Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[wufan]

The biggest problem with this discussion and how CO2 emissions affect climate change is that whatever the US can do to reduce our own emissions will be a drop in the bucket to what the rest of the world is doing in increasing them. What I read about a week or so ago ranked the top 25 countries in fossil fuel generated CO2 emissions in 2017. It also looked at what those levels were in 1992.

Yes, by far, we had the largest emissions 15 years ago. However, the level we were at in 1992 increased to the article's current study year (2017) was only a 1.8% increase. We have been passed by China like we were standing still.

Assuming the CO2 emissions is a problem, all countries, particularly China will need to be on board. Not saying we could even do this quickly, but if we could reduce our emissions to the general level per person of that of Russia, Japan, and Germany (#4, 5, and 6 in total emissions), that would reduce our overall emissions by a third or about 1,700 million metric tons per year. However, if China increased their level per person to that same level, they would increase by more than a third or about 5,000 million metric tons. This does not mention a country like India who is currently #3 in emissions, but currently only at 1/5 the level per person. If they were to only increase to half the per person level used above, that would be an increase of 3,700 million metric tons.

This is an interesting problem. If catastrophic climate change is an existential threat, do we have to go to war with China and India to save the planet? It would make for a really great Marvel villain to explore this moral dilemma...it would be super woke and super interesting!

[pinstripers]

this could help

https://www.awesomeinventions.com/testicle-cooling-device-coolmen-cooltec/?fbclid=IwAR3wA-U2M-MMXByyRA0qfUS_jIR5rszrKql9KAI8Kghdf1BQVhPLmwY7Hy4

[WstateU]

Will be a great addition to my "Nut Bra"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VpdWOVsM0o

[wufan]

Here’s a video from someone I don’t particularly care for, but it shows why there is some skepticism in climate science:

https://youtu.be/vwUhJaQVi-M

Here’s a more reasoned skeptic that uses the same data set, which is open source from MASIE:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/arctic-melt-season-changes-and-the-arctic-regime-shift/

Here’s the graph from MASIE that they present:

http://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/...ere_ts_4km.png

The earth is warming. It is anthropogenic (thank you jdshock for the embarrassing correction) influenced. There’s really no reason for the alarmist articles, however.

[jdshock]

Here’s a video from someone I don’t particularly care for, but it shows why there is some skepticism in climate science:

https://youtu.be/vwUhJaQVi-M

Here’s a more reasoned skeptic that uses the same data set, which is open source from MASIE:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/...-regime-shift/

Here’s the graph from MASIE that they present:

http://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/...ere_ts_4km.png

The earth is warming. It is anthropogenic (thank you jdshock for the embarrassing correction) influenced. There’s really no reason for the alarmist articles, however.

MASIE explicitly says to not use the MASIE data when "comparing trends in sea ice over time." Source. Anyone who is using the MASIE data has already made up their mind and is trying to prove themselves right. MASIE recommends that you should use the Sea Ice Index instead. The Sea Ice Index also provides its data for anyone to use. Source. Again, a person would only use MASIE if it assisted their point (and/or they didn't know what they were doing), since MASIE itself says it is not the proper methodology for analyzing trends.

Just yesterday, news came out that researchers created a plaque for a a glacier that was lost to global warming. Source. Scientists are literally saying they understand what is going to happen in the future with climate change, and everybody else is ignoring them. Other data sets show a much steeper decline than whatever "Watts Up with That" has found. Source. As you will see, they also release their data publicly.

If "alarmist" means someone who thinks we should spend even a single dollar to attempt to combat global warming, then the vast majority of scientists are "alarmists."

[C0|dB|00ded]

Sea ice index instead of MASIE huh?

***NERD ALERT***


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

MASIE explicitly says to not use the MASIE data when "comparing trends in sea ice over time." Source. Anyone who is using the MASIE data has already made up their mind and is trying to prove themselves right. MASIE recommends that you should use the Sea Ice Index instead. The Sea Ice Index also provides its data for anyone to use. Source. Again, a person would only use MASIE if it assisted their point (and/or they didn't know what they were doing), since MASIE itself says it is not the proper methodology for analyzing trends.

Just yesterday, news came out that researchers created a plaque for a a glacier that was lost to global warming. Source. Scientists are literally saying they understand what is going to happen in the future with climate change, and everybody else is ignoring them. Other data sets show a much steeper decline than whatever "Watts Up with That" has found. Source. As you will see, they also release their data publicly.

If "alarmist" means someone who thinks we should spend even a single dollar to attempt to combat global warming, then the vast majority of scientists are "alarmists."

Thanks jdshock for your reply. That is good information for everyone to have. “Tony Heller”, the video host has been called out numerous times for using inappropriate data sets; which is why I searched for a secondary source (watts up with That) to see if the data set was valid. I also checked MASIE to see if they had data sets available. I find it odd that they call out their data set as not valid for trending, but so be it.

What I found interesting in the video was the multiple “alarmist” proclamations that we would have a complete melt between 2007 and today, which hasn’t happened. The fact that a data set that somewhat contradicts melting is considered invalid for trending by the organization that collects the data, and that NOW scientists know what is happening, when they claimed it previously, makes it difficult to get on board.

I reject your definition of alarmist whole heartedly. An alarmist would be someone that makes an apocalyptic claim about climate.

[RoyalShock]

Here’s a video from someone I don’t particularly care for, but it shows why there is some skepticism in climate science:

https://youtu.be/vwUhJaQVi-M

Here’s a more reasoned skeptic that uses the same data set, which is open source from MASIE:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/arctic-melt-season-changes-and-the-arctic-regime-shift/

Here’s the graph from MASIE that they present:

http://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/...ere_ts_4km.png

The earth is warming. It is anthropogenic (thank you jdshock for the embarrassing correction) influenced. There’s really no reason for the alarmist articles, however.

I perused the comments of the 2nd link (wattsupwiththat) and found the link I have included below. It's an interesting observation on the effects of arctic warming.

https://lenbilen.com/2017/06/04/with-the-paris-accord-not-signed-can-the-world-still-be-saved-a-look-at-the-arctic/

[jdshock]

I perused the comments of the 2nd link (wattsupwiththat) and found the link I have included below. It's an interesting observation on the effects of arctic warming.

https://lenbilen.com/2017/06/04/with...at-the-arctic/

That's a random engineer posting slides from other blogs and saying stuff about how NASA couldn't "publish real science" pre-Trump. His ultimate conclusion is that Uranium nuclear power is unsafe, so we need to pursue Thorium nuclear energy, and for some (unstated) reason we shouldn't have electric cars before we have "fully switched" over to Thorium. This guy represents a minuscule, fringe portion of the scientific community. On the Watts Up site, he basically says his views are shared by a few scientists and meteorologists, but admits it is primarily "engineers" who agree with him. If you rely on people like him, it's because he argues what you already wanted to believe.

People online flock to blogs like this because it's written for non-climatologists. It's written for people who have a basic understanding of math and science, and it seems persuasive. But there's a reason you and wufan have to keep sharing blogs and not scientific papers. These opinions are not shared by people who do this work full time.

Just to point out an example, the guy says cloud feedback is negative at warmer temperatures: "The feedback, which was positive at low temperatures becomes negative at warmer temperatures, and in the equatorial doldrums, surface temperature has found its equilibrium." But he provides literally no source, no explanation, nothing. Academic studies have found that clouds in the tropics have positive feedback: Source/Source.

[Kung Wu]

Peer reviewed support for low sensitivity: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/s...BFEC081DA04E01

Peer reviewed support for low sensitivity: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....029/GM029p0130
(and published well before climatology was highly politicized)

Peer reviewed support for net negative feedback: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...0_TakingGr.pdf

Peer reviewed support for both low sensitivity and negative feedback: https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/cli...i.grl.2009.pdf

[jdshock]

Sorry, which of those supports what that engineer was saying about cloud feedback?

[wufan]

That's a random engineer posting slides from other blogs and saying stuff about how NASA couldn't "publish real science" pre-Trump. His ultimate conclusion is that Uranium nuclear power is unsafe, so we need to pursue Thorium nuclear energy, and for some (unstated) reason we shouldn't have electric cars before we have "fully switched" over to Thorium. This guy represents a minuscule, fringe portion of the scientific community. On the Watts Up site, he basically says his views are shared by a few scientists and meteorologists, but admits it is primarily "engineers" who agree with him. If you rely on people like him, it's because he argues what you already wanted to believe.

People online flock to blogs like this because it's written for non-climatologists. It's written for people who have a basic understanding of math and science, and it seems persuasive. But there's a reason you and wufan have to keep sharing blogs and not scientific papers. These opinions are not shared by people who do this work full time.

Just to point out an example, the guy says cloud feedback is negative at warmer temperatures: "The feedback, which was positive at low temperatures becomes negative at warmer temperatures, and in the equatorial doldrums, surface temperature has found its equilibrium." But he provides literally no source, no explanation, nothing. Academic studies have found that clouds in the tropics have positive feedback: Source/Source.

I think these types of blogs have good points to ponder. In fact, the leader of the 97% consensus paper, John Cook, inspire of not being a climatologist, is a leading contributor to this one: https://skepticalscience.com/

[wufan]

I disagree...largely based on the incredible fallacies in his study. The damn climate denying guardian! https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming

[jdshock]

I'm taking crazy pills here. In what world is that what we're talking about? I said he's NOT qualified to talk about climate change by just spouting "facts" with no source. His phd makes him qualified to study consensus.

Your response? His consensus study wasn't good.

[wufan]

I guess I misunderstood??? “He’s well positioned to study consensus.”...Yet he sucks at it....and yet you used it as a source.

[wufan]

That's a random engineer posting slides from other blogs and saying stuff about how NASA couldn't "publish real science" pre-Trump. His ultimate conclusion is that Uranium nuclear power is unsafe, so we need to pursue Thorium nuclear energy, and for some (unstated) reason we shouldn't have electric cars before we have "fully switched" over to Thorium. This guy represents a minuscule, fringe portion of the scientific community. On the Watts Up site, he basically says his views are shared by a few scientists and meteorologists, but admits it is primarily "engineers" who agree with him. If you rely on people like him, it's because he argues what you already wanted to believe.

People online flock to blogs like this because it's written for non-climatologists. It's written for people who have a basic understanding of math and science, and it seems persuasive. But there's a reason you and wufan have to keep sharing blogs and not scientific papers. These opinions are not shared by people who do this work full time.

Just to point out an example, the guy says cloud feedback is negative at warmer temperatures: "The feedback, which was positive at low temperatures becomes negative at warmer temperatures, and in the equatorial doldrums, surface temperature has found its equilibrium." But he provides literally no source, no explanation, nothing. Academic studies have found that clouds in the tropics have positive feedback: Source/Source.

Both of your sources were examining how models responded to cloud cover rather than studying how cloud cover impacted temperature.

[jdshock]

Is your position that neither paper has helpful information for feedback caused by clouds? It seems to me that an analysis of various models is particularly helpful when trying to ascertain the true affect of cloud cover.

[wufan]

I did not attempt to validate the models put forth in those articles. The main reason I called it out was because I wanted to be dismissive of science due to my bias.

Actually, I’m looking for data correspondence to determine forcing. Once that’s well understood, models improve. I don’t feel that running a simulation with the 30 odd IPCC models to check correlation is a very good validation.

[wufan]

Peer reviewed support for low sensitivity: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/s...BFEC081DA04E01

Peer reviewed support for low sensitivity: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....029/GM029p0130
(and published well before climatology was highly politicized)

Peer reviewed support for net negative feedback: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...0_TakingGr.pdf

Peer reviewed support for both low sensitivity and negative feedback: https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/cli...i.grl.2009.pdf

One of your papers is only 5 pages. I have to reject that as untrue science.

[Kung Wu]

Oh no you di'int.

[jdshock]

You're welcome to die on the hill defending that "full study." It was garbage, and five pages, single column is absolutely a red flag for a "full study." An unwillingness to acknowledge where your support is weak just makes it look like you're not willing to accept actual facts when they're presented.

[wufan]

And your dismissal based on such unscientific basis deserves to be ridiculed.

[1972Shocker]

Some practical considerations and food for thought when proposing a total conversion to Green/Renewable Energy:

Hydrocarbons are here to stay. It will take decades for the realization that oil, gas, coal are the most efficient and productive energy sources as the Greens are so entrenched in the world’s political systems.

Just read a report that landfills will not take EV batteries or solar panels for disposal as they contain high concentrations of hazardous chemicals. Recycling is too expensive so where does all the waste go?

Probably ends up like spent nuclear fuel, in above ground containers across the landscape as they do not know what to do with it.


If You Want ‘Renewable Energy,’ Get Ready to Dig.
Building One Wind Turbine Requires 900 Tons Of Steel, 2,500 Tons Of Concrete And 45 Tons Of Plastic.
8-5-19
www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328

Democrats dream of powering society entirely with wind and solar farms combined with massive batteries. Realizing this dream would require the biggest expansion in mining the world has seen and would produce huge quantities of waste.

“Renewable energy” is a misnomer. Wind and solar machines and batteries are built from nonrenewable materials. And they wear out. Old equipment must be decommissioned, generating millions of tons of waste. The International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that solar goals for 2050 consistent with the Paris Accords will result in old-panel disposal constituting more than double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste.

Consider some other sobering numbers:

A single electric-car battery weighs about 1,000 pounds. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving and processing more than 500,000 pounds of raw materials somewhere on the planet. The alternative? Use gasoline and extract one-tenth as much total tonnage to deliver the same number of vehicle-miles over the battery’s seven-year life.

When electricity comes from wind or solar machines, every unit of energy produced, or mile traveled, requires far more materials and land than fossil fuels. That physical reality is literally visible: A wind or solar farm stretching to the horizon can be replaced by a handful of gas-fired turbines, each no bigger than a tractor-trailer.

Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic. Solar power requires even more cement, steel and glass—not to mention other metals. Global silver and indium mining will jump 250% and 1,200% respectively over the next couple of decades to provide the materials necessary to build the number of solar panels, the International Energy Agency forecasts. World demand for rare-earth elements—which aren’t rare but are rarely mined in America—will rise 300% to 1,000% by 2050 to meet the Paris green goals. If electric vehicles replace conventional cars, demand for cobalt and lithium, will rise more than 20-fold. That doesn’t count batteries to back up wind and solar grids.

Last year a Dutch government-sponsored study concluded that the Netherlands’ green ambitions alone would consume a major share of global minerals. “Exponential growth in [global] renewable energy production capacity is not possible with present-day technologies and annual metal production,” it concluded.

The demand for minerals likely won’t be met by mines in Europe or the U.S. Instead, much of the mining will take place in nations with oppressive labor practices. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 70% of the world’s raw cobalt, and China controls 90% of cobalt refining. The Sydney-based Institute for a Sustainable Future cautions that a global “gold” rush for minerals could take miners into “some remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven’t yet been disturbed.”

What’s more, mining and fabrication require the consumption of hydrocarbons. Building enough wind turbines to supply half the world’s electricity would require nearly two billion tons of coal to produce the concrete and steel, along with two billion barrels of oil to make the composite blades. More than 90% of the world’s solar panels are built in Asia on coal-heavy electric grids.

Engineers joke about discovering “unobtanium,” a magical energy-producing element that appears out of nowhere, requires no land, weighs nothing, and emits nothing. Absent the realization of that impossible dream, hydrocarbons remain a far better alternative than today’s green dreams.

Mr. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a partner in Cottonwood Venture Partners, an energy-tech venture fund, and author of the recent report, “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking.”

[pinstripers]

chilling

[SB Shock]

Eat more meat to save the world!

[pinstripers]

https://nypost.com/2019/08/22/barack-and-michelle-obama-are-buying-15m-estate-in-marthas-vineyard/?fbclid=IwAR3Wv1A7-8PHFnOaVsMeoFjsXVCo67YyD-LVcu2pCrr6ku__H_d2hK9hTJU

NOBODY that is really worried about global warming buys oceanfront property