Author Topic: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread  (Read 607945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,459
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2850 on: July 08, 2017, 12:21:06 »
Never miss a chance to remind virtuous people that their "electric vehicle" is, in Canada, primarily powered by natural gas, coal, uranium, and large flooded areas
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"Yet another in a long line of books about how libertarians are plotting to enslave you by devolving power to the individual and leaving you alone" - Warren Meyer, author of Coyote Blog

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,831
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2851 on: July 08, 2017, 13:06:07 »
Never miss a chance to remind virtuous people that their "electric vehicle" is, in Canada, primarily powered by natural gas, coal, uranium, and large flooded areas

 :goodpost:    :cheers:

I suppose you could add "dead birds and bats" to that list.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline RangerRay

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 815
  • Kloshe Nanitch
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2852 on: July 08, 2017, 13:31:06 »
Not to mention the horrific mining practices to extract the toxic metals used to make the batteries for said cars…
"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." - Sir Winston Churchill

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,272
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,665
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2853 on: July 10, 2017, 01:03:03 »
Many embedded links in the original article:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/06/leading-climate-scientist-science-debate-un-american/

Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be 'Un-American'

You'd think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree about climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers - but apparently not.

By Julie Kelly
July 6, 2017

Way, way back in April 2017, scientists around the world participated in the 'March for Science' as a show of force and unity against an allegedly anti-science Trump administration. Their motto was "science not silence": many wrote that mantra on pieces of duct tape and stuck it across their mouths.

March for Science organizers claimed that "the best way to ensure science will influence policy is to encourage people to appreciate and engage with science. That can only happen through education, communication, and ties of mutual respect between scientists and their communities - the paths of communication must go both ways."

But that was so three months ago.

Many scientists are now rejecting an open debate on anthropogenic global warming. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt appears ready to move forward with a "red-team, blue-team" exercise, where two groups of scientists publicly challenge each other's evidence on manmade climate change. The idea was floated during a Congressional hearing last spring and outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steve Koonin, former undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration. Koonin said the public is unaware of the intense debate in climate science and how "consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the "settled," "hoax" and "don't know" memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change."

It would work this way: A red team of scientists critiques a key climate assessment. The blue team responds. The back-and-forth continues until all the evidence is aired and refuted, followed by public hearings and an action plan based on the findings. It happens entirely out in the open. Koonin said this approach is used in high-consequence situations and "very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated." (Climate scientist Judith Curry has a good primer on this concept here.)

Pruitt is prepared to pull the trigger on this idea, according to an article in E&E News last week. In an interview with Breitbart News on June 5, Pruitt touted the red-team, blue-team initiative, saying that "the American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it's something we hope to provide as part of our leadership."

Instead Of Dialoguing, Climate Scientists Preach

Now you would think the scientific establishment would embrace an opportunity to present their case to a wary, if disinterested, public. You would think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree human activity is causing climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers, especially those in the Trump administration. You would think the same folks who fear a science-averse President Trump would be relieved his administration is encouraging a rigorous, forensic inquiry into the most consequential scientific issue of our time that has wide-ranging economic, social, and political ramifications around the world.

You would think.

But instead, many scientists and activists are expressing outrage at this logical suggestion, even advising colleagues not to participate. In a June 21 Washington Post op-ed, three top climate scientists repudiated the red-team concept, offended by the slightest suggestion that climate science needs fixing. Naomi Oreskes, Benjamin Salter, and Kerry Emanuel wrote that "calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate. They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science."

In a July 1 post full of irony, leading climate scientist Ken Caldeira blasts the climate contest: "We don't want red team/blue team because science doesn't line up monolithically for or against scientific positions." What? Never mind the 97 percent consensus claim that's been shoved down our throats for the past decade. (Caldeira also wrote just a few months ago that "the evidence for human-induced global warming is now so strong that no sensible person can deny a human role in these temperature increases. We can argue about what we should or should not do ... but the argument is over.")

Caldeira then smugly questions why "politicians who have never engaged in any scientific inquiry in their lives believe themselves to be the experts who should tell scientists how to conduct their business?" (Shall we then ask why scientists who have never engaged in any legislative or political endeavor in their lives believe themselves to be the experts who should tell lawmakers how to conduct their business?)

Climate Scientists Fear Losing Power, Nothing Else

Then there is the interminably-petulant and prosaic Michael Mann, who routinely dishes out the "denier" name to anyone who crosses him, and recently compared himself to a Holocaust survivor. Mann told ThinkProgress that the red-team concept is "un-American" and a ruse to "run a pro-fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public and policymakers over what is potentially the greatest threat we face as a civilization."

Aha! Right there is the key objection to the entire exercise: the risk to their political power. These activists know that climate change long ago stopped being about science. It is a liberal, big-government agenda wrapped up in a green cloak of superiority and virtue. For the past decade, the pro-climate crusaders have ruled policymaking, from international organizations to federal agencies down to your local park district. The Trump administration poses the first threat to their dominance, and instead of being up to the task of defending it — in public, with evidence and not platitudes, facing scientists they have smeared for not being part of the 'consensus' – they want to walk away.

That's why I hope Pruitt proceeds with it. Let the blue team have an empty bench that will show American exactly what they think of 'science' – and them.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2854 on: July 13, 2017, 13:54:51 »
More on Climate Change alarmism and how it is hurting science. As a side note, Michael Mann (the climatologist, not the movie director) is in contempt of court in BC in his SLAPP suit, for refusing to deliver the raw data or algorithms used in the "Hocky Stick" graph), so appeals to authority will have to be tempered, as the article says, to those wha are actual authorities:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/dadaist-science/article/2008803

Quote
Dadaist Science
Look under the hood on climate change "science" and what you see isn't pretty.
6:45 AM, JUL 13, 2017 | By NATHAN COFNAS
 
Earlier this month Stephen Hawking declared: “We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action [withdrawing from the Paris climate accord] could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees [Celsius], and raining sulphuric acid.”

Let’s unpack this a bit, using actual science. The proportion of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is currently about 400 parts per million (ppm). The Cambrian explosion—when most animal lineages first appeared—occurred a little more than 500 million years ago when, according to all estimates, carbon dioxide levels were several times higher than today. The atmosphere of Venus is 965,000 ppm carbon dioxide, enveloped in clouds of sulfuric acid. And Venus itself is almost 26 million miles closer to the sun than Earth.

So Hawking’s claim that the earth is on the “brink” of becoming like Venus is preposterous. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change explicitly notes that the Earth will not experience a runaway greenhouse effect such as might have occurred on Venus.

What is really disturbing, though, is that Hawking has flagrantly given up on even the pretense of engaging with actual science. He speaks entirely from authority: I am a scientist. Adopt this political policy that I favor or suffer fire and sulfuric acid. The threatened punishment for noncompliance substitutes sulfuric acid for the regular sulfur (brimstone) that features in old-fashioned religion. As far as the justification for the claim, there is no important difference between this and a religious statement that is supposed to be believed simply because it issues forth from a high priest.

***

The philosophy of Dadaism was that something is art if an artist says it is. In 1917 the Dadaist Marcel Duchamp famously proclaimed a urinal to be art. The original urinal was thrown in the trash after being exhibited, but Duchamp later commissioned several replicas, one of which sold for $1,185,000 in 2002. We can leave the merits of Dadaist art to the art critics. It is clear, however, that applying the Dadaist philosophy to science is a big mistake because it means rejecting the commitments that made science successful in the first place.

Something is science because it emerges from an investigation adhering to certain methodological principles. A scientist is someone who faithfully carries out such an investigation. The ability to speak as a scientist is entirely contingent upon one’s ongoing commitment to scientific methods. Yet public discourse about controversial issues in the past few years has promoted a misguided, Dadaist view of what science is.

Consider the physicist and aggressive science promoter Lawrence Krauss. Krauss has received a great deal of funding from the billionaire, and now registered sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. This last detail is important.

Epstein pled guilty to paying girls as young as 14 for sex, and was suspected of even worse crimes involving underage girls. After he went to prison, Krauss offered the following analysis of his patron: “As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people.”

Got that? “As a scientist,” Krauss did not personally witness the crimes, ergo they didn’t happen. After all, if Epstein really was a sex offender, he would walk around in public surrounded by 14-year-old girls, right? Obviously, this is insane. But what’s interesting is that Krauss defended Epstein by invoking his status as a “scientist,” and his commitment to “empirical evidence.” It’s more Dadaist science: I am a “scientist,” therefore whatever I say, no matter how transparently self-serving and nonsensical, is “science.”

But let’s jump back to global warming. The intense debate about the exact percentage of climate scientists who believe in catastrophic climate change is predicated on Dadaist science. Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman introduced the famous “consensus-of-97 percent” figure in 2009. They contacted 10,257 earth scientists from a database listing faculty and researchers at academic institutions and U.S. federal facilities; 3,146 people responded, giving their answers to two questions: (1) Compared to the pre-1800s, have mean global temperatures “risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” and “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Ninety percent of respondents answered “risen” to the first question and 82 percent answered “yes” to the second. (Note that the survey didn’t ask whether the warming was a bad thing, which is actually the most important question. But that’s a separate issue.) Doran and Zimmerman then looked at only those respondents who indicated that climate science was their area of expertise and said that more than 50 percent of their peer-reviewed papers in the previous five years were about climate change. This subgroup contained just 79 people. Of these 79, 76 (96.2 percent) said the earth’s temperature had “risen” since the pre-1800s and 75 (97.4 percent of the 77 who answered this question) said “yes,” human activity is a significant contributing factor.

Which led Doran and Zimmerman to conclude: “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to [the] public....”

In this survey, there was no pretense of engaging with reasons and argument. Doran and Zimmerman note that only 64 percent (23 of 36) of their respondents who listed “meteorology” as their area of expertise answered yes to the second question. Meteorology is, of course, the science devoted to studying the atmosphere and weather. You might say that weather is not the same thing as climate. Fair enough. But still, do the skeptical meteorologists have reasons for their opinion? What about the nearly one-fifth of earth scientists in the survey who were skeptical? To the Dadaist scientist, none of that matters. As long as the right authorities make the correct pronouncement, there is no need for investigation.

***

From 2004 to 2009, the U.S. government spent between $7 billion and $8 billion per year on climate-change research. Out of the 79 scientists in Doran and Zimmerman’s survey who said that more than 50 percent of their peer-reviewed publications in the previous five years concerned climate change, how many were receiving a share of this money? The survey was anonymous so we can’t check, but it’s reasonable to suspect that it might have been quite a few of them. At least.

And consider how multiple scientists (not only Krauss) who received cash from Jeffrey Epstein were willing to defend him even after he went to prison. (The eminent evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, who received around $40,000 from Epstein, didn’t go Krauss’s route of denying the charges. He rationalized the crimes, saying, “By the time [girls are] 14 or 15, they’re like grown women were 60 years ago, so I don’t see these acts as so heinous.”) If anything, maybe earth scientists who don’t receive funding that allows them to publish on climate change should be surveyed about their views, for the same reason we wouldn’t ask Krauss to serve on Epstein’s jury.

***

The idea that the opinion of experts in a narrow academic subfield reliably tracks the truth flies in the face of historical experience.

Consider, for example, the history of psychology. For three or four decades in the middle of the twentieth century, American psychology was dominated by behaviorism. According to behaviorism, animals are born without any behavioral predispositions except a tendency to find certain stimuli reinforcing or punishing. Konrad Lorenz noted that ethologists who observe animals in their natural habitat always knew that behaviorism was untenable. You have merely to witness an animal being born and commencing a suite of complex, unlearned behaviors to see that not all behavior is conditioned.

But behaviorists never bothered to look at animals in the wild. They conducted laboratory experiments, very often involving rats or pigeons pushing levers for food rewards, that simply didn’t trigger the innate responses that manifest under natural conditions. For two generations behaviorists controlled the grants, the journals, the textbooks, and the jobs. Just about everyone who didn’t get on board with them was excluded from the field of psychology. Finally, in the mid-1950s, after many lost years, cognitive scientists managed to gain a foothold in the academy and they eventually overturned the behaviorist consensus.

The history of psychology undermines the philosophy of Dadaist science because it shows how a group of experts can band together on one side of a controversy and end up being wrong. It shows that an apparent consensus in a scientific field does not always arise from the independent judgment of those acquainted with the evidence. Sometimes “consensus” is maintained by the enforcement of orthodoxy by those doling out the jobs, perks, and money.

The debate about catastrophic global warming will ultimately be settled by experts, but it will be by means of argument, not by votes or assertions of authority.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,272
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,665
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2855 on: July 13, 2017, 15:43:51 »
As a side note, Michael Mann (the climatologist, not the movie director) is in contempt of court in BC in his SLAPP suit, for refusing to deliver the raw data or algorithms used in the "Hocky Stick" graph

So claimed in a recent article (that may have been posted here earlier). His lawyer has refuted that assertion, however, and no corroboration can be found.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,272
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,665
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2856 on: July 14, 2017, 13:43:54 »
Mark Steyn’s Stand Against Climate Alarmism: In-Depth with the Climate Crybully Conniption-Inducer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wQp0Ir5Vc

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,831
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2857 on: August 04, 2017, 15:16:23 »
Couple of interesting articles:

Quote
Humans have been altering tropical forests for at least 45,000 years


Tens of thousands of years of controlled burns, forest management and clear-cutting have implications for modern conservation efforts – and shatter the image of the “untouched” tropical forest.


August 03, 2017

The first review of the global impact of humans on tropical forests in the ancient past shows that humans have been altering these environments for at least 45,000 years. This counters the view that tropical forests were pristine natural environments prior to modern agriculture and industrialization. The study, published today in Nature Plants, found that humans have in fact been having a dramatic impact on such forest ecologies for tens of thousands of years, through techniques ranging from controlled burning of sections of forest to plant and animal management to clear-cutting. Although previous studies had looked at human impacts on specific tropical forest locations and ecosystems, this is the first to synthesize data from all over the world.

The paper, by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Liverpool John Moores University, University College London, and École française d’Extrême-Orient, covered three distinct phases of human impact on tropical forests, roughly correlating to hunting and gathering activities, small-scale agricultural activities, and large-scale urban settlements.

Big impacts of small hunter-gatherer groups

In the deep past, groups of hunter-gatherers appear to have burned areas of tropical forests, in particular in Southeast Asia as early as 45,000 years ago, when modern humans first arrived there. There is evidence of similar forest burning activities in Australia and New Guinea. By clearing parts of the forest, humans were able to create more of the “forest-edge” environments that encouraged the presence of animals and plants that they liked to eat.

There is also evidence, though still debated, that these human activities contributed to the extinction of forest megafauna in the Late Pleistocene (approximately 125,000 to 12,000 years ago), such as the giant ground sloth, forest mastodons, and now-extinct large marsupials. These extinctions had significant impacts on forest density, plant species distributions, plant reproductive mechanisms, and life-cycles of forest stand, that have persisted to the present day.

Farming the forest

The earliest evidence for farming in tropical forests is found in New Guinea, where humans were tending yam, banana and taro by the Early-Mid Holocene (10,000 years ago). Early farming efforts in tropical forests, supplemented by hunting and gathering, had significant consequences. Humans domesticated forest plants and animals, including sweet potato, chili pepper, black pepper, mango, banana and chickens, altering the forest ecologies and contributing significantly to global cuisine today.

In general, when groups employed indigenous tropical forest agricultural strategies based on local plants and animals, these did not result in significant or lasting damage to the environment. “Indeed, most communities entering these habitats were initially at low population densities and appear to have developed subsistence systems that were tuned to their particular environments,” states Dr. Chris Hunt of Liverpool John Moores University, a co-author of the study.

However, as agricultural intensity increased, particularly when external farming practices were introduced into tropical forests and island environments, the effects became less benign. When agriculturalists bringing pearl millet and cattle moved to the area of tropical forests in western and central Africa about 2,400 years ago, significant soil erosion and forest burning occurred. Similarly, in Southeast Asia, large areas of the tropical forests were burned and cleared from c. 4,000 years ago following the arrival of rice and millet farming. For example, the increase in demand for palm oil has led to clear-cutting of tropical forests to make room for palm plantations. “These practices, which induce rampant clearance, reduce biodiversity, provoke soil erosion, and render landscapes more susceptible to the outbreak of wild fires, represent some of the greatest dangers facing tropical forests,” notes Hunt.

Sprawling cities in the jungle

Despite previous notions of tropical forests as “green deserts” not suitable for human habitation, recent discoveries using new technologies have shown that ancient populations created vast urban settlements in these habitats. New data, including surveys made with canopy-penetrating Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) mapping, have revealed human settlement in the Americas and Southeast Asia on a scale that was previously unimagined. "Indeed, extensive settlement networks in the tropical forests of Amazonia, Southeast Asia, and Mesoamerica clearly persisted many times longer than more recent industrial and urban settlements of the modern world have so far been present in these environments," notes Dr. Patrick Roberts of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, lead author of the paper.

Lessons can be learned from how these ancient urban centers dealt with environmental challenges that are still faced by modern cities in these areas today. Soil erosion and the failure of agricultural systems necessary to feed a large population are problems encountered by large urban centers, past and present. In some Mayan areas, urban populations “gardened” the forest, by planting a variety of complementary food crops in and around the existing forest rather than clearing it. On the other hand, other groups appear to have over-stressed their local environments through forest clearing and monoculture planting of corn, which, in combination with climate change, resulted in dramatic population declines.

Another interesting finding is that ancient forest cities showed the same tendency towards sprawl as is now being recommended by the architects of modern cities in these zones. In some cases these extensive urban fringes appear to have provided a sort of buffer-zone, helping to protect the urban centers from the effects of climate change and providing food security and accessibility. "Diversification, decentralization and ‘agrarian urbanism’ appear to have contributed to overall resilience," states Dr. Damian Evans, a co-author of the paper. These ancient forest suburbs are now being studied as potential models of sustainability for modern cities.

Lessons for the future

The global data compiled for this paper shows that a pristine, untouched tropical forest ecosystem does not exist – and has not existed for tens of thousands of years. There is no ideal forest environment that modern conservationists can look to when setting goals and developing a strategy for forest conservation efforts. Rather, an understanding of the archaeological history of tropical forests and their past manipulation by humans is crucial in informing modern conservation efforts. The researchers recommend an approach that values the knowledge and cooperation of the native populations that live in tropical forests. "Indigenous and traditional peoples – whose ancestors’ systems of production and knowledge are slowly being decoded by archaeologists – should be seen as part of the solution and not one of the problems of sustainable tropical forest development," states Roberts. The researchers also emphasize the importance of disseminating the information learned from archaeology to other disciplines. By working together, these groups can help to establish a better understanding of the tropical forest environments and how best to protect them.


http://www.shh.mpg.de/539730/tropical_forest_45000
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,831
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2858 on: August 04, 2017, 15:21:01 »
And this one on Green Arabia:

Quote
46 Prehistoric Sites with Paleolakes Discovered in 'Green Arabia'

Forty-six sites containing artifacts, mainly stone tools, have been discovered beside the remains of ancient lakes in the western Nefud desert in Saudi Arabia.

Some of the tools, left by early humans, date to the Lower Paleolithic period, from 1.8 million to 250,000 years ago, the researchers said in a new study describing the findings. Animal fossils, including fossils from now-extinct forms of jaguar and elephant, were also discovered at some of the sites.

The discoveries shed light on so-called Green Arabia, periods when the climate in Arabia — the area spanning modern-day Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman and other Gulf States — was wetter and supported more vegetation and wildlife than it does today. Green Arabia was also home to early humans. [See Photos of the Paleolakes in 'Green Arabia']

"These repeated wet phases, called 'Green Arabia' events, affected much of Arabia and were driven by periodic variations in the Earth's orbit and axis, causing the monsoons to move north into Arabia — and into the Sahara," said Paul Breeze, a landscape archaeologist and research associate at King's College London. "Between these times, Arabia was as arid as it is today."

Breeze is part of the Palaeodeserts Project, which aims to better understand Saudi Arabia's environmental and human history. The project brings together researchers from the Saudi Commission for Tourism and National Heritage, the Saudi Geological Survey, Saudi Aramco and scientists from all over the world.

In their research Breeze and his colleagues searched for lakes that may have existed in ancient times by examining high-resolution satellite and aerial imagery, as well as geological maps. They found that many of these so-called paleolakes might have been located in basins between sand dunes.

The researchers traveled to as many possible paleolakes as they could, using 4 x 4 vehicles or helicopters to reach these locations. They focused on a section of the western Nefud desert.

Once the team reached a site, they examined paleolake sediments, confirming the existence of the ancient lake. Then, they excavated any human artifacts and animal fossils they could find.

From early humans to the future

The discoveries revealed how life changed in the western Nefud desert.

"Lower Palaeolithic hominins in particular could, at times, have experienced widespread favorable environmental conditions," the team wrote in their study, published online in the June 2017 issue of the journal Archaeological Research in Asia. Early human sites that date to the Lower Paleolithic "appear concentrated close to raw material sources near the Nefud fringe, despite the presence of freshwater and fauna deeper in the dune field," the team wrote.

Previously reported research suggested that around 200,000 years ago, after the Lower Paleolithic, modern humans(Homo sapiens) might have used Arabia as a corridor to migrate out of Africa. The new findings suggest that, at that time, humans (whether Homo sapiens or other human species) appear to have been venturing deeper into the western Nefud desert and were no longer sticking to the fringes. [In Photos: Oldest Homo Sapiens Fossils Ever Found]

The researchers did not find any archaeological sites that dated to the Upper Paleolithic or Epipaleolithic time periods, between roughly 40,000 and 10,000 years ago. This may be a sign that the western Nefud had become more arid and less capable of supporting life by that time, the researchers said.

The last "wet period" seems to have occurred between roughly 10,000 and 6,000 years ago,the team wrote in their journal article. After this wet period ended, the climate became increasingly arid, but humans were able to venture deep into the western Nefud desert because they had domesticated the camel, the researchers found.

Today, the Nefud desert receives 1.2 to 3.5 inches (30 to 90 millimeters) of rainfall a year, the researchers wrote, noting that Bedouin groups tend to live on the fringe of the desert and bring animals into the desert for grazing when there is plant growth.

It's uncertain how, exactly, the climate of Saudi Arabia will change in the future.

"The particular combination of Earth's orbital and axial variations that created Green Arabia events are cyclical and will occur again," Breeze told Live Science. "Based on the geological record, we would expect some level of greening of Arabia to happen once more in the future, although likely not in the near future, and it is unclear how human influence on the climate might affect this."

Original article on Live Science.

https://www.livescience.com/59998-46-prehistoric-sites-saudi-arabia.html




https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2015/09/15/out-of-africa-and-into-arabia.html
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2859 on: August 15, 2017, 10:45:13 »
Scott Adams draws a Dilbert cartoon and much hilarity ensues. It seems some Yale profs wanted to rebut Adams, but ended up reenacting the cartoon is slow motion instead (and without the funny graphics or sound effects of the Dilbert animated cartoon either):

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/dilbert-cartoon-climate-change-prompts-rebuttal-yale
http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14

Quote
Dilbert Cartoon on Climate Change Prompts Rebuttal from Yale
A Dilbert cartoon on climate change appears to have irked climatologists and a communications group at Yale University.
Ross McKitrick | May 31, 2017

A communications group at Yale University has put out a video (see below) that seems to be a rebuttal to a Dilbert cartoon by Scott Adams poking fun at climate scientists and their misplaced confidence in models. The video is full of impressive-looking scientists talking about charts and data and whatnot. It probably cost a lot to make and certainly involved a lot of time and effort. The most amazing thing, however, is that it actually proves the points being made in the Dilbert cartoon. Rather than debunking the cartoon, the scientists acted it out in slow motion.

The Dilbert cartoon begins with a climate scientist saying “human activity is warming the earth and will lead to a global catastrophe.” When challenged to explain how he knows that, he says they start with basic physical principles plus observations about the climate, which they then feed into models, pick and choose some of the outputs, then feed those into economic models, and voila. When asked, what if I don’t trust the economic models, the scientist retreats to an accusation of denialism.

The Yale video ends in exactly the same way. After a few minutes of what I will, for the moment, call “scientific information,” we see climatologist Andrew Dessler appear at the 4:28 mark to say “It’s inarguable, although some people still argue it – heh, heh.” As in, ah those science deniers.

What exactly is “inarguable”? By selective editing we are led to believe that everything said in the video is based on multiple independent lines of evidence carrying such overwhelming force that no rational observer could dispute it. Fine, let’s go to the 2:38 mark and watch someone named Sarah Myhre tell us what this inarguable science says.

“It’s irrefutable evidence that there are major consequences that come with climate warming, and that we take these Earth systems to be very stable, we take them for granted, and they’re not stable, they’re deeply unstable when you perturb the carbon system in the atmosphere.”

How does she know this? From models of course. These claims are not rooted in observations but in examining the entrails of model projections. But she has to pick and choose her models because they don’t all say what she claims they say. Some models show very little sensitivity to greenhouse gases.  If we put the low-sensitivity results into economic models the results show that the economic impacts of warming are very low and possible even negative (i.e. a net benefit). And the section of the IPCC report that talks about the consequences of warming says:

For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement). Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.

It goes on to show (Figure 10-1) that at low levels of warming the net economic effects are zero or positive. As to the climate being “deeply unstable” there’s hardly any point trying to debate that since these are not well-defined scientific words, but simple reflection on human experience will tell you that the climate system is pretty stable, at least on decadal and century time scales. The main thing to note is that she is claiming that changes to atmospheric CO2 levels have big warming effects on the climate and will cause a global catastrophe. And the only way she knows this is from looking at the outputs of models and ignoring the ones that look wrong to her. Granted she isn’t bald and doesn’t have a little beard, but otherwise she is almost verbatim the scientist in the cartoon.

Much of what she says in the video is unsubstantiated and sloppy. For instance she talks (2:14) about paleoclimatic indicators like tree rings, ice cores and sediment cores as if they are handy records of past climate conditions without acknowledging any of the known problems extracting climate information from such noisy sources.

Her most telling comment was the Freudian slip at 1:06 when she says “There is incredible agreement about the drivers of climate science.” What she meant (and quickly corrected herself to say) was “climate change.” But her comment is revealing as regards the incredible agreement—i.e. groupthink –that drives climate science, and the individuals who do the driving.  Myhre’s Freudian slip comes right after a clip in which Michael Mann emphatically declares that there are dozens of lines of evidence that all come together, “telling us the same thing,” adding “that’s how science works.” Really? The lines of evidence regarding climate do not all lead to one uniform point of view, nor is that how science works. If that’s how science worked there would be no need for research. But that’s how activists see it, and that’s the view they impose to drive climate science along in service of the activist agenda. As Dr. Myhre herself wrote in a recent op-ed:

Our job is not to objectively document the decline of Earth’s biodiversity and humanity, so what does scientific leadership look like in this hot, dangerous world? We don’t need to all agree with each other – dissent is a healthy component of the scientific community. But, we do need to summon our voices and start shouting from rooftops: “We have options”, “We don’t have to settle for cataclysm”.

Got that? The job of scientists is not objectively to gather and present evidence, but to impose an alarmist view and yell it from the rooftops. At least according to Sarah Myhre, Ph.D..

The video opens with a straw man argument: climate science is all just made up in computer models about the future, and it’s all just based on simulations. This is then refuted, rather easily, with clips of scientists listing some of the many observational data sets that exist. Whoopee. That wasn’t even the point of the Dilbert cartoon, it was just a straw man made up by the interviewer. Then, in the process of presenting responses, the video flits back and forth between lists of observational evidence and statements that are based on the outputs of models, as if the former prove the latter. For instance, when Myhre says (2:45—2:55) that the climate systems is “deeply unstable” to perturbations in the carbon “system” (I assume she meant cycle) the video then cuts to Andrew Dessler (2:55) talking about satellite measurements, back to Myhre on paleo indicators, then to Carl Mears and Dessler (3:11) talking about sea ice trends. None of those citations support Myhre’s claims about instability, but the selective editing creates the impression that they do.

Another example is a sequence starting at 1:14 and going to about 2:06, in which various speakers lists different data sets, glossing over different spatial and time scales, measurement systems, etc. Then an assertion is slipped in at 2:07 by Ben Santer to the effect that the observed warming can’t be explained by natural causes. Then back to Myhre listing paleoclimate indicators and Mann describing boreholes. The impression created is that all these data types prove the attribution claim made by Santer. But they do no such thing. The data sets only record changes: claims about the mechanism behind them are based on modeling work, namely when climate models can’t simulate 20th century warming without incorporating greenhouse gas forcing.

So in a sense, the video doesn’t even refute the straw man it set up. It’s not that climate science consists only of models: obviously there are observations too. But all the attribution claims about the climatic effects of greenhouse gases are based on models. If the scientists being interviewed had any evidence otherwise, they didn’t present any.

Now suppose that they are correct in their assertion that all the lines of evidence agree. All the data sets, in Mann’s words, are telling us the same thing. In that case, looking at one is as good as looking at any of the others.

Ignore for a moment the selective focus on declining Arctic sea ice data while ignoring the expansion of Antarctic sea ice. And ignore the strange quotation from Henry Pollock (3:23—3:41) about how ice doesn’t ask any questions or read the newspaper: it just melts. Overlaid on his words is a satellite video showing the summer 2016 Arctic sea ice melt. Needless to say, had the filmmaker kept the video running a few seconds more, into the fall, we’d have seen it re-freeze. Presumably the ice doesn’t read or ask questions in the fall either, it just freezes. This proves what exactly?

Anyway, back to our assumption that all the data sets agree and say the same thing. And what is it they tell us? Many key data sets indicate that climate models are wrong, and in particular that they overstate the rate of warming, (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.). So according to the uniformity principle so strongly enunciated in the video, all the evidence points in the same direction: the models aren’t very good. And by implication, statements made based on the models aren’t very reliable.

There’s another irony in the video’s assertions of uniformity in climate science. At the 3:55 mark Michael Mann announces that there’s a consensus because independent teams of scientists all come at the problem from different angles and come up with the same answers. He’s clearly referring to the model-based inferences about the drivers of climate change. And the models are, indeed, converging to become more and more similar. The problem is that in the process they are becoming less like the actual climate. Oops.

So how did the video do refuting Scott Adams’ cartoon? He joked that scientists warning of catastrophe invoke the authority of observational data when they are really making claims based on models. Check. He joked that they ignore on a post hoc basis the models that don’t look right to them. Check. He joked that their views presuppose the validity of models that reasonable people could doubt. Check. And he joked that to question any of this will lead to derision and the accusation of being a science denier. Check. In other words, the Yale video sought to rebut Adams’ cartoon and ended up being a documentary version of it.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline c_canuk

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 412
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2860 on: August 17, 2017, 14:35:10 »
As much as I support the anti AGW position, I cringe everytime I hear you guys bash 2 things. Solar and Electric cars.

1) Modern solar panels are made out of sand essentially. the chemicals used to make them active is extracted from food dyes. Yes some panels are created in unsustainable ways, but those are becoming the less efficient and more expensive ways.

2) An electric car's propulsion system is ~90% efficient vs a traditional car's 10-25% at best. Yes I know, please hold off the crowing about "yeah but where do the electrons come from?" They come from a plethora of different power plants. About 30% are fossil fuel based.

Now think about that. If electric cars weren't 3 times more efficient than electric cars, they'd still pollute 70% less than a traditional car. Or if we don't ignore the efficiency savings, but power them with coal factories only, (which run at about 80-90% efficiency) they would still be twice as efficient.

i.e.

Traditional car - 100 Units Chemical energy = 20 units Kinetic + 80 Units heat.

That is, it burns 100 units of gasoline, produces ~20 units of kinetic energy and 80 units of heat. (we'll ignore the distribution system's inefficiencies and costs to highlight how wasteful traditional cars are)


Electric car

100 Units Chemical energy = 90 units electricity + 10 units heat
90 Units Electrical Energy = 80 Units of chemical battery energy + 7 units line losses + 3 units heat loss
80 units of chemical battery energy = 75 units electricity + 5 units heat energy
75 units of electrical energy = 70 units of kinetic energy + 5 units heat energy.

That is, 100 units of fossil fuel enters a power plant running at a constant speed, with no limits to efficiency since it's not designed to be mobile or quickly throttle able. it achieves about 90% efficiency, then it's transmitted to your charging station, where there is a 7% line loss and 3% heat loss in storing the power in your battery. Then when you press the accelerator, there is 5 units lost in heat energy where the chemical energy is converted back to electrical energy. Then when the electricity is converted to kinetic, another 5 units are lost.

70 units of kinetic energy vs 20 units.

It's not that electric cars are so good, it's that gasoline engine cars are so horribly inefficient. The only reason gasoline cars, which were invented after electric cars, won out; was that batteries at the time could not compete with the energy density and portability of liquid fuel.

These days, that problem is largely solved, and if the new glass based batteries work out, will surpass gasoline, while using mainly sand in their manufacture.

Oil will remain important as our unsurpassed advanced materials feedstock. It's barbaric imo, that we're squandering most of it simply to burn for heat. That is what I fear we'll be lampooned for in 100 years.


"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-John Stewart Mill

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 105,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,393
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2861 on: August 17, 2017, 15:20:25 »
C_Canuk,

Re: Solar. I think you are wrong. Here is why:

https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

TL:DR version- the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) to run a modern industrial society is at least 7 (that is, an input of 1 "unit" of energy to mine, make and use an energy source must yield at least 7 units of energy to make it worthwhile). Solar is nowhere close to 7. And it is intermittent. Try going solar in Edmonton, or Yellowknife in December (I stipulate that, in July you do much, much better in both those places). Solar, in my view, is best used in remote areas where transmission lines are too expensive to run.

Re: electric cars. A coastal BC (the best cased scenario for an electric car in all of Canada) based Nissan Leaf gets you, at best, a range of 150kms. Fine, if all you do is commute.

What happens when you want drive to Kamloops?

Our what happens if you try this in Edmonton, in Jan, at -30c? Not only is battery storage affected, but you have to heat the interior of the car. And I believe that you glossed over conversion losses inherent in any battery charging system.

The fact of the matter is that the energy density available per litre of gasoline still far out weighs the equivalent weight of any battery that I am aware of on the market today. Again, pure electric cars have niche applications and are just not practical in most of Canada, 6 months of the year, IMHO.

I agree, it is a neat technology.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,774
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2862 on: August 17, 2017, 17:17:33 »
C_Canuk, do you have any references for your efficiency (or lack thereof) figures?

Much of what I can find on the Internet says that internal combustion powered vehicles average about 25-40% (gasoline being on the lower end and diesels on the higher), not 10% to 25%. Sure it's Wikipedia, but at least it's a reference.  Heck, the Wartsila-Sulzer RTC-96 low-speed marine diesel as fitted to the Emma Maersk, is 53% efficient.

Perhaps you could point us to references providing the most recent internal combustion efficiency figures in the 10-25% range?

Next, please let us know what coal plants are getting 80-90% thermodynamic efficiency to charge the EVs, I want to buy shares. I can only find efficiencies of 29-45%. (Ref: Figure 13 in Page 15 of "International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO2 intensity - Update 2014, Mitsubishi.")  That really doesn't make your coal/oil/gas-fired generating plant-powered EV two to three times more efficient....um, it kind of makes them the same. 

Oh, wait...I see you may have forgotten to add the electrical charge/discharge losses of the lithium-ion batteries as used in EVs. Don't forget to add that into your calculations too for EV efficiency.

Now, how about that travelling for distances longer than the EV's per charge range?  Canada's a big country you know...although that doesn't matter for folks who would use an EV  just to commute around the city.

Regards
G2G



Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,272
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,665
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2863 on: August 17, 2017, 21:44:42 »
When a car's electricity tank can be refilled as quickly as another car's gasoline tank, I might become a little more interested - but still not enough.

On the other hand, if a large-enough move towards electric vehicles forces construction of natural gas generating stations in, say, Mississauga and Oakville, at least some E-value (Entertainment not Electric) will result.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,524
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,479
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2864 on: August 17, 2017, 22:15:51 »
C_Canuk, do you have any references for your efficiency (or lack thereof) figures?

Much of what I can find on the Internet says that internal combustion powered vehicles average about 25-40% (gasoline being on the lower end and diesels on the higher), not 10% to 25%. Sure it's Wikipedia, but at least it's a reference.  Heck, the Wartsila-Sulzer RTC-96 low-speed marine diesel as fitted to the Emma Maersk, is 53% efficient.

Perhaps you could point us to references providing the most recent internal combustion efficiency figures in the 10-25% range?

Next, please let us know what coal plants are getting 80-90% thermodynamic efficiency to charge the EVs, I want to buy shares. I can only find efficiencies of 29-45%. (Ref: Figure 13 in Page 15 of "International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO2 intensity - Update 2014, Mitsubishi.")  That really doesn't make your coal/oil/gas-fired generating plant-powered EV two to three times more efficient....um, it kind of makes them the same. 

Oh, wait...I see you may have forgotten to add the electrical charge/discharge losses of the lithium-ion batteries as used in EVs. Don't forget to add that into your calculations too for EV efficiency.

Now, how about that travelling for distances longer than the EV's per charge range?  Canada's a big country you know...although that doesn't matter for folks who would use an EV  just to commute around the city.

Regards
G2G

I worked, albeit over a decade ago, as a coal handler in one of Canada's newest coal powerplants.  Efficiency was 33-34%.   8)

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 240,572
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,502
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2865 on: August 18, 2017, 03:16:33 »
On the other hand, if a large-enough move towards electric vehicles forces construction of natural gas generating stations in, say, Mississauga and Oakville, at least some E-value (Entertainment not Electric) will result.

Especially if they blow up.
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 240,572
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,502
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2866 on: August 18, 2017, 03:32:50 »
Has anyone seen the ecological and environmental damage they do digging out the components of these batteries. The oil sands look like my grandmother's garden compared to the huge open pit mines for lithium. The oil patch returns their property back to nature. These huge open pit mines are there forever.

Any possible carbon footprint reduction for your electric car is offset by the huge carbon footprint required to make your battery.

The whole thing is a farce. Everything used by green energy is manufactured using petroleum. They will never recover the cost of their complete inefficiency. We are actually increasing the amount of petroleum required for today's world due to manufacturing. If you wish to move back to the 1700's. Stop drilling and processing world wide. Everything will come to a total stop in a matter of weeks. I'm not saying to trash green energy, but turbines and panels have to drop exceedingly in price (I'll throw a figure of 75% less than now, in order to make people change over to make it worth it).
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,831
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2867 on: August 18, 2017, 10:28:17 »
Quote
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)


Combined heat and power (CHP) systems, also known as cogeneration, generate electricity and useful thermal energy in a single, integrated system. CHP is not a technology, but an approach to applying technologies. Heat that is normally wasted in conventional power generation is recovered as useful energy, which avoids the losses that would otherwise be incurred from separate generation of heat and power. While the conventional method of producing usable heat and power separately has a typical combined efficiency of 45 percent, CHP systems can operate at levels as high as 80 percent.

http://aceee.org/topics/combined-heat-and-power-chp

At the link there is a further link to a pdf that includes an energy distribution diagram.  It is worth a look.

IMHO the best solution is to install local natural gas fired power plants in residential and industrial areas and use the excess/waste/lost heat for local heating and cooling.  If cooling is added to the cogeneration system the process becomes known as trigeneration.

http://www.energ-group.com/combined-heat-and-power/trigeneration/

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,774
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2868 on: August 18, 2017, 11:11:27 »
http://aceee.org/topics/combined-heat-and-power-chp

At the link there is a further link to a pdf that includes an energy distribution diagram.  It is worth a look.

IMHO the best solution is to install local natural gas fired power plants in residential and industrial areas and use the excess/waste/lost heat for local heating and cooling.  If cooling is added to the cogeneration system the process becomes known as trigeneration.

http://www.energ-group.com/combined-heat-and-power/trigeneration/

CP, I definitely saw CHP, but where CHP flourishes (Nordic countries), one does not see a plethora of EVs as battery performance and efficiency falls drastically as temperatures (and duration of sunlight) plummet.  So, not without consideration, I specifically exclude dual (or tri-) cycle power/heat generation systems.

I worked, albeit over a decade ago, as a coal handler in one of Canada's newest coal powerplants.  Efficiency was 33-34%.   8)

Yeah, North America is notoriously bad for (but in a few cases) running sub-critical non-LEHE coal plants. :not-again:  The technology on some ultracritical plants running 600C+ and 300+ bar pressures can get almost up to 50%, but they still don't match large-scale internal combustion engines (large low-speed diesels) or oil/gas-powered turbines.

Very few people consider an all-aspect, "cradle-to-grave" cost to the environment of particular means of transportation.  EV types it seems, however, have a particular ability to believe that they are far purer than others in the "my [poop] doesn't smell" category. :nod:

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2869 on: August 18, 2017, 11:48:51 »
I consider myself in the middle; although I probably am biased as I do have a closet desire to work either in "alternate" energy or building a space elevator, as I think both are transformative events.

Full disclaimer: I drive a 2009 Toyota Highlander.  I love the fact that it gets pretty much the same mileage in the city as it does on the highway, it's AWD, and it's really hard to make spin due to it's traction control.  But it's still big and heavy so it doesn't do great (around 10l/100km) and not only the battery but the front transaxle are expensive and resource hogs to build (I understand that the transaxle, due to all the power conversion electronics, is $13k if it lets out the magic smoke).  I'd love to actually figure out how to affordably get a solar high voltage DC (the batteries work at 280VDC) to AC to use it as a backup power source as well...

Simply driving an electric car does not solve anything, yet; maybe if some of the new battery tech can be made producible (what happened to carbon nanotubes sandwiched in cardboard???).  The energy still has to come from somewhere (and I find it amazing how many people don't understand the law of conversation of energy and mass, including supposedly educated ones; I've met engineers who think that can be "overcome").  If you want to have fun ask an enviro-warrior what's the big deal with a wall wart if the wasted energy is being turned into heat and you are heating your house anyway...

But some things we aren't doing as routine just baffle me:
- waste water heat recovery back into the water tank; why isn't every new house with tanked hot water not doing this
- venting refrigerator coils outside in summer but inside in winter
- local co-gen: if your heating or making hot water with gas then a co-gen does work

An interesting story I read, but I don't have a source: somebody was hired by a steel plant (a while ago now) to reduce costs for fuel (and steel plants use *a lot*).  He noticed the heating plant was next to the blast furnace, so he asked the blast furnace manager why they weren't recovering the heat.  The answer was he ran the blast furnace, not the heating plant, so he asked the heating plant manager the same question.  Similar answer, he ran the heating plant not the blast furnace.  The person made some money showing steel plants how to recover waste heat to heat themselves.

The point: the answers will come from efficiency making people money.  We can't go on the way we are, but we don't need to panic.  Because it is absolutely true that some of the hard core enviros have their own agendas as much as the absolute deniers do.

I actually think that algae fuels are also part of the solution; its where oil came from as algae scrubbed CO2, and it is becoming easier and easier to squeeze algae directly into diesel.  Plus you remove CO2 from the atmosphere doing it.

If anybody doesn't think that the oil companies don't have a transition plan away from oil, possibly as part of peak oil, that they will implement when they can make money then you are truly confused.  It was no coincidence that Exxon and BP quickly registered their disagreement with withdrawal from Paris.  Quote from the CEO of Shell: "We believe climate change is real," van Beurden says. "We believe that the world needs to go through an energy transition to prevent a very significant rise in global temperatures. And we need to be part of that solution in making it happen." http://www.npr.org/2017/05/18/528998592/energy-companies-urge-trump-to-remain-in-paris-climate-agreement  He doesn't want to be "green," he wants to make money.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,781
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2870 on: August 18, 2017, 12:11:55 »
+1 Baz.

And you forgot to include one of my favourites: Why haven't the provincial governments in Canada  yet mandated that ALL new residential buildings be heated/cooled by geothermal?

A small (much much smaller than actual electrical heating) expenditure of electrical energy provides a highly efficient source of heat and cooling that generates little to no green house gas.

I know that the systems currently cost about three times as much as standard systems, but if you mandated use, the numbers generated by the mandate would automatically bring down the cost.

Unfortunately, I think most provinces are not serious about that because it would also greatly reduce electrical power consumption in their province, and since the provinces own the electrical utilities and use them to generate revenues without taxing the population, they prefer it that way. It is certainly the case here in Quebec, where the government encourages the use of "cheap" electricity to heat houses - but then sort of favours constructors using the very power consuming and inefficient base board heaters instead of the much more efficient central electric heating/atmospheric heat pump combination.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,272
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,665
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2871 on: August 18, 2017, 12:45:36 »
In Ontario, all of the other associated fees have gone up to match (and exceed) people's savings from reducing consumption. There is no win in Wynnesville.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,774
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2872 on: August 18, 2017, 13:41:55 »
I consider myself in the middle; although I probably am biased as I do have a closet desire to work either in "alternate" energy or building a space elevator, as I think both are transformative events.
...
I actually think that algae fuels are also part of the solution; its where oil came from as algae scrubbed CO2, and it is becoming easier and easier to squeeze algae directly into diesel.  Plus you remove CO2 from the atmosphere doing it.
...http://www.npr.org/2017/05/18/528998592/energy-companies-urge-trump-to-remain-in-paris-climate-agreement  He doesn't want to be "green," he wants to make money.

Baz, that's why I don't mind driving a (potentially) algae-burning 4x4 that also gets 10L/100 in the city, but only 7.5 on the highway, even though it weighs 2-1/2 tons and tows 7,500#.  My next house will have a vertical-well heatpump as well and some PV and wind somewhere to get close to/surpass net-zero energy consumption.  EV just to get bragging rights and run the HOV lane with one aboard is not in my line of thinking.

Cheers
G2G

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,831
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2873 on: August 18, 2017, 13:47:48 »
CP, I definitely saw CHP, but where CHP flourishes (Nordic countries), one does not see a plethora of EVs as battery performance and efficiency falls drastically as temperatures (and duration of sunlight) plummet.  So, not without consideration, I specifically exclude dual (or tri-) cycle power/heat generation systems.

Yeah, North America is notoriously bad for (but in a few cases) running sub-critical non-LEHE coal plants. :not-again:  The technology on some ultracritical plants running 600C+ and 300+ bar pressures can get almost up to 50%, but they still don't match large-scale internal combustion engines (large low-speed diesels) or oil/gas-powered turbines.

Very few people consider an all-aspect, "cradle-to-grave" cost to the environment of particular means of transportation.  EV types it seems, however, have a particular ability to believe that they are far purer than others in the "my [poop] doesn't smell" category. :nod:

:2c:

Regards
G2G

I agree G2G.  The electrical vehicle solution is indeed "problematic".  As I have noted elsewhere figuring out how to get from Lethbridge to Saskatoon with 90 km ranges and multi-hour recharges - when the $5000 of batteries are new and the weather is warm is a challenge.  Hard to plan a long weekend visit to the family that way.

Even moreso if you have to buy new batteries every couple of years or so.

I don't take issue with the efficiency estimates on generating electricity.  I am suggesting that the inefficiencies be recognized and the waste heat utilized.

The driving force would be how far steam/hot water/hot glycol could be pumped and still have useful heating value.  That would establish the size of the heating zone first and foremost and then the number and location of the power plants with electricity being a by-product.

I'm still not ready to give up on my gas powered Jeep.  Although I could be talked into a hybrid if the price came down and the reliability improved.

And as for the Nordics - the Swedes are getting green brownie points for incinerating German trash in their residential power plants because they don't produce enough of their own trash and are backing away from fossil fuels and nuclear.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/electric-cars-wont-get-us-very-far-because-they-cant/
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 472,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,898
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
« Reply #2874 on: August 18, 2017, 14:34:11 »
There is another, less scientific, reason e-vehicles just don't cut it......



(Yes, I know its not a Harley   ;) )