Skepticism about Climate Change

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why not?

Hard to teach cows to fart less.

[Ray]

There's a fundamental aspect to all these issues of renewable energy, trade restrictions, import duties, and so on, which is rarely discussed, perhaps because it's too sensitive.

From a purely scientific view, the total prosperity of the human race is fundamentally related to the cost of energy, and the ways we use that energy, or the efficiency with which we use that energy.

The reason why China has grown economically in such a spectacular manner during the past several decades, is because it has been able to combine cheap energy with efficient use of that energy (through cheap labour and the use of the latest technology).

One aspect of the 'cheap energy' has been the burning of fossil fuels using cheaply-built coal and oil powered stations with inadequate emission controls. China is obviously aware of the problem of 'real' pollution and is now moving towards the more efficient, Ultra-Supercritical type of coal-fired power stations, which produce considerably less of the 'real' pollutants that affect human health.

In Australia, I rarely see or hear any mention in the news media or documentary discussions, of this new breed of 'clean' coal power, which is described in the following pdf article.
http://www.idc-online.com/technical_references/pdfs/civil_engineering/Supercritical_coal_fired_power_plant.pdf

Perhaps the technical aspects are too sophisticated for the scientifically illiterate public. Or perhaps there's a reluctance in the media to distinguish between the real and known pollutants which affect human health, (such as particulate carbon, heavy metals, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and various nitrogen oxides), and that clear, odourless gas called carbon dioxide which is essential for all life.

Once this distinction between CO2 and the 'real' pollutants has been broadcast by the media, perhaps the general public will begin to think for itself and demand that reliable and affordable fuel costs, that are technologically possible and have negligible emissions that are know to be harmful, are preferable to the more expensive and less reliable energy which completely removes CO2.

The following article describes the current situation in China, regarding energy supplies and future coal use, in great detail.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/05/15/432141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/

What I find interesting is that the 100 latest, cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power plants in China consist mostly of the Ultra-Supercritical variety, which is the cleanest and most efficient technology available, and no 'subcritical' power plants, which are the old-fashioned type.

By comparison, the 100 latest coal-fired power plants in the US consists of only one Ultra-Supercritical power plant. The rest are the previous generation of Supercritical power plants, and many are of the 'subcritical' variety with even less efficient emission controls.

It seems that China is well ahead of the US in this department. 

I've posted the following charts for those who can't be bothered to read the article. To see the charts for the top 100 US power plants, you'll have to scroll down the article.

[LesPalenik]

So much for stopping Climate Change.  China is a big help.

It looks like Trump wil have to visit China and talk some sense into the Chinese.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi confirmed China is preparing for Mr Trump's first trip to Beijing

http://www.smh.com.au/world/china-smooths-road-ahead-of-donald-trumps-beijing-visit-20170807-gxqxnn.html

[Alan Klein]

What I find interesting is that the 100 latest, cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power plants in China consist mostly of the Ultra-Supercritical variety, which is the cleanest and most efficient technology available, and no 'subcritical' power plants, which are the old-fashioned type.

By comparison, the 100 latest coal-fired power plants in the US consists of only one Ultra-Supercritical power plant. The rest are the previous generation of Supercritical power plants, and many are of the 'subcritical' variety with even less efficient emission controls.

It seems that China is well ahead of the US in this department. 

I've posted the following charts for those who can't be bothered to read the article. To see the charts for the top 100 US power plants, you'll have to scroll down the article.

From the article:

"The U.S. coal fleet is much older than China’s: The average age of operating U.S. coal plants is 39 years, with 88 percent built between 1950 and 1990.7 Among the top 100 most efficient plants in the United States, the initial operating years range from 1967 to 2012. In China, the oldest plant on the top 100 list was commissioned in 2006, and the youngest was commissioned in 2015."

The US plants are older technology, so they are less efficient.  While I applaud China for using later and cleaner technology, they still are going to build 700 coal fired power plants which will contribute to half the 43% increase in CO2 in the world.   Half the 43% increase in CO2 doesn't seem so clean to me regardless that they're using supercritical. 

Meanwhile the US is building 4 coal plants, and shutting down around 15,  and many other plants have been or will be converted to much cleaner natural gas.  The issue with China is that they have 1.4 billion people, at least half who still live in huts and want to drive cars, crap in toilets inside their homes, and eventually get other modern conveniences that require loads of energy.  The idea that the increase of the 43% will end in ten years is a pipe dream, frankly a Chinese lie to bamboozle the west.  So they'll continue building after that point violating their agreement in Paris past 2030. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hard to teach cows to fart less.

Depends on the food they eat, on the number of cows we breed, and on where they fart (indoors or outdoors).
Folks need to think more in terms of what is possible, rather than what might not be possible.
 
Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

Contrary to general belief, most methane from cattle comes from cow burps rather than farts.

Each dairy cow annually emits between 80 and 120 kg of methane (incidentally, mainly through burping and not farting) — which is equivalent to the carbon emissions given off by an average family car over a year

http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/25/cow-burps-rather-than-farts-are-destroying-the-earths-atmosphere-6531638

As for why more methane comes from burps, researchers and scientists are still trying to work out how to reduce cow burps. In the meantime, if you care about the planet, it might be worth avoiding dairy and steaks.

[Alan Klein]

The sky isn't falling as fast.  Scientists change minds about how bad it is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/18/new-climate-calculations-could-buy-the-earth-some-time-if-theyre-right/

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The sky isn't falling as fast.  Scientists change minds about how bad it is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/18/new-climate-calculations-could-buy-the-earth-some-time-if-theyre-right/

Maybe because, apparently unlike you, some people are taking action (and have been improving their behavioral and consumption practices)?

You seem to suggest that because projections (that you do not trust when they are bad) are slightly improved, so you need to do less to help improve further?

The big unknown for Climate Change models is human behavior. Afterall, we humans are the current driving force that is destabilizing the natural equilibrium. The current global warming is manmade, the other variables do not add up to what we are observing/measuring. And the risks are mounting.

The Real Unknown of Climate Change: Our Behavior
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/climate/climate-change-denial.html?mcubz=1

And for those who think that the temperature extremes of the last couple of years were an exception, in 2014 we've entered the warming phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the temperatures of the coming years will be further boosted by that PDO's warming phase in certain locations.

Above average temperatures can be expected in the Pacific Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska, and below average in Mexico to South-East US. Above average precipitation can be expected in the Alaska coastal range and Mexico to South-Western US, and below average precipitation in Canada, Eastern Siberia and Australia, and the India summer monsoon.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The current global warming is manmade

Bahahahaha!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bahahahaha!

Are we supposed to be impressed by your fact-based arguments, or are you demonstrating a state of denial?

To refresh(?) your memory:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg991906#msg991906

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg999042#msg999042

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

Maybe because, apparently unlike you, some people are taking action (and have been improving their behavioral and consumption practices)?

The trend in automobile gasoline consumption has not always been encouraging, wrt to human behaviour. The advances in electronic engine control leading simultaneously to less gasoline consumption and more power, has not universally led to smaller more efficient cars. People, in North America anyway, have instead tended to buy more powerful and larger vehicles, which has offset any gains in fuel efficiency. The sales volumes of larger pick-up trucks and SUVs, used as family vehicles, attests to this. They even sell giant hybrid pick-up trucks now, which are touted for their fuel efficiency; this is done without irony.

It's a perverse outcome, in one sense, although in other ways it makes sense.  For all the whining, gasoline is extremely cheap in North America, which makes me think that Big Oil is externalizing a lot of costs. In theory, big business wants government out of their hair and are in favour of competition, the textbooks all say so, but reality is a little different. Business only wants the government out of their hair when it comes to costs like taxes or public health. Big Coal, for example, is perfectly happy to stop research into the environmental health effects of strip mining. If there is no data, their employees or local residents won't be able to easily sue them in 10-15 years when them become sick. They probably even employ "libertarian-tinged" spokespeople to espouse the view that health is an individual concern, not a public one. If you were worried, why didn't you move? And sage white-haired guys will nod assent. It is easy to see why today's shareholders find these ideas attractive.

Short-term thinking rules. Large-scale societal persuasion only works well in emotional circumstances (immigration, crime, etc.), but works less well in other areas. The effects of prices might work better in circumstances like oil consumption, but North Americans basically believe that they have a right to cheap gasoline. And our governance structures continue to allow Big Oil (and others) to externalize costs. Why force oil companies to clean up the environmental damage now (I am thinking of the Tar Sands), when you can instead pass on the costs to future taxpayers? The costs WILL be paid, of course, but people persuade themselves to defer clean-up, because we need those jobs now.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

...

Which only proves that it's better to listen to scientists that have knowledge in the specific field, than to pay attention to anonymous posters of photoshopped images, who only seek attention (even if they have to make a fool of themselves).

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

Depends on the food they eat, on the number of cows we breed, and on where they fart (indoors or outdoors).
Folks need to think more in terms of what is possible, rather than what might not be possible.
 
Cheers,
Bart

Though the organic foodies don't like it, methane emissions from cattle can be reduced through the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone.  Feed utilization is markedly improved and hence less methane is produced. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Another earthquake in Mexico, within weeks of the previous one. Global warming must be making them more frequent and stronger.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Another earthquake in Mexico, within weeks of the previous one. Global warming must be making them more frequent and stronger.

Why?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

Another earthquake in Mexico, within weeks of the previous one. Global warming must be making them more frequent and stronger.

You are confusing the Mexico earthquake with the regular ones taking place in Oklahoma which are a result of global warming (indirectly because of increase pumping of oil and gas out of the state's substrata).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why?

You guys like to attribute hurricanes Harvey and Irma to Trump and global warming, so I was thinking you must be forgetting this. So, as a public service, I decided to help you. No good natural event should pass without being linked to global warming.

[Ray]

The US plants are older technology, so they are less efficient.  While I applaud China for using later and cleaner technology, they still are going to build 700 coal fired power plants which will contribute to half the 43% increase in CO2 in the world.   Half the 43% increase in CO2 doesn't seem so clean to me regardless that they're using supercritical. 

What! I thought you understood, Alan, that CO2 is not only clean, it's essential for all life.
I'm sure the Chinese understand this. The issue for them is, 'real' pollution, the smog and harmful chemicals in their cities.

Renewable energy and solar panels are another option to reduce the problem of smog and unhealthy pollutants. That such renewables also reduce emissions of that clean and odourless gas called CO2, which is of great potential benefit for humanity, is only relevant because of the market demand of misguided, maniacal alarmists in relation to CO2 emissions.

China is quite happy to meet the demand for cheap and efficient solar panels, just as it has met the demand for thousands of other products which it can produce more efficiently than most other countries.

If solar power, in conjunction with other renewables, ever becomes a reliable and cheaper, and more efficient source of energy than the burning of fossil fuels in the cleanest way possible, using the latest coal-powered technology, then it's game, set and match.

In the meantime, China will continue to satisfy the demand for solar panels from large communities of delusional people who think CO2 is a bady. They're smart people, the Chinese. 

[Alan Klein]

What! I thought you understood, Alan, that CO2 is not only clean, it's essential for all life.
I'm sure the Chinese understand this. The issue for them is, 'real' pollution, the smog and harmful chemicals in their cities.

Renewable energy and solar panels are another option to reduce the problem of smog and unhealthy pollutants. That such renewables also reduce emissions of that clean and odourless gas called CO2, which is of great potential benefit for humanity, is only relevant because of the market demand of misguided, maniacal alarmists in relation to CO2 emissions....

Yes I understand.  But most supporters of climate change incorrectly consider CO2 a pollutant.  So when I said China's addition of CO2 is not so "clean", I was reminding them how bad China is when it comes to their increasing CO2 "pollution".