Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 32   Go Down

Author Topic: Climate Change: Science and Issues  (Read 123029 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #420 on: December 27, 2017, 09:51:58 am »

Yes, good point, but it's being addressed by modern installations.

As an example, at the edge of my town, a renewed train-station is being built, including underpasses for local traffic that doesn't have to wait anymore for the trains crossing the local roads. Part of the effort to get people out of their cars is to provide viable transportation alternatives with fewer drawbacks for society.

Therefore, a 5-story parking garage for 600-vehicles is part of the facility, and it is 100% energy neutral, solar panels on the roof. It generates as much power as it needs to be operated, including all the electrical installations for lighting, elevators, entrance gates with automated payment, and a growing number of charging stations for electric cars, etc. And it doesn't look too bad from the outside either, which can't be said for all buildings. During the construction, lots of environmentally friendly materials like wood were used that have a reduced impact on CO2 emissions (e.g. compared to the production of concrete/cement).

To solve the issue of fossil-fuel based power generation for a.o. those trains, and the rest of the country, our government has announced a prohibition by law to produce utility energy with coal as a fuel, by 2030 or sooner if possible. New tenders for Windfarms are now subsidy-free, because the builders have become more experienced and efficient, and the government is forthcoming is assigning locations (mostly at sea, given our specific geographical situation) with already existing powerlines to shore, and/or a possibility to use excess energy for the production of Hydrogen.

Cheers,
Bart
Bart, regarding your parking garage and solar panels,  Citibank tried the roof-top solar panels in their headquarters in NYC in 1977 after the 1973 oil crisis that started "green" energy.  Nothing new about it.  The 45 degree angle roof was to contain solar as a publicity stunt because even if they got it working, it would only furnish enough power to support one of the fifty some odd floors in the office building.  Click link below.

Your garage on the other hand is a special situation.  Since it only houses cars, that need ventilation to get rid of the fumes, no real heating or air conditioning is required.  You only need a few watts for lighting, elevators and maybe a couple of offices.  In NYC, many above-ground parking lots do not even have full walls.  Big openings are left on all car floors so they are naturally vented requiring no fans.  So electric requirements are minor. 


I think it's great that your country is trying to go all green.  But even in your country, I've read there are major delays in big cities where solar and wind is impractical especially because of the large electric requirements and no place to install the green generation.  It will be even harder in the US with such a large and divergent population, territory, and most importantly climate differences.  Can you imaging putting in solar and wind for NYC and the crowded northeast?  Frankly nuclear would be best.  In NJ where I live, we get 50% from nuclear and a little less from natural gas.   
https://www.google.com/search?q=citicorp+building&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ujWueOcMHmjsKM%253A%252CH558vWzlUyJd5M%252C_&usg=__4YTibLb5YGmqGkjzFGxDIINYX2s%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinmJiTtqrYAhUF2yYKHSKiAScQ9QEISzAE#imgrc=ujWueOcMHmjsKM:

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #421 on: December 27, 2017, 09:55:00 am »

[snipped nonsense]
Additionally, the Chinese will produce at least the equal amount of CO2 that they already produce when they pollute foreign countries with 800 new coal fired electric generation plants throughout the world during the next ten years.  How does Paris help with that?  It's a joke.  China reduces its pollution and moves it off shore.  Brilliant plan, Paris.

I hear that USA coal exports are doing fine, since the home market started declining ...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-russell-coal-usa/u-s-coal-exports-surge-but-thank-china-not-trump-russell-idUSKBN1AG0CC

I bet that some of that coal is being used to allow the manufacture of US consumables in China.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. this is not intended as a political statement but to expose the hypocrisy. Pointing a finger at others means pointing 3 at yourself.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2017, 10:05:26 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #422 on: December 27, 2017, 10:30:28 am »

I hear that USA coal exports are doing fine, since the home market started declining ...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-russell-coal-usa/u-s-coal-exports-surge-but-thank-china-not-trump-russell-idUSKBN1AG0CC

I bet that some of that coal is being used to allow the manufacture of US consumables in China.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. this is not intended as a political statement but to expose the hypocrisy. Pointing a finger at others means pointing 3 at yourself.
Trump promised more work for our coal industry.  Exports have gone up considerably since he became president. Trump is keeping his word.  If the Chinese, Indians and other people around the world need coal, why shouldn't it be American coal?  I don't see the Australians turning away the business. 

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #423 on: December 27, 2017, 10:50:29 am »

Ray, My post was just a poke at the Paris accord supporters to show that you don't have to be a member country to make money off of green energy.  You only need to be a brash entrepreneur.  In fact, being involved with government will just slow you down.
Are you afraid we forgot the exact same information (and nonsence follow-up) that you also posted some time ago in post #311 of this thread? Repeating yourself never strengthens your case, it's more like the opposite. I'm not going to repeat my reaction ;)  You can read there why I think none of this Tesla Bla-Bla has anything to do with the Paris accords.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #424 on: December 27, 2017, 11:27:43 am »

Are you afraid we forgot the exact same information (and nonsence follow-up) that you also posted some time ago in post #311 of this thread? Repeating yourself never strengthens your case, it's more like the opposite. I'm not going to repeat my reaction ;)  You can read there why I think none of this Tesla Bla-Bla has anything to do with the Paris accords.
I agree.  Tesla has nothing to do with Paris.  It developed sales because there's a market for it.  Tesla and other American firms will produce green energy as the free market demands.  The fact America is no longer part of Paris will not hurt American green energy in the world market, hence Tesla's sale of batteries to Australia which is in the Paris accord. 

One other comment.  America is made up of 50 sovereign states.  So it's not just Washington DC that decides green energy requirements.  California, who many years ago lead the way for cleaner burning autos, that European car maker VW lied about in their cars for a decade, is leading the way again regarding other clean and green energy.  Their laws will effect the world's production and design again as they have new requirements.  So America can create standards without Paris.  We can decide what's best for ourselves without have a bunch of Chinese and Indians and Europeans  deciding for us what's best in their interest.  I'd rather have California lead than Paris.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #425 on: December 27, 2017, 11:35:13 am »

I'd rather have California lead than Paris.

Who do you think has a larger impact on global climate change in this century, China and India and Africa, or California ?

Have the California Wildfires already been forgotten, not to mention last season's hurricanes? And that's only the beginning of what's to come.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #426 on: December 27, 2017, 11:37:29 am »

The fact America is no longer part of Paris will not hurt American green energy in the world market
Read my previous responses why I believe this is not true and the US economy will suffer because of withdrawing from the Paris accords.
 
One other comment.  America is made up of 50 sovereign states.  So it's not just Washington DC that decides green energy requirements.  California, who many years ago lead the way for cleaner burning autos, that European car maker VW lied about in their cars for a decade, is leading the way again regarding other clean and green energy.  Their laws will effect the world's production and design again as they have new requirements.  So America can create standards without Paris.  We can decide what's best for ourselves without have a bunch of Chinese and Indians and Europeans  deciding for us what's best in their interest.  I'd rather have California lead than Paris.
Do you really believe that Amerrica creates standards? According to your own logic here it's the mainly democratic and green/Paris supporting state of California that helps creating the standards. And you as a republican Trump supporter think that's a good thing? I am amazed  :o
« Last Edit: December 27, 2017, 01:26:55 pm by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #427 on: December 27, 2017, 01:51:14 pm »

Who do you think has a larger impact on global climate change in this century, China and India and Africa, or California ?
.
Have the California Wildfires already been forgotten, not to mention last season's hurricanes? And that's only the beginning of what's to come.

Cheers,
Bart
I'd rather have Californians lead instead of Chinese because Californians are Americans.  Additionally, Californians because of their standards have been doing more to reduce pollution and carbon then the Chinese and Indians who have just increased the world's pollution. Not even close.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #428 on: December 27, 2017, 01:57:28 pm »

...
 Do you really believe that Amerrica creates standards? According to your own logic here it's the mainly democratic and green/Paris supporting state of California that helps creating the standards. And you as a republican Trump supporter think that's a good thing? I am amazed  :o
Of course America has standards. Do you think we thrrow garbage in the street? California has created emission standards for automobiles for decades that have changed the way cars are manufactured throughout the world. Except for Europea that's cheated for last 10 years.

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #429 on: December 27, 2017, 03:42:04 pm »

Of course America has standards. Do you think we thrrow garbage in the street? California has created emission standards for automobiles for decades that have changed the way cars are manufactured throughout the world. Except for Europea that's cheated for last 10 years.
VW cheated on NOx (and is rightfully paying heavily), not Europea. Are you sure there aren't a few US companies who didn't cheat environmental regulations?
« Last Edit: December 27, 2017, 04:08:46 pm by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18091
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #430 on: December 27, 2017, 05:44:12 pm »

... the mainly democratic... state of California...

Democratic... small letter, big difference.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #431 on: December 27, 2017, 06:47:26 pm »

VW cheated on NOx (and is rightfully paying heavily), not Europea. Are you sure there aren't a few US companies who didn't cheat environmental regulations?
American companies are straight as an arrow.  Not like Europea. :)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #432 on: December 27, 2017, 08:17:17 pm »


Have the California Wildfires already been forgotten, not to mention last season's hurricanes? And that's only the beginning of what's to come.


Only the beginning of what's to come? That sounds very alarmist, Bart.  ;)

Don't you mean, 'That's only a continuation of what's happened in the past?'

It's this aspect of misinformation which is the potentially disastrous component of the drive towards expensive renewable energy, the false impression created by the media that every extreme weather event is a record-breaking event caused by AGW which in turn is caused by rising CO2 levels.

The historical and geological records tend to show that modern extreme weather events of any type, whether flood, drought, hurricane or forest fire, have been just as bad, and often worse in the past.

Even the current forest fire in California, in terms of acreage burned, does not appear to be the worst on record, despite almost every media report claiming that it is. The acreage burned in this current fire in California appears to be 281,000, yet in year 1889 there was a fire in California that covered at least 300,000 acres

"The Santiago Canyon Fire of 1889 (previously called the Great Fire of 1889) was a massive wildfire in California, which burned large parts of Orange County, Riverside County, and San Diego County during the last week of September, 1889. It was possibly the single largest wildfire in the recorded history of California, burning at least 300,000 acres (1,200 km2) of land."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Fire

In order to find a solution to any problem we have to correctly identify the cause of the problem. I have no objection to research and development into alternative supplies of energy. Energy is the lifeblood of all human activity. We can do nothing without it. We should exploit all sources of energy in the cleanest and most efficienct manner that our technological development allows.

The real problems we face are due to our apparent inability to learn from history, whether it's the history of incessant, continuous wars and religious conflicts, or the history of extreme weather events in a particular area.

We seem to mindlessly build houses in flood plains, or areas frequently subject to hurricanes, or forest fires, and then blame human-induced climate change for the next extreme weather event that destroys our home, deluding ourselves that the extreme weather event was unprecedented, the worst on record, caused by rising CO2 levels, and that such destruction can be prevented in the future by reducing CO2 levels.

How foolish!
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #433 on: December 28, 2017, 02:32:56 am »

Democratic... small letter, big difference.
Thanks Slobodan, both small and big are correct for the State of California, but I indeed meant the big one :)
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #434 on: December 28, 2017, 02:33:57 am »

American companies are straight as an arrow.  Not like Europea. :)
And if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you, only used twice.....  ;)
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #435 on: December 28, 2017, 06:44:29 am »

Only the beginning of what's to come? That sounds very alarmist, Bart.  ;)

Don't you mean, 'That's only a continuation of what's happened in the past?'

No, it's exactly what I meant, it's getting worse than it was.

Quote
It's this aspect of misinformation which is the potentially disastrous component of the drive towards expensive renewable energy, the false impression created by the media that every extreme weather event is a record-breaking event caused by AGW which in turn is caused by rising CO2 levels.

Misinformation? Scientific consensus agrees about the increased likelihood of more extreme weather events and amounts of precipitation, as a direct result of CO2 induced global warming. Warmer air holds more water vapor, more water vapor traps more heat which allows more water vapor to be held by the troposphere until the amount of water becomes too much and results in larger amounts of precipitation. There will be more floods at some places and more droughts in other places. We've been over that already, ad nauseam some may say.

Also, not equating the improved capabilities of the California firefighters to fight the fires into your comparison with historical records is very unscientific. They didn't even have the equipment or planes back then to assist in getting huge amounts of water to hotspots or strategic locations. Fact is that the rising CO2 levels result in more plant biomass, which then dries out and withers at the change of seasons and with droughts, and forms a larger fuel source for these wildfires. So these are also likely to become worse. The only solution seems to be the migration of the population. The CO2 levels will keep rising for quite a while to come.

Yes, it will get worse.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #436 on: December 28, 2017, 10:03:09 am »

Scientific consensus agrees about the increased likelihood of more extreme weather events and amounts of precipitation, as a direct result of CO2 induced global warming.

I hesitate to get into this circle jerk of a thread, but I have to point out that in the middle fifties "scientific consensus" agreed that an ICBM was impossible. The reason I emphasize this is that I was in Air Defense Command at the time and we were starting to move toward the SAGE air defense system, which was enormously expensive and was based on the "scientific consensus" that bombers were the real threat. I didn't believe in "scientific consensus" then, and I don't believe in it now. "Scientific consensus" means that people calling themselves scientists have become politicized. There is no such thing as real "scientific consensus." I could give more historical examples of the futility and stupidity of the idea of "scientific consensus," but this is the one I, personally, was caught up in.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #437 on: December 28, 2017, 10:41:49 am »

I hesitate to get into this circle jerk of a thread, but I have to point out that in the middle fifties "scientific consensus" agreed that an ICBM was impossible. The reason I emphasize this is that I was in Air Defense Command at the time and we were starting to move toward the SAGE air defense system, which was enormously expensive and was based on the "scientific consensus" that bombers were the real threat.

Hi Russ,

That's not scientific consensus. Scientific consensus arrises after a long period where peer-reviewed publications have been circulated amongst fellow scientists (who are eager to disprove a hypothesis or find flaws in the methodology used) and the vast majority of reviewers come to the same conclusions, that the hypothesis stands despite efforts to disprove it. That's also known as an emerging scientific truth. What's more, the evidence gets stronger all the time, as our abilities to reconstruct past events gets better, and new instruments allow to make even more accurate measurements of current events. Virtually ALL evidence points in the same direction, anthropogenic CO2 based global warming is the earth's thermostat, and we're still cranking it up...

Quote
I didn't believe in "scientific consensus" then, and I don't believe in it now. "Scientific consensus" means that people calling themselves scientists have become politicized. There is no such thing as real "scientific consensus."

That was not scientific, and it was not consensus.

This is consensus:
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

And the greenhouse gas effects of CO2 have been known for ages, heck even the oil companies warned about them in the '90s. Talk about consensus:
Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 11:14:26 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #438 on: December 28, 2017, 11:01:34 am »

As the New Year approaches, it might be useful to point out the negative effects of the fireworks. The New Year's Eve fireworks blow huge amounts of fine dust in the air which is a real health risk, whther it is on 4th of July or 31st of December.  What you inhale on those days, stays in your body for the full year. Extended exposure to particulate matter can lead to coughing, wheezing and even lead to an early death for people with pre-existing conditions like heart or lung disease, according to the EPA.

So, if you are going to photograph this New Year's fireworks, do it from a safe distance, stay upwind, and put on a respiratory mask. You might want to use also a ND filter.

http://time.com/3943702/fourth-of-july-fireworks-pollution/
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #439 on: December 28, 2017, 11:13:36 am »

Hi Russ,

That's not scientific consensus. Scientific consensus arrises after a long period where peer-reviewed publications have been circulated amongst fellow scientists (who are eager to disprove a hypothesis or find flaws in the methodology used) and the vast majority of reviewers come to the same conclusions, that the hypothesis stands despite efforts to disprove it. That's also known as an emerging scientific truth. What's more, the evidence get stronger all the time, as our abilities t reconstruct past events gets better, and new instruments allow to make even more accurate measurements of current events. Virtually ALL evidence points in the same direction, anthropogenic CO2 based global warming is the earth's thermostat, and we're still cranking it up..

That was not scietific, and it was not consensus.

This is consensus:
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

And the greenhouse gas effects of CO2 have been known for ages, heck even the oil companies warned about them in the '90s. Talk about consensus:
Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, I'm not going to continue in this befuddled discussion beyond this post. The kind of "scientific consensus" that ruled out the possibility of an ICBM was exactly what you're talking about. There was plenty of peer-review, and a vast majority of scientists in the know came to the same conclusion. There weren't even the political pressures attempting to enforce that conclusion there are nowadays with "climate change." In the case of the ICBM discussion there was no way to prove or disprove it, as is the case with the idea that the majority of climate change is being caused by human activity. You believe that. I don't believe that. I remember when I was at University of Michigan in the early fifties and according to a "consensus" among the best geologists in the world, we were on the verge of a new ice age. That "consensus" was no more reliable than the crap you're telling me about. The climate will change. Relax. Have a Perfect Manhattan. Enjoy life. The climate will change back. It's the way the world works.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 32   Go Up