Climate Change Mega Thread

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby Jlabute » Dec 11th, 2018, 9:04 pm

Jmfva wrote:Climate change deniers will be the laughing stock of civilization in 20-30 years. People will look back and shake their heads in disbelief. At least it's documented here. [icon_lol2.gif]


Funny, I clicked on your documentation and found absolutely nothing! [icon_lol2.gif]

It would be funny if the world plunged in to a major cooling event as indicated by peer reviewed solar scientists. You think CO2 correlates better than the sun. So then, you’re willing to take the bet that 2019 will be the hottest year ever? Instead of waiting 20-30 years to find the dummies, we can fast track it to 1 year.
I do diligence and sometimes diligence does me.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Jlabute
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2035
Likes: 1072 posts
Liked in: 1312 posts
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby Jmfva » Dec 11th, 2018, 9:23 pm

Jlabute wrote:
Jmfva wrote:Climate change deniers will be the laughing stock of civilization in 20-30 years. People will look back and shake their heads in disbelief. At least it's documented here. [icon_lol2.gif]


Funny, I clicked on your documentation and found absolutely nothing! [icon_lol2.gif]

It would be funny if the world plunged in to a major cooling event as indicated by peer reviewed solar scientists. You think CO2 correlates better than the sun. So then, you’re willing to take the bet that 2019 will be the hottest year ever? Instead of waiting 20-30 years to find the dummies, we can fast track it to 1 year.



That wasn't a link... " Here" as in this forum. Went over your head eh? Not surprised.
User avatar
Jmfva
Board Meister
 
Posts: 503
Likes: 1234 posts
Liked in: 556 posts
Joined: Mar 10th, 2010, 5:02 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby rustled » Dec 11th, 2018, 9:48 pm

Jlabute wrote:...

It would be funny if the world plunged in to a major cooling event as indicated by peer reviewed solar scientists. You think CO2 correlates better than the sun. So then, you’re willing to take the bet that 2019 will be the hottest year ever? Instead of waiting 20-30 years to find the dummies, we can fast track it to 1 year.

But Jlablute, those are the wrong scientists. We should only give credence to the climate scientists who produce peer reviewed science that supports the consensus. Any science that contradicts or casts doubt on the consensus in any way cannot be considered real science.
:biggrin:

3 people like this post.
rustled
Guru
 
Posts: 6246
Likes: 9381 posts
Liked in: 7424 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby Jlabute » Dec 11th, 2018, 10:20 pm

You’re probably right. Any solar astrophysicist with multiple degrees leading a team of other scientists who have spent 30 or more years in their field searching for truth and have designed models that accurately predict solar activity with 97% accuracy can’t possibly be real scientists or know anything worth-while. Only the CO2 scientists who can’t predict or model the past are real scientists, and they don’t need to know anything about our sun.

Saying that, these particular scientists will get a little more coverage as the time comes. It is interesting that an event that has not occurred for the last 300 years is just around the corner.


https://nextgrandminimum.com/2018/11/22/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/
I do diligence and sometimes diligence does me.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Jlabute
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2035
Likes: 1072 posts
Liked in: 1312 posts
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby rustled » Dec 12th, 2018, 7:25 am

^^They'll need more than a little coverage to get any real traction, though, especially if they want governments to prepare. Someone like Gore to dramatize the theory and the prediction, and someone like Cook to massage the drama so public perception shifts enough for public policy to fall in line. Use the right words to eliminate doubt (like scientific consensus and denier) and all that. Cuz that's how the real science works.

ETA: I forgot these wanna-be-taken-seriously scientists should also include "settled" when presenting their data. That used to be a prerequisite to avoid being labelled a denier. But perhaps "settled" is out of fashion now:
Mike Gunson and his colleagues at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, have been operating NASA's OCO-2 satellite since its launch in 2014. This "eye in the sky" is designed to observe carbon dioxide.

"How much fossil fuel we are willing to burn and how much carbon dioxide are we willing to put into the atmosphere is a first-order question for future climate projections," said Gunson. "The second big question (is) how much does the terrestrial ecosystem, how much does the ocean absorb ... It's far from settled."
https://www.castanet.net/news/World/244 ... -pollution
rustled
Guru
 
Posts: 6246
Likes: 9381 posts
Liked in: 7424 posts
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby monilynno » Dec 12th, 2018, 8:35 am

rustled wrote:Gentle JLives, I have pointed out that refusing to examine anything that is contrary to the narrative, contrary to the consensus, is not science.

That ignoring (or worse, ridiculing and dismissing) climate scientists who have not come to the same conclusions as others is not science.

This is not arrogance. This is not about what I know and what I don't. It is simple fact.

:130:


There was a time when the Earth Centered Universe was the "Settled Science" and if you spoke against that model you were thrown in prison, seems we've almost come full circle.
http://www.nationalpost.com/Jail+politi ... story.html

2 people like this post.
monilynno
Fledgling
 
Posts: 182
Likes: 243 posts
Liked in: 116 posts
Joined: Jan 9th, 2014, 8:26 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby blue iguana » Dec 12th, 2018, 10:44 am

“Climate is ultimately complex. Complexity begs for reductionism. With reductionism, a puzzle is studied by way of its pieces. While this approach illuminates the climate system’s components, climate’s full picture remains elusive. Understanding the pieces does not ensure understanding the collection of pieces.”

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2 ... -model.pdf
Abstract
A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory. We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.
No matter how talented, rich or intelligent you are, how you treat animals tells me all I need to know about you.
blue iguana
Fledgling
 
Posts: 146
Likes: 177 posts
Liked in: 223 posts
Joined: Oct 3rd, 2008, 4:37 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby Deean » Dec 13th, 2018, 12:51 am

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program H.A.A.R.P I came across this by accident while searching "Are scientists able to manipulate weather?" Scary stuff!
Deean
Fledgling
 
Posts: 135
Likes: 246 posts
Liked in: 107 posts
Joined: Dec 14th, 2008, 11:15 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby blue iguana » Dec 13th, 2018, 7:11 pm

This is great news. I look forward to hearing more about this technology.

Climate Change Breakthrough: Large-scale capture of atmospheric CO₂ shown to be feasible and affordable
http://carbonengineering.com/climate-ch ... akthrough/
Squamish, B.C. – Announced today, Carbon Engineering (CE), a Canadian-based clean energy company, has published new research that proves CO₂ can now be captured from the atmosphere for less than $100USD per ton. Released in a peer-reviewed paper, CE’s breakthroughs in Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology demonstrate, for the first time, a scalable and cost-effective solution for removing CO₂ from the atmosphere.  
The implications of CE’s proven DAC technology on climate strategy are twofold – it allows the removal of existing CO₂ from the air to counteract emissions too challenging or costly to eliminate at source, and enables the production of clean fuels that can significantly reduce transportation emissions. These outcomes accelerate the shift to a “net zero” world that avoids the risks of climate change while affordably delivering clean energy.
<snip>
CE is now commercializing DAC technology through integration with the company’s AIR TO FUELS™ process, which uses water electrolysis and fuels synthesis to produce clean liquid hydrocarbon fuels that are drop-in compatible with existing transportation infrastructure. CE has proven both DAC and AIR TO FUELS™ technologies and has been capturing CO₂ from the atmosphere since 2015 and converting it into fuels since December 2017.
“CE’s vision is to reduce the effects of climate change by first cutting emissions, then by reducing atmospheric CO₂,” says Steve Oldham, CEO of CE. “Our clean fuel is fully compatible with existing engines, so it provides the transportation sector with a solution for significantly reducing emissions, either through blending or direct use. Our technology is scalable, flexible and demonstrated. Today, we’re actively seeking partners who will work with CE to dramatically reduce emissions in the transportation sector and help us move to a carbon-neutral economy.”
No matter how talented, rich or intelligent you are, how you treat animals tells me all I need to know about you.
blue iguana
Fledgling
 
Posts: 146
Likes: 177 posts
Liked in: 223 posts
Joined: Oct 3rd, 2008, 4:37 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby The Green Barbarian » Dec 14th, 2018, 7:45 am

blue iguana wrote:This is great news. I look forward to hearing more about this technology.

Climate Change Breakthrough: Large-scale capture of atmospheric CO₂ shown to be feasible and affordable
http://carbonengineering.com/climate-ch ... akthrough/
Squamish, B.C. – Announced today, Carbon Engineering (CE), a Canadian-based clean energy company, has published new research that proves CO₂ can now be captured from the atmosphere for less than $100USD per ton. Released in a peer-reviewed paper, CE’s breakthroughs in Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology demonstrate, for the first time, a scalable and cost-effective solution for removing CO₂ from the atmosphere.  
The implications of CE’s proven DAC technology on climate strategy are twofold – it allows the removal of existing CO₂ from the air to counteract emissions too challenging or costly to eliminate at source, and enables the production of clean fuels that can significantly reduce transportation emissions. These outcomes accelerate the shift to a “net zero” world that avoids the risks of climate change while affordably delivering clean energy.
<snip>
CE is now commercializing DAC technology through integration with the company’s AIR TO FUELS™ process, which uses water electrolysis and fuels synthesis to produce clean liquid hydrocarbon fuels that are drop-in compatible with existing transportation infrastructure. CE has proven both DAC and AIR TO FUELS™ technologies and has been capturing CO₂ from the atmosphere since 2015 and converting it into fuels since December 2017.
“CE’s vision is to reduce the effects of climate change by first cutting emissions, then by reducing atmospheric CO₂,” says Steve Oldham, CEO of CE. “Our clean fuel is fully compatible with existing engines, so it provides the transportation sector with a solution for significantly reducing emissions, either through blending or direct use. Our technology is scalable, flexible and demonstrated. Today, we’re actively seeking partners who will work with CE to dramatically reduce emissions in the transportation sector and help us move to a carbon-neutral economy.”


The funny thing is, they won't have to "capture" anything, just say that they are doing it, and everyone will believe it, and then suddenly no one will be worried about it anymore. This entire man-made climate change is the biggest examle of the "Emperor has no Clothes" that the world has ever seen. Just one giant scam.
Ten people holding a sign on a road shouldn't be able to stop thousands of people from making a living. The needs of the many must come ahead of the lunacy of the few.

2019 - The year we get rid of the Liberals and their drunken farm wife spending.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29828
Likes: 13249 posts
Liked in: 18057 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 8:13 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby Jlabute » Dec 14th, 2018, 10:08 am

$100US per ton is probably an underestimate too. How many tons do we want to remove? 40 Billion tons? So $4 trillion/year costs? Is China and India going to pay for this? I find this technology as completely unnecessary anyways, and can be used as an excuse to charge the populace the same amount in carbon tax plus more.

In the next 100 years, newer nuclear technologies need serious development during the coming period of low solar activity. In the next 100 years, the removal of actual poisons from manufacturing is more important than CO2 removal.

Scale the technology up enough, and you can wipe out all life on earth. This is not a technology to be developed.
I do diligence and sometimes diligence does me.

The Green Barbarian likes this post.
User avatar
Jlabute
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2035
Likes: 1072 posts
Liked in: 1312 posts
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby The Green Barbarian » Dec 14th, 2018, 10:18 am

Jlabute wrote:
Scale the technology up enough, and you can wipe out all life on earth. This is not a technology to be developed.


EXACTLY!!!! :130:
Ten people holding a sign on a road shouldn't be able to stop thousands of people from making a living. The needs of the many must come ahead of the lunacy of the few.

2019 - The year we get rid of the Liberals and their drunken farm wife spending.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29828
Likes: 13249 posts
Liked in: 18057 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 8:13 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby blue iguana » Dec 14th, 2018, 11:16 am

^^^ As per my previous posts, I am of the belief that the science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood. It is important to understand the significance of possible errors/issues. I am in full support of nuclear.

I posted the article because the company is Canadian and the clean energy;
“Our clean fuel is fully compatible with existing engines, so it provides the transportation sector with a solution for significantly reducing emissions, either through blending or direct use."

If compatible with existing engines, that will help solve the problem of what to do with all the fuel powered vehicles rather than force electric. Perhaps this technology can be applied to airplanes.

"CE is a Canadian-based clean energy company leading the commercialization of groundbreaking technology that captures CO₂ directly from the atmosphere, and synthesizes it into clean, affordable transportation fuels." This may be a step in the right direction, if the statement is true. We will have to wait and see.

Fuel poverty in Western countries was to have been a thing of the past. The only groups to be benefitting are renewable energy generators, land owners and subsidy-hungry investors looking for profits guaranteed by government. Is the potential cost twice the prospective benefit?

Climate change is not a black and white issue, there are many, many shades of grey. If we spent as much time and money as is spent on "climate change" dogma, we could do some phenomenal cleanups of real pollution and protect our forests and oceans.

The Dirty Side of a “Green” Industry
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650

Electric cars are ‘green’. But are they ethical?
The toll of the cobalt mining industry on health and the environment
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-toll-o ... try-congo/
No matter how talented, rich or intelligent you are, how you treat animals tells me all I need to know about you.
blue iguana
Fledgling
 
Posts: 146
Likes: 177 posts
Liked in: 223 posts
Joined: Oct 3rd, 2008, 4:37 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby Glacier » Dec 18th, 2018, 10:49 pm

“We have a right to believe whatever we want, but not everything we believe is right.”
~Ravi Zacharias

blue iguana likes this post.
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 28343
Likes: 3707 posts
Liked in: 10448 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Postby blue iguana » Dec 19th, 2018, 12:30 pm

Is it past time to stop pushing so hard for carbon cuts before alternative energy sources are ready to take over?

Failed: Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations, Blades and Cables
http://www.windtaskforce.org/m/blogpost ... t%3A135850
<snip>
OFFSHORE WIND MONOPOLE FOUNDATION FAILURE
The U.K. Supreme Court has made a landmark ruling, 7/17, that the fundamental offshore wind turbine design code has failed, industry-wide.  The U.S. has adopted the U.K. offshore wind design code (J101).
https://maritime-executive.com/article/ ... -landscape
Industry Tech source explains in detail what went wrong with offshore wind monopoles historically “sinking”, “shifting” and “corroding”-
<snip>
CORROSION
Insurance industry source for insured offshore Wind corrosion issues-  
Summary:  Offshore wind turbines are corroding internally & externally & industry is challenged to correct ongoing problems.
http://www.materialsperformance.com/art ... oundations
CABLE FAILURE: UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE 
[Offshore Wind] ‘Industry must face up to growing cable failures’
“Operational failures now make up about 80% in value of all cable-related claims, a delegate from the insurance industry claimed...” https://www.windpowermonthly.com/articl ... e-failures
“Cable failures are one of the main risks affecting offshore wind operations 
Cable failures are one of the main risks affecting offshore wind operations because they can shut down an (important part of an) offshore wind farm for a duration of months, resulting in a financial as well as a societal impact. Despite the fact that power cables typically form only 5 to 10% of the total investment costs in an offshore windfarm, they account by far for most of the unavailability of the windfarms, and for claim costs of 100s of millions of Euros annually. In view of the development of the number of offshore wind farms, this amount will increase considerably in the future. Cable inspections and repairs are expensive maritime operations. Repairs on cables can easily take weeks or even months because of the weather or the limited available of equipment and vessels. That can severely impair revenue and also reduce the technical lifetime of offshore wind farms...”
https://www.dnvgl.com/news/offshore-win ... res-117811
Cable installation and repair cost- Cable problems, (more than 70% of wind project insurance claims), repair average cost is U.S. $6,450,630.08. Subsea Cable INSTALLATION cost averages $6 million per mile per Sue Tierney Analysis Group

FACTS ABOUT THE SAVINGS OF FOSSIL FUEL BY WINDTURBINES IN THE NETHERLANDS.
http://www.clepair.net/statlineanalyse201208.html
Conclusion and outlook
Adding it all up, one must conclude that under the present conditions in the Netherlands a 100 MW (Megawatt) 'name plate' capacity wind development produces on average 23 MW because of the capacity factor. 4,6 MW (20%) of this has to be subtracted from the final net result because of initial energy investments. From the actual Statline production figures we know that 27% of this 23 MW = 6,17 MW represents the actual fossil fuel and CO2 savings. But from this figure we need to subtract the amount of energy invested in the construction works: 4,6 MW. The net total of fuel saving electricity provided by our windturbines therefore is 6,17 - 4,6 = 1,57 MW on average over the year. That is ~ 1,6% of the installed capacity. It makes wind developments a Mega money pit with virtually no merit in terms of the intended goal of CO2 emission reduction or fossil fuel saving.

What is going to happen next? The current plan is to extend wind capacity to 8 GW onshore and 4 GW offshore. Presently wind name plate capacity is about 15% of the average domestic electric power need, which is roughly 14 GW. If the capacity exceeds 20% we enter into a new phase in which frequent curtailment sets in: there will be periods in which the grid simply cannot absorb the supply. This situation already exists in Denmark and Ireland. Then we shall see a further dramatic decrease of the fuel-replacing effectiveness. In a previous study (6), we used a model in which the most conservative scenario had a thus defined windpenetration of 20%. We found that in that case savings were already negative, which means that wind developments actually caused an increase in fossil fuel consumption. The present study based on actual data shows that we are well on the way to reach that stage.
No matter how talented, rich or intelligent you are, how you treat animals tells me all I need to know about you.

3 people like this post.
blue iguana
Fledgling
 
Posts: 146
Likes: 177 posts
Liked in: 223 posts
Joined: Oct 3rd, 2008, 4:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests