Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[niky]

Wow - so that's the reality then.

The desire to NOT have the world raised to the ultimate Western world level of lifestyle, the American way of life.

Good luck with selling that bucker of cr@p to the Chinese and India - we are off to save the planet, so you folks just go back to your village huts of the past.

Oil production levels reflect market price not reserves.

And the idea that the world is 30 years from running out of coal is utter nonsense.

My mistake on reserves. Been a while since I checked my notes. Proven reserves should last (at current consumption) about 150-200 years.

Global oil production levels don't reflect market prices. Notice that nice, big plateau through 2008, when prices went through the roof? OPEC supply has become relatively inelastic, and they were unable to pump all that much more when prices are high.

It's US production levels that more accurately reflects market prices. The question is how long these "runs" will last.

Whenever the oil and coal runs out, it will eventually run out. The question is whether the world will be ready when the time comes.

-

The third world actually views any and all emissions regulations pushed down its throat by developed countries in the way you described. And there is some merit to that complaint.

China, on the other hand, is one of the biggest energy consumers on the planet... and is using some of that energy to build hydro, solar and other energy projects.

 

[RC45]

The third world actually views any and all emissions regulations pushed down its throat by developed countries in the way you described. And there is some merit to that complaint.

China, on the other hand, is one of the biggest energy consumers on the planet... and is using some of that energy to build hydro, solar and other energy projects.

China is pursuing the cheapest energy options. Where hydro makes sense they dam rivers (and all the ecological damage that brings) and use hydro.

Are "save the planet" types not concerned that solar and wind on any large scale destroy bird populations at an alarming rate?

But the main point is that the 3rd and 4th world do not want to be sent back to the stone age just so that Western Europe can feel good about saving the planet.

The Chinese might even go to war over this.

 

[Barra333]

Are "save the planet" types not concerned that solar and wind on any large scale destroy bird populations at an alarming rate?

Got any sources for us? Especially the solar part.

While we are at it, any chance of backing up any of your claims against the data I showed?

 

[Touring Mars]

The Chinese might even go to war over this.

I doubt it very much, because the Chinese can agree to whatever 'climate deal' suits them. There's not very much anyone can do if they don't.

On that count, I share your pessimism... China have agreed to cut their GHG emissions 'by 60-65%' of their 2005 levels per unit of GDP. Sounds ambitious (and it probably is), but it is also not any great reason to be cheerful... the bit about 'per unit of GDP' is all important, and it shows why the language and wording of these statements can be misleading.

Assuming projections for the economic growth of China are even remotely accurate, China could achieve this target and still be emitting as much as 3 times more GHG emissions by 2030 than it was in 2005... it also says that it aims to peak GHG emissions by 2030, but it remains to be seen what they really mean by that. So much for 'cuts'...

 

[Joel]

It's amazing to me that someone can bury their head in the sand and ignore the environmental impacts of fossil fuels but suddenly they're a tree hugging hippie when you're talking about hydro and wind.

 

[RC45]

Got any sources for us? Especially the solar part.

While we are at it, any chance of backing up any of your claims against the data I showed?

What good would it be for me to make claims that are false?

I really couldn't be bothered proving any sources to folks too lazy to research themselves, but for you I will make an exception.

Solar

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-farms-threaten-birds/
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ifornia-solar-farm-killed-3500-birds-n1990779
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/12918/20150223/solar-farm-set-hundreds-birds-ablaze.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...er-plant-ignites-creatures-mid-air-tests.html
http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/r...t-likely-killed-3500-birds-in-first-year.html
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...field-central-valley-heat-streamer-fire-burn/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/11/death-calif-solar-farms-71-species-bird-found-enti/
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060011853
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/03/solar-panels-desert-tortoise-Mojave

Wind

http://savetheeaglesinternational.o...10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...o-wind-turbines-really-kill-180948154/?no-ist
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/29/bird-deaths-wind-turbines/21358155/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/20/wind-turbines-kill-more-birds-than-bp-oil-spill/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...ld-eagles-are-now-protected-from-prosecution/

I doubt it very much, because the Chinese can agree to whatever 'climate deal' suits them. There's not very much anyone can do if they don't.

On that count, I share your pessimism... China have agreed to cut their GHG emissions 'by 60-65%' of their 2005 levels per unit of GDP. Sounds ambitious (and it probably is), but it is also not any great reason to be cheerful... the bit about 'per unit of GDP' is all important, and it shows why the language and wording of these statements can be misleading.

Assuming projections for the economic growth of China are even remotely accurate, China could achieve this target and still be emitting as much as 3 times more GHG emissions by 2030 than it was in 2005... it also says that it aims to peak GHG emissions by 2030, but it remains to be seen what they really mean by that. So much for 'cuts'...

All the while growing stronger as the West commits economic suicide chasing a stupid goal, trying to change global climate trends, to what end?

 

[RC45]

It's amazing to me that someone can bury their head in the sand and ignore the environmental impacts of fossil fuels but suddenly they're a tree hugging hippie when you're talking about hydro and wind.

Solar and wind farms take up vast tracts of land and are detrimental to many top predators that have otherwise been brought back from near extinction.

It's amazing that someone can bury their head in the sand and ignore the global negative economic impacts of trying to change planetary scaled systems with ill guided arbitrary taxes and restrictions that will have NO effect on the perceived problem.

 

[Joel]

Solar and wind farms take up vast tracts of land and are detrimental to many top predators that have otherwise been brought back from near extinction.

It's amazing that someone can bury their head in the sand and ignore the global negative economic impacts of trying to change planetary scaled systems with ill guided arbitrary taxes and restrictions that will have NO effect on the perceived problem.

Now you're just making things up. I never said anything beyond poking fun at someone being concerned about the environment when it comes to wind but shrugging their shoulders about oil and gas. Did I ever suggest arbitrary taxes? I didn't even mention CO2 or climate change, the point was that it's not reasonable to use birds as a "gotcha" while implicitly supporting open pit coal mines and increasingly dirty methods of oil production.

If you think wind and solar harm vast tracts of land, don't ever look up the oil sands in Alberta where America gets more than a third of its petroleum imports from.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Solar and wind farms take up vast tracts of land and are detrimental to many top predators that have otherwise been brought back from near extinction.

Source required. A comparison to the miniscule slivers of beach used by the oil companies would be welcome too. Remember that you might be addressing people who've worked in the industry

 

[RC45]

Now you're just making things up. I never said anything beyond poking fun at someone being concerned about the environment when it comes to wind but shrugging their shoulders about oil and gas. Did I ever suggest arbitrary taxes? I didn't even mention CO2 or climate change, the point was that it's not reasonable to use birds as a "gotcha" while implicitly supporting open pit coal mines and increasingly dirty methods of oil production.

If you think wind and solar harm vast tracts of land, don't ever look up the oil sands in Alberta where America gets more than a third of its petroleum imports from.

I am well aware of the footprint of the oil sands fields of Suncor and others. I just don't care, that's Canada's problem to rehabilitate, not the USA's.

With oil prices at new lows maybe U.S Oil Sands in Utah will be shelved as other more traditional well sources of oil are now easier to access and extract.

I care about the wind farms and solar concentration farms in the US and want them shuttered and tossed out.

Source required. A comparison to the miniscule slivers of beach used by the oil companies would be welcome too. Remember that you might be addressing people who've worked in the industry

And your point is what? That nobody has worked for an oil company?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I am well aware of the footprint of the oil sands fields of Suncor and others. I just don't care, that's Canada's problem to rehabilitate, not the USA's.

So this is entirely about the USA?

I care about the wind farms and solar concentration farms in the US and want them shuttered and tossed out.

Do you have a good reason for that?

And your point is what? That nobody has worked for an oil company?

No, it's that your blanket statements about what is/isn't fact may actually go against the knowledge of several regular posters here who know the scale of energy works and the differing footprints/effects of fossil plants versus renewable plants.

 

[Imari]

You could start by providing some sources for your own facts before challenging others to prove you wrong e.g. what sea level rise in the 1880's are you talking about?

I was replying to TenEightyOne's post regarding sea level, so I mean the figures that he linked in his post that I quoted.

They're right there in the post you replied to, but here.

I'll remind you that these are not my figures, I was simply making some observations about figures that were posted by someone else. Sea level changes are often a major selling point for the catastrophist crowd, so I thought it was interesting that sea level rates of increase had been more or less stable for the last ~140 years, ie. not noticeably affected by atmospheric carbon concentrations.

I also think you are making a false dilemma here - no-one is saying that any change in global climate is completely manmade... I would have thought that was obvious.

I disagree. While you're right that it's always going to be part manmade and part natural, I think it's fair to say that there's a non-trivial group of people who think that certain aspects of climate are overwhelmingly dominated by human influenced effects. If we look at the OP of this thread, we get plenty of similar rhetoric:

western nations have been polluting the atmosphere for decades with little care for the damage that was being caused. and with the emergence of developing countries like china and india it is set to get a whole lot worse.

also, how can developed nations convince developing countries like china and india that cutting back on immissions and pollution is the way forward? they will always argue that we (the west) polluted for decades, and built strong economies on the back of that pollution, so why cant they?

'As the world's biggest polluter, no real dent in global warming can be made without the US. The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces about 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions. By comparison, Britain emits 3% - about the same as India which has 15 times as many people'

'The average American produces six tonnes of carbon dioxide, the average Briton three tonnes, a Chinese 0.7 tonnes and an Indian 0.25 tonnes.'

- quotes taken from the bbc

This is all pretty directly linking anthropogenic carbon with global warming and all the associated damage that comes with it. That's not the only person taking that view in this thread, but it was by far the easiest to find, being the first post on the first page.

...it's a question of whether observable trends can be adequately explained via forcing mechanisms that do not include known anthropogenic forcings, such as GHG emissions, land-use etc.

I agree, and that's what I've asked for.

However, the null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between observed phenomena and the hypothesised influencing effect, in this case anthropogenic carbon. Unless it's demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty that anthropogenic carbon is having a significant effect on, in this specific case, sea level, then one would rightly assume that there was no link.

I pointed out what I thought were oddities in the data presented, and invited others to help me explain them. I hardly think "I could be wrong, and I welcome anyone providing the facts and logic to prove otherwise" is challenging anyone. Maybe the wording for a polite invitation differs between Australia and Scotland.

You can take cheap shots, or you can join in and help us figure out what's going on.

 

[RC45]

So this is entirely about the USA?

Yes. If I was living in Ireland it would be entirely about Ireland, but when I immigrated to the USA I wanted to live in the greatest free nation on the planet, not some apron string swinging hanger-on-ner nation taking lead from and following blindly the UN and other global socialist cabals.

Do you have a good reason for that?

Yes, mostly because the net energy consumption of the manufacture process of the solar panel fields and wind farm fields far exceeds any carbon footprint reduction they will achieve.

Much like the Prius and other hybrids, a stupid token gesture to 'use less oil than your ugly gas guzzler' without considering the resource cost to build the hybrid vehicle versus the proven and already refined ICE powered vehicle.

No, it's that your blanket statements about what is/isn't fact may actually go against the knowledge of several regular posters here who know the scale of energy works and the differing footprints/effects of fossil plants versus renewable plants.

Then they would be denying the reality of said facts.

Yet another irony refusing to be addressed, when the 'alternate energy source, MMGW proponent crowd' get there wish to shut down all fossil fuel production then what?

It will suddenly become apparent that fossil fuels are really simply fossil resources and that while you might have magic fairy dust to power industry, you have cut off the most important raw material resource of modern industry - fossil fuel.

Without oil production how are you going to manufacture all the components of the green unicorn fart and pixie dust economy?

They are ALL currently produced using petroleum sourced raw materials.

Kevlar, carbon fiber, polyester resins etc. - you will not be able to power, feed and build the world using sisal rope and palm fronds..... unless the end goal is to send us back to the 15th century.

 

[Imari]

Kevlar, carbon fiber, polyester resins etc. - you will not be able to power, feed and build the world using sisal rope and palm fronds..... unless the end goal is to send us back to the 15th century.

There's a difference between using fossil fuels to create goods and simply burning them for energy.

It's possible to make oils, polymers and the like by different methods, but at the moment they're vastly more expensive/less efficient. A litre of quality lubricating oil performs a service that is not easily duplicated, whereas burning that oil to make power is something that can be done by any combustible matter.

There's a lot to be said for making intelligent use of your resources, especially as plastics and composites become a larger and larger part of manufacturing. Given the choice, if any other energy source is even in the same ball park as fossil fuels it's better to use that and divert the fossil fuels to other areas that don't have alternative raw material sources.

 

[RC45]

There's a difference between using fossil fuels to create goods and simply burning them for energy.

It's possible to make oils, polymers and the like by different methods, but at the moment they're vastly more expensive/less efficient. A litre of quality lubricating oil performs a service that is not easily duplicated, whereas burning that oil to make power is something that can be done by any combustible matter.

There's a lot to be said for making intelligent use of your resources, especially as plastics and composites become a larger and larger part of manufacturing. Given the choice, if any other energy source is even in the same ball park as fossil fuels it's better to use that and divert the fossil fuels to other areas that don't have alternative raw material sources.

Natural gas comes to mind, but even fracking scares the Pixie Dust crowd.

I seem to recall that in the USA half of oil is converted into gasoline, about 1/4 into heating oil and about 10% into jet fuel.. that leaves 15% for "all the rest".

The danger here is that the opportunity cost, resource cost etc. of heating everyone's homes in winter with an alternate is much higher than the cost of heating oil - the same with the cost of generating all this electricity that is going to recharge all the battery powered vehicles.

Generating electricity (which is really just moving potential energy from on source to another) is not the most efficient activity, but it is the cleanest way to give access to energy to the masses.

The idea that solar and wind will displace fuel powered generation is short sighted - all the hydro plants and nuclear plants over the last 100 years have not even come close and they are far more effective than wind and solar farms.

The real choice is pretty simple - do we want to continue advancing quality of life, comfort and technology.

a) If so, then we will gobble up fuel to generate the required energy and consume the planet in the process.

b) If not, then we can slow down and go back to the 14th century and preserve the planet as is. After all, people are the problem here.

I choose a. We just have to consume it in a controlled manner.

 

[MatskiMonk]

when I immigrated to the USA I wanted to live in the greatest free nation on the planet, not some apron string swinging hanger-on-ner nation taking lead from and following blindly the UN and other global socialist cabals.

America, you have our sympathies.

 

[samurai8juice]

I seem to recall that in the USA half of oil is converted into gasoline, about 1/4 into heating oil and about 10% into jet fuel.. that leaves 15% for "all the rest".

Go Geothermal instead!

 

[Imari]

The danger here is that the opportunity cost, resource cost etc. of heating everyone's homes in winter with an alternate is much higher than the cost of heating oil - the same with the cost of generating all this electricity that is going to recharge all the battery powered vehicles.

I've lived in New Zealand, Australia and Japan, and none of them use heating oil for heating. It's just not a thing. It seems like heating oil is mostly a US and Canada thing, which raises the question of why it's economic/efficient in those two countries but not anywhere else?

The idea that solar and wind will displace fuel powered generation is short sighted - all the hydro plants and nuclear plants over the last 100 years have not even come close and they are far more effective than wind and solar farms.

Hard to know without development.

It's the same problem that rotary engines have. There's been so much more work put into conventional engines that there's no way that a rotary can compete. Could a rotary be as good or better if it had equal development resources put into it? Maybe. Largely impossible to say without actually doing it.

I mean, hydro, geothermal and nuclear work fine in areas that are suited to them. New Zealand generates most of it's power from hydro and geothermal because it rains all the time and the country sits on a fault line. It just works for them. It might not work for the US, but that doesn't mean that the whole concept should be written off as faulty just because it doesn't suit the environment of the country. Were the US not to have massive coal and oil reserves, then burning them to make power would likely be less attractive as well.

I imagine there are areas of the US that could do just fine on hydro. Apparently, once upon a time, the US was generating as much as 30% of it's power from hydro. Unfortunately, it would seem that the industry hasn't seen much expansion since the 70's.

The US has some magnificent hydro projects. It seems like you're giving them a raw deal by saying that what they're doing now is all that's ever going to be possible.

 

[Danoff]

@Imari, @RC45,

Since you're talking about clean electricity:

http://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/could-a-new-approach-to-thermal-conductivity-revolutionise-geothermal/

 

[RC45]

I've lived in New Zealand, Australia and Japan, and none of them use heating oil for heating. It's just not a thing. It seems like heating oil is mostly a US and Canada thing, which raises the question of why it's economic/efficient in those two countries but not anywhere else?

How prevalent is central heating / cooling in NZ, Australia and Japan? How much of a tempering effect does the sea have on winter temps in Japan.

A large part of the US and much of Canada are subject to extreme winter temps that single room heating would not be very effective at all - hence the central furnace heating the whole structure.

Heating oil is pretty efficient, in other areas natural gas central heating seems to suffice.

Hard to know without development.

It's the same problem that rotary engines have. There's been so much more work put into conventional engines that there's no way that a rotary can compete. Could a rotary be as good or better if it had equal development resources put into it? Maybe. Largely impossible to say without actually doing it.

I mean, hydro, geothermal and nuclear work fine in areas that are suited to them. New Zealand generates most of it's power from hydro and geothermal because it rains all the time and the country sits on a fault line. It just works for them. It might not work for the US, but that doesn't mean that the whole concept should be written off as faulty just because it doesn't suit the environment of the country. Were the US not to have massive coal and oil reserves, then burning them to make power would likely be less attractive as well.

I imagine there are areas of the US that could do just fine on hydro. Apparently, once upon a time, the US was generating as much as 30% of it's power from hydro. Unfortunately, it would seem that the industry hasn't seen much expansion since the 70's.

The US has some magnificent hydro projects. It seems like you're giving them a raw deal by saying that what they're doing now is all that's ever going to be possible.

I believe part of the reason Nukes and hydro remained are under expanded in the later 20th century was the same tree hunger pixie dust environmental crowd and the EPA essentially won't let the development take place.

 

[RC45]

@Imari, @RC45,

Since you're talking about clean electricity:

http://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/could-a-new-approach-to-thermal-conductivity-revolutionise-geothermal/

Geothermal has always seemed like a logical option to pursue. Unfortunately the pixie dusters are fixated on wind and solar.

 

[niky]

I've heard of the graphene cord idea. Seems really neat, but at current technology, it would be prohibitively expensive to make that much graphene. Also, how much heat would a single cable be able to transmit? Would you need a field of cables? Or an underground web of cables? What about breakage?

The attraction of geothermal is that it's relatively simple. And fracking opens up more locations for geothermal installations while promising better efficiency. Without requiring pie-in-the-sky material costs.

Of course, then people would be up in arms over the possible earthquakes... and yes, even the "greenies" are worried about the birds... one of the major obstacles for new wind developments are conservation groups and concerns over environmental impact.

Scares over bird deaths, earthquakes, nuclear waste, wetland degradation, etcetera... all may have some foundation in reality, but there is not a single method of power generation that is completely harmless.

And there are (many) solar arrays that don't kill birds en masse. Turbines can be designed so as not to attract birds... cowled turbines, paint them... pink?... (looked it up... I was close... they want to paint them purple).

At the end of the day, the question is what power generation options provide a viable return on investment while ensuring a continuous supply. Coal and natural gas work for now, but it doesn't hurt to build some sort of redundancy and flexibility into our electrical supply.

 

[Danoff]

I've heard of the graphene cord idea. Seems really neat, but at current technology, it would be prohibitively expensive to make that much graphene.

How much is an unlimited power supply worth? In todays dollars, it'd be roughly... unlimited. My understanding is that the drilling and underground movement is basically a non-issue. Drilling especially we're already doing at a more sophisticated level than is needed.

 

[BobK]

Does anyone else remember when they were saying that nuclear power was going to make electricity so cheap they wouldn't bother to meter it?

 

[Danoff]

Does anyone else remember when they were saying that nuclear power was going to make electricity so cheap they wouldn't bother to meter it?

I don't know whether that was directed at me or not, but just in case it was....

I didn't say don't charge for it. I said it's worth an infinite expense to obtain because you can charge an infinite amount for it in today's dollars.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't know whether that was directed at me or not, but just in case it was....

I didn't say don't charge for it. I said it's worth an infinite expense to obtain because you can charge an infinite amount for it in today's dollars.

It's good for economies too, especially countries that are currently in oil deficit.

 

[BobK]

I don't know whether that was directed at me or not, but just in case it was....

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just wondering if anyone else remembers when that was the "common wisdom" about 40 to 50 years ago, or had heard the sentiment.

 

[DK]

It's good for economies too, especially countries that are currently in oil deficit.

That reminds me of an article from the BBC about Montserrat's efforts to tap into geothermal energy. At the time the article was written, the cost per unit of electricity for Montserrat was over three times what a UK customer would pay.

 

[Denur]

There is overwhelming evidence that there is climate change and that there is global warming, but can someone direct me to facts on to how much human activities are contributing to this?

 

[DK]

Google Scholar is a good place to start. There's a site called SkepticalScience that responds to various claims by those who don't believe that humans are now playing a massive role in climate change, but I'd imagine that to those on the extreme end of that argument would see that as "commie propaganda" or something like that.