Skepticism about Climate Change

[Alan Klein]

I meant ...the equivalent BTU's from water?...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I see you posted my answer before I posted my question.  Pretty soon we won't have to post at all.  We'll just clairvoyant our thoughts.

Telepathy?

The question I have about you last point is what is the cost for the hydrolysis process of water?  New products are developed for many reasons, or are improved, but cost is an important factor.  Saudi Arabia pulls a barrel of oil out of the ground for about ten dollars.

But that's without the hidden cost for Carbon.

What would the electrolysis cost be to get the equivalent BTU's from oil?

Don't know, but it does require a modified engine AFAIK. We have a number of companies that run hydrogen powered buses in cities. The exhaust is water (vapor).

After all, if photovoltaics were so cheap, we'd all be off the commercial electric power grid.

Well, PVs are getting cheaper all the time, and efficiency gets better as well. Last Sunday we had an opening of a crowd-funded Solar Panel Field (7000 panels near a technology park) in Breda, no subsidies required, and the citizens who invested (from € 25 or more) get some 3% - 6% ROI (which is more than current interest rates) as immediate reduction (varies with energy price) on their electricity bill, and make a real contribution to the environment. We're probably at 50% of the achievable potential efficiency for Silicon-based PVs, so research is ongoing for stacked cells with additional different absorption spectra that are possible with other semiconductors.

But of course, there also has to be storage for when the sun doesn't shine (enough), and there are already different storage possibilities (amongst others, Hydrogen electrolysis). So it will require a mix of energy sources and as little burning of fossil fuel as possible.

Cheers,
Bart

[Tim Lookingbill]

Tim:  I don't understand the benefit.  Oil is algae that's been in the ground a long time.  So how does burning new algae reduce effects on climate over burning ancient algae in oil?  Is there less pollution?

You're right, Alan. This Dept. Of Energy video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxyvVkeW7Nk

...fully explains the advantages of an algae farm and is not going to reduce pollution but just make the US less dependent on foreign oil. But it does say algae is going to need a lot of CO2 to grow which is the same as planting a tree I guess.

Guess I was wrong about ExxonMobil's intentions. I assumed they were going green and a believer of Global Climate Change.

My mistake.

[Alan Klein]

You're right, Alan. This Dept. Of Energy video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxyvVkeW7Nk

...fully explains the advantages of an algae farm and is not going to reduce pollution but just make the US less dependent on foreign oil. But it does say algae is going to need a lot of CO2 to grow which is the same as planting a tree I guess.

Guess I was wrong about ExxonMobil's intentions. I assumed they were going green and a believer of Global Climate Change.

My mistake.

Well the algae thing and just recently they came out in favor of the Paris Accord and other green energy projects.  I believe they did it mainly for political and business gain.  They're trying to show that although they are in the oil business, they want to be good stewards of the earth or seem like they are.   

The truth is we all exploit the earth.  But we can still be good stewards while taking advantage of the earth's riches.  But I was just thinking, what would happen in your Texas if they shut down all the oil wells tomorrow? 

[LesPalenik]

The truth is we all exploit the earth.  But we can still be good stewards while taking advantage of the earth's riches.  But I was just thinking, what would happen in your Texas if they shut down all the oil wells tomorrow?

The air pollution and risk of earthquakes would be reduced.

A new study by a nonprofit science organization says oil and gas drilling in Texas is linked to pollution and earthquakes.
The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas study found drilling for oil and gas in shale rock pollutes the air, erodes soil and contaminates water, while the disposal of millions of gallons of wastewater causes earthquakes

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2017-06-19/study-oil-gas-drilling-connected-to-pollution-earthquakes

[Tim Lookingbill]

But we can still be good stewards while taking advantage of the earth's riches.  But I was just thinking, what would happen in your Texas if they shut down all the oil wells tomorrow?

Nothing noticeable economy wise because the leases are owned by out of state investment entities where the only local persons making money are the land owners providing the lease.

I mean I grew up in poverty from my dad working as a support service worker for Halliburton, Otis Engineering and then onto being an oil rig supervisor contractor. Since he couldn't afford health care between the years 1967 to around late '80's, my dad had to pay $1000/month to Cigna in the '90's to cover both my mom and himself due to pre-existing conditions and not having insurance all those years.

[LesPalenik]

The truth is we all exploit the earth.  But we can still be good stewards while taking advantage of the earth's riches. 

Can we? Stephen Hawking has warned that Earth is under threat and repeated his belief that humans must leave in the next few centuries if we are to survive as a species.

“The Earth is under threat from so many areas that it is difficult for me to be positive. The threats are too big and too numerous,” he said,  according to the Evening Express. “Our physical resources are being drained, at an alarming rate. We have given our planet the disastrous gift of climate change. Rising temperatures, reduction of the polar ice caps, deforestation, and decimation of animal species. We can be an ignorant, unthinking lot.”

[Alan Klein]

Can we? Stephen Hawking has warned that Earth is under threat and repeated his belief that humans must leave in the next few centuries if we are to survive as a species.

Hawking suggested we should go to Mars.  I suggest he should stick to physics. 

[LesPalenik]

What a coincidence! Elon Musk said it, too.

[Farmer]

Hawking suggested we should go to Mars.  I suggest he should stick to physics.

You realise going to Mars is applied physics, right?

[Alan Klein]

What a coincidence! Elon Musk said it, too.

Its no coincidence.   Of course Musk favors these things.   He owns Space X rocket company.

[Robert Roaldi]

I am providing a link to a short video about human CO2 emission fyi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s. Nice short summary, I thought. Because it's a climate scientist providing the info and because it's not what some people want to hear, then it will be labelled by some as fake, but that's irrelevant. Access to the information is what is important in the long run.

[Robert Roaldi]

Political interference in science: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html.

Some will say that all science is political and so this is as it should be, and that's ok. If people want to believe that politicians should meddle in scientific affairs in a directed way and don't see what is wrong with that, they are free to think that. They can believe what they want. It's simply important that the information be out there in the open so people can judge for themselves.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Political interference in science: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html.

Some will say that all science is political and so this is as it should be, and that's ok. If people want to believe that politicians should meddle in scientific affairs in a directed way and don't see what is wrong with that, they are free to think that. They can believe what they want. It's simply important that the information be out there in the open so people can judge for themselves.

That EPA site states "This Page Is Being Updated"...to reflect President Trump's new direction. Was that the point you were wanting to make?

That linked "It's Us" Youtube video was interesting to see how they distinguish between different carbon 12 through 14 amounts as coming from burning old fossil plants meaning oil. It didn't mention if that included all the forest fires we've been having and whether how much of and for how long that lingers in the air.

Would you know when was the the moniker of "Climate Scientist/Science" first mentioned in history? Growing up in the '60's on through to the '80's that job title was never mentioned in the media or in all 12 years of my schooling.

Why all of a sudden are we hearing about them now and how do we know it's a real science?

[Alan Klein]

Political interference in science: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html.

Some will say that all science is political and so this is as it should be, and that's ok. If people want to believe that politicians should meddle in scientific affairs in a directed way and don't see what is wrong with that, they are free to think that. They can believe what they want. It's simply important that the information be out there in the open so people can judge for themselves.

But politicians on both sides meddle in science.  Why are the politicians whose viewpoint you support allowed to meddle and pass laws but politicians who support my viewpoint cannot?  what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  We do live in a democracy after all.  And Trump was elected President.  So he has a right to direct the EPA as he desires, not as Hillary would have.  As Obama said, "Elections have consequences."

[Tim Lookingbill]

But politicians on both sides meddle in science.  Why are the politicians whose viewpoint you support allowed to meddle and pass laws but politicians who support my viewpoint cannot?  what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  We do live in a democracy after all.  And Trump was elected President.  So he has a right to direct the EPA as he desires, not as Hillary would have.  As Obama said, "Elections have consequences."

I think the reason is that your viewpoint is seen by the other side as being against established science and facts.

If you wanted to show your viewpoint to be valid and not politicized, I think you'll have to bring up your own set of scientists and their facts.

That's why I'm suspicious about the relatively new job title of "Climate Scientist". My high school science teacher never mentioned such a scientist or science for that matter. Global Climate Change was never mentioned in school and that was only about 40 years ago. It would be important to know when there was a need to have a climate scientist and what were the circumstances that required one within 40 years.

[Alan Klein]

Tim,  My side doesn't have scientists to prove people are not causing climate change because Climate Scientist is a phony profession.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Tim,  My side doesn't have scientists to prove people are not causing climate change because Climate Scientist is a phony profession.

That sounds political.

[Alan Klein]

The whole subject is political.

[Farmer]

The only people making it political are those who can't back up their point of view with science.