Climate Change Dump #1

[RandyBoBandy]

My head hurts

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by MrLeahy

My head hurts

Edit. Retracted for me being a jerk.

[ak-71]

OK, I had an idea recently, but to explain it I have to digress into explaining one Liberal(?) movement in Russia, it's called StopHam. OK, basically they are fighting illegal parking with some stickers to a windshield. Not my bunch of people, doing right thing though, but whatever.
Regardless, imagine somebody starting a movement called "Walk the walk" here in Canada. The idea is to either put a sticker, or, may be, even a car boot on carbon emitting cars of the "activists" who close pipelines, make other performances against oil and such, to make them walk from the sight. Like in "If you like to talk the talk, expect to walk the walk" idea.
How much trouble it could land an activist of new movement in? I mean it seems like a good idea to me, but I'd hate to do more time, than greenies
AVB, could you may be disclose your address for consultations?

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by ak-71

OK, I had an idea recently, but to explain it I have to digress into explaining one Liberal(?) movement in Russia, it's called StopHam. OK, basically they are fighting illegal parking with some stickers to a windshield. Not my bunch of people, doing right thing though, but whatever.
Regardless, imagine somebody starting a movement called "Walk the walk" here in Canada. The idea is to either put a sticker, or, may be, even a car boot on carbon emitting cars of the "activists" who close pipelines, make other performances against oil and such, to make them walk from the sight. Like in "If you like to talk the talk, expect to walk the walk" idea.
How much trouble it could land an activist of new movement in? I mean it seems like a good idea to me, but I'd hate to do more time, than greenies
AVB, could you may be disclose your address for consultations?

And if they go for Tesla thing - one could trace the energy source I assume. Could make a good reality show, like the one with those sorry dudes stranded at Vancouver Island.

[avb3]

Y'all think I only post one thing when it comes to climate change.

Nope

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ca...-idUSKCN12I28N

Because it's a complex issue with no one answer. All mitigations have costs.

[Deo101]

Originally Posted by avb3

Consensus on AGW is again confirmed, wind and solar use is increasing exponentially, real effects of global warming is happening now, effecting real people, including Donald Trump.

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous on Man-Made Global Warming
Consensus Study now Peer-Reviewed and Published




Climate Change Has Officially Engulfed 5 Pacific Islands

[/INDENT][/I]


Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course




Scientists, Navy consider future of sonar in warming oceans




Appearance of crater dubbed ‘the Gateway to the Underworld’ in Siberia is a warning to our warming planet




North Sea countries mull wind energy strategy




Renewable energy surges to record levels around the world

Not a day goes by that you aren't arguing for man made climate change on AO. It's clear that you're obsessed. So I'll let ya have it . Man made climate change is real. Just don't try to convince that taxation of carbon in a net negative country is going to make a bit of difference. And there's always that chance of being hit by an asteroid....The real climate change we should be worried about.

[Sundancefisher]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1012132150.htm

Climate change may help Ethiopia, increase the country's access to water
Date:October 12, 2016 Source:Virginia Tech

Summary: Despite the many disastrous impacts of climate change, there are some regions of the globe that might benefit from hotter temperatures. A team of researchers have predicted that water availability in the Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia may increase in coming decades due to global climate change. It could also lead to increased crop production, spur massive hydroelectric power projects, and foster irrigation development in the region.


Despite the many disastrous impacts of climate change, there are some regions of the globe that might benefit from hotter temperatures.


A team of researchers from Virginia Tech have predicted that water availability in the Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia may increase in coming decades due to global climate change. It could also lead to increased crop production, spur massive hydroelectric power projects, and foster irrigation development in the region.

"For all the catastrophic impacts of climate change, there are some silver linings," said Zach Easton, associate professor of biological systems engineering. "The sad irony is that climate change may be the catalyst Ethiopia needs to become a food-exporting country."

The research team used a suite of climate and hydrologic models to predict the impact of climate change on water availability and sediment transport in the Blue Nile. Most previous Nile Basin climate impact studies have only focused on water availability, but the study conducted by the team at Virginia Tech was a first of its kind to to assess sediment transport, a big problem in the basin where some of the highest erosion rates in the world have been measured.

The findings of the study were recently published in the journal Climatic Change.

"Ethiopia could experience increased water accessibility making growing seasons longer and potentially allowing for two crops to be grown per year," said Moges Wagena, from Assosa, Ethiopia. Wagena is first author on the paper and also associated with the Abay Basin Authority, a water resource management entity for one of Ethiopia's 12 water basins. Wagena is one of Easton's doctoral candidates in the Department of Biological Systems Engineering, housed in both the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College of Engineering. The team also included Andrew Sommerlot, another of Easton's doctoral candidates; Daniel Fuka, a post-doctoral student working with Easton; researchers from the University of Maryland; and the International Water Management Institute, Nile Basin Office. The work was funded by the World Bank and the International Water Management Institute.

The team coupled hydrologic models with bias-corrected and downscaled Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 models, known as CMIP5, for the project. Previously, studies that looked only at temperature and precipitation from the climate models found an increased rate of water availability of just 10 percent, where Easton and Wagena found potentially 20 to 30 percent more streamflow available in the region in the coming decades.

One potential problem that the analysis identified was increased sediment transport in the rivers due to increased water flow. The increased sediment has the potential to reduce the capacity of reservoirs and dams, making massive hydroelectric projects like Ethiopia's largest dam currently under construction, the Grand Renascence Dam, less efficient in storing the 65 billion cubic meters of water that could potentially turn its turbines.

"Greater water availability is certainly a positive outcome, but this is countered by more sediment. One way to combat that is through installing conservation practices on farms, for instance using cover crops and low- and no-till planting methods to make the soil healthier, more stable, and reduce erosion," said Easton.

While climate change is and will continue to cause untold problems, nuances in climate-induced weather events could benefit the Blue Nile Basin with increased rainfall in the area.

"It's interesting, because much of the Blue Nile Basin is well above 5,000 feet in elevation, giving it pretty much an ideal climate for agriculture with low humidity, low disease and pest pressure, and potentially great water availability, which could spur development," said Easton.


Materials provided by Virginia Tech. Original written by Amy Loeffler. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Two interesting things to consider.

One...people are not studying the benefits to weight against the guesses of what the problems may be.

Two...these poor guys published something slightly favorable towards global warming and seemed to apologize or comment how terrible global warming is...but...but...but.

At one point...the Sahara was green. Maybe nature is heading that way again. The cycle of the unknown.

[avb3]

U.S. Energy Shakeup Continues as Solar Capacity Triples

Solar power capacity in the U.S. will have nearly tripled in size in less than three years by 2017 amid an energy shakeup that has seen natural gas solidify its position as the country’s chief source of electricity and coal power continue to fade, according to monthly data published by the U.S. Department of Energy. ...

...Solar power has been on a tear in recent years partly because of cheaper solar panels and a federal tax credit for solar installations. Congress extended the solar tax credit early this year, helping to fuel a 39 percent annual growth rate for solar power-producing capacity, to 27 gigawatts by next year from about 10 gigawatts in 2014, or enough to power about 3.5 million homes, the data show.

“Because of pent-up demand due to uncertainty over the federal tax credit, solar had a record year in 2016,” said Doug Vine, senior energy fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “Solar capacity buildout is expected to be similar next year.”

By contrast, wind power generating capacity is expected to grow by about 8 percent next year after growing nearly 15.5 percent in 2016.

For most of the past century, coal has been king in the electric power industry. But it has begun to falter as a major energy source in the U.S. because falling natural gas prices have encouraged electric power companies to build more gas-fired power plants. ....

....
“Coal is now in many markets the marginal player,” said Daniel Cohan, professor of environmental engineering at Rice University. “There’s definitely been switching from coal to gas, and many analysts think that the majority of coal power plants are losing money.”

As more and more companies are required to install expensive scrubbers on their coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury and other air pollution, the future of coal plants in many areas is likely grim, he said.

“If they’re losing money or breaking even, it’s not going to make sense for them to put in scrubbers,” Cohan said. “It’s likely to tip a growing number of coal plants to shut down.”

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by avb3

U.S. Energy Shakeup Continues as Solar Capacity Triples

I must have missed it, for solar, how many percent from total is it? Anything less than 2-3% they can probably still afford.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by ak-71

I must have missed it, for solar, how many percent from total is it? Anything less than 2-3% they can probably still afford.

I believe it is less, at around 1%, but rapidly rising.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by avb3

I believe it is less, at around 1%, but rapidly rising.

As an unqualified number the gains might look impressive to some not so familiar with the bigger energy picture. But in context of growth relative to the total percentage of current electricity demand growth is minor (specially considering the cost and effort to date) and if we consider wind and solar growth as a percentage of total energy demand (because after all if we cut oil use and go to all electric cars then electrical demand will skyrocket) then the gains are marginal at best.

I know you refuse to address that issue but that's the facts Jack.

[The Elkster]

And the reason I care about these misperceptions is because there are legions of people, due in large part to unqualified numbers, who actually believe wind and solar are ready to take over the energy supply tomorrow and that its just a conspiracy that this hasn't happened. These are the people who fight the pipelines we need to move what in reality is still a very necessary commodity (and will be for a long time). Are they going to be the one's to take the fall and feel the pain if there is a shortage as a result. Nope that will be on the evil oil companies as well. "Colluding to suppress supply" will no doubt be the cry when their lifestyles are curtailed by high energy costs. Memories are short.

[Sundancefisher]

1.2 billion cars in the world
80,000,000 cars built each year
40,000,000 cars trashed each year

Need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as has been produced in the last 10,000 years.

All this takes oil and electric cars will never replace gasoline.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

1.2 billion cars in the world
80,000,000 cars built each year
40,000,000 cars trashed each year

Need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as has been produced in the last 10,000 years.

All this takes oil and electric cars will never replace gasoline.

Musk, Barra and others are betting you are wrong. With billions.

[jungleboy]

This thread is 2 weeks old isn't it time for AVB to start a new new climate change thread?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

This thread is 2 weeks old isn't it time for AVB to start a new new climate change thread?

Naa... this one seems to be rolling along just fine all by itself.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by avb3

Musk, Barra and others are betting you are wrong. With billions.

And you continue to skirt the scaling up question cause ya got nothing! There is no doubt there is money to be made in electric specially with todays subsidies and public perception of electricity being "green". Just smart business to sell a "green" anything these days. People are conditioned to pay a premium for "green" so why not profit from the uneducated masses. What Musk isn't selling is the inconvenient truth that electric cars are still charged on 99% hydrocarbon generated electricity. LOL With little prospect of anything but a token amount steadily coming from wind and solar specially as more and more electric cars come on line creating even more electricity demand that wind and solar can't meet. Musk doesn't have to pay for the electricity. What does he care once the care leaves the lot?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Musk, Barra and others are betting you are wrong. With billions.

And you realize he doesnt have to sell billions of cars to make money...and he is big into hobbies cause money doesn't mean as much to him. You also realize electric cars can be powered by fossil fuel electrical generating plants.

Anyways...figure out how many years it would take to replace 1.2 billion cars at 500,000 electric cars a year when 40,000,000 cars are sold each year.

Any attempt to insinuate electric cars will dominate the new car market is woefully lacking in common sense.

He is a leader in a niche market.

To test my theory. What model and year of electric car do you drive?



Let me answer for you. You don't own an electric car.

Lol.

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.pulseheadlines.com/hydrop...warming/51365/

Electric cars powered with hydro power is creating global warming.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

And you continue to skirt the scaling up question cause ya got nothing! There is no doubt there is money to be made in electric specially with todays subsidies and public perception of electricity being "green". Just smart business to sell a "green" anything these days. People are conditioned to pay a premium for "green" so why not profit from the uneducated masses. What Musk isn't selling is the inconvenient truth that electric cars are still charged on 99% hydrocarbon generated electricity. LOL With little prospect of anything but a token amount steadily coming from wind and solar specially as more and more electric cars come on line creating even more electricity demand that wind and solar can't meet. Musk doesn't have to pay for the electricity. What does he care once the care leaves the lot?

Yeah, actually he DOES pay for electricity once the car leaves the lot.

"Supercharging is free for all current Tesla cars except a few of the early Model"

Source

Oh, and his battery factory? Guess what the roof is covered with?

Guess what captures the wind around it? Wanna take a guess? Or just make ignorant [as in not having a clue] comments?

Musk is a visionary, and he is forcing change faster than most, including me, ever thought it could come about.

I notice you didn't comment about Barra.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

http://www.pulseheadlines.com/hydrop...warming/51365/

Electric cars powered with hydro power is creating global warming.

Electric furnace fan motors in your house powered by hydropower is causing global warming.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by avb3

Yeah, actually he DOES pay for electricity once the car leaves the lot.

"Supercharging is free for all current Tesla cars except a few of the early Model"

Source

Oh, and his battery factory? Guess what the roof is covered with?

Guess what captures the wind around it? Wanna take a guess? Or just make ignorant [as in not having a clue] comments?

Musk is a visionary, and he is forcing change faster than most, including me, ever thought it could come about.

I notice you didn't comment about Barra.

Not ignorant whatsoever. Musk ain't funding any long term electricity usage and anything he is funding is paid for up front buried in the price of the vehicles. Just like zero % financing. LOL He isn't funding unlimited electricity forever but if you want to believe that have at it smart guy.

Fact remains. Wind and solar isn't providing squat in terms of total electricity and more importantly total energy demand (what really matters). And you simply can't counter that with any numbers so you avoid. All you do is tout the misleading headlines as some groundbreaking info. Ummm sounds good but not quite LOL. Lets see some projections of when wind and solar are going to make up even 20% of steady total global energy demand and what kind of massive infrastructure and materials and effort it will take....crickets. Visionary ummm yeah. A true visionary is someone who actually sees past the hype and develops a new form of energy that can actually be reasonably scaled to global demand. Not one who hedges his bets on wishful thinking.

I've got no problem with people converting the system to electrical in prep for the next phase as next big breakthrough is likely to be electricity based (fusion?). But the key to the future is new AND VIABLE electrical generation sources NOT electrical operations conversions.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Electric furnace fan motors in your house powered by hydropower is causing global warming.

Why bring my furnace into it? Trying the bait and switch?

http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservo...le-global.html

Hydro dams are twice damaging to the environment. Firstly...habitat destruction. Secondly...methane gas release causing global warming.

I would also think destruction of forests and vegetation also means increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

I truly hope electric cars are powered with nuclear and not hydro.


Washington State University researchers say the world's reservoirs are an underappreciated source of greenhouse gases, producing the equivalent of roughly 1 gigaton of carbon dioxide a year, or 1.3 percent of all greenhouse gases produced by humans.

That's more greenhouse gas production than all of Canada.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservo...lobal.html#jCp

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

And you continue to skirt the scaling up question cause ya got nothing! There is no doubt there is money to be made in electric specially with todays subsidies and public perception of electricity being "green". Just smart business to sell a "green" anything these days. People are conditioned to pay a premium for "green" so why not profit from the uneducated masses. What Musk isn't selling is the inconvenient truth that electric cars are still charged on 99% hydrocarbon generated electricity. LOL With little prospect of anything but a token amount steadily coming from wind and solar specially as more and more electric cars come on line creating even more electricity demand that wind and solar can't meet. Musk doesn't have to pay for the electricity. What does he care once the care leaves the lot?

Burning fossil fuel to create electricity to power a vehicle is hugely wasteful and destroys any value.

Anyone using an electric car must pay the premium to guarantee source is not fossil fuels. Failure is not an option.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Burning fossil fuel to create electricity to power a vehicle is hugely wasteful and destroys any value.

Anyone using an electric car must pay the premium to guarantee source is not fossil fuels. Failure is not an option.

Not necessarily entirely true. There is the potential that a centralize combustion system can be run far more efficiently than an individual vehicle system. Enough to cover transmission losses and still be ahead. But ultimately its still HC generated power even if it uses less HC's to generate the same net benefit. Some are in denial that HC's are still a necessary evil and given any known tech will be on a LARGE scale for a very long time. At present even with these supposed huge gains in alternatives, growth isn't even enough to cover global energy demand GROWTH let alone bite into base demand. Don't hear that touted from ABV. hmmm Not sure why he is so adamant in denying reality. To do otherwise doesn't change anything. Doesn't mean we don't try to find and promote alternatives. But wishful thinking isn't going to deliver energy to our door.

If you think global warming is our biggest issue I guess the continued burning of masses of HC's would be pretty distressing and one will do what they can to mentally cope.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Why bring my furnace into it? Trying the bait and switch?

http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservo...le-global.html

Hydro dams are twice damaging to the environment. Firstly...habitat destruction. Secondly...methane gas release causing global warming.

I would also think destruction of forests and vegetation also means increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

I truly hope electric cars are powered with nuclear and not hydro.


Washington State University researchers say the world's reservoirs are an underappreciated source of greenhouse gases, producing the equivalent of roughly 1 gigaton of carbon dioxide a year, or 1.3 percent of all greenhouse gases produced by humans.

That's more greenhouse gas production than all of Canada.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservo...lobal.html#jCp

I'm quite aware of the concern of emissions from flooded lands behind dams. YOU pointed out only electrical cars and I pointed out that your furnace motor is no different.

I've always been against dams from an ecological point of view. That didn't make me very popular with a lot of the southern boys when the Oldman dam was being considered. I think I still have a few scars from those days; that kerfuffle makes climate change wars seem like sandbox play.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

Not necessarily entirely true. There is the potential that a centralize combustion system can be run far more efficiently than an individual vehicle system. Enough to cover transmission losses and still be ahead. But ultimately its still HC generated power even if it uses less HC's to generate the same net benefit. Some are in denial that HC's are still a necessary evil and given any known tech will be on a LARGE scale for a very long time. At present even with these supposed huge gains in alternatives, growth isn't even enough to cover global energy demand GROWTH let alone bite into base demand. Don't hear that touted from ABV. hmmm Not sure why he is so adamant in denying reality. To do otherwise doesn't change anything. Doesn't mean we don't try to find and promote alternatives. But wishful thinking isn't going to deliver energy to our door.

If you think global warming is our biggest issue I guess the continued burning of masses of HC's would be pretty distressing and one will do what they can to mentally cope.

It would require a major break through on energy loss free transmission lines.

As it is science fiction at the moment I stand by my point as fact. Another loss leader for electric is carbon footprint around full cycle battery manufacture, life expectancy and recycling.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

I'm quite aware of the concern of emissions from flooded lands behind dams. YOU pointed out only electrical cars and I pointed out that your furnace motor is no different.

I've always been against dams from an ecological point of view. That didn't make me very popular with a lot of the southern boys when the Oldman dam was being considered. I think I still have a few scars from those days; that kerfuffle makes climate change wars seem like sandbox play.

And I am not promoting my furnace however you are tying to promote electric cars over gasoline and green energy cars.

[HighlandHeart]

Once you take fossil fuels out of the equation you have a much lower energy budget if you are relying only on wind and solar. Nuclear power is the cleanest way for us to continue to consume the energy we consume.

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/new...ate=2016-10-26

When a public group bans any contrarian opinion it shows the true colours in the process and debate around man made climate change.

If you believe we talk and include you.
If you don't believe you are excluded from all contact which is very cultish.

One can only think the same will apply to scientists. If you believe you get funding.

If you don't believe you starve.

Sad.