CO2 sanity

Imaginos1892 wrote:Lighten up on the Global Warming. If it takes ten minutes to explain to people why you think there’s a problem, most of them will tune you out eight minutes before you’re done.

Your lack of an attention span and unwillingness to deal with complex issues is definitely your problem, not ours.

Out of interest, given that China is currently pumping out more CO2 than any Europe combined (2015 figures here), how would you apply pressure on them to cut back?
Especially given that they plan to double their (coal/wood-fired) Power Generation capacity in the next decade?

Imaginos1892 wrote:But WHY do they insist on playing their eternal one-song opera called Global Warming? (Or whatever is their latest name for it) There are so many other, better reasons to reduce our consumption of coal, oil and natural gas that don’t depend on convincing everybody that The End Is Near when they don’t see the world looking much different. I remember hearing climate gloom-and-doom back in the early 1970’s and the world hasn’t ended yet. Then, it was an impending Ice Age; now it's Global Warming. Most people just groan, and say ‘shut up, Chicken Little’.

I think people are missing the fact that the warming doesn't have an immediate effect right now, but it is going to get more and more pronounced in the future.

Imaginos1892 wrote:There is only so much coal, oil and natural gas in the ground and we’re using it up. It’s taking more and more energy to get the same amounts of coal, oil and gas. When it takes as much energy to produce a barrel of oil as you get from it, you can’t run your economy on oil any more. You can’t even run an oil company on it.

I don't think we have reached the tipping point for production costs vs what the market can bear.

Joat42 wrote:According to data from Bloomberg production costs among the G20-countries for renewable energy (water, wind & sun) are on average lower than fossil fueled energy production.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Norway has already found out that if you try to run a major power grid on unreliable sources like wind and solar, it gets unstable at about 40% ‘renewable’ energy. You can’t just turn up the wind, or the sun, when more power is needed. Load matching is a very tricky business. Brownouts are bad enough, but overvoltage is much worse.

The energy production in Norway is 98-99% hydroelectric and as far as I know they haven't had problems with brownouts - especially considering that their energy grid has very good interconnections with the other Scandinavian countries and the European continent. They are currently ramping up energy production from other renewable sources as wind and solar though in an attempt to diversify .

Joat42 wrote:The production of bio fuels and their impact on rainforest deforestation and food prices in Africa is a problem, but that problem has it roots in a conservative car industry that have been wedded to the oil industry and refused to look at alternatives to the ICE - and it didn't help when car manufactures discovered that they could sell more cars by tweaking them a bit and slapping a eco-friendly sticker on them.

Imaginos1892 wrote:You’re right, piston engines are 15% efficient at best in converting chemical energy into mechanical energy. Gas turbine engines can be over 40% efficient, but would require cars to be completely redesigned. With current technology, it would be possible to build gas-turbine-electric cars that would get 80 to 100 miles per gallon, AND would run on nearly any liquid fuel. Their batteries could also be charged from other sources, using no fuel at all.

Why don’t we have them today? Development would cost $100 million or more, and they would completely disrupt the markets. The entrenched companies don’t see any need to take a chance on new designs when they can just go on selling the same old cars in the same old way. The oil companies wouldn’t want oil consumption to decrease by 30%.

There has been some prototype hybrid cars with turbine electric propulsion but AFAIK they never went anywhere. And then we have the now dead idea of using hydrogen to power cars that was touted as a viable alternative to fossil fueled cars. They really never thought that idea through, did they?!

Joat42 wrote:So you are saying with 100% certainty that there will be no rapid climate change?

Imaginos1892 wrote:Yes, the climate could change. Yes, it could be bad. But with no precedent, nobody can tell with any certainty what’s going to happen. Fifteen years ago there were widespread predictions that the results would be catastrophically bad ‘by 2020’, and it looks like those predictions have failed. Those making the predictions now look like clueless alarmists. ‘But wait! It really will happen this time!’ just sounds like more of the same.

Lighten up on the Global Warming. If it takes ten minutes to explain to people why you think there’s a problem, most of them will tune you out eight minutes before you’re done.
———————————
I'm not just sitting on my ass. I spent almost $20,000 putting solar panels on my house. They consistently produce more power than I use.

All trends point to that we are experiencing a global warming and that it's accelerating. Many of the alarmist reports that say a catastrophe is just around the corner is the fault of news organisations that can't help themselves pushing the most pessimistic estimates because they try to inflate the amount of viewers/readers.

The Chinese are the biggest implementers of renewable energy in the world. They are also building coal stations to provide base load power to their emerging middle class, but renewables are their main goal. You don't have to apply pressure, their pollution and smog is doing that now.

Michael Everett wrote:Out of interest, given that China is currently pumping out more CO2 than any Europe combined (2015 figures here), how would you apply pressure on them to cut back?
Especially given that they plan to double their (coal/wood-fired) Power Generation capacity in the next decade?

Joat42 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:..snip..
Under AGW Theology, the switch to "green energy" means less energy and more expensive energy. The result is that someones living standard suffers. So far the major victims are Africans whose food is being burned to fuel Europe. Ditto for the Amazon rain forest being cut down for biodiesel.

Maybe you should keep up on new information.

According to data from Bloomberg production costs among the G20-countries for renewable energy (water, wind & sun) are on average lower than fossil fueled energy production.

Fossil fuel costs is between 49-174 USD per MWh and renewable costs is between 35-54 USD per MWh.

Also, the renewable energy sector employs more people than the fossil energy sector.

The production of bio fuels and their impact on rainforest deforestation and food prices in Africa is a problem, but that problem has it roots in a conservative car industry that have been wedded to the oil industry and refused to look at alternatives to the ICE - and it didn't help when car manufactures discovered that they could sell more cars by tweaking them a bit and slapping a eco-friendly sticker on them.

The whole idea of cutting down forests and buying up food crops for bio-fuel production is revolting IMHO, because it impacts the environment and populations negatively - exactly as the traditional oil industry do.

Anyway, the current top consumer of bio-diesel is actually the US closely followed by Germany and then Brazil.

The suppossed costs of renewables are based on nameplate capacity that ignores operational capacity factor. There is a crap load of wind turbines in the Columbia gorge with several Gigawatts of peak operating capacity. The Bonnieville Power Authority's load balancing site reveals that the windmills seldom generate more than a few hundred megawatts. When the windmills do produce power, it is when we do not need it and it is so erratic that they hammer the water turbines that they are synchronized to.

Joat42 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Actually there is no evidence supporting the extreme climate change predictions. Will Happen is an expert on that.

So you are saying with 100% certainty that there will be no rapid climate change?

Are you a climate scientist doing research so you can unequivocally say that there is no evidence?

Because almost all of the climate scientist in the world says you are dead wrong.

While studying physics and computer science at New Mexico Tech, I interned with atmospheric scientists studying thunderstorms. Also learned and worked with astronomers who were extremely cognizant of how atmospheric absorbtion bands affect remote sensing. I also studied with planetary scientists who used KNOWN physics to understand the temperature profile of planets. I also was involved in experiments with IR laser propogation.

CO2 is not the predominant greenhouse.

Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas.

Any classically trained operational meterologist understands that the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is self regulating. CO2 is NOT the thermostat that regulates the temperature of the planet by regulating water vapor concentration.

The AGW gurus are so fixated on how CO2 affects the Earth's IR emissivity that they ignore other factors such as albedo, land use effect on albedo and emissivity and heat transport effeciency from the equator to the poles.

AGW gurus are so ignorant that they have recently claimed that melting of the Arctic ice is a positive feedback that amplifies global warming. If they knew how to do the math, they would understand that the Arctic ocean is an enormous heat radiator that is actually regulated by Arctic ice which acts as an insulator for the Arctic ocean. Ocean water and ice both have IR emissivities of nearly 100%. However; the primary heat transport mechanisms to the Arctic are ocean currents and rivers from surrounding continents. Once athick enough layer of Arctic ice forms to effectively insulate the ocean, the surface temperature of the ice plummets and the IR radiation flux which is proportional to temperature squared goes to near zero.

Most so called "Climate Scientists" have zero training in atmospheric physics much less ocean physics. They generally have degrees in biology, zoology, physcology or other equally irrellevant BS.

Will Happer is not bought and paid for by the fossilfuel industry. He just understands how to check the math.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

Joat42 wrote:So you are saying with 100% certainty that there will be no rapid climate change?

Are you a climate scientist doing research so you can unequivocally say that there is no evidence?

Because almost all of the climate scientist in the world says you are dead wrong.

While studying physics and computer science at New Mexico Tech, I interned with atmospheric scientists studying thunderstorms. Also learned and worked with astronomers who were extremely cognizant of how atmospheric absorbtion bands affect remote sensing. I also studied with planetary scientists who used KNOWN physics to understand the temperature profile of planets. I also was involved in experiments with IR laser propogation.

CO2 is not the predominant greenhouse.

Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas.

Any classically trained operational meterologist understands that the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is self regulating. CO2 is NOT the thermostat that regulates the temperature of the planet by regulating water vapor concentration.

The AGW gurus are so fixated on how CO2 affects the Earth's IR emissivity that they ignore other factors such as albedo, land use effect on albedo and emissivity and heat transport effeciency from the equator to the poles.

AGW gurus are so ignorant that they have recently claimed that melting of the Arctic ice is a positive feedback that amplifies global warming. If they knew how to do the math, they would understand that the Arctic ocean is an enormous heat radiator that is actually regulated by Arctic ice which acts as an insulator for the Arctic ocean. Ocean water and ice both have IR emissivities of nearly 100%. However; the primary heat transport mechanisms to the Arctic are ocean currents and rivers from surrounding continents. Once athick enough layer of Arctic ice forms to effectively insulate the ocean, the surface temperature of the ice plummets and the IR radiation flux which is proportional to temperature squared goes to near zero.

Oh well, if a temporary once upon a time intern-to-meteorologists says so, clearly we must disregard the findings of the massive consensus of all the climatologists on earth, and also the plain data in front of our face.

Most so called "Climate Scientists" have zero training in atmospheric physics much less ocean physics. They generally have degrees in biology, zoology, physcology or other equally irrellevant BS.

I think you are confusing climatologists with the whack jobs who spend their time denying climate change.

Will Happer is not bought and paid for by the fossilfuel industry. He just understands how to check the math.

He was specifically caught red handed being bought and paid for. So....

Just so everyone understands, I DO NOT believe that fossil fuels are the only energy option. No matter how large the potential reserves might be, they are FINITE. Hydraulic fracturing technology has enabled extraction of enormous reserves but the potential will be exhausted within a century. I doubt that there are major, additional, recoverable sources that remain unidentified.

I grew up with a neighbor who consulted with the Bonniville Power Adminstration modeling river flows and reservoir capacities. He built analog computers to do it. He had the circuits overlaid on a map on a table just as a visual aid. Everything was wondering wonderful back when timber and Agriculture we're the backbone of the economy. Then we got a few million more people working in energy intensive industries like semiconductors and server farms.

Eventually, we will need to shift to new energy sources. Hopefully; the experience of burning Plutonium from decommissioned Soviet nuclear weapons will help the United States to overcome the Carter phobia of recycling spent fuel rods and the Quixotic quest to build a nuclear waste suppository. ( Get the joke?). However; the supply of fissionable is limited. We will have to shift to fusion. Unfortunately; the supply of aneutronic fusion fuels such as lithium, berrylium, and Boron are limited. Even Deuterium in the oceans is limited.

The ultimate energy source will be the pre-existing fusion reactor known as the sun. Roof top solar and even solar farms will play a valid role. Ocean​ Thermal Energy Conversion will play a bigger role. Solar Power Satellites will be THE major power source for centuries. Eventually, we will be putting them in close or it's around the sun.

The only disagreement is when and how we go solar as well as why. Building boondoggles in response to chickenshitlittle propaganda is not good for humanity or the planet.

gcomeau wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

While studying physics and computer science at New Mexico Tech, I interned with atmospheric scientists studying thunderstorms. Also learned and worked with astronomers who were extremely cognizant of how atmospheric absorbtion bands affect remote sensing. I also studied with planetary scientists who used KNOWN physics to understand the temperature profile of planets. I also was involved in experiments with IR laser propogation.

CO2 is not the predominant greenhouse.

Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas.

Any classically trained operational meterologist understands that the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is self regulating. CO2 is NOT the thermostat that regulates the temperature of the planet by regulating water vapor concentration.

The AGW gurus are so fixated on how CO2 affects the Earth's IR emissivity that they ignore other factors such as albedo, land use effect on albedo and emissivity and heat transport effeciency from the equator to the poles.

AGW gurus are so ignorant that they have recently claimed that melting of the Arctic ice is a positive feedback that amplifies global warming. If they knew how to do the math, they would understand that the Arctic ocean is an enormous heat radiator that is actually regulated by Arctic ice which acts as an insulator for the Arctic ocean. Ocean water and ice both have IR emissivities of nearly 100%. However; the primary heat transport mechanisms to the Arctic are ocean currents and rivers from surrounding continents. Once athick enough layer of Arctic ice forms to effectively insulate the ocean, the surface temperature of the ice plummets and the IR radiation flux which is proportional to temperature squared goes to near zero.

Oh well, if a temporary once upon a time intern-to-meteorologists says so, clearly we must disregard the findings of the massive consensus of all the climatologists on earth, and also the plain data in front of our face.

Most so called "Climate Scientists" have zero training in atmospheric physics much less ocean physics. They generally have degrees in biology, zoology, physcology or other equally irrellevant BS.

I think you are confusing climatologists with the whack jobs who spend their time denying climate change.

Will Happer is not bought and paid for by the fossilfuel industry. He just understands how to check the math.

He was specifically caught red handed being bought and paid for. So....

And your alleged expertise is?

Home work assignment for you.

Derive the simplified equation that defines the equilibrium temperature of the planet taking into account albedo, emissivity and insolation. For simplicity assume that the Earth'ssurface is a thermal superconductor so that polar temps are equal to equitorial temps.

Until you can demonstrate some understanding beyond propaganda, your sarcastic condencension is bovine scatology.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:And your alleged expertise is?

Being able to read the findings of the ACTUAL experts in the field.

Here, you try it:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

(Pro tip: That was not written by zoologists or psychologists)