am a scientist" I hear "You are to dumb to know so just believe me."


Nobody said to trust scientists because they know the truth. NOBODY knows the truth.
We should trust scientists because, unlike politicians, journalists and industrialists, they are in the business of learning the truth.
Sure, the truth changes continuously. But you can bet your life the word of a scientist will always be a lot closer to the truth than that of a politician, a reporter, or a big company spokesperson.

Paqman
October 8th, 2011, 05:06 PM
The single biggest thing you can do right now is just switch your electricity to a renewable supplier. It's also one of the easiest, and has the advantage that costs in renewables are trending down, while costs in fossil fuels are going up. That's a trend that will accelerate in the years ahead.

HermanAB
October 8th, 2011, 06:29 PM
Well, the whole hullabaloo just depends on where you happen to reside. Global warming is good for both Russia and Canada, since it opens up the tundra to farming and if it gets as hot as it was in the distant past, then we would be able to settle in Antarctica as well.

Adapt, or die...

Inodoro Pereyra
October 9th, 2011, 04:10 AM
Well, the whole hullabaloo just depends on where you happen to reside. Global warming is good for both Russia and Canada, since it opens up the tundra to farming and if it gets as hot as it was in the distant past, then we would be able to settle in Antarctica as well.

Adapt, or die...

Here's something for you to watch, while you reflect about your words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=TQmz6Rbpnu0

pommie
October 9th, 2011, 10:15 AM
There are plenty of things we can do to slow down, and eventually stop (and maybe revert) climate change. Stopping pollution is one of them. Another big change would be reforesting the zones we're depleting, for example, and minimizing the environmental impact of our engineering, cleaning out our past messes (like the several neighborhoods around the country that have been cordoned off because of toxic spills and the like), etc. it's not just a matter of replacing our light bulbs.

You think that man is capable of stopping climatic change by just cleaning up pollution and planting trees (both worth doing by the way), but you are wrong, the main cause of climatic change is a natural cycle caused by the Earth's orbit wandering closer and farther from the sun over eons, so unless man can alter the Earths wandering orbit climatic change is going to happen, the Earths temperature has been going up AND down for millions of years, well before mankind started to pollute it.
Has mankind affected climatic change, yes, is that the only thing affecting it, no.
We can change and reverse mans pollution, unfortunately I doubt it will happen, but we cannot alter mother natures course to any degree worth doing.
Fix the pollution and learn to adapt to the "climatic change", or die out, it really is as simple as that.

In short, get rid of as much pollution as possible, and adapt to the climatic changes, whatever they may be.

Cheers David

HermanAB
October 9th, 2011, 10:28 AM
"Earth's orbit wandering closer and farther from the sun over eons"
No way man. The earth was fixed on the back of a turtle 6000 years ago and you all have to stop breathing to reduce your CO2 footprint or it will all come to a fiery end tomorrow...

pommie
October 9th, 2011, 11:30 AM
"Earth's orbit wandering closer and farther from the sun over eons"
No way man. The earth was fixed on the back of a turtle 6000 years ago and you all have to stop breathing to reduce your CO2 footprint or it will all come to a fiery end tomorrow...

Have a read of this http://www.unisci.com/stories/20012/0413012.htm

If you have nothing to contribute to the thread please do note post inane remarks, unless of course you are trolling, in which case please do keep proving you are immature.

Cheers David

nothingspecial
October 9th, 2011, 11:37 AM
Let's keep this thread on topic and pleasant.

Thank you.

Paqman
October 9th, 2011, 11:40 AM
the main cause of climatic change is a natural cycle caused by the Earth's orbit wandering closer and farther from the sun over eons

So what do you think the effect of all the extra CO2 & methane in the atmosphere will be then?

pommie
October 9th, 2011, 12:12 PM
Nowhere have I said that man has not contributed to "climatic change/global warming", or that it should not be addressed, in fact I have deliberately overstated that man has.

For man as a society to survive we have to understand to what extent climatic change is going to affect us and adapt, sure pollution needs fixing but that will not fix "global warming/climatic change".

There is no cure for "global warming/climatic change" as there is no 'sickness', it is a part of nature, Neanderthal man became extinct because they did not adapt to global cooling by migrating to warmer places or changing their dietary habits, so when the big game died out so did they.

Oh, if the doomsday predictions (about climatic change) come true, this planet will not die, it will still orbit the sun, humans and larger animals probably will become extinct, but there will still be life on this, the third rock from Sol.

Cheers David

HermanAB
October 9th, 2011, 01:30 PM
There is much less CO2 and Methane in the air now than in eons gone by. All that coal - it used to be in the air.

Gremlinzzz
October 9th, 2011, 02:02 PM
River's drying up.polar ice caps melting.extreme droughts,oil coating the oceans.plastic floating every where.fish dieing,dead zones,just doesn't seem normal to me.how to fix it? maybe it is too late/hope not,at the rate its going we'll find out.maybe 10 years.

Paqman
October 9th, 2011, 03:40 PM
There is much less CO2 and Methane in the air now than in eons gone by. All that coal - it used to be in the air.

So...the net effect will be zero? That's a very philosophical way of looking at it, rather than a practical one. Earth used to be a ball of molten rock too, and a snowball. That doesn't recreating either of those states would be fun.

That coal/oil/gas has been sequestered slowly over many, many millions of years. Fossil fuel formation represents a miniscule fraction of a tiny sliver of a percentage of the carbon cycle. The processes that sequestered the carbon did so excruciatingly slowly, which would have given the ecosystems plenty of time to adapt. By contrast, we're now emitting carbon at about double the rate that it's taken up. Hence the rise we're seeing, and the stress it's starting to put on the environment.

Do I think rising CO2 will spell doom for mankind? Nope. Do I think it's a good thing to do? Hell no. Just looks plain dumb to me.

Anyway, we have no choice. One day the fossil fuels will have all been burnt and we'll have no choice but to switch to zero-carbon energy. If we can see the problem coming, why not get a head start?

Inodoro Pereyra
October 9th, 2011, 04:05 PM
You think that man is capable of stopping climatic change by just cleaning up pollution and planting trees (both worth doing by the way), but you are wrong, the main cause of climatic change is a natural cycle caused by the Earth's orbit wandering closer and farther from the sun over eons, so unless man can alter the Earths wandering orbit climatic change is going to happen, the Earths temperature has been going up AND down for millions of years, well before mankind started to pollute it.
Has mankind affected climatic change, yes, is that the only thing affecting it, no.
We can change and reverse mans pollution, unfortunately I doubt it will happen, but we cannot alter mother natures course to any degree worth doing.
Fix the pollution and learn to adapt to the "climatic change", or die out, it really is as simple as that.

In short, get rid of as much pollution as possible, and adapt to the climatic changes, whatever they may be.

Cheers David

I don't "think" anything. When I'm not qualified to find the right answer to s specific question, I rely on the word of the EXPERTS in the field. In this case, that of CLIMATOLOGISTS, not politicians, nor reporters, and, especially, not that "mother nature" esoteric mumbo jumbo you seem to like so much.
As for climate change being part of a natural cycle, all scientific consensus is that it's not, and all the collected data points out that greenhouse gas concentrations today are much higher than they've ever been, which would clearly mean that other factors that would normally cause natural warm periods are not contributing to the present problem.
So, you're accusing others of not contributing to this thread (not that I disagree with you on that one), but, as of now, I haven't seen you contribute either. If you have reliable, scientific proof to support any of your claims, please, post them, so we can all learn something new. Otherwise, now would be a great time to start practicing what you preach.


Neanderthal man became extinct because they did not adapt to global cooling by migrating to warmer places or changing their dietary habits, so when the big game died out so did they.

Amazing. Not only you know the absolute truth about the causes, extent, and future effects of climate change, but you also know the answer to one of the most important mysteries of modern paleontology. And then you go on, accusing others of being arrogant...:rolleyes:


Oh, if the doomsday predictions (about climatic change) come true, this planet will not die, it will still orbit the sun, humans and larger animals probably will become extinct, but there will still be life on this, the third rock from Sol.

I have never read anybody, here, or in any of a dozen other forums in which this topic has been discussed (sometimes, very often), say or imply that the Earth would somehow die because of climate change. Earth can not die because of a very simple fact: because it's not alive. It is, precisely, "humans and larger animals" we're worried about, mostly because, in case you didn't notice, we happen to be part of that group.


There is much less CO2 and Methane in the air now than in eons gone by. All that coal - it used to be in the air.

Of course it was. In the times when trees used to fly...:rolleyes:

Inodoro Pereyra
October 9th, 2011, 04:29 PM
Do I think rising CO2 will spell doom for mankind? Nope. Do I think it's a good thing to do? Hell no. Just looks plain dumb to me.


Nobody is saying it will. CO2 is ONE greenhouse gas.

Nitrous oxide is about 300 times as powerful as CO2, as a greenhouse gas.
Methane is about 70 times as powerful and also produces ozone layer degradation.
Water vapor makes up about 95% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, and it's the ONLY greenhouse gas that produces positive feedback.
CFC's, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulphur hexafluoride, nitrogen trifluoride, are all over 5000 times as powerful as CO2.

We need to understand it's not about stopping CO2 release into the atmosphere: it's about stopping (or at least minimizing) pollution altogether.

Paqman
October 9th, 2011, 05:06 PM
Nobody is saying it will. CO2 is ONE greenhouse gas.

I think some people assume that is what's being said. The media don't help, by scaremongering.



We need to understand it's not about stopping CO2 release into the atmosphere

I agree with your facts, but not your conclusion. It largely is about carbon, because carbon is the hardest to avoid emitting. Technological tweaks and fuel switching have already greatly reduced the amount of many of the other pollutants like NOx, SO2, etc that we're emitting (at least in the West). It's carbon that'll be difficult to eliminate, because it's the actual fuel used in combustion, rather than a byproduct.


it's about stopping (or at least minimizing) pollution altogether

A noble objective, but I don't think a realistic one in the short to medium term. Our focus should be on targeting the most serious pollutants first. Even some of the "holy grail" technologies like fusion will create some harmful waste products, I don't think you get a free lunch when it comes to running a global civilisation.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 9th, 2011, 07:03 PM
I think some people assume that is what's being said. The media don't help, by scaremongering.

Definitely. That's why it's important to make them understand the facts. Repeating the wrong information like parrots just because it's what most people believe only compounds the problem.


I agree with your facts, but not your conclusion. It largely is about carbon, because carbon is the hardest to avoid emitting. Technological tweaks and fuel switching have already greatly reduced the amount of many of the other pollutants like NOx, SO2, etc that we're emitting (at least in the West). It's carbon that'll be difficult to eliminate, because it's the actual fuel used in combustion, rather than a byproduct.

No, it isn't. NOx is way more difficult to control than carbon, as it is a natural byproduct of just heating air. Water vapor is just about impossible to control directly.
On the other hand, stopping CFC emissions completely would probably be the easiest to achieve, yet there's virtually nothing being done about it, and their effects are just as nasty (if not worse, as ozone layer depletion promotes emission increase of water vapor) as CO2.
The advantage of CO2 is that it's the only greenhouse gas the common people can directly or indirectly manage at home, which means that, with virtually no extra expense, they can make a big difference, in a comparatively short time, and that a decrease on CO2 concentration (and the decrease in average temperatures that'd follow) would also carry a decrease in water vapor production (just as eliminating CFC's would).


A noble objective, but I don't think a realistic one in the short to medium term. Our focus should be on targeting the most serious pollutants first. Even some of the "holy grail" technologies like fusion will create some harmful waste products, I don't think you get a free lunch when it comes to running a global civilisation.

I disagree. Our focus should be on doing all we can, as fast as we can. The common Joe should concentrate on lowering their energy consumption (consequently producing a drop in CO2 and NOx production), while the government and big organizations should implement ways to deal with the more difficult pollutants.
It makes no sense to expect the government, for example, to deal with CO2 emissions. There's just nothing they can do, in the short term. But if we all start using energy more sensibly, we could make a huge difference, in a very short amount of time. The opposite happens with CFC's, for example. It'd be ridiculous to expect, for example, from a normal person to develop the technology to switch their fridge and A/C unit from CFC to, let's say, ammonia, or some other, less toxic, but more environmentally friendly gas, but the government does have the means to do it.

Paqman
October 9th, 2011, 09:33 PM
No, it isn't. NOx is way more difficult to control than carbon, as it is a natural byproduct of just heating air.

NOx levels have been falling steadily in western nations, precisely because they can be controlled. Fitting low-NOx burners to heat engines is not a big deal, and the general move from coal to gas power plants makes a huge difference, as have the tightened emission standards for vehicles (ie: EFI and catalytic converters).


Water vapor is just about impossible to control directly.

It's also not emitted in significant amounts by humans.



On the other hand, stopping CFC emissions completely would probably be the easiest to achieve, yet there's virtually nothing being done about it

Eh? CFCs were phased out years ago. You can't use them in refrigeration any more, nor propellants, and when was the last time you saw a BCF fire extinguisher? Even the replacement technology HCFCs are on the way out. That battle is over.



The advantage of CO2 is that it's the only greenhouse gas the common people can directly or indirectly manage at home

Sure, but domestic energy use is only about a quarter of demand, and the turnover of housing stock is slow. There's only a limited amount you can do to make an old inefficient home better (although personally I'm trying my damnedest!). The potential for large improvements isn't as good as it is in sectors like industry, where efficiency is a valued commodity, and where engineers and scientists get to make key decisions.

You're not going to get a large change in behaviour or attitudes from consumers, because energy is cheap enough that few people give a monkey's about energy efficiency. I think that will change as falling fossil fuel production starts to squeeze energy prices, but we're a fair way off from crunch time yet.

I'm all for people doing whatever they can at home, but it'll only be a part of the solution.



I disagree. Our focus should be on doing all we can, as fast as we can.

That would be nice, but it ain't going to happen. There are too many conflicting interests. It's going to take time to develop the technology to the point where it is competitive economically. Governments have a leading role to play in that, through planning approval, grants, feed-in tariffs, etc. Industry and investors can be standoffish, and a government throwing their weight behind something can create the confidence needed to free up the money for investment. Big projects like nuclear, large hydro or a hydrogen infrastructure can't happen without a benign attitude from government.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 9th, 2011, 11:27 PM
NOx levels have been falling steadily in western nations, precisely because they can be controlled. Fitting low-NOx burners to heat engines is not a big deal, and the general move from coal to gas power plants makes a huge difference, as have the tightened emission standards for vehicles (ie: EFI and catalytic converters).

No, they haven't.
If you look here:

http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html

you will see that, while some NOx levels have dropped, others have gone up, especially those related to agriculture, so that the total level is only slightly lower than 20 years ago.


It's also not emitted in significant amounts by humans.

Water vapor is FORCED by other anthropogenic emissions. You can't look at the problem just as what we emit directly.


Eh? CFCs were phased out years ago. You can't use them in refrigeration any more, nor propellants, and when was the last time you saw a BCF fire extinguisher? Even the replacement technology HCFCs are on the way out. That battle is over.

No, they haven't. CFC's have been banned for automotive use, but household and commercial refrigerators and A/C units still use R-12 and R-22. Either way, HCFC's may be less damaging than CFC's, but they're still harmful.


Sure, but domestic energy use is only about a quarter of demand, and the turnover of housing stock is slow. There's only a limited amount you can do to make an old inefficient home better (although personally I'm trying my damnedest!). The potential for large improvements isn't as good as it is in sectors like industry, where efficiency is a valued commodity, and where engineers and scientists get to make key decisions.

You're talking about electricity, I'm talking about energy in general. You're talking about the end consumer, I'm talking about EVERYBODY.
Upgrading the insulation at home, getting dual glass windows, switching to CFL's (or LED's), installing a solar water heater, switching your heating to propane (if you're currently using oil), and several other small(ish) changes, will make a not so small difference on your energy bills. Switching your car(s) to renewable fuels (ethanol, biodiesel, CNG, propane, butanol, etc), and replacing your 6L V8 for a 2L will make a big difference in your wallet.
If YOU do all that, the overall difference for the environment will be negligible. If half the population does that, the economic impact will be high enough to drive the cost of the technology down, and the industry will follow, as it always does.

There are alternative energy sources (like CNG) that, while not perfect, do make a big difference. Those technologies have been in use in many countries in the World for decades, could be easily implemented here, and, unlike ethanol or other alternative fuels, are way cheaper than gasoline.


You're not going to get a large change in behaviour or attitudes from consumers, because energy is cheap enough that few people give a monkey's about energy efficiency. I think that will change as falling fossil fuel production starts to squeeze energy prices, but we're a fair way off from crunch time yet.

I'm all for people doing whatever they can at home, but it'll only be a part of the solution.

I have already seen, several times, much more pronounced changes in the population, in my country, and several others. If they start promoting knowledge instead of ignorance, and make it viable for people to change, they will. Look at what Brazil did with ethanol. Look at what happened in several European countries with CNG, and other technologies. And, finally, look at what people are doing with biodiesel, even when they have no support whatsoever from the government.

Finally, of course that will only be part of the solution, nobody claimed otherwise. But it's necessary, if we're gonna survive this.


That would be nice, but it ain't going to happen. There are too many conflicting interests. It's going to take time to develop the technology to the point where it is competitive economically. Governments have a leading role to play in that, through planning approval, grants, feed-in tariffs, etc. Industry and investors can be standoffish, and a government throwing their weight behind something can create the confidence needed to free up the money for investment. Big projects like nuclear, large hydro or a hydrogen infrastructure can't happen without a benign attitude from government.

Well, it ain't gonna happen if nobody does anything about it
Most of the technologies have been in use around the World for a long time. They're not new technologies, and they're not particularly expensive either. The only reason why we don't see more biodiesel here, for example, is because the companies that produce it here make more money exporting it to Europe. The only reason why we don't have ethanol, is because everybody insists on keeping alive the corn BS, even when many other countries around the World have been successfully producing it from other feedstocks.
Big projects like nuclear or hydroelectric have obscenely high initial costs, and have a very high environmental impact.
Finally, hydrogen was, is, and will be, for a long time, a pipe dream:


because it has a very low energy density (about 0.03% that of gasoline)
because it causes damage, at a molecular level, to all common metals, especially aluminum, steel and titanium.
because its production causes way more pollution than its use avoids.

I've been following hydrogen technology since the mid '70s. It just doesn't work.

KiwiNZ
October 9th, 2011, 11:38 PM
The bottom line for all of this is simply...

If the we do not wake up and face reality then life style change based on our design will not be an option.

We can either make voluntary changes to help mankind's way of life or we can continue with our collective heads in the sand and change, very big change will be forced upon us.

dh04000
October 10th, 2011, 03:02 AM
Carbon monoxide? Can you elaborate about that? CO is not a fuel...


Anything that is easy to store, is energy rich, and can undergo an exothermic reaction at atmospheric conditions can be a fuel.

The conversion of CO + (1/2) O2 to CO2, in fact, is more energy rich than the conversion of dihydrogen to water. It is also much easier, and safer to compress and store.

There is ALOT of research in catalysts that convert CO2 to CO using low voltage application or mild amounts of heat. And there has been some success by mimicking an enzyme that does the same reaction in a rare form of underwater bacteria, with a small molecule catalyst.

hansdown
October 10th, 2011, 03:42 AM
We can either make voluntary changes to help mankind's way of life or we can continue with our collective heads in the sand and change, very big change will be forced upon us.
I respectfully ask, "forced by whom?".

Inodoro Pereyra
October 10th, 2011, 03:55 AM
Anything that is easy to store, is energy rich, and can undergo an exothermic reaction at atmospheric conditions can be a fuel.

The conversion of CO + (1/2) O2 to CO2, in fact, is more energy rich than the conversion of dihydrogen to water. It is also much easier, and safer to compress and store.

There is ALOT of research in catalysts that convert CO2 to CO using low voltage application or mild amounts of heat. And there has been some success by mimicking an enzyme that does the same reaction in a rare form of underwater bacteria, with a small molecule catalyst.

Hmmm, never heard of it. Thanks for the tip.
However, isn't the goal to stop producing CO2?:confused:



We can either make voluntary changes to help mankind's way of life or we can continue with our collective heads in the sand and change, very big change will be forced upon us.I respectfully ask, "forced by whom?".

By the circumstances. Once the climate gets bad enough, there won't be much of a choice.

Dr. C
October 10th, 2011, 03:56 AM
We can either make voluntary changes to help mankind's way of life or we can continue with our collective heads in the sand and change, very big change will be forced upon us.
I respectfully ask, "forced by whom?".

The degradation of the environment and its ability to support us as a species.

hansdown
October 10th, 2011, 03:58 AM
The degradation of the environment and its ability to support us as a species.

Sounds very scientific.

In light of your reply, I wish to retract my reply to KiwiNZ, with apologies, of course.

Also, a thank you, to you, Dr. C.

pommie
October 10th, 2011, 05:19 AM
I don't "think" anything. When I'm not qualified to find the right answer to s specific question, I rely on the word of the EXPERTS in the field. In this case, that of CLIMATOLOGISTS, not politicians, nor reporters, and, especially, not that "mother nature" esoteric mumbo jumbo you seem to like so much.
As for climate change being part of a natural cycle, all scientific consensus is that it's not, and all the collected data points out that greenhouse gas concentrations today are much higher than they've ever been, which would clearly mean that other factors that would normally cause natural warm periods are not contributing to the present problem.
So, you're accusing others of not contributing to this thread (not that I disagree with you on that one), but, as of now, I haven't seen you contribute either. If you have reliable, scientific proof to support any of your claims, please, post them, so we can all learn something new. Otherwise, now would be a great time to start practicing what you preach.

First off the "you" was not you personally, what should I say "all those people that say that..."
Second, the link I posted earlier

Have a read of this http://www.unisci.com/stories/20012/0413012.htm

Cheers David
is to the "Daily University Science News" not some blog.


Amazing. Not only you know the absolute truth about the causes, extent, and future effects of climate change, but you also know the answer to one of the most important mysteries of modern paleontology. And then you go on, accusing others of being arrogant...:rolleyes:

Form here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101006094057.htm
"ScienceDaily (Oct. 7, 2010) — New research suggests that climate change following massive volcanic eruptions drove Neanderthals to extinction and cleared the way for modern humans to thrive in Europe and Asia."
There is more, go have a read.


I have never read anybody, here, or in any of a dozen other forums in which this topic has been discussed (sometimes, very often), say or imply that the Earth would somehow die because of climate change. Earth can not die because of a very simple fact: because it's not alive. It is, precisely, "humans and larger animals" we're worried about, mostly because, in case you didn't notice, we happen to be part of that group.

OK I will grant you that I did not choose my words very well, how does "It is claimed by many the the earth is dying" sound.
Well yes it is rather obvious the the human race is among "humans and larger animals", but thank you for confirming it.
And to close, more mumbo jumbo, mother nature does not care if we, you know us humans, live or die, this planet was here before humans and will probably be around after we are extinct, in fact it will be around until mother nature causes the sun to go 'pop' then it too dies, do I have to provide links to absolute facts for that statement ??

Cheers David

pommie
October 10th, 2011, 05:26 AM
As the above was a bit off topic ;)

Can we fix the pollution mess we are in, yes, the technology is available, now for the depressing bit, will we fix it, not while money rules, we have to personally give up a lot as well as pay a lot to get it fixed, and most countries simply cannot afford it.
A grim outlook but a realistic one.

Cheers David, who wants money to stop ruling.

Edit:- Disclaimer, the above is my opinion and only my opinion, in no way must it be taken as a statement of fact as I am not in any way qualified to make said statements.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 10th, 2011, 06:19 AM
First off the "you" was not you personally, what should I say "all those people that say that..."

Fair enough.


Second, the link I posted earlier

is to the "Daily University Science News" not some blog.

*sigh*
I read your link.
I don't know how many times this has to be repeated on the same thread, for people to read it, and eventually understand it, but, once again, here it goes:

"CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION"

Your link only talks about correlation. That proves absolutely nothing.


Form here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101006094057.htm
"ScienceDaily (Oct. 7, 2010) — New research suggests that climate change following massive volcanic eruptions drove Neanderthals to extinction and cleared the way for modern humans to thrive in Europe and Asia."
There is more, go have a read.

Very interesting. Yet I still fail to see when "suggests" became a synonym of "proves".
I don't know...maybe I'm using an old dictionary...:rolleyes:


OK I will grant you that I did not choose my words very well, how does "It is claimed by many the the earth is dying" sound.
Well yes it is rather obvious the the human race is among "humans and larger animals", but thank you for confirming it.


Sounds great.
Still doesn't change anything. We don't need to control climate change to stop Earth from dying. Earth is a chunk of rock.
We need to stop climate change to prevent the human race, among many other larger and smaller animals, from becoming extinct, not because "mother nature" might care, but because WE SHOULD.

pommie
October 10th, 2011, 06:58 AM
We need to stop climate change to prevent the human race, among many other larger and smaller animals, from becoming extinct, not because "mother nature" might care, but because WE SHOULD.

This is what I am on about "We need to stop climate change" as far as the data goes climatic change has always happened and always will, it is said by some that we are in an unusual calm period at the moment, if that is true, and I have seen nothing against it, then we are going back to the more usual wildly fluctuating weather conditions of the past millions of years.

We need to change our thinking to "what can we do to lessen the impact (of change) on man and adapt to the new, and changing, climate.
While we let the impossibility of stopping the change blind us we will never adapt to the changes because most (well a lot of) people are just sitting back thinking some miracle technology will be developed to stop it and save us all.
We need to reduce pollution to a manageable level, now not in 2050 or whenever, clean up the mess we have already made, again now, not to stop climatic change but for our healths sake and put all our resources into understanding and coping with the changes.
Unfortunately this involves large populations around the world migrating to places that can feed them, how many countries will open their borders to that kind of thing ??

Cheers David

Inodoro Pereyra
October 10th, 2011, 07:54 AM
We need to change our thinking to "what can we do to lessen the impact (of change) on man and adapt to the new, and changing, climate.
While we let the impossibility of stopping the change blind us we will never adapt to the changes because most (well a lot of) people are just sitting back thinking some miracle technology will be developed to stop it and save us all.
We need to reduce pollution to a manageable level, now not in 2050 or whenever, clean up the mess we have already made, again now, not to stop climatic change but for our healths sake and put all our resources into understanding and coping with the changes.
Unfortunately this involves large populations around the world migrating to places that can feed them, how many countries will open their borders to that kind of thing ??


Oh my,,,
You have your head buried so deep in the sand, I'm surprised you noticed climate at all...

This is not a "hey, let's buy an extra bottle of sunscreen" scenario. This is not something that can be dealt with by "thinking about it".
If the animal and vegetable species that feed us go extinct, we go extinct. Is that concept so difficult to understand?
We can't afford to lose a big portion of our fertile lands to climate change. We can't afford to lose the pastures for our cattle. WE CAN'T LOSE OUR FOOD SOURCE. GET IT?

pommie
October 10th, 2011, 09:51 AM
This is me talking from under a load of sand.
Why can't you (and I do mean you) see that there is no magic solution to climatic change as it is a fact, YES a proven fact, you are under the impression that it is all of mans doing and therefore can be fixed, talk about me having my head in the sand.
Man has sped up the process, by an arguable amount, and that part can be rectified, but climatic change is part of nature, you want facts, how many ice ages have there been, each one of those are two cyclic climatic changes, cooling down and warming up, we are in a warming up period now, and that should not need links to proof as it is everyday knowledge.
As you seem to be in the know, what was the weather like when the earth went through its 'hot' periods, if you know please post links to definite proof, no more than you demand of me, if you can not do this then please stop ridiculing me as I am just as entitled to state my opinion as you are.

Cheers David, who is having difficulty keeping civil.

Edit, almost forgot, why do you keep repeating what I say and making it an insult aimed at me.


Fix the pollution and learn to adapt to the "climatic change", or die out, it really is as simple as that.
Cheers David

nothingspecial
October 10th, 2011, 09:57 AM
This thread is getting close to the wire in terms of closure.

Yes please everyone keep it civil.

pommie
October 10th, 2011, 10:50 AM
My apologies to the thread starter ):P
As this thread is about ways to fix climatic change and I am of the opinion that there is nothing to fix, or rather it cannot be fixed as there is nothing wrong, I have nothing more to add and will bow out of the thread, although I will still follow it as it is an interesting thread and if someone should mention my name... ;-)

Cheers David

sdowney717
October 10th, 2011, 11:34 AM
I dont believe in global warming as reported by the IPCC or Gore ore other extreme doomsayers.

Water vapor is 95% more potent affecting the temperature, CO2 is lower than low as having an effect, mostly this movement is driven by money and or ideology not fact based for those who want to turn the world upside down to re image it in their liking.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

bobbob94
October 10th, 2011, 12:42 PM
Of course climate scientists haven't forgotten about water vapour. It's recognised as part of a positive feedback loop- greenhouse gasses mean higher temperatures which mean higher levels of water vapour in the atmosphere. water vapour amplifies the effects of CO2. of course its rather more complicated than that and not fully understood, but you can't dismiss the ipcc's conclusions on anthropogenic climate change by just mentioning water vapour!

sdowney717
October 10th, 2011, 12:52 PM
Thankfully the climate heat equation does not thermally run away to extremes.
It has been discovered that the earth sheds heat far greater that was thought. If the earth did not, then life could not exist at all.
Perhaps earth would have superheated like Venus. Earth is in the sweet spot where it orbits the sun, too close it burns up, too far it freezes.
The earth also is a boiling cauldron of molten rock which you occasionally see when volcanoes erupt and that releases far more co2 AND water vapor AND Sulfur dioxide than anything we can do. I think If the core was cold, even with the earth located where it is from the sun, it would be a frozen wasteland.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html


NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

bobbob94
October 10th, 2011, 01:13 PM
when volcanoes erupt and that releases far more co2...than anything we can do.

No, they really don't. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions...

bobbob94
October 10th, 2011, 01:35 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Might be worth noting that the story linked to refers to research by Roy Spencer in a journal called Remote Sensing. The editor of this journal subsequently resigned, writing (www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf) that Spencer's paper was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal", and "the problem I see with the paper by Spencer...is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents".

Inodoro Pereyra
October 10th, 2011, 02:30 PM
Why can't you (and I do mean you) see that there is no magic solution to climatic change as it is a fact,

Of course there's no magic solution! But that doesn't mean sitting down and ignoring the problem will make it go away. That's why we have to find a scientific solution for it.


As you seem to be in the know, what was the weather like when the earth went through its 'hot' periods, if you know please post links to definite proof, no more than you demand of me, if you can not do this then please stop ridiculing me as I am just as entitled to state my opinion as you are.

As I already stated, I am NOT "in the know". That's why I rely exclusively on those who are.
This is not a matter of opinion, it's a scientific matter. I keep ridiculing your statements (not you, as I don't know you), because you keep on pulling your "facts" out of thin air, and have failed to provide one single shred of scientific proof, even when you were given ample opportunity to do so.
As per my proof, read the IPCC's reports. There you will find all the proof you need.


I dont believe in global warming as reported by the IPCC or Gore ore other extreme doomsayers.

Water vapor is 95% more potent affecting the temperature, CO2 is lower than low as having an effect.

No, it's not. You need to pay more attention to what you read.
Water vapor makes up 95% of the TOTAL VOLUME of greenhouse gases, and even that is old data. Actually, water vapor has been measured at 36 to 72% of the total (again, depending on location), while CO2 is 9 to 26%. Water vapor potency as a greenhouse gas can not be determined, as it depends on its location.
CO2 global warming potential is set to "1", which, considering its concentration, is anything but "lower than low".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Another rag.
I don't have the time to check the credentials of all that have been cited there, but here's what Wikipedia has to say about Dr. Sigfried Fred Singer:


Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Institute_for_Values_in_Public_Policy), a think tank run by Sun Myung Moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon)'s Unification Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church).[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#cite_note-Scheuering121-49) A 1990 article for the Cato Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute) identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.[53] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#cite_note-52) Scheuering writes that Singer cut ties with Moon, and is funded by foundations and oil companies.[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#cite_note-Scheuering121-49) She writes that he has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal, and that SEPP has received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.[54] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#cite_note-Scheuering125-53)
In August 2007 Newsweek reported that in April 1998 a dozen people from what it called "the denial machine" met at the American Petroleum Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Petroleum_Institute)'s Washington headquarters. The meeting included Singer's group, the George C. Marshall Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute), and ExxonMobil. Newsweek said that, according to an eight-page memo that was leaked, the meeting proposed a $5-million campaign to convince the public that the science of global warming was controversial and uncertain. The plan was leaked to the press and never implemented.[55] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#cite_note-Begley-54) The week after the story, Newsweek published a contrary view from Robert Samuelson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Samuelson), one of its columnists, who said the story of an industry-funded denial machine was contrived and fundamentally misleading.[56] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#cite_note-55) ABC News reported in March 2008 that Singer said he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but he acknowledged that SEPP had received one unsolicited charitable donation of $10,000 from ExxonMobil, and that it was one percent of all donations received. Singer said that his connection to Exxon was more like being on their mailing list than holding a paid position.[57] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#cite_note-Harris-56) The relationships have discredited Singer's research among members of the scientific community, according to Scheuering. Congresswoman Lynn Rivers questioned Singer's credibility during a congressional hearing in 1995, saying he had not been able to publish anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for the previous 15 years, except for one technical comment.[54] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#cite_note-Scheuering125-53)


So, you don't believe on the IPCC, but you follow the words of a scientist on the oil companies' payroll. Does that make sense to you?

sdowney717
October 10th, 2011, 03:20 PM
So, you don't believe on the IPCC, but you follow the words of a scientist on the oil companies' payroll. Does that make sense to you?
absolutely do, it makes no difference what is discussed here as it wont change any ones mind such as in those rabidly espousing a certain belief. AGW is a modern religion with Gaea as the earth goddess.
Propaganda or proselytizing the goal is the same, conversion.

bobbob94
October 10th, 2011, 04:51 PM
absolutely do, it makes no difference what is discussed here as it wont change any ones mind such as in those rabidly espousing a certain belief. AGW is a modern religion with Gaea as the earth goddess.
Propaganda or proselytizing the goal is the same, conversion.

The scientific consensus is clearly that anthropogenic climate change is happening. The theory of anthropogenic climate change is supported by masses of evidence published in peer reviewed journals, and expressed in condensed form in documents such as the reports of the IPCC. This does not, of course, make it a theory that cannot be contested, in the same way as any other scientific theory can be contested.
The fact that it has not been sucessfully contested by reliable evidence is not proof that it is a "modern religion", or "propaganda", it just indicates that it's still the best available theory to explain the observed facts!
There's nothing wrong with questioning the scientific consensus when it's done with evidence and might advance our knowledge of the problem. I have to say though, that calling that consensus a "rabidly espoused belief" seems way out of line, and I've yet to see any serious evidence to justify such an extreme position.

Paqman
October 10th, 2011, 04:56 PM
No, they haven't.
If you look here:

http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html

you will see that, while some NOx levels have dropped, others have gone up, especially those related to agriculture, so that the total level is only slightly lower than 20 years ago.


But it is lower, while energy consumption has gone up. That's a substantial cut. We've already made good improvements with relatively little effort.



Water vapor is FORCED by other anthropogenic emissions. You can't look at the problem just as what we emit directly.


Of course, but that's not something we can control directly.



No, they haven't. CFC's have been banned for automotive use, but household and commercial refrigerators and A/C units still use R-12 and R-22. Either way, HCFC's may be less damaging than CFC's, but they're still harmful.


I checked online, and those refrigerants have been banned for some years in the US, just as in the rest of the world. IIRC you're based in the US? They've not been produced for over 15 years, how much is really still in circulation?

You say nothing is being done, but what more could be done? There might still be a few units with the old refrigerant out there, sure, just like there were still cars without seat belts in the rear seat on the road when I was a kid.



You're talking about electricity, I'm talking about energy in general.

No, I'm talking about total delivered energy too. Here in the UK domestic is about 29% of energy (most of it natural gas) so call it a third if you like rather than a quarter, since it's half way between.



You're talking about the end consumer, I'm talking about EVERYBODY.

I don't understand the distinction. Everybody is a consumer.



Upgrading the insulation at home, getting dual glass windows, switching to CFL's (or LED's), installing a solar water heater, switching your heating to propane (if you're currently using oil), and several other small(ish) changes, will make a not so small difference on your energy bills.

Sure will, no arguments there. Draughtproofing is also a step people overlook too often.


Switching your car(s) to renewable fuels (ethanol, biodiesel, CNG, propane, butanol, etc), and replacing your 6L V8 for a 2L will make a big difference in your wallet.

The latter is a good idea, the former is more difficult. It depends on what kind of infrastructure is available in your area. In the country I grew up in CNG and LPG cars were commonplace, but I've never seen a petrol station offering either in the UK. Fuel switching is a classic chicken and egg problem. Again, these are problems that governments are good at solving, by artificially stimulating either or both of supply and demand.


Look at what Brazil did with ethanol.

Brazil's situation is atypical. Most countries don't have a large agricultural surplus of a near-perfect biofuel stock like sugar cane. I think it's great what they've done, but not every country sits near the equator and can grown vast fields of nice C4 crops for biofuel. A lot of the temperate biofuel crops come perilously close to 1:1 on the energy balance sheet, plus there's all those pesticides and nitrogen.


And, finally, look at what people are doing with biodiesel, even when they have no support whatsoever from the government.

Indeed, I particularly like the use of waste cooking oil from restaurants for running taxis in city centres. Such a perfect fit, and with the added bonus that it makes your cab smell like fish and chips!



Big projects like nuclear or hydroelectric have obscenely high initial costs, and have a very high environmental impact.

Im not a fan of nuclear, but it is undoubtedly low carbon. Hydro is expensive up front but ludicrously cheap to run, which is why it's hard to get funding. It's the old paradox: investors say they wished they'd put their money in hydro decades ago, but can't afford to today (that being exactly what they said decades ago!). Hydro also has by far the highest energy payback of all, well over 200:1 in some cases.



Finally, hydrogen was, is, and will be, for a long time, a pipe dream because it has a very low energy density (about 0.03% that of gasoline)


Only by volume and at atmospheric pressure. Energy density by weight is triple that of petrol. Any practical hydrogen system is going to be very high pressure. Or maybe even liquid. Achieving energy densities by volume in excess of petrol is a simple technical problem to solve, the trick is doing so economically and safely. It's an engineering issue, not a fundamental one.


because its production causes way more pollution than its use avoids.

That depends entirely on how it's made.



I've been following hydrogen technology since the mid '70s. It just doesn't work.

IMO hydrogen is a long way off as a practical energy carrier. There's not much point in using it unless it's derived from renewable energy, but any renewable capacity inserted into the grid would be far more effectively used to displace fossil fuel plant than to make hydrogen. A hydrogen economy will only become viable once we have a surplus of renewable energy to produce it, which is obviously many decades away.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 10th, 2011, 06:47 PM
But it is lower, while energy consumption has gone up. That's a substantial cut. We've already made good improvements with relatively little effort.

True, but most of the NOx doesn't come from energy consumption. Limiting (or eradicating) it from the energy production/consumption cycle is relatively easy, but has a very minor impact on the total numbers. Limiting the NOx produced by agricultural processes is a lot more difficult.


Of course, but that's not something we can control directly.

But we can control it indirectly. That's why lowering all the other greenhouse gases' concentration is so important.


I checked online, and those refrigerants have been banned for some years in the US, just as in the rest of the world. IIRC you're based in the US? They've not been produced for over 15 years, how much is really still in circulation?

Well, I'm not an expert in the field. I am in Miami. I can tell you I have an empty tank of R-22 (hopefully, soon to be the methoxide tank on my future biodiesel reactor) an A/C technician gave me little more than a month ago, when he came to refill my (less than a year old) unit, and, for what he told me, that's all he uses. Also, at least here in Miami, there's a big number of pre '94 cars, still using R-12 (theoretically, automotive A/C techs should tell people to switch to R-134a when their cars run out of gas, but, in reality, there are plenty of techs that have R-12 available).


You say nothing is being done, but what more could be done? There might still be a few units with the old refrigerant out there, sure, just like there were still cars without seat belts in the rear seat on the road when I was a kid.

Sorry, when I made that comment, I made the (obviously wrong) assumption that you lived in the US. I know that, in most of Europe, they are taking the whole issue very seriously. Here, in the US, on the other hand, I see everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything. And the government and big corporations don't even talk about it anymore.


No, I'm talking about total delivered energy too. Here in the UK domestic is about 29% of energy (most of it natural gas) so call it a third if you like rather than a quarter, since it's half way between.

I'm confused. If the domestic consumption is only 29% of the total, where does the other 71% go? I thought you were referring to electricity only...:confused:


I don't understand the distinction. Everybody is a consumer.

I mean the common citizen. The industry is typically slower to follow, as cost has a somewhat more important role in the decision making process than in the case of a common Joe. Sorry, my native language is Spanish. Sometimes it gets difficult to me to find the right words to explain something in English...


Sure will, no arguments there. Draughtproofing is also a step people overlook too often.

Definitely. The problem (as I see it) is that most people tend to think all you can do is replace your light bulbs. There are a lot of little things that can be done, in many cases for little or no money, to make a house more energy efficient.


The latter is a good idea, the former is more difficult. It depends on what kind of infrastructure is available in your area. In the country I grew up in CNG and LPG cars were commonplace, but I've never seen a petrol station offering either in the UK. Fuel switching is a classic chicken and egg problem. Again, these are problems that governments are good at solving, by artificially stimulating either or both of supply and demand.

As I said before, I'm from Argentina. In the late '80s or early '90s (I'm not sure), the government announced, out of the blue, that they would implement a nationwide network of CNG stations. Being a country mostly populated by Spanish and Italian descendants (and therefore, mostly by horsepower crazy people), the announcement was immediately rejected by most. Not long after, a wide array of myths about CNG's alleged disadvantages started circulating.
Regardless, the government went forward with it among (possibly accurate) accusations of corruption. A year later, a lot of people had already switched to CNG, due to its much lower cost per mile (despite the fact that a CNG kit is between $1000 and $1500, in a country where most people, today, make less than $7000 a year). Today, although I don't have any official numbers to show, I'm ready to bet that more than half the cars in my country run on CNG.

I absolutely refuse to accept that the most powerful country in the World can't do what a poor, third world country did.


Brazil's situation is atypical. Most countries don't have a large agricultural surplus of a near-perfect biofuel stock like sugar cane. I think it's great what they've done, but not every country sits near the equator and can grown vast fields of nice C4 crops for biofuel. A lot of the temperate biofuel crops come perilously close to 1:1 on the energy balance sheet, plus there's all those pesticides and nitrogen.

Brazil is just an example. There are several countries around the World, producing ethanol from a variety of feedstocks. A 1:1 energy balance may seem bad, until you learn that gasoline's energy balance is actually negative (the numbers I found hover around 0.75), and that's (as far as I know) not counting transportation of crude oil.


Indeed, I particularly like the use of waste cooking oil from restaurants for running taxis in city centres. Such a perfect fit, and with the added bonus that it makes your cab smell like fish and chips!

Yep, so do I. I've been researching biodiesel for the last 6 years. With any luck, I might be able to start producing my own, soon enough.


Im not a fan of nuclear, but it is undoubtedly low carbon. Hydro is expensive up front but ludicrously cheap to run, which is why it's hard to get funding. It's the old paradox: investors say they wished they'd put their money in hydro decades ago, but can't afford to today (that being exactly what they said decades ago!). Hydro also has by far the highest energy payback of all, well over 200:1 in some cases.

Definitely, but they both have their share of downsides, and, best case scenario, they're long term solutions. It's be much easier (and bring better results) to switch the existing coal plants to renewable fuels, at least for the time being.


Only by volume and at atmospheric pressure. Energy density by weight is triple that of petrol. Any practical hydrogen system is going to be very high pressure. Or maybe even liquid. Achieving energy densities by volume in excess of petrol is a simple technical problem to solve, the trick is doing so economically and safely. It's an engineering issue, not a fundamental one.

No matter how you store it, you always feed it to the engine by volume, and at atmospheric (or higher, but still comparatively low, if you use forced induction) pressure, so that's how you should consider it. Cryogenic storage brings its own set of problems.


That depends entirely on how it's made.

So far, the 2 more efficient ways to produce hydrogen are by steam reforming of natural gas (polluting) or electrolysis (a theoretically perfect electrolysis reactor would use 3 times the energy the obtained hydrogen would produce. Foe real life reactors, the number is about 5 times).


IMO hydrogen is a long way off as a practical energy carrier. There's not much point in using it unless it's derived from renewable energy, but any renewable capacity inserted into the grid would be far more effectively used to displace fossil fuel plant than to make hydrogen. A hydrogen economy will only become viable once we have a surplus of renewable energy to produce it, which is obviously many decades away.

Exactly. But there are also other things to consider, like the impossibility of using current technologies, for example (feeding hydrogen to a normal gasoline engine, for example, would cause it to fail in a fairly short amount of time (due to the hydrogen damage I cited earlier), and would produce a pitiful power output).

Paqman
October 10th, 2011, 07:19 PM
Limiting the NOx produced by agricultural processes is a lot more difficult.

Indeed, and the energy used to get that nitrogen onto the field is going to be a problem when we're having to feed 10 billion off the same land we use now



I'm confused. If the domestic consumption is only 29% of the total, where does the other 71% go? I thought you were referring to electricity only...:confused:

Industry, transport and services. "Services" being a bit of a catch-all term that encompasses commercial buildings, entertainment, public services like hospitals, etc. Generally speaking in the UK domestic, industrial and transport energy are all about equal (25-30%ish) and services is a bit smaller (about 15%ish)



Definitely. The problem (as I see it) is that most people tend to think all you can do is replace your light bulbs. There are a lot of little things that can be done, in many cases for little or no money, to make a house more energy efficient.

Indeed. It's a real shame that a lot of people are under the misconception that being greener will cost you money. In reality, saving energy and being more efficient will save you money.



Brazil is just an example. There are several countries around the World, producing ethanol from a variety of feedstocks. A 1:1 energy balance may seem bad, until you learn that gasoline's energy balance is actually negative (the numbers I found hover around 0.75), and that's (as far as I know) not counting transportation of crude oil.

True, that's a good point.



Definitely, but they both have their share of downsides, and, best case scenario, they're long term solutions. It's be much easier (and bring better results) to switch the existing coal plants to renewable fuels, at least for the time being.

I think in the short term we're going to have to accept that:

Coal will be with us for some time yet
Switching from coal to gas is better than nothing (the UK was able to meet it's Kyoto targets almost entirely by switching power stations from coal to gas)


The advantage of coal is that it's not just cheap, it's plentiful. I suspect we'll be using a lot of coal to fill the gaps left by oil and gas when those run short.



No matter how you store it, you always feed it to the engine by volume, and at atmospheric (or higher, but still comparatively low, if you use forced induction) pressure, so that's how you should consider it. Cryogenic storage brings its own set of problems.

That's just a matter of designing your energy conversion device to suit the flow rate you need to get enough energy out of the tank. Hydrogen fuel cells, for example, work perfectly well even if they're still too expensive for the mass market.


So far, the 2 more efficient ways to produce hydrogen are by steam reforming of natural gas (polluting) or electrolysis (a theoretically perfect electrolysis reactor would use 3 times the energy the obtained hydrogen would produce. Foe real life reactors, the number is about 5 times).

Hence why you'd want to be using renewable energy. Anyway, an efficiency of 20-30% isn't actually that bad, both coal fired power plants and internal combustion engines are about that. Given that hydrogen could be used in machines that aren't limited by the Carnot cycle the overall efficiency of the system could be comparable to what we're stuck with now.

Dr. C
October 10th, 2011, 07:30 PM
...Im not a fan of nuclear, but it is undoubtedly low carbon. Hydro is expensive up front but ludicrously cheap to run, which is why it's hard to get funding. It's the old paradox: investors say they wished they'd put their money in hydro decades ago, but can't afford to today (that being exactly what they said decades ago!). Hydro also has by far the highest energy payback of all, well over 200:1 in some cases. ...


To understand nuclear we need to first take a very close look at what is actually going on. A typical fission nuclear power plant uses way less than 1% of the energy in uranium to produce useful electricity. The rest of the energy ends up wasted, primarily as nuclear waste. What is needed here is a vast improvement in efficiency to start as can be found in 4th Generation Nuclear Reactors. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/energy/nuclear that are 100-300 time more efficient than current designs in use and furthermore can use existing nuclear waste as fuel. Here are some more references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor and an excellent presentation by Bill Gates http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html

To place this is perspective. if we used fossil fuels as inefficiently as we use nuclear fuels we would produce 100-300 times the level of greenhouse gases as we do now for the same level of human activity.

The other nuclear option is of course fusion. It is decades away from development but research in this area is vital. The current generation of nuclear power plants is not a solution.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 10th, 2011, 10:11 PM
Indeed, and the energy used to get that nitrogen onto the field is going to be a problem when we're having to feed 10 billion off the same land we use now

Yep. I'm not sure I even want to think about that. After all this, there might still be a hole in the sand with my name in it... :(


Industry, transport and services. "Services" being a bit of a catch-all term that encompasses commercial buildings, entertainment, public services like hospitals, etc. Generally speaking in the UK domestic, industrial and transport energy are all about equal (25-30%ish) and services is a bit smaller (about 15%ish)

That's what I meant by "everybody". Normally, when it comes to spending on new technologies, each of those sectors has their own clock. Industry, for example, will wait until the technology is cheap enough as to justify the investment. Hospitals are all about reliability, etc.


Indeed. It's a real shame that a lot of people are under the misconception that being greener will cost you money. In reality, saving energy and being more efficient will save you money.

Yeah, or that a lot of people have been misled to think that. It's upsetting to think how many people puts their own agendas before the interest of the whole planet.


I think in the short term we're going to have to accept that:

Coal will be with us for some time yet
Switching from coal to gas is better than nothing (the UK was able to meet it's Kyoto targets almost entirely by switching power stations from coal to gas)


The advantage of coal is that it's not just cheap, it's plentiful. I suspect we'll be using a lot of coal to fill the gaps left by oil and gas when those run short.

I think you're right. But, for what I read, there are improvements being made on that field, not only in the development of CO2 sequestering methods (which is something I don't particularly like, but everything seems to indicate I'm gonna have to learn to live with it), to new "clean coal" varieties.
I think switching from coal to gas (and eventually biomethane) would be a good step forward. I don't see it happening anytime soon though, at least in the US. :(


That's just a matter of designing your energy conversion device to suit the flow rate you need to get enough energy out of the tank. Hydrogen fuel cells, for example, work perfectly well even if they're still too expensive for the mass market.

I agree. But hydrogen fuel cells are a different animal.
The problem I see with them is the same problem I see with electric cars, for example (if they ever become a viable alternative): the need for the end user to replace their car. That makes for a slow (and partial, in most countries) conversion, be it because some people can't afford to change , or because they don't want to. The reason I'm so deeply involved in renewable fuels is, among others, because you don't need to get rid of the car you own today. Most post '90 cars can run up to E20 without hardly any modification. Any diesel car or truck can run B100 (if the weather allows for it) without any modification at all, other than replacing the fuel filter, and, sometimes, a couple of hoses. Those technologies are ready to be used today, with minimal investment, and, to boot, those are fuels you can produce at home.


Hence why you'd want to be using renewable energy. Anyway, an efficiency of 20-30% isn't actually that bad, both coal fired power plants and internal combustion engines are about that. Given that hydrogen could be used in machines that aren't limited by the Carnot cycle the overall efficiency of the system could be comparable to what we're stuck with now.

Remember we're talking about a 20% efficiency on producing the fuel, not burning it. If you're gonna use the hydrogen for a fuel cell, that may be acceptable, given the very high efficiency of the fuel cell itself, but if you use that hydrogen to power an ICE, the combined efficiency is horrible.


What is needed here is a vast improvement in efficiency to start as can be found in 4th Generation Nuclear Reactors. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/energy/nuclear that are 100-300 time more efficient than current designs in use and furthermore can use existing nuclear waste as fuel. Here are some more references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor and an excellent presentation by Bill Gates http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html


Great links!
I have to admit I felt very proud to see my country in the list of participating countries in the development of the new atomic technology.
Of course, on the presentation, being that the speaker was Bill Gates, not surprisingly, the video froze on me about 10 minutes into it, and I had to close it and reopen it. :lolflag:(Seriously, it did).

Ranko Kohime
October 11th, 2011, 12:53 AM
Some of the posts in this thread makes me sad for humanity.... Why do people not trust scientists? Would you ignore your doctor and listen your uncle instead for medical advice? Why won't people trust the people WHOM are EXPERTS in their field? Its insanity. We are the best regulated source of information in the entire world. We actively hunt down and root out bad science and scientists.
Most dentists that I've seen (and no longer patronize) recommend water fluoridation, and fluoride-based toothpastes, despite the fact that it's now known Sodium Fluoride is a toxic waste by-product of several manufacturing sectors, and actually makes teeth and bones brittle, as well as the links being established to Alzheimer's.

Doctors routinely throw medication at the symptoms, rather than the disease (diabetes, cancer, yes, these are symptoms).

I could go on, but my point is this: blind trust in "experts" is the height of ignorance, and the death of critical thought.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 11th, 2011, 01:33 AM
Most dentists that I've seen (and no longer patronize) recommend water fluoridation, and fluoride-based toothpastes, despite the fact that it's now known Sodium Fluoride is a toxic waste by-product of several manufacturing sectors, and actually makes teeth and bones brittle, as well as the links being established to Alzheimer's.

Water is fluoridated with sodium fluorosilicate, not sodium fluoride. Toothpaste is fluoridated with sodium monofluorphosphate.
If you're gonna parade your tin foil hat, at least make sure you used the right kind of tinfoil.


Doctors routinely throw medication at the symptoms, rather than the disease (diabetes, cancer, yes, these are symptoms).

I could go on, but my point is this: blind trust in "experts" is the height of ignorance, and the death of critical thought.

I completely agree with you. Next time you get sick, go ask your congressman of choice to write you a prescription. After all, what could a doctor know about medicine that a lawyer wouldn't?:rolleyes:

pommie
October 11th, 2011, 04:19 AM
oooo I heard my name :p


This is not a matter of opinion, it's a scientific matter. I keep ridiculing your statements (not you, as I don't know you), because you keep on pulling your "facts" out of thin air, and have failed to provide one single shred of scientific proof, even when you were given ample opportunity to do so.
As per my proof, read the IPCC's reports. There you will find all the proof you need.



Another rag.
I don't have the time to check the credentials of all that have been cited there, but here's what Wikipedia has to say about Dr. Sigfried Fred Singer:
As Wikipeadia is allowed as proof,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg/400px-EPICA_temperature_plot.svg.png

From here http://www.geogonline.org.uk/g3a_ki2.4.htm

http://www.geogonline.org.uk/images/g3a_ki2.4_3.jpg
http://www.geogonline.org.uk/images/g3a_ki2.4_4.gif
http://www.geogonline.org.uk/images/g3a_ki2.4_6.gif
http://www.geogonline.org.uk/images/g3a_ki2.4_5.gif
The sources for these images are given on the linked sites.

I am not going to provide any more proof of what I said because it is off topic.

Cheers David

Ranko Kohime
October 11th, 2011, 06:07 AM
Water is fluoridated with sodium fluorosilicate, not sodium fluoride. Toothpaste is fluoridated with sodium monofluorphosphate.
If you're gonna parade your tin foil hat, at least make sure you used the right kind of tinfoil.
Not sure what they use in your neck of the woods, but here the water is testing positive for fluoride, not fluorosilicate.

And I prefer Tritanium/Duranium alloys for my chapeaus, thank you. :D


I completely agree with you. Next time you get sick, go ask your congressman of choice to write you a prescription. After all, what could a doctor know about medicine that a lawyer wouldn't?:rolleyes:
I don't have a congressman, as I do not elect others to do what I am perfectly capable of doing myself.

Paqman
October 11th, 2011, 07:11 AM
Most dentists that I've seen (and no longer patronize) recommend water fluoridation, and fluoride-based toothpastes, despite the fact that it's now known Sodium Fluoride is a toxic waste by-product of several manufacturing sectors, and actually makes teeth and bones brittle, as well as the links being established to Alzheimer's.


Good grief. This thread is turning into a bad satire of Doctor Strangelove.

GerryB
October 11th, 2011, 12:30 PM
Thank you pommie for the links. It seems to me that climate scientists tend to forget the rest of the science. I would also like to thank all of those who have made suggestions to be environmentally friendly. What I get from these suggestions is that being environmentally friendly is being more efficient.

Inodoro Pereyra
October 11th, 2011, 02:39 PM
Thank you pommie for the links. It seems to me that climate scientists tend to forget the rest of the science. I would also like to thank all of those who have made suggestions to be environmentally friendly. What I get from these suggestions is that being environmentally friendly is being more efficient.

Believe me: nobody is forgetting anything.
As with all observational science, there's always gonna be inconsistent readings. That's one of the reasons behind the "percentage of uncertainty" in the IPCC reports. But the evidence supporting the actual models for climate change is overwhelming.
Some people contend that the models are inaccurate. Of course they are, you're predicting the future. Ig a meteorologist can't accurately predict the future path for a hurricane, how could we possibly predict the climate for the whole planet? But the trend the models show holds true.

Finally, thank you for understanding!
Yes, being environmentally friendly has a number of advantages.
I didn't start researching biodiesel because of environmental reasons. I did it because I was outraged, after being left without electricity for 17 days, after Wilma hit Miami. Then I realized that, running a Diesel generator on BD, and staying off the grid, I'd pay about 1/3rd what I was paying for electricity, and that's without using the glycerin byproduct. Making soap (as I've been doing for the last 3+ years) and selling it, not only the electricity would be free, but I'd turn a profit.
Today, if I could take care of some other big problems in my life (which, unfortunately, doesn't seem it's gonna happen), I could start producing BD, soap and ethanol full steam, within just a couple of months, and probably living off of it.
If you do your research, you'll realize that there's a lot of money to be made out of being environmentally friendly (again, look at Terracycle. 2 guys that made millions out of pouring garbage and earthworms into a bunch of wooden trays).

Gremlinzzz
October 12th, 2011, 02:00 AM
Took a ride on bike to the beach today and people are still sunbathing,
which is a little strange for October in Connecticut.but its that warm,Global Warming?:popcorn:

pommie
October 12th, 2011, 07:01 AM
While biodiesel is better than diesel, it does have its own problems, as I can not comment my opinion without ridicule I will just post links.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/1si6.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10116.pdf

Interesting reading.

Cheers David

Inodoro Pereyra
October 12th, 2011, 08:09 AM
While biodiesel is better than diesel, it does have its own problems, as I can not comment my opinion without ridicule I will just post links.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/1si6.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10116.pdf

Interesting reading.

Cheers David

Just some friendly advise: the best way to avoid being ridiculed is to stop being ridiculous.

Your first link would be a clear example of that. If you had taken the time to do any amount of serious research, you would've learned that biodiesel makers have been producing BD that consistently surpassed ASTM D-6751 requirements for years. There are several, very simple tests that. while they don't give a direct reading to assure the fuel meets or exceeds ASTM, they do, combined, guarantee the fuel is fully converted, and free of impurities. And I'm not talking about running B20 (like your link claims), but full B100, in some cases, on new, common rail diesel engines, that are far more delicate than a school bus engine.

About your second link, sorry, but considering your previous track record, there's no way I'm gonna waste my time reading 50+ pages from a link you provide.

Paqman
October 12th, 2011, 09:25 AM
About your second link, sorry, but considering your previous track record, there's no way I'm gonna waste my time reading 50+ pages from a link you provide.

The introduction basically says that they found that corn is not a particularly good biofuel stock compared to grassy crops (presumably stuff like miscanthus) and woody crops. Which is not exactly news.

nothingspecial
October 12th, 2011, 09:25 AM
This isn't getting any better. I posted 3 or 4 requests to keep things civil.

Closed.