Climate change

2,019 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

Who? Please quote.

 

It's everywhere on the net! :lol: We are expecting a cooling period due to decreased solar activity. I think warm oceans themselves can also be indicative of a cooling period, actually. Are warm oceans not needed to product an ice age? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fromm said:

 

It's everywhere on the net! :lol: We are expecting a cooling period due to decreased solar activity. I think warm oceans themselves can also be indicative of a cooling period, actually. Are warm oceans not needed to product an ice age? 

 

From what I have read from NASA the cooling effect is going to be tiny.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, snowingagain said:

 

From what I have read from NASA the cooling effect is going to be tiny.

 

Thank God!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arctic Circle oil spill prompts Putin to declare state of emergency

 

Quote

Russia's President Vladimir Putin has declared a state of emergency after 20,000 tonnes of diesel oil leaked into a river within the Arctic Circle.

 

Ground subsidence beneath the fuel storage tanks is believed to have caused the spill. Arctic permafrost has been melting in exceptionally warm weather for this time of year.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world just broke a disturbing climate record despite the global lockdowns

 

Quote

For the last couple of months, global human society effectively stood still. Initially, the signs looked good that the global shutdown was having a positive effect on the natural world. Wildlife appeared to be thriving. Emissions and pollution plummeted.

 

Now, we have the clearest measure so far of what lasting impact the lockdown has had. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography has released its CO2 readings from the Mauna Loa Observatory in the US. They show that, despite the lockdown, CO2 levels have reached a record high.

 

Essentially, the data reveals that two months of significantly reduced human activity did not make a dent in the damage we’ve done to the planet. It ultimately confirms that nothing short of wholesale systemic change will do – with the rejection of fossil fuels at the heart of that transformation.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting video, about the California's Renewable Energy Problem

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5cm7HOAqZY

 

Basically even in a place like California's ( lots of sunshine), there is no real solution from Renewable sources at the moment and not in the future either , to cut the pollution problems, this video just talks about the basic energy requirements  California has, to cover air-con, lights, household use and manufacturing. It does not even consider, what happens if a lot of people want to get into electric cars etc.

 

Unless, we get a new technology or cut back on energy usage, then this planet is going to face the full damage of climate change, whether we buy electric cars or not.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arctic Circle sees 'highest-ever' recorded temperatures

 

Quote

Temperatures in the Arctic Circle are likely to have hit an all-time record on Saturday, reaching a scorching 38C (100F) in Verkhoyansk, a Siberian town.

 

The record still needs to be verified, but it appears to have been 18C higher than the average maximum daily temperature in June.

 

Hot summer weather is not uncommon in the Arctic Circle, but recent months have seen abnormally high temperatures.

 

The Arctic is believed to be warming twice as fast as the global average.

 

Verkhoyansk, home to about 1,300 people, sits just inside the Arctic Circle, in remote Siberia. It has an extreme climate with temperatures plunging in January to an average maximum of -42C and then surging in June to 20C.

 

But a persistent heatwave this year in the Arctic Circle has worried meteorologists. In March, April and May, the Copernicus Climate Change service reported that the average temperature was around 10C above normal.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reconstruction of earth’s global climate for the past 12,000 years

 

Image may contain: text that says "Climate change over the past 12,000 years Abrupt, man-made climate change (we are here) Highest natural temperature in past 12,000 years Gradual, natural climate change Last 150 years zoomed in 9980 Bc 2020 AD"

Quote

This is a reconstruction of earth’s global climate for the past 12,000 years, with the 20th century average as the baseline.

 

It paints a pretty clear picture. Climate change deniers love to scream, “but the climate has changed naturally in the past.” That is certainly true, but even a cursory glance at this figure shows why that is a problematic argument. First, the planet is currently warmer than at any point in the past 12,000 years. Second, and most importantly, the rate of change today is substantially different from natural cycles. Look at the graph, look at how gradually natural changes take place, then look at the sudden, abrupt change part way through the 20th century.

 

That’s not how natural climate changes look, making it clear that this one is from us. Also, note that naturally, the climate fluctuates on a roughly 10,000-year cycle. You can clearly see this in the graph, and it should also be clear that we should still be in a cold period, not a warm period.

 

...Sources for the 12k->2k before now data: https://nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7, for the 2k->170 years before now data: https://nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0 and for 1850-2020 it is an equal blend of HadCRUT 4, GISTEMP, Berkeley Earth, Cowtan and Way and NOAA datasets. Some caveats before it is actually done: We don't know the temperature in 8437 BC. We only know the probability distribution of the 8450-8350 BC period. So those 12k stripes will be a 'plausible, stylized interpretation', based on data, but not mirroring it.”

https://www.facebook.com/thelogicofscience/photos/rpp.1613889505509113/2828795504018501/?type=3&theater

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020, 5:37:17, yesterday said:

Unless, we get a new technology or cut back on energy usage, then this planet is going to face the full damage of climate change, whether we buy electric cars or not.

It´s called "batteries", already here, and they will solve the problem.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

It´s called "batteries", already here, and they will solve the problem.

Watch the video, its not going to be enough.!

 

Batteries, will help, but although they can help with cars, they are not going to help with

 

- Aeroplanes, current batteries, do not have the energy density, maybe change in the future - lets see

- Plastics,  need oil to make

- cosmetics, need oil to work well at the moment

 

Batteries can be used to solve parts of the problem, but they are creating a problem as well, most people think only hydrogen will have the the energy density to replace oil to power an aeroplane. The problem, is most research is going into batteries not hydrogen, if we had put enough research into hydrogen,  we could of had s soloution that could power cars and planes by now

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Death Valley temperature could be highest ever recorded

Quote

The temperature in Furnace Creek in Death Valley, California, soared to 130F (54.4C) on Sunday afternoon and, if verified, will go into the record books as the highest recorded temperature on Earth in the month of August.

 

This is still shy of the current World Meteorological Organization temperature record, but the top two readings from 1913 and 1931 are contested by climate experts.

 

Furnace Creek is considered the hottest place on Earth with a temperature of 134F (56.7C) recorded in July 1913. The second highest temperature ever recorded was 131F (55C) in Kebili, Tunisia in 1931. However, after extensive analysis by meteorologists, there are some doubts about the reliability of these temperature records.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, yesterday said:

Watch the video, its not going to be enough.!

 

Batteries, will help, but although they can help with cars, they are not going to help with

 

- Aeroplanes, current batteries, do not have the energy density, maybe change in the future - lets see

- Plastics,  need oil to make

- cosmetics, need oil to work well at the moment

 

Batteries can be used to solve parts of the problem, but they are creating a problem as well, most people think only hydrogen will have the the energy density to replace oil to power an aeroplane. The problem, is most research is going into batteries not hydrogen, if we had put enough research into hydrogen,  we could of had s soloution that could power cars and planes by now

 

"Battery Breakthrough to Give Flight to Electric Aircraft and Boost Long-Range Electric Cars"

 

Quote

New battery technology developed at Berkeley Lab could give flight to electric aircraft and supercharge safe, long-range electric cars.

...

Researchers at Berkeley Lab and Carnegie Mellon University have designed new solid electrolytes that light the path to wider electrification of transportation. Credit: Courtesy of Jinsoo Kim

https://scitechdaily.com/battery-breakthrough-to-give-flight-to-electric-aircraft-and-boost-long-range-electric-cars/#:~:text=New%20battery%20technology%20developed%20at,%2C%20long%2Drange%20electric%20cars.&text=%E2%80%9COur%20dendrite%2Dsuppressing%20technology%20has,in%20Berkeley%20Lab's%20Molecular%20Foundry.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Janx Spirit said:

 

Thanks for the link, I notice it does not give any projections on how energy dense these new batteries will be, just like normal it will be wonderful tomorrow. THere are many many battery development projects going on around the world, I hope at least some will be successful.

 

We know for a fact hydrogen, is very energy dense, without any development, the problem with hydrogen, is production cost and the difficulty of storing it.

 

I very much hope one technology will come around to help. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, yesterday said:

Watch the video, its not going to be enough.!

 

Batteries, will help, but although they can help with cars, they are not going to help with

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Batteries work for ALL electrical production. You can reduce electricity production by 30-50% just by having batteries!!

 

Quote

 

- Aeroplanes, current batteries, do not have the energy density, maybe change in the future - lets see

Aeroplanes account for 2% of emissions, i.e. meaningless.

 

Quote

- Plastics,  need oil to make

Only account for 10% of all oil usage. Meaningless.

 

Quote

- cosmetics, need oil to work well at the moment

Cmon, another meaningless usage.

 

Remember: we don´t need to and dont WANT to reduce consumption/emissions to zero. We just need some reduction. If we cut all, we have the reverse climate change problem, i.e. not enough energy in the atmosphere.

 

Quote

Batteries can be used to solve parts of the problem, but they are creating a problem as well, most people think only hydrogen will have the the energy density to replace oil to power an aeroplane.

Stop talking about aeroplanes!

And this is a problem of energy density. I think we will be seeing electric airplanes within 10 years, at least as prototypes.

 

Quote

The problem, is most research is going into batteries not hydrogen, if we had put enough research into hydrogen,  we could of had s soloution that could power cars and planes by now

Hydrogen is a stupid answer, sorry! Hydrogen has to be transported, stored and manufactured. All of these are huge, huge wastes! A study showed that even without more battery advances, an electric car is 4-5x more efficient than a hydrogen one.

Electricity based solutions have no problem in transportation. Production can be local and can be done with multiple energy sources. Hydrogen can only be obtained from natural gas! Perpetuates the oil & gas industry! Hydrogen from electrolysis is incredibly inefficient.

 

Climate change is an engineering problem, but politicians and big oil mess it up big time. Hydrogen is just a way for big oil to keep doing the same things and reusing their infrastructure.

 

TBH, I´m very optimistic on the climate change problem because batteries are already price competitive. I.e., from an economical and environmental point of view, they are already viable without subsidies. The problem is that many countries have price schemes between electricity manufacturers and government. Meaning the electricity manufacturers have no economical incentive to invest in batteries, as their current contracts pay them for production, not consumption, and batteries would actually reduce production.

Want to fight climate change? Get rid of these contracts!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Batteries work for ALL electrical production. You can reduce electricity production by 30-50% just by having batteries!!

You have to generated the electricity to use it !

 

6 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Aeroplanes account for 2% of emissions, i.e. meaningless.

Maybe read here

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2207886-it-turns-out-planes-are-even-worse-for-the-climate-than-we-thought/

 

 

6 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Only account for 10% of all oil usage. Meaningless.

Since not all cars will go electric, we need to generally reduce our carbon foot print.

 

6 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Remember: we don´t need to and dont WANT to reduce consumption/emissions to zero. We just need some reduction.

 

Since not all cars will go electric, we need to generally reduce our carbon foot print.

6 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Stop talking about aeroplanes!

 

why do you not like aeroplanes ?, again see https://www.newscientist.com/article/2207886-it-turns-out-planes-are-even-worse-for-the-climate-than-we-thought/

aeroplanes are a big problem, and will become bigger.

 

6 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

 Hydrogen has to be transported, stored and manufactured.

So does elecricity, or is elecricity just beamed to the socket ???

Electricity had to manufactured, stored ( batteries ?? dur ), hever heard of elecricty of electric cables being used to transport electricity ?

 

6 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

 

All of these are huge, huge wastes! A study showed that even without more battery advances, an electric car is 4-5x more efficient than a hydrogen one.

Thats what I said, with the hugh development in batteries they have become better, with a hugh investment hydrogen can become better, but electric cars have the future for now. 

6 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Electricity based solutions have no problem in transportation.

When more Electric cars comes, there will need to be more cables and production facilities

6 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

 

 

Production can be local and can be done with multiple energy sources. Hydrogen can only be obtained from natural gas! Perpetuates the oil & gas industry! Hydrogen from electrolysis is incredibly inefficient.

 

See here  https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/worlds-largest-hydrogen-plant-in-fukushima-opens/ see here hydrogen production in Japan

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, yesterday said:

You have to generated the electricity to use it !

 

And there are plenty of clean electricity sources.

 

7 minutes ago, yesterday said:

Since not all cars will go electric, we need to generally reduce our carbon foot print.

 

Since not all cars will go electric, we need to generally reduce our carbon foot print.

 

Perfect Solution Fallacy.

 

We don't need to reduce our footprint to zero, we just need to reduce it a bit and go from there.

 

7 minutes ago, yesterday said:

So does elecricity, or is elecricity just beamed to the socket ???

 

The infrastructure to transport electricity mostly exists already.

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, yesterday said:

You have to generated the electricity to use it !

You don´t understand! If you add batteries to a grid, you can immediately cut on electricity production! Or just use the surplus for electric cars. Better, you can choose, according to the specifics of your country, how to generate it. Example: Norway generates almost all electricity from mini damns. Southern countries could use more solar. France can use nuclear.

 

12 minutes ago, yesterday said:

Still 5%, not meaningful. Even if you cut 20% there, it only has a 1% impact. Means nothing!

 

12 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

Since not all cars will go electric, we need to generally reduce our carbon foot print.

They will. Just takes time.

 

12 minutes ago, yesterday said:

So does elecricity, or is elecricity just beamed to the socket ???

Electricity had to manufactured, stored ( batteries ?? dur ), hever heard of elecricty of electric cables being used to transport electricity ?

As Krieg said, infrastructure is already here and better: transporting electricity is incredibly efficient. Transporting hydrogen is not.

 

12 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

Thats what I said, with the hugh development in batteries they have become better, with a hugh investment hydrogen can become better, but electric cars have the future for now.

Hydrogen investment will not yeld much improvement and perpetuates the oil & gas cycle.

Worst, hydrogen cars are expensive to manufacture and won´t improve much, they will never be competitive with electric cars. My prediction is within 2 years hydrogen cars will be completely abandoned.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

And there are plenty of clean electricity sources.

See the video I posted above, nobody why knows about world energy production, thinks that our current electricity production needs can be met with renewables, and then we are going to add e-cars - which will add quite a bit.

Now Germany has decided to ban Nuclear power, Germany is producing more carbon gasses as it uses more coal

 

2 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

Perfect Solution Fallacy.

 

We don't need to reduce our footprint to zero, we just need to reduce it a bit and go from there.

The more we reduce it, the more pollution we can avoid and hopefully reduces the effects of climate change.

 

2 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

The infrastructure to transport electricity mostly exists already.

So, you do not think that if we all get battery cars that we will not need a large increase of cables everywhere to supply the demand - or does electricity just appear at the home by magic ?

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, yesterday said:

See the video I posted above, nobody why knows about world energy production, thinks that our current electricity production needs can be met with renewables, and then we are going to add e-cars - which will add quite a bit.

Now Germany has decided to ban Nuclear power, Germany is producing more carbon gasses as it uses more coal

 

I am aware of the dodgy "greenness" of plenty of green energy nowadays, but the point is that the sources exist.  With hydrogen it is another story, at least at the moment, the useful sources are still not clean.

 

I have ambivalent opinions on nuclear power, but what I am sure is that closing the nuclear power sources just to replace them with worse unclean energy was bad, just a PR movement that didn't really make sense.

 

2 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

The more we reduce it, the more pollution we can avoid and hopefully reduces the effects of climate change.

 

Sure, but we have to start by little steps.   I think in general we are in the right direction.

 

2 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

So, you do not think that if we all get battery cars that we will not need a large increase of cables everywhere to supply the demand - or does electricity just appear at the home by magic ?

 

 

 

Maybe the infrastructure needs to be upgraded, sure, but not in every single house.   And we were talking in the context of comparing it with hydrogen energy for which there is absolutely no infrastructure yet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, yesterday said:

See the video I posted above, nobody why knows about world energy production, thinks that our current electricity production needs can be met with renewables, and then we are going to add e-cars - which will add quite a bit.

Now Germany has decided to ban Nuclear power, Germany is producing more carbon gasses as it uses more coal

So, you do not think that if we all get battery cars that we will not need a large increase of cables everywhere to supply the demand - or does electricity just appear at the home by magic ?

1) Electricity can be produced locally, meaning no big reinforcement of high power lines

2) Cars will mostly recharge off peak, meaning no big reinforcement of high power lines

3) Batteries and off-peak charging will use WASTED ENERGY! Right now production at night and off peak during the day is completely wasted!

 

BTW, as an example, I charge at home and had ZERO investment in increasing power throughput. Why? Because I charge when the rest of the house is not consuming. For my daily commute, I think I could have 5-6 cars in the same plug without a problem, because each will charge at a time, and each one only needs a couple of hours.

EVs charging at home will require no changes on the electric system. For transportation till the house, see 1) and 2)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now