Global Warming Debate - Friendly

[Brew12]

Because when I look at current, verifiable, peer-reviewed (eg; scientific) sources, they all agree - our climate is trending to higher temperatures.

I would point out that many "peer-reviewed" studies have turned out to be false because the peers that review them have the same agenda. Very few have truly unbiased reviews. I would also point out that almost every source has an agenda. Even the NASA generated temperatures. Remember when NASA temperatures showed an almost 20 year stall in global warming? Then they changed their "calibration factors" and "proved" the stall never happened. I do believe the Earth is warming however I also tend to take all the data that is put out showing catastrophic damage with a grain of salt. Especially when the head of the United Nations panel on global warming has come out and said that we must take advantage of global warming to do the largest redistribution of wealth the world has ever known. Why would an unbiased head of a research group care about wealth redistribution as a goal?

It took a lot of time to get it to change; it will take even more time to change back - or even just to stabilize it where it's at.

I has taken a long time to change. In fact, we have been warming fairly steadily since the Little Ice Age hit a turning point in the 1600's. That was well before the industrial revolution and widespread use of fossil fuels that tend to be blamed for global warming. And this is part of the problem. We aren't really talking about how to remove mans impact on the environment. What we are talking about is trying to control the planets natural cycles. Yes, man is making it worse (imo) but it was going to happen without us. According to geologically based records we are still well below the average temperature of the planet. Think of how many inland oceans have dried up and created salt flats because of the ice formation on the poles.

I don't have number handy but I'd be willing to wager that the impact of making a solar panel is less than the benefit it generates over its lifetime.

Solar panels crossed a line where they produce more energy than they require to build in the 2012-2014 time frame according to some well respected sources I've looked at. However, the still have some very real flaws. In the summer, peak demand doesn't occur until after 4pm when most solar panels generate very little power. This means big utilities have to shut down generators when solar generation is at it's peak during the day, then quickly ramp up inefficient generation to keep up with increasing demand and declining solar generation. You can search the "duck curve" if you want to learn more about this.

 

[BoneXriffic]

Leave it to a ford owner to degrade the reason to purchase a prius HOW DARE YOU.

The reality is though, prople spend so much money on hybrid cars to save the world they dont consider that most hybrids are built in such a way that they cause more pollution then they are worth.

Its all marketing in my opinion. And maybe good for our economy. It gets people to recycle more and turn lights off to conserve energy....and buy expensive things to go green, that feeds the families involved in their construction. Maybe i am wrong

Yay global cooling! Its like 90 out today

Nice write up also, very agreeable

 

[TheEngineer]

Solar panels crossed a line where they produce more energy than they require to build in the 2012-2014 time frame according to some well respected sources I've looked at. However, the still have some very real flaws. In the summer, peak demand doesn't occur until after 4pm when most solar panels generate very little power. This means big utilities have to shut down generators when solar generation is at it's peak during the day, then quickly ramp up inefficient generation to keep up with increasing demand and declining solar generation. You can search the "duck curve" if you want to learn more about this.

Thanks for that. Storage of renewables is definitely something that needs addressing. No arguments here. If the cost curve of batteries follows the trajectory it is on, I think home battery packs would become as common as water heaters.

 

[Defiant Arms]

I watch Suspicious Observers daily some very good info and always explains things so i can understand

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcqdt3LK6d66tMreI4gqIC-

 

[Brew12]

Thanks for that. Storage of renewables is definitely something that needs addressing. No arguments here. If the cost curve of batteries follows the trajectory it is on, I think home battery packs would become as common as water heaters.

That might not be a good thing either. Most modern batteries rely on Rare Earth Metals which are mainly mined using excessively polluting methods in China. This acute form of pollution is much worse than any benefit we may hope to see by increased renewable generation with batteries.

I have higher hopes for fuel cells but they still have a long way to go.

 

[BoneXriffic]

That might not be a good thing either. Most modern batteries rely on Rare Earth Metals which are mainly mined using excessively polluting methods in China. This acute form of pollution is much worse than any benefit we may hope to see by increased renewable generation with batteries.

I have higher hopes for fuel cells but they still have a long way to go.

Familiar with plug power? They had a pretty good system for cell. Ballard also.

 

[Defiant Arms]

remember a few years back someone had a cell that used ceramic disks looked promising than fell off the radar

 

[brandon429]

my take on GW is we'll never know how much of it is self assured/delusion of grandeur from scientists

of course snippets we get right, given enough trial and error we'll get to Mars w people before too long but as the decades go by im noticing a human trend that goes something like this:
-the science of the day, accepted by the majority of ruling bodies, once said the earth was the center of celestial body rotation and some pretty good scientists were killed for challenging it, and being right.
-back in the 50's and 60's, carbon dating gave us all the age-of-earth data we needed to build a new scheme of things, not possible to be wrong, sealed lock stock and barrel with high degree of accuracy, having massive ripple effects through society and religion etc...and then each decade they find new reasons the old method was off by a hundred K years, says the new measurements.

there are like 1000 more of these examples of decade based science grandeur, and we're in one now too. perpetually. we will only know the snippets. we can't predict what global warming will do any better than we know the age of the earth. yes Im aware that's currently accepted as known, and infallible all the way yes yes understood. Whatever new nuclear or subatomic confirmation method comes about, there's no way that can be wrong says the science of the decade it emerges from

I told my child growing up that getting into age-of-the-earth arguments is the biggest waste of philosophical time one can engage in, pull back, don't get in them. its two humans thinking they are right 100%, all you have to do is wait two decades for a fully different take from one or both depending

 

[Windy]

Question;

After 25 years of very expensive, ever expansive publicly funded climate research, could somebody somewhere please point out one single example where Climate Science as currently practiced has been of ANY visible, perceivable and useful and useable and proven benefit at any level to our national and global societies and industries ?

 

[Brew12]

Familiar with plug power? They had a pretty good system for cell. Ballard also.

Every system I have looked into has had 1 of 3 main problems preventing mass implementation. Cost, reliability, or inability to scale. And of course, we also need to find a better way to get the Hydrogen they need. Right now the only commercially viable method uses natural gas. This makes them just a little better than a natural gas generator as far as impact on global warming.

 

[Brew12]

Question;

After 25 years of very expensive, ever expansive publicly funded climate research, could somebody somewhere please point out one single example where Climate Science as currently practiced has been of ANY visible, perceivable and useful and useable and proven benefit at any level to our national and global societies and industries ?

It has had a tremendous financial benefit to many scientists and politicians. All that money gets spent somewhere.

 

[Oldreefer44]

IMO all you have to do is follow the money. While anti-climate changers will site money and power as the source of pro arguments, all you have to do is look at the deniers source of income. It is big oil. Who has deeper pockets? Much like the tobacco debate in the 70's and 80's, greed is driving the "science" versus science driving the argument. Was convinced when I heard the chief climatologists of NOAA and NASA under George Bush state unequivocally that climate change was largely human driven. Both are retired and not writing books therefore have nothing to gain except for their grandchildren.

 

[TheEngineer]

That might not be a good thing either. Most modern batteries rely on Rare Earth Metals which are mainly mined using excessively polluting methods in China. This acute form of pollution is much worse than any benefit we may hope to see by increased renewable generation with batteries.

I have higher hopes for fuel cells but they still have a long way to go.

For now. Technology is always changing. Battery is maybe the wrong word. How about local power storage? :)

 

[coralfarm123]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

The Earth's CO2 levels have been rising by 2-3 ppm in the last decade and the rate of increase continues to trend upward. The CO2 levels were stable below 300 ppm for centuries before the start of the industrial revolution when they started to increase about 1 ppm per year and are now increasing more quickly. Our planets population has exploded over the last century and will most likely continue growing out of control. This will create an even greater demand for resources and more manufacturing. I don't see how it will get any better with so many people who continue ignoring the problems. If global outdoor CO2 levels approach 1000 ppm humans will start having cognitive problems. This is not way off in the future, but within the next couple generations lifetime.

 

[4FordFamily]

I'm just going to let @DLHDesign do all the talking for me. We're in almost complete agreement. :)

The way I look at it is fairy simple. If I can do something that seems impactful I'll do it. I don't like claims about how things need to be fiscally right for them to be important. This is the only planet we have. We lose it and what are those dollars in the bank going to be good for?

I don't have number handy but I'd be willing to wager that the impact of making a solar panel is less than the benefit it generates over its lifetime. I'd wager the same for electric vehicles, esp in light of recent improvements.

To disregard the financial implications is a mistake as money doesn't make the world go around but as we know it's still important. Stability leads to prosperity.

Contrary to public philosophy you cannot just print money and have it hold value, so financial implications also matter from that perspective.

As an example, I would love to rescue every dog in need but I have many limitations, financially and otherwise, that don't allow this to happen.

But the important thing I was trying to say is that efforts should be spent on things with a higher unit of benefit relative to cost. This need not be solely a financial consideration. The economist in me sees the world differently than some (not right nor wrong, just different). Time is a cost, time and money that could have been spent on something else (say another method of improving our planet) that would yield a higher return (again, return might be a better result for the overall planet not necessarily $ ROI) then that is opportunity cost and in my view is perhaps the most important factor. We only have so much time, money, resources etc to devote to things, my point is to focus it on where the greatest impact can be found and prioritize them that way. I'm not sure what that is, I'm only posing the question and suggesting that it be a consideration in our thought process.

In the long run we can potentially solve all problems but ignoring the above consideration leads to lesser progress (financially and otherwise) than if it were considered, IMO. How much cleaner or better could our planet be if we focused on what we could gain the most from first and worked backwards?

 

[DLHDesign]

How much cleaner or better could our planet be if we focused on what we could gain the most from first and worked backwards?

I don't know that this isn't the case, honestly. The challenge is that we can't know how one potential solution will really work compared to any other until we try it in the wild. Research, prototyping, testing, etc. - all of these things can be - and are - done. But all of what can be done in the lab (or a similar controlled arena) does not always translate into what happens when you implement the solution in the real world. In effect; we don't have a laboratory large enough to simulate the entire planet before we put things into practice.
Take residential solar, for example. When first brought into the market, they were (it was generally agreed, I think) not efficient enough to justify the cost of installing the system. Yet people did anyways (for whatever reasons they had). This kept the idea moving forward. Advance to today and solar is at the tipping point (if it's not crossed over already*). Point being; it (the net-positive effects of solar) have gotten better since it was introduced to the market. Would those improvements have happened in the lab setting? I, personally, doubt it.
But just because solar is (or will soon be) a viable replacement power source, does that make it THE answer? No; of course not. That's why research in wind, wave, and other "clean sources" (that is; sources who's power generation does not rely on significant destruction of the environment) are ongoing. Because solar - like any other product that ever has or will hit the free market - did/does not propose to solve ALL the problems; just those that it can.

* - In an effort to be transparent; I have solar on my house that I installed myself (or with help from friends, at least). I sized my grid for not only my use today, but also what I expect in the future (eg; adding a pool and/or hot-tub). That means that, right now, I'm over-producing energy. My local utility company buys that energy back from me for pennies. I spent a lot of time crunching numbers before the install and determined that the system we have will pay for itself at current energy costs and without counting the buy-back income in 15 years. Systems such as the one we have installed have been shown to last roughly 20 years before their output is reduced to an undesirable level (at which time, the panels would need to be replaced - but the rest of the equipment (~50% of the cost) would remain, in theory, viable). If I can set up that kind of system, on my own and on my own home (where factors such as direction and slope are not easily controlled), I'm pretty sure that it's fair to say that solar is a viable replacement as an energy source for my area. Go 10hrs north, where it rains more and cloud-cover is a factor, and that might change. By the same token, however, go ~10hrs southeast into the desert, and conditions get A LOT better.

Side note: As soon as the Tesla Powerwall is released, I'll get one and hook it into my system. That will give me a whole-house backup in case of a power failure. Now that I've got an aquarium in the home (I did not when we installed solar), that's a huge benefit above and beyond the ones we initially costed out. So while solar may not save ALL of the oceans of the world, once we get that Powerwall installed, solar very well might save the little slice of ocean I've brought into my home. ;-)

 

[BoneXriffic]

We have talked about fuel cell and electric.... when we could have been pushing diesel.... compare the green house gasses from a gasoline powered engine vs a diesel. Most people complain of the smell or noise. But diesel has come along way. Considering they can get in the range of 80mpg and polute the air at much higher rate. Not to mention diesels do anything a gasoline engine can. But more efficiently...
Not to mention the various forms of oil that could be used as biofuel, helpinh recycle as well

 

[TheEngineer]

Once again, I'll let @DLHDesign speak my thoughts :) I agree on fiscally responsible expenditures within reason. We shouldn't be spending all of our money on compact fusion reactors, but we should certainly be exploring them. ROI on technologies that clean our air can't be measured as easily as developing any random widget. Take for example, VW's diesel scandal. They estimated something like 120 people were killed from the extra emissions. (Don't ask me how they arrived at that) Let's say each of those people had a $5M earning potential, that $600M in lost economic impact. That ignores any multiplication on the output of the work they did and how it may have helped. What would the cost difference have been for VW? I'd bet someone who died from a related illness would say the cost was pretty darn high.

We have talked about fuel cell and electric.... when we could have been pushing diesel.... compare the green house gasses from a gasoline powered engine vs a diesel. Most people complain of the smell or noise. But diesel has come along way. Considering they can get in the range of 80mpg and polute the air at much higher rate. Not to mention diesels do anything a gasoline engine can. But more efficiently...
Not to mention the various forms of oil that could be used as biofuel, helpinh recycle as well

Most of Europe is moving away from diesel. It was sold as more efficient, less polluting, etc. That is true in some respects, but not all. Diesel emits much higher levels of NOx and particulates which lead to smog. The reason diesel isn't popular in the US is that it is heavily regulated and the numbers are hard to hit economically. (VW scandal anyone?)

 

[BoneXriffic]

Once again, I'll let @DLHDesign speak my thoughts :) I agree on fiscally responsible expenditures within reason. We shouldn't be spending all of our money on compact fusion reactors, but we should certainly be exploring them. ROI on technologies that clean our air can't be measured as easily as developing any random widget. Take for example, VW's diesel scandal. They estimated something like 120 people were killed from the extra emissions. (Don't ask me how they arrived at that) Let's say each of those people had a $5M earning potential, that $600M in lost economic impact. That ignores any multiplication on the output of the work they did and how it may have helped. What would the cost difference have been for VW? I'd bet someone who died from a related illness would say the cost was pretty darn high.


Most of Europe is moving away from diesel. It was sold as more efficient, less polluting, etc. That is true in some respects, but not all. Diesel emits much higher levels of NOx and particulates which lead to smog. The reason diesel isn't popular in the US is that it is heavily regulated and the numbers are hard to hit economically. (VW scandal anyone?)

That only effects diesels running on diesel. The bio fuels, propane has become popular... diesel also uses a much higher percentage of the usable fuel it is fed than gas powered cars. So it comes to finding the most suitable fuel for a diesel. Oil companies would never support bio diesel but theirs possibilities there. Also diesels have leaned towards more boost lower compression, to increase power. But the older high compression low boost indirect injection diesels produced amazing economy....

 

[TheEngineer]

That only effects diesels running on diesel. The bio fuels, propane has become popular... diesel also uses a much higher percentage of the usable fuel it is fed than gas powered cars. So it comes to finding the most suitable fuel for a diesel. Oil companies would never support bio diesel but theirs possibilities there.

That's not entirely true. Using biodiesel does reduce carbon emissions in the sense that they are not introducing NEW carbon into the atmosphere. It is however still putting carbon out. In that limited respect though, they are cleaner. However, they still emit NOx (actually more NOx than traditional diesel) and particulates.