EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   The Lounge (https://ecomodder.com/forum/lounge.html)
-   -   The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/climate-change-consensus-extends-beyond-climate-scientists-32842.html)

TheEnemy 09-28-2015 02:36 PM

The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists
 
Please read before commenting.

The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists - IOPscience

The questions in the survey are the same as the ones given to climate scientists a few years ago, and are at the end of the paper. While 97% believe we are a significant contributor, but doesn't define what they mean as significant. A later question helps clear things up #27, has 70% believing we are responsible for more than 50% with 20% of respondents unsure.

Even as a skeptic I still fall into the 97%.

redpoint5 09-28-2015 07:12 PM

Nearly every controversial topic revolves around political, philosophical, and cultural differences. Nothing surprising here.

I believe human factors play a significant role in global warming. However, I don't believe it's anywhere near as big of a problem as many other human caused problems. We still have war, starvation, exploitation, theft, murder, disease, and many other causes of suffering that can be more easily remedied by focusing our efforts and resources directly on them.

The study referenced above implies that people behave contrary to "the facts", and yet it's climate activists that largely ignore the fact that there is little we can do to halt global warming and at great expense. Meanwhile, the effort and money dedicated to that problem can be more effectively used to directly reduce human suffering and promote well-being in other ways.

My objection to the imperative espoused by climate alarmists was unclear to me until I heard what Bjorn Lomborg has to say. Basically, global warming is a big deal, but there are many big deals out there that are more pressing concerns, and stand a larger chance of being positively influenced at a lower cost.

freebeard 04-01-2017 03:51 PM

Quote:

Please read before commenting.
That was easy :) This thread tops a search on 'climate', so here's this, as reported in today's Suspicious0bservers daily update:

Sun's impact on climate change quantified for first time - SNF

Long story short — using chemtrials to ameliorate rising temps in a solar minimum is el stupido. There was also a report on a mechanism that affects coronal heating, the speed of the heliosphere and even earthquakes.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...a-wave-physics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQzWzY3WYrU

freebeard 04-01-2017 08:12 PM

They're Okay until they hit puberty. :confused: Then it's "Whoa, Nellie!"

Note: That April the First S0 post quotes previously published papers; so it's prolly reliable.

Edit: I no longer see the comment that was in reply to. :confused:

justadude 05-30-2017 07:54 AM

I just hope people would be more aware of how dangerous global warming is. People don't know it's bad because they don't see the changes... YET. But there will be a time, soon enough when everyone's going to be sorry for not helping the planet... It's all our fault, pretty much.

Natalya 05-30-2017 09:33 AM

Hmm old topic got revived. Whatever.

@redpoint5:
I've seen you say as much before, "it's real but we can't do much, and there's more pressing problems we can more easily solve with less money anyway." What are your thoughts on problems that climate change is indirectly causing?

For example, changing weather patterns leads to unpredictable rainfall, which leads to crop failures and food shortages, which is politically//socially destabilizing in the affected regions.

Another example is that warming is moving the mosquito line further towards the poles (and other bugs too, such as the ash borer) which spread disease or kill trees//crops.

oil pan 4 05-30-2017 11:37 AM

As long as China and India don't think it's a problem there isn't anything the developed world can do.
Any reductions made by the US, oh Canada, UK, and Europe will be replaced and them some by fast growing China and india.
The only thing the big developed nations could do that would have any lasting or immediate effect would be to build more nuclear power plants.
Everyone says they want to reduce CO2 until they are actually given options that will reduce CO2. Then all of a sudden they don't want to do it.

Fingie 05-30-2017 12:08 PM

theres oo many people on this planet.

If we solved world poverty overnight, imagine the demands on natural resources we would have in the world, if everyone were as rich as the "average" westerner

freebeard 05-30-2017 03:05 PM

Quote:

theres oo many people on this planet.
They're all over the place!

Mainstream science and media are ignorant. Pushing a cap-and-trade or Carbon tax solution is using financial shenanigans to address a situation that is misunderstood.

Nuclear is at an impasse until the 'requirement' for uranium and plutonium is replaced by Thorium. The big players are going renewable:

www.google.com/search?q=renewable+energy+in+china+and+india

Then there is " if everyone were as [profligate] as the "average" westerner"

oil pan 4 05-30-2017 06:05 PM

Other countries use poverty to control their population.
These governments have no need for their population to be literate, to have currency or access to out side influence.
Remember I have been to some of these places.

redpoint5 05-30-2017 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Natalya (Post 541472)
@redpoint5:
I've seen you say as much before, "it's real but we can't do much, and there's more pressing problems we can more easily solve with less money anyway." What are your thoughts on problems that climate change is indirectly causing?

For example, changing weather patterns leads to unpredictable rainfall, which leads to crop failures and food shortages, which is politically//socially destabilizing in the affected regions.

Another example is that warming is moving the mosquito line further towards the poles (and other bugs too, such as the ash borer) which spread disease or kill trees//crops.

These questions are impossible to answer objectively because there is no way to quantify the harm done by the effects of man-made global warming, just as there is no way to quantify the good that results from a warming climate. There are way too many variables at play.

Rainfall has always been unpredictable, and crop failure has always been a threat. Data shows that even if climate change has negatively impacted food production, we have more than offset those losses. Global food production per person has trended upwards since at least 1961.

https://ourworldindata.org/wp-conten...on-768x538.png

https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person/

I despise mosquitos as much as anyone, but there are more effective ways to control their numbers and their impact on health than the futile effort to turn down the temperature of the entire world. Malaria is an extremely survivable disease given adequate healthcare. It's orders of magnitude easier to provide adequate healthcare to people than to freeze those suckers out through climate change. Controlling their numbers through chemical or biological means is also much cheaper. Heck, CRISPR might even eliminate the ability for mosquitoes to transmit malaria.Mosquitos are a red herring to the discussion of the impact of global climate change on human quality of life.

The threat of nuclear war poses a much more likely threat to humanity than global warming, for instance. It's not that climate change is not worth thinking about, it just isn't worth getting angry or losing sleep over... and buying a Prius certainly isn't something a person should feel smug about.

Fortunately conservation and efficiency have their own intrinsic rewards, so the natural progression of things is to improve efficiency and conservation of resources. This progression of technology and efficiency will "automatically" reduce future greenhouse emissions way more than any silly Kyoto Protocol.

Fighting human nature is a losing proposition. Even if 99% of people agree that humans have a significant impact on global warming, their behavior will change very little.

freebeard 05-30-2017 08:26 PM

In times of uncertainly, fall back on your own internal moral compass (Praise Kek). Respect your grey-beard elders:

Quote:

"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Quote:

"Don't reform man, reform his environment"

*cough*vertical farms*cough*

Natalya 05-31-2017 12:35 AM

redpoint you're all over the map. But overall you sound very jaded.

The last thing you mentioned was fighting human nature is pointless. But my experience has been that humans have many kinds of lifestyles and natures. I've also noticed that money talks. Making consumption of fossil fuels expensive prompts people to do other things.

Solar is becoming cheaper than coal in the USA. We're at a point now where the green energy revolution is happening and has started become economical. At the same time electric drivetrain options and batteries are becoming better and better for transportation. And automakers are finally making aerodynamics a serious part of every vehicle they produce. Pretty soon, in most situations, the green options are going to be the cheap options, and that's going to drive a change in human behaviour.

niky 05-31-2017 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 (Post 541479)
As long as China and India don't think it's a problem there isn't anything the developed world can do.
Any reductions made by the US, oh Canada, UK, and Europe will be replaced and them some by fast growing China and india.
The only thing the big developed nations could do that would have any lasting or immediate effect would be to build more nuclear power plants.
Everyone says they want to reduce CO2 until they are actually given options that will reduce CO2. Then all of a sudden they don't want to do it.

Do note that China is leading the way in terms of renewables, with thier big hydroelectric and solar projects.

-

I feel sort of... semi-optimistic that we can still reduce our carbon footprint further. More and more, online work and even online shopping are reducing the need for travel. When you've got a population that only travels for special occassions rather than to work and shop, you've got a vastly reduced carbon footprint per head.

Then there's the whimsical news that the adoption of LED lighting is shrinking the GDP... :D ...we've got ways to bring things down without spending huge amounts.

Maybe the future won't have millions of cars in it... and maybe I won't be able to read at night by the warm glow of an incandescent bulb (but "fake" LED-powered incandescent-a-likes, with their LED "filaments" are amusing enough)... but I expect I can live with that.

oil pan 4 05-31-2017 08:40 AM

The US has also lead the way in renewables. The US has been the number 1 producer of geothermal power since the 1960s. Was the number one producer of hydroelectric from the 1930s up until recently.
A iron smelting company in Maine started the first some what large scale recycling program in the 1820s when they figured out a way to add old metal bits to new iron ore and get everything to melt.

Most recycling stopped after world War 2 due to cheap energy.

NeilBlanchard 05-31-2017 09:09 AM

Brayton Point - the last coal fired power plant in Massachusetts - closed down today.

In Somerset, Last Coal-Burning Power Plant In Mass. Shuts Down | Bostonomix

oil pan 4 05-31-2017 09:32 AM

What replaced that coal fired capacity?
Not all coal plants are bad, some fly ash is needed to make cement and pavement.
Unless anyone thinks burning coal just for the fly ash is a good idea.

redpoint5 05-31-2017 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Natalya (Post 541526)
redpoint you're all over the map. But overall you sound very jaded...

Pretty soon, in most situations, the green options are going to be the cheap options, and that's going to drive a change in human behaviour.

I'm pessimistic about changing human nature, but I'm optimistic that our greedy nature will continue to innovate more efficient products and cheaper sources of energy. This view of people is very consistent. Sure, there are exceptions to the normal way most people behave, but living in tiny houses and eating a vegetarian diet is never going to be popular with the majority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by niky (Post 541528)
Do note that China is leading the way in terms of renewables, with thier big hydroelectric and solar projects.

China is leading the way in something, but I'm not sure we should give an award for it.

https://frustratedboomers.files.word...oto-change.png

NeilBlanchard 05-31-2017 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 (Post 541542)
What replaced that coal fired capacity?
Not all coal plants are bad, some fly ash is needed to make cement and pavement.
Unless anyone thinks burning coal just for the fly ash is a good idea.

Increases in solar, wind, hydro, and possibly gas, I think. Even a little biogas? No new nuclear - Pilgrim nuclear is closing down soon, too.

freebeard 05-31-2017 02:22 PM

No love for Moon power? It's reliable and inexhaustible.

Oscillating water column | Energy without Carbon

oil pan 4 05-31-2017 03:47 PM

Energy with out carbon?
HA!
They show solar panels.
Mono solar panels need liquid helium during production, I think they all need silicon doped with some funky rare earth metals, the mining of which requires a lot of waste radioactive elements to be brought up to the surface. Also very chemical and energy intensive.
The silicon based solar panel epoxy comes from the perto chemical industry.
Tempered glass, requires all the stuff glass needs, so natural gas to melt it and heat treat it.
Aluminum for the frames and everything that goes along with aluminum mining and recycling.

Wind turbines.
Require a base made with a few tons of rebar, 20 to 30 tons of concrete.
The monopole is 20 to 30 tons of steel, or maybe that was for each section of the monopole.
The nacelle is usually around 30 tons of mostly steel, that includes the gear box generator and swivel.
The hub is usually up to 10 tons of steel. Just the steel plate the blades bolts to is 3 inches thick and weighs more 2 or 3 cars.
Each blade can be up to up to 15 tons of mostly fiber glass.
Each wind turbine needs a transformer that weighs a few tons.
Each wind turbine has 50 to 150 gallons of oils, more if they are hydraulic actuated. Less if they are mostly electric.
Unlike solar panels at least almost all of the wind turbines parts can be recycled. With solar panels, you can recycle the aluminum frame and wires, that's about it.

If you love solar panels and wind turbines you also have to love the coal, oil, mining and petro chemical industry.

darcane 05-31-2017 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Natalya (Post 541526)
redpoint you're all over the map. But overall you sound very jaded.

The last thing you mentioned was fighting human nature is pointless. But my experience has been that humans have many kinds of lifestyles and natures. I've also noticed that money talks. Making consumption of fossil fuels expensive prompts people to do other things.

Solar is becoming cheaper than coal in the USA. We're at a point now where the green energy revolution is happening and has started become economical. At the same time electric drivetrain options and batteries are becoming better and better for transportation. And automakers are finally making aerodynamics a serious part of every vehicle they produce. Pretty soon, in most situations, the green options are going to be the cheap options, and that's going to drive a change in human behaviour.

I guess I don't see Redpoint5 as jaded... more that he is realistic.

I would say that people moving to green options because they are cheaper DOES NOT fight human nature at all.

On a whole, people will pick the cheapest energy source that is readily available and reliable. Currently, gasoline and diesel powered cars fill that criteria well. Electric cars do not, because there are availability and reliability issues that still need to be worked out. As technology improves and charging stations become more prevalent, that may change.

Fighting human nature would be to expect them to go to "green" options even though they are expensive, unreliable, and/or unavailable. That is a battle you WILL lose.

freebeard 05-31-2017 07:00 PM

Quote:

Quote: "Don't reform man, reform his environment"
LIFE - Feb 26, 1971 - Page 53 - Google Books Result
I guess that was too obtuse. R. Buckminster Fuller was the Ur-environmentalist.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bW...ciency&f=false

I don't know how to quote from a Google books result, but the first paragraph describes how Fuller envisioned system theory and voluntarism increasing the overall efficiency of energy use. He also advocated renewal sources and an electrical inter-tie across the Bering Strait.

So also clothesline paradox.

niky 06-01-2017 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redpoint5 (Post 541557)
China is leading the way in something, but I'm not sure we should give an award for it.

https://frustratedboomers.files.word...oto-change.png

Percent change, definitely huge, buit that's because China has pulled up a huge chunk of its population straight into the global middle class.

But China's per capita CO2 is still half that of the United States' level.

The Chinese government has done... and is still doing... a lot of boneheaded things with those trillions in cash it has lying around... and the specter of economic recession hangs firmly over the country as China desperately tries to export its money through loans and government-to-government transactions to try to draw more countries into its orbit... but one thing they're doing right is investing massively in renewables and alternative energy, as part of an overall strategy at energy independence and pollution mitigation.

Sure, we can (and do) argue that renewables are expensive, possibly not cost-efficient and etcetera... but by being bullish on renewables, China has managed to become world leader in solar energy supply... exporting it elsewhere.

The current US administration's inward looking focus towards fossil fuels is problematic. The price of oil is just too low, and while it has risen, prices are unlikely to go back to the levels that made quickly-depleted new wells financially lucrative.

Of the three superpowers, US, China and Russia... China is blazing a trail in renewables because it has no oil reserves to lean on. Granted, they're flexing their muscles in the Asian region to lay claim to oil reserves, as well, but they're not putting all their fish in one basket.

sendler 06-01-2017 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darcane (Post 541580)
Fighting human nature would be to expect them to go to "green" options even though they are expensive, unreliable, and/or unavailable. That is a battle you WILL lose.

The free market system will never do what is right for the planet. Would you invest in a project that promises to payback big time in 150 years? It is up to World Councils through Science to chart the course.

NeilBlanchard 06-01-2017 12:21 PM

Renewable energy is free from fossil fuel carbon. That is not the same as carbon free. This is basic stuff.

Renewable energy doesn't consume any fuel, so it is pollution free. And it is essentially infinite - it will last as long as the sun does.

Land based wind is the lowest cost way to make electricity, and solar PV is nearly as low. With proper distribution, and with other renewable sources, and some storage, renewable energy is much more dependable than conventional sources.

redpoint5 06-01-2017 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sendler (Post 541613)
The free market system will never do what is right for the planet. Would you invest in a project that promises to payback big time in 150 years? It is up to World Councils through Science to chart the course.

Your argument is clearly false, because the free market often does "what is right for the planet", unless you believe that replacing whale oil with electric lighting was wrong for the planet.

Your ROI of 150 years is also absurd, because many "green" technologies have much shorter payback periods. Solar electricity can have a payback of 10-20 years. It's mostly a free market that is adopting these changes.

World councils would be comprised of self-interested people like Trump and Clinton, which would be a disaster. Besides that, no world council will ever tell me what car to drive or what lightbulb to use.

Scientists are good at making observations, not making policy. They don't know the economic impact of anything they might propose.

The opposite statement, that the free market always does what is right for the planet is also false. We clearly need regulation to protect us from The Tragedy of the Commons.

My point is that "always" or "never" statements are rarely true.

sendler 06-01-2017 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard (Post 541633)
Land based wind is the lowest cost way to make electricity, and solar PV is nearly as low. With proper distribution, and with other renewable sources, and some storage, renewable energy is much more dependable than conventional sources.

Sorry. I couldn't disagree more. Let's run the numbers.
.
Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar | The Energy Reality Project
.

sendler 06-01-2017 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redpoint5 (Post 541634)
Your ROI of 150 years is also absurd

Ok Captain Literal. A good example is the USA pulling out of the Climate Accord. It costs us money now and pays back when? In 100 years when a Billion people can still live in their traditional coastal cities which didn't go under water every time a big storm comes through? Obviously the more altruistic among us realize that it is worth some extra commitment now to save the future of civilization. But market driven decisions will continue to suck oil and gas out of the ground because gas electric is the cheapest. And transitioning all heavy transport, agriculture, and heat, to electric, on top of trying to maintain the minimum 2% annual growth (that represents a doubling every 70 years and corresponding increase in energy demand) that is required to keep the free market economy from crashing, is a juggling act for which there is no market driven answer.

oil pan 4 06-01-2017 08:50 PM

I like how the liberals want these crazy climate change and environmental laws.
But look at what they have created from them selves.
If you look at a list of the most air polluted cities California owns the top 5 or 6 spots on the list.
Out of a list of the top 20 most air pollutes cities most of them have been under Democrat control for years.
And they think they know what's best for the environment, HA!

freebeard 06-01-2017 10:26 PM

Quote:

...a juggling act for which there is no market driven answer.
Would you settle for a crypto-currency driven answer?

https://www.factom.com/

https://www.ethereum.org/

NeilBlanchard 06-02-2017 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sendler (Post 541639)
Sorry. I couldn't disagree more. Let's run the numbers.
.
Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar | The Energy Reality Project
.

Why then is wind and solar are growing so quickly? Texas and Iowa are leading the way in wind power for a reason. Solar pays for itself in about 10 years - without incentives.

Solutions Project

The true cost of nuclear is only now coming due, with the first 5 plants beginning to be decommissioned. What are we going to do with the nuclear waste? Who will pay for that?

roosterk0031 06-02-2017 01:26 PM

Because tax payers are paying all of wind installation cost. Mid American Energy's CEO was asked on the radio after announcing a 3.6 billion dollar wind farm and stated that it cost them nothing, tax payer cover it all. Simon Conway WHO 1040 radio interview, probably could find the clip on face book.

oil pan 4 06-02-2017 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard (Post 541711)
The true cost of nuclear is only now coming due, with the first 5 plants beginning to be decommissioned. What are we going to do with the nuclear waste? Who will pay for that?

The US no longer recycles nuclear waste thanks to fear and ignorance.
Now it looks like the tax payers will pay for disposal. If the waste were recycled the user would pay for it.
Originally this problem did not exist, it was created.

freebeard 06-02-2017 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally this problem did not exist, it was created.
Quoted For Truth.

How can the Powers that Be depopulate the planet without a War on Carbon?

ThermionicScott 06-02-2017 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebeard (Post 541723)
How can the Powers that Be depopulate the planet without a War on Carbon?

Which "powers that be" are out to "depopulate the planet"? Sources, please.

sendler 06-02-2017 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard (Post 541711)
Why then is wind and solar are growing so quickly? Texas and Iowa are leading the way in wind power for a reason. Solar pays for itself in about 10 years - without incentives.

It's easy to be swept up by the enthusiasm. Solar and wind can help. But just looking at your electric bill of a very thrifty home only shows a fraction of the energy that each person is using. Each of us relies on schools, hospitals, police forces, governments, infrastructure such as roads water and sewer. ect, ect, ect. Our energy consumption is immense. Look it up. We have huge megalopolises. We must be pragmatic. Solar and wind with baseload level storage will not be dense enough, soon enough. We have 150 years to quadruple the current world energy output. At least. And then add in multipliers for the transitioning of all agriculture and heavy transportation in that time frame when the crude oil is gone. And 100 years thereafter to transition all heat when the last of the gas is sucked dry. Good luck without using our second primordial gift of nuclear fuel. Anyone that really thinks the starving hoards of the future will leave this resource untapped is fooling themselves. If we drag our feet too long it will be too late and we will be caught in an energy trap where we don't have the resources to pull of any further transition. It has already been way too long. These plants that we are still using were designed by guys with pencils and slide rules. We can do much better now.

freebeard 06-02-2017 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThermionicScott
Quote:

Originally Posted by freebeard
How can the Powers that Be depopulate the planet without a War on Carbon?

Which "powers that be" are out to "depopulate the planet"? Sources, please.

The first victim of Political Correctness is humor. :( The frame was Hegelian Conflict Resolution. And it should have been \'Carbon-based life forms.\'

That rabbit-hole is pretty darned deep. Sure you wouldn\'t rather talk about the Sekrut Space Program?

Quote:

We have 150 years to quadruple the current world energy output. At least. And then add in multipliers...
Or, contrary-wise, we have 150 years to quarter the inefficiencies in society.

Quote:

“True wealth is the already accomplished organization of human capabilities to clothe, shelter, feed, protect, inform and accommodate the initiatives of human life. The magnitude of true wealth consists of the number of forward days of the number of human beings already provided for.”

From R. Buckminster Fuller’s Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth.
http://petekistler.com/quote-of-the-month/

Quote:

“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”
Good Reads: Quote by Buckminster Fuller

sendler 06-02-2017 11:09 PM

This guy is sharp. Too bad he went dark a few years ago. Do the math.
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/
.

freebeard 06-03-2017 02:37 AM

Bucky went dark in 1989. :( If the trajectory had altered in 1970, the year he estimated humankind first had the intellectual capital to survive, we\'d be in a different state today.

As it is, those ROI estimates from 2011 are being superceded by things like foil roll-to-roll-manufactured solar cells.

OTOH, his Synergetics describes the ground rules for nano-scale structures. People will be studying it whole decades from now.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com