Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,500
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    binbisso
    Newest Member
    binbisso
    Joined
Jonger

Climate Change Banter

Recommended Posts

 

 

An "icehouse earth" is the earth as it experiences an ice age. Unlike a greenhouse earth, an icehouse earth has ice sheets present, and these sheets wax and wane throughout times known as glacial periods and interglacial periods. During an icehouse earth, greenhouse gases tend to be less abundant, and temperatures tend to be cooler globally. The Earth is currently in an icehouse stage;[5] as ice sheets are present on both poles and glacial periods have occurred at regular intervals over the past million years.[6] However, it is possible that human greenhouse gas emissions may shift the climate past the hysteresis point into an enduring greenhouse earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted this in the Renewable energy thread, but figured this thread might have some more thoughts?

 

Ok, ok....anyone care to comment on this little study? Solar (if used at a large scale) changes to climate could be worse at a regional level than the global mean? I am confused as heel now (although I did see they mentioned the reduction in solar energy due to incresed cloudiness due to enhanced hydrolgic cycle of warming (something I mentioned several years ago on this forum).

 

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2843.epdf?referrer_access_token=9UpIos5nbkRkNcJLRAE6Q9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mhk46FmRPT6xmGxMzCdDQj_TR4jrCkwdeqZFN1QrXjfHoK87yJZqypLgWpzOmK61DNYfeT2hs3rYl59iPKYONBGn_0izI1woInoyvtFs9WQ5P1OaaNW3cnY-LYYJRk6H_EBuxVUw5DaQ-U00hLlUoY-eiBVldc-UBSKD4nB-IvLSLtcTLfkMV0sfgMClr8tqa1JbmWuKg2lsHfY-urVpePIglAB4wKIlgDhSCjewcgNoYbWqaqj03hRI9BTLmBNLGs9yxMB_s7u9sURFWs3EX1&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted this in the Renewable energy thread, but figured this thread might have some more thoughts?

 

Ok, ok....anyone care to comment on this little study? Solar (if used at a large scale) changes to climate could be worse at a regional level than the global mean? I am confused as heel now (although I did see they mentioned the reduction in solar energy due to incresed cloudiness due to enhanced hydrolgic cycle of warming (something I mentioned several years ago on this forum).

 

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2843.epdf?referrer_access_token=9UpIos5nbkRkNcJLRAE6Q9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mhk46FmRPT6xmGxMzCdDQj_TR4jrCkwdeqZFN1QrXjfHoK87yJZqypLgWpzOmK61DNYfeT2hs3rYl59iPKYONBGn_0izI1woInoyvtFs9WQ5P1OaaNW3cnY-LYYJRk6H_EBuxVUw5DaQ-U00hLlUoY-eiBVldc-UBSKD4nB-IvLSLtcTLfkMV0sfgMClr8tqa1JbmWuKg2lsHfY-urVpePIglAB4wKIlgDhSCjewcgNoYbWqaqj03hRI9BTLmBNLGs9yxMB_s7u9sURFWs3EX1&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Solar has been a shadey renewable for sometime, but the carbon investment needed to build a large solar grid is not nearly as large as the nuclear footprint. What we need is victory by a thousand cuts if we want to survive the climate crisis as a functioning civilization. 

 

Safe to say human extinction is off the table save for all the very worst scenarios which compromise 10% of the suite. Regardless, altering precipitation patterns with widespread solar or geoengineering could be bad news bears and worse in the long-run.

 

I strongly advocate for carbon capture scaled down to all vehicles and as many sources as possible rather than wind and solar. A combination of bio-char and aggressive reforestation would perhaps save us from sliding into the greenhouse earth mode permanently. (on time scales relevant to humanity)

 

Deep in the future, assuming functioning civilization continues, we will be able to tap into the fantasy energy technology outlined by the IPCC, which would be infinite with no draw-down. We live in interesting times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suck it from the air... inject it into the earth.

 

From whence it came.

 

This is quickly becoming a real possibility too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh me....I'm scared...lol.

It's only a question of whether we hit tipping points at 1.25C vs 2.00C. A sudden meltdown of a portion of Greenland could occur this decade. At the rate of warming, AMOC collapse is not fast enough to stop the retreat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a cheap source of energy and fossil fuels are the only way to meet this need in the next few decades. solar, wind etc is just not efficient enough to meet our energy needs if we want to remain a 1st first world nation.  Very disappointed that the keystone pipeline was vetoed again!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't surprise me that a meteorologist has a different opinion about the atmosphere. Its very common and we disagree with each other on all kinds of storms, etc. However with climate there IS censorship. You have to "believe" or be silenced. This is like going back to the ages of Galileo. How sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a cheap source of energy and fossil fuels are the only way to meet this need in the next few decades. solar, wind etc is just not efficient enough to meet our energy needs if we want to remain a 1st first world nation.  Very disappointed that the keystone pipeline was vetoed again!!!

As has been pointed out to you many times on this forum, wind is on par or cheaper than all fossil fuels in cost. Solar is not far behind. The free market has been choosing wind over fossil fuels for the last 5+ years. The FREE MARKET has been building more wind capacity than coal or natural gas capacity recently. Why? Because it's cheaper.

 

Welcome to the 21st century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been pointed out to you many times on this forum, wind is on par or cheaper than all fossil fuels in cost. Solar is not far behind. The free market has been choosing wind over fossil fuels for the last 5+ years. The FREE MARKET has been building more wind capacity than coal or natural gas capacity recently. Why? Because it's cheaper.

 

Welcome to the 21st century.

 

sources??? Where did you get this info? I have said many times that if solar is affordable to the average person there would be a revolution in how we energize our homes. We could get off the grid or less dependent on the grid which would save the average person a lot of money. Last I heard a while back (from the news), solar still was quite expensive like 20,000 for a 2000 sq foot home. Is that still true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sources??? Where did you get this info? I have said many times that if solar is affordable to the average person there would be a revolution in how we energize our homes. We could get off the grid or less dependent on the grid which would save the average person a lot of money. Last I heard a while back (from the news), solar still was quite expensive like 20,000 for a 2000 sq foot home. Is that still true?

 

Here in central Texas, the installed cost for solar is around $1.80/watt ($1,800/kW).  Which is why the West Texas solar farms can make a profit selling power at $0.04/kWh, the contractual price Austin Energy just signed for solar power.  For a 2,000 ft2 home, you can get a ball-park cost by looking at your utility bills and adding up your total energy usage, in kWh, for a year and dividing by 1,500 (the approx annual kWh produced per kW of installed capacity) to get the size of the solar array to offset your power consumption.

 

A more detailed and precise estimate of your solar potential is easy to produce by using the PVWATTS calculator created by NREL [link]  It takes into account array location and weather for that location when calculating solar energy production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in central Texas... 

 

A more detailed and precise estimate of your solar potential is easy to produce by using the PVWATTS calculator created by NREL [link]  It takes into account array location and weather for that location when calculating solar energy production.

 

It always cracks me up when people attempt to either implement or disdain solar generally while looking at it from a 'low watt' perspective. Here in the land of constant cloud cover, solar is a joke. Wind, however, is profitable at .07 kwh. Our local REA Co-op uses a NYS grid sourced combination of hydro (Niagara Falls, St. Lawrence), nuclear, and etc. to deliver a base volume at .04 kwh, and an overage price of .07. The gap is closing quite quickly, particularly as older nuclear plants are decommissioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sources??? Where did you get this info? I have said many times that if solar is affordable to the average person there would be a revolution in how we energize our homes. We could get off the grid or less dependent on the grid which would save the average person a lot of money. Last I heard a while back (from the news), solar still was quite expensive like 20,000 for a 2000 sq foot home. Is that still true?

 

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Since 2007 there has been more wind and solar installed than gas and coal in the U.S. 

 

These are free market enterprises built by companies like GE and purchased by utility companies at market prices. 

 

Again, welcome to the 21st century. Imagine what would be possible with a little government subsidy along the way to fight climate change.

08-US-Power-Plant-Capacity-additions-200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar just sits and earns money after being installed. Requires no fuel source.

 

You install a coal or natural gas plant and you have a non stop expense to keep it running, you don't with solar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ball is now in China's court to have any meaningful reduction in global emissions.

But the good news for the U.S. is the better air quality due to more gas and renewables.

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/new-co2-emissions-report-shows-chinas-central-role-in-shaping-worlds-climate-path/

 

Since China is responsible for almost 30 percent of current global emissions and emissions continue robust growth, to have any realistic chance of keeping below two degrees requires strong action by China. We estimate that the remaining emission quota to stay below two degrees Celsius requires China to reduce emissions at around 8 to 10 percent per year and this is, in many cases, greater than the mitigation challenge for the United States. By comparison, the transition to nuclear energy in France, Belgium and Sweden in the 1980s led to reductions of 4 percent per year, but they only lasted for a decade. The mitigation challenge for China is immense.

I wonder if that chart takes into account their recent refiguring upwards of coal consumption(?), if not, then yikes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if that chart takes into account their recent refiguring upwards of coal consumption(?), if not, then yikes!

The western world buys their products, encouraging the trend. I think we are still highly responsible even if our share is relatively smaller. More importantly, the industrial revolution began in Europe. As far as I can see, the ball is in everyone's court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ball is now in China's court to have any meaningful reduction in global emissions.

But the good news for the U.S. is the better air quality due to more gas and renewables.

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/new-co2-emissions-report-shows-chinas-central-role-in-shaping-worlds-climate-path/

 

Since China is responsible for almost 30 percent of current global emissions and emissions continue robust growth, to have any realistic chance of keeping below two degrees requires strong action by China. We estimate that the remaining emission quota to stay below two degrees Celsius requires China to reduce emissions at around 8 to 10 percent per year and this is, in many cases, greater than the mitigation challenge for the United States. By comparison, the transition to nuclear energy in France, Belgium and Sweden in the 1980s led to reductions of 4 percent per year, but they only lasted for a decade. The mitigation challenge for China is immense.

 

Climate change is a global problem and will require a global solution. A carbon tax applied equally across the globe is the best solution. This would allow market economics to reduce emissions in the most cost-effective manner. Driving the best long-term energy technologies and regional emission strategies. It may or may not be cheaper to reduce emissions in China vs the US or other countries. Note that our current system is sub-optimal and has resulted in over-investment in fossil fuels, particularly coal. We are generating huge future liabilities to replace fossil energy infrastructure and pay for climate damages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a global solution isn't happening anytime soon since there is no collective will make it happen right now.

More likely is that we continue on a business as usual track and are forced to just live with a warmer world.

0.5-0.8C additional warming is locked in already if we stopped emitting. The Faustian bargain will become dangerous and life-threatening by 2030, as the aerosol forcing goes away when we finally succeed in leaving the BAU situation. The future is now, imo. We must have global solutions now or geo-engineering will be needed, which has its own caveats and economic liability.

 

Civilization as it is structured now cannot exist in the transition mode between icehouse and greehouse Earth and you risk drowning 35% of the world's GDP in rapid SLR over short-timescales (50-200 years). There is no going back from that, sorrys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now would be the time for progressives to come together with libertarians if there is any chance of overthrowing this evil oligarchy. The above is not acceptable, and it's likely you will not be a winner if Big Oil gets their way.

 

Thanks for revealing the truth for all to see tho. You can't get more evil than this, methodically planned in cold blood. Much is more at stake, this agenda is suicidal and goes againist what America has always stood for.

 

 

A second scenario, called “Scramble,” envisioned the world continuing to balk at real action, because “curbing the growth of energy demand—and hence economic growth—is simply too unpopular for politicians to undertake,” as Shell’s scenario planners put it in an interview with Funk. Coal and biofuels would drive the growth of developing countries, choking the air and driving up food prices. While Indonesia and Brazil were mowing down rainforests to grown palm oil and sugarcane, Canada and the United States would turn their attention toward “unconventional oil projects” like Canada’s tar sands.

As Funk puts it, “The hardest truth about climate change is that it is not equally bad for everyone.”

Climate activists would grow increasingly shrill, but the general public would suffer “alarm fatigue.” Rich and poor nations would deadlock over who should do what as emissions spiraled past 550 parts per million. (In 2013 they reached 400 ppm for the first time—a frightening milestone.) At that point the impacts of climate change would be too great to ignore—but it would be too late to do much about it. In the final stage of the Scramble scenario, the planners wrote, “An increasing fraction of economic activity and innovation is ultimately directed towards preparing for the impact of climate change.”  

 

 

 

For that we can thank congressional Republicans and their supporters, who continued to insist that climate change wasn’t real, wasn’t a problem, or wasn’t worth doing anything about. You see, unlike big oil companies, congressional Republicans aren’t required to understand science in order to do their jobs. And unlike big oil companies, their financial fortunes don’t necessarily depend on being right about the future. Bankrolled by Koch Industries, conservatives in Congress and the media have continued to oppose environmental regulations and downplay climate change even as companies like Coke and Nike are starting to feel its effects. Obama and the Democrats, for their part, have been too concerned with unemployment and health care to push very hard. By 2012 Obama had all but taken a carbon tax off the table. But Funk never veers into politics, and he isn’t interested in assigning blame. For him, Shell is only a particularly illustrative example of how sharp-eyed businesspeople around the world are positioning themselves to thrive in a hotter future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a global solution isn't happening anytime soon since there is no collective will make it happen right now.

More likely is that we continue on a business as usual track and are forced to adapt to a warmer world.

 

Yes we will have to adapt. We are inching to a global solution. The physics will push us there eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some contemporary authors have characterized current conditions in the United States as oligarchic in nature.[8][9] Simon Johnson wrote that "the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent," a structure which he delineated as being the "most advanced" in the world.[10] Jeffrey A. Winters wrote that "oligarchy and democracy operate within a single system, and American polit is a daily display of their interplay."[11] Bernie Sanders, opined in a 2010 The Nation article that an "upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class … In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country."[12] The top 1% in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.[13] In 2011, according to PolitiFact and others, the top 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."[14][15][16][17]

 

French economist Thomas Piketty states in his 2013 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, that "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."[18]

A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University, and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, was released in April 2014,[19] which stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts."

 

It also suggested that "Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise." Gilens and Page do not characterize the US as an "oligarchy" per se; however, they do apply the concept of "civil oligarchy" as used by Jeffrey Winters with respect to the US. Winters has posited a comparative theory of "oligarchy" in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a "civil oligarchy" like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection.[20]

Gilens says that average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it; that is, economic elites and interest groups are influential.[21]

In a 2015 interview, former President Jimmy Carter stated that the United States is now "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery," due to the Citizens United ruling, which effectively removed limits on donations to political candidates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't even be the big winners in the longer term. But you can probably blame evolution for that.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/10/brain-climate-change-science-psychology-environment-elections

 

For one thing, human brains aren’t wired to respond easily to large, slow-moving threats.

“Our brain is essentially a get-out-of-the-way machine,” Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard best known for his research into happiness,told audiences at Harvard Thinks Big 2010. “That’s why we can duck a baseball in milliseconds.”

While we have come to dominate the planet because of such traits, he said, threats that develop over decades rather than seconds circumvent the brain’s alarm system. “Many environmentalists say climate change is happening too fast. No, it’s happening too slowly. It’s not happening nearly quickly enough to get our attention.”

I guess we are going againist the grain of evolution. I don't buy it, the solution is simple and by creating a environment which precludes the possibility of overshoot, you eliminate the threat. In other words, we should have stayed in small tribes. A clever human community can do this while still holding onto advanced technology.

 

We are just another juncture in which the species is tested and brought to the edge. If it's possible for us to see the big picture, anyone can do it and respond to long term threats. We need a massively aware population, no more BS, no more lies.

 

Yes, there will be no long-term winners. It's the wrong way to conduct a civilization entirely, and the population would need to fall back in order to sustain anarchistic lifestyle. We need to somehow escape to the other side without losing our technological advancement.

 

If not, you can prepare for nothing short of our species going extinct. It's easy to blame biology on the current situation but our current configuration is a relatively recent phenomenon. The true human mode is completely sustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about how much of our global system is organized around short-termism.

By product of having a hedonistic society. I'm sure growing up into a mature adult, you have realized that true peace of mind only comes from inside. Materialism leads progressively to downfall at every turn.

 

In the end, the powers that created western civilization are to blame, and this goes way back to pre-roman times. On the flipside, eastern civilization is not perfect. We have just been using old world belief systems and this is causing problems. Technology is advancing too fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Since 2007 there has been more wind and solar installed than gas and coal in the U.S. 

 

These are free market enterprises built by companies like GE and purchased by utility companies at market prices. 

 

Again, welcome to the 21st century. Imagine what would be possible with a little government subsidy along the way to fight climate change.

08-US-Power-Plant-Capacity-additions-200

 

This is  only additions. Renewables are not near natural gas or oil/coal yet are they as a sum total? Government has to subsidize renewables because they aren't profitable. If they ever become profitable enough you will see a rapid shift. Look at natural gas usage.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is  only additions. Renewables are not near natural gas or oil/coal yet are they as a sum total? Government has to subsidize renewables because they aren't profitable. If they ever become profitable enough you will see a rapid shift. Look at natural gas usage.... 

 

Yes they are additions. That is the whole point. The free market is choosing to build solar and wind over gas and coal because it is more profitable. 

 

Again, welcome to the 21st century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wut....

 

gfs_T2ma_nhem_53.png

 

See more recent run. These are computer models projections. They vary widely as you get out to 16 days. Look at all the COLD on this one. That means global warming is false. /sarc

 

post-1184-0-01564700-1448806433_thumb.pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are additions. That is the whole point. The free market is choosing to build solar and wind over gas and coal because it is more profitable. 

 

Again, welcome to the 21st century.

 

Wait a minute... are you saying that burning dead plant material isn't futuristic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute... are you saying that burning dead plant material isn't futuristic? 

 

It is NOT a free market when government subsidies,( i.e your tax dollars) are assisting energy companies with renewables. All these "BIG OIL" companies which are demonized want to do is make money. That is all they care about and this is what they should care about. If  government subsidies help them make money they will develop renewables and you and I will pay the price....higher energy costs. If we decarbonize our energy sources it will be more expensive and punishing for the middle class and downright evil for the poor. The BIG OIL companies still make tons of money. Its the middle class scleps like you and I that foot the bill and 3rd world nations that suffer the most. This is all over a trace gas that has very little influence on the climate. This will go down as the biggest scam in the 21st century which ultimately will lead to more worldwide poverty and with that environmental destruction!!! Ever see the treeless country of Haiti??  Check out google earth sometime...this once was an island full of tropical rainforests....just look at Dominican republic which is not as poor they still have some tropical forests left.   Such fools...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×