Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-10-2019, 02:22 PM   #6441 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,909
Thanks: 17,258
Thanked 5,832 Times in 3,520 Posts
assumption

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
That's an interesting question; are we (humanity) more resilient to extinction due to our advanced technology, or more prone to extinction due to it?

My assumption is that most people who believe global warming is the biggest problem probably also believe technology is largely to blame.
I would make two points:
*global warming is an observed phenomena.It's been predicted mathematically,and the empirical data closely match the output of the General Circulation Models,forwards and backwards.
*Secondly,as it's been technology which has gotten us to this juncture, we may rely on technology to move us off our current trajectory.We have the technology.Congress and special interests have been the issue.
'(I)f they see an irreversible move to the pork....they...will be competitors with superior skill when it comes to 'reaching for the levers of power.''
US Representative,Buddy MacKay(D)Florida,August 9,1985

__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-10-2019, 03:34 PM   #6442 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,909
Thanks: 17,258
Thanked 5,832 Times in 3,520 Posts
welcomed

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
When the science is only based on observations then at best you can start to form a hypothesis.
It can be a sound hypothesis and competing hypothesis should be welcomed.
It seems that enough hypotheses have been batted around,that now we have enough theory,supported by empirical measurement to demonstrate the ability to predict climate trends,based upon chosen scenarios,with a high degree of confidence.NASA and NOAA have been nailing predictions for over three decades now.
We're at the Ockham's Razor stage in the maturity of climate science.There's no longer a need to explore any new,potential drivers for global warming.We know how it works already,and we know we're in it.And we know where it's going to go,based upon any scenario we want to throw at the models.
The only real mystery is,whether we'll choose to do anything about it,in a meaningful and timely way.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
litesong (08-12-2019), niky (08-13-2019)
Old 08-10-2019, 03:42 PM   #6443 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 2,935

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 105.14 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 38.51 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 104.48 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 80.94 mpg (US)

Ninja650 - '19 Kawasaki Ninja 650
90 day: 72.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,312 Times in 966 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
I would make two points:
Secondly,as it's been technology which has gotten us to this juncture, we may rely on technology to move us off our current trajectory.We have the technology.Congress and special interests have been the issue.
Unfortunately this is commonly repeated but doesn't tell the whole story. Green advocates constantly state that we have the technology to just totally replace all of the carbon energy to get all we need using solar and wind. They have been repeatedly and erroneously told that all we would have to do is to choose. And that it is the continued profit interests of fossil energy corporations that hold it back. But there is a complete lack of understanding by pretty much everyone of the scale of what we are using. If we were to scrap or retrofit and perform a perfect electrification of all of the $100's of trillions of built out machines, processes, buildings, ect, that run on and were built by the current carbon energy bolus we have been accessing for the last 70 years, The efficiency gains would still leave us needing 9TW average. Lack of understanding of this scale leads to unjustified animosity toward "the evil white men" who are said to refuse to leave carbon in the ground.
.
Civilization has undergone a "Great Acceleration" for 70 years building to 17.5 TW and 100 million barrels a day and cannot undergo any diminished access to energy without a complete crash of the world economic system and large scale human misery. There is no feasible wind and solar build out that can take us to 9TW average and the complete electrification that is need to go with it will take decades and still not do as much as we are doing now due to storability and intermittency constraints. Just leave it in the ground is not so easy. People need to learn about the entire system of energy, economy, human behavior, resource depletion., and start informing others so that we can take the heartfelt energy from the climate protests and add real, pragmatic solutions.
.
Which will involve human activity eventually getting much smaller to fit with the real time solar flows that we can access.
.
Stating that we have 12 years to reach net 0 carbon or we will go "extinct" is just on the face of it obviously not possible. On either count. And just fosters denial and push back.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sendler For This Useful Post:
aerohead (08-10-2019), niky (08-13-2019), redpoint5 (08-11-2019), RustyLugNut (08-11-2019), Vman455 (08-10-2019)
Old 08-10-2019, 03:45 PM   #6444 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,909
Thanks: 17,258
Thanked 5,832 Times in 3,520 Posts
short on testable

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
The definition of science is:
A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.
The AGW religion is lacking in the "testable" area.
So they collect, build and organize knowledge or data and make predictions. Make lots of predictions, but are very short on testable anything.
Normal science uses tests, experiments, reproducible experiments.
The only 'test' they can do,is run their simulations backwards and see if that 'fit's' the record.Which they can do.As to the present and future,all they can do is compile measurements, analyze it,and compare to the simulation.For thirty years they've been pretty good at that.
We don't have an Earth 'clone' on which to experiment and 'test.'
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2019, 03:53 PM   #6445 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,909
Thanks: 17,258
Thanked 5,832 Times in 3,520 Posts
about him

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455 View Post
I don't know that much about him, actually. One of these I'll go visit his house in Carbondale.
The funniest anecdote I heard about Fuller,from someone who worked with him,was that he couldn't ever leave a design alone.The fella's comment was: 'At some point you've got to shoot the designer,or nothing will ever get built.'
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2019, 04:17 PM   #6446 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,909
Thanks: 17,258
Thanked 5,832 Times in 3,520 Posts
3C

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
Got any credible sources saying man is going to warm the planet 3c?
The 3C value is a contextual value,and limited specifically to a doubling of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 280ppmv.
It has to do with what climate scientists refer to as 'climate sensitivity.'
The concept originated with Svante Ahhrenius in 1896.
Climate scientists,over time,and as new data became available,have continuously refined this value,and 3C,today,remains a widely held metric for the atmosphere's response to 560ppmv of CO2.
With a business-as-usual scenario,560ppmv will be reached,and we'll see conditions on Earth as they were,the last time there was that much CO2 in the atmosphere.
We have the paleoclimate data.We know how warm or cold it was in the past.And we know what the greenhouse gas loading in the atmosphere was for each temperature condition recorded,thanks mainly to the Vostok Ice Core Project in Antarctica,with parallel data from both Greenland,and sea-bed sediment cores.
It's hard science.Nothing theoretical about it.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2019, 04:40 PM   #6447 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,909
Thanks: 17,258
Thanked 5,832 Times in 3,520 Posts
unfortunately

Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler View Post
Unfortunately this is commonly repeated but doesn't tell the whole story. Green advocates constantly state that we have the technology to just totally replace all of the carbon energy to get all we need using solar and wind. They have been repeatedly and erroneously told that all we would have to do is to choose. And that it is the continued profit interests of fossil energy corporations that hold it back. But there is a complete lack of understanding by pretty much everyone of the scale of what we are using. If we were to scrap or retrofit and perform a perfect electrification of all of the $100's of trillions of built out machines, processes, buildings, ect, that run on and were built by the current carbon energy bolus we have been accessing for the last 70 years, The efficiency gains would still leave us needing 9TW average. Lack of understanding of this scale leads to unjustified animosity toward "the evil white men" who are said to refuse to leave carbon in the ground.
.
Civilization has undergone a "Great Acceleration" for 70 years building to 17.5 TW and 100 million barrels a day and cannot undergo any diminished access to energy without a complete crash of the world economic system and large scale human misery. There is no feasible wind and solar build out that can take us to 9TW average and the complete electrification that is need to go with it will take decades and still not do as much as we are doing now due to storability and intermittency constraints. Just leave it in the ground is not so easy. People need to learn about the entire system of energy, economy, human behavior, resource depletion., and start informing others so that we can take the heartfelt energy from the climate protests and add real, pragmatic solutions.
.
Which will involve human activity eventually getting much smaller to fit with the real time solar flows that we can access.
.
Stating that we have 12 years to reach net 0 carbon or we will go "extinct" is just on the face of it obviously not possible. On either count. And just fosters denial and push back.
I would say that,it all depends.
If we were to mobilize as a nation,as we've done in world wars,I don't see any reason we couldn't get to carbon-neutral,and then start removing existing atmospheric CO2.
And we've been given 30-years,so why don't we use that value instead.
Hansen's Institute on Climate and Planets did a thought experiment over two consecutive summers.They came up with a template for carbon mitigation:
*get rid of coal unless we can capture and sequester 100% of stack products.
*get rid of SUVs
*get rid of Pickup trucks
*Tighten National/ISO Building Codes for all residential construction
*Tighten National/ISO Building Codes for all commercial construction
*Get the most efficient home appliances into the hands of all Americans
*Get the most efficient lighting into the hands of all Americans
There are entire segments of the economy which were never needed in the first place,and we could get along fine without them.
Shed load wherever possible.
We use twice the energy of Europe,with no improvement in standard of living.It follows that,we can dispense with 50% of current power/energy production and do just fine.
Dubai already has a zero-carbon 'Sustainability City'.Are Americans as smart as rag-heads?
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/

Last edited by aerohead; 08-10-2019 at 04:46 PM.. Reason: correct
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
litesong (08-12-2019)
Old 08-10-2019, 05:29 PM   #6448 (permalink)
Tyrant-at-large
 
Vman455's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 1,571

Little Red - retired - '05 Honda Civic EX
90 day: 49.03 mpg (US)

Pope Pious the Prius - '13 Toyota Prius Two
Team Toyota
90 day: 51.66 mpg (US)
Thanks: 163
Thanked 1,352 Times in 713 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
I don't see any reason we couldn't get to carbon-neutral,and then start removing existing atmospheric CO2.
I can think of several off the top of my head:
-Who's going to pay for it?
-How would we deal with the psychological fallout? (People don't like being told what cars they can or cannot buy, what modes of transportation they can or cannot use, what foods they can or cannot eat, etc.)
-Where will the resources necessary to accomplish the buildout of solar and wind capacity (huge amounts of various metals, concrete, silicon, etc.) come from?
-Where will the resources necessary to accomplish the buildout of energy storage come from?
-How will we get the above out of the ground, refined, manufactured, transported, and installed without using fossil fuel energy?
-And again, who's going to pay for all of that and how?

When we can't even recycle the vast bulk of our plastic waste in this country because we were shipping almost the entirety of it to one country which then decided it wasn't economically feasible to keep accepting and recycling it, it isn't realistic to assert we could handle a complete energy transition simply by willing it into being. You might not think greed, selfishness, laziness, etc. are desirable human traits and we should wish them away, but we can't--they're real, and in order for such a scheme to work, they must be dealt with somehow.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vman455 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (08-14-2019), RustyLugNut (08-11-2019)
Old 08-10-2019, 09:24 PM   #6449 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Radium Springs, NM
Posts: 434

Ford XLT Naked - '14 Ford F-150 XLT
90 day: 15.04 mpg (US)

Ford G-4 with Stinger - '14 Ford F-150 4X4 Super Crew XLT
90 day: 19.8 mpg (US)

Ford Stealth G-4 - '14 Ford F-150 4X4 Super Crew XLT
90 day: 18.14 mpg (US)

XLT Towing Keystone 5th wheel trailer - '14 Ford Keystone 5th Wheel XLT
90 day: 8.04 mpg (US)

Trip 2015 C Max Energi - '15 Ford C Max Energi SWP
90 day: 38.2 mpg (US)

Local 120 volt 2015 C-Max Energi - '15 Ford C-Max Energy SEL
90 day: 55.65 mpg (US)

Local 240 volt 2015 C-Max Energi - '15 Ford C Max Energi SLE
90 day: 57.63 mpg (US)

Energi IC only - '15 Ford C Max Energi Leather
90 day: 31.6 mpg (US)

Energi EV Only - '15 Ford C Max Energi Leather
90 day: 116.85 mpg (US)

Energi Combined - '15 C Max Energi Leather
90 day: 44.9 mpg (US)

Ford Explorer - '20 Ford Explorer XLT
90 day: 24.33 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2
Thanked 495 Times in 256 Posts
Oil Pan, that is crazy talk. In point of fact we need the rich to cut their emissions most of all. Only a small percent of the rich account for about 50% of the emissions so asking a majority of the small emitters to cut their emissions and leaving the rich out of the equation would accomplish nothing. That said however we need everyone to chip in.

I have to ask why you care since you can cut your emissions drastically and still accomplish all the same task you accomplish today. Why should you care if your electricity is low emissions and your car is electric if it is better then what you are driving now? That is unless you are emotionally attached to oil?
__________________




  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2019, 11:01 PM   #6450 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 15,414
Thanks: 3,923
Thanked 5,135 Times in 4,092 Posts
Quote:
The funniest anecdote I heard about Fuller,from someone who worked with him,was that he couldn't ever leave a design alone.The fella's comment was: 'At some point you've got to shoot the designer,or nothing will ever get built.'
Because violence is always funny? The uninformed opinion you heard expressed refers to Fuller's dictum that three pre-production prototypes are necessary to shake out the bugs. The money people wanted to go after just two. Fuller, like our President, wasn't afraid to walk away from the deal. That ended with the U. S. Marines and the trade fair pavilions.

The Dymaxion house was an example. Here's a Kirsten Dirksen tour so you can appreciate the details. It's more interesting than Fuller's (restored) home in Carbondale. Best view I've seen of the kitchen.

A tour of a derelict Dymaxion Deployment Unit at https://youtu.be/HRtV77_3rWA


Quote:
Hansen's Institute on Climate and Planets ... came up with a template for carbon mitigation:
*get rid of coal
**put loopholes in the definitions of the vehicle fleet.
**Tighten National/ISO Building Codes
**Get the most efficient stuff into the hands of all Americans

Shed load wherever possible.
Load shedding is consistent with aerostealth's assertion. The rest, like 'tightening' codes and 'getting it into hands' is very possible to get wrong; and leaves a lot on the table, like Moon power and Biochar.

__________________
.
The lonesome friends of science say the world will end most any day,
well if it does than that's Okay 'cause I don't live here anyway.
I live down deep inside my head where long ago I made my bed...
John Prine RIP

_________________

Last edited by freebeard; 08-10-2019 at 11:06 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Tags
lies, opinion, reality, scam

Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com