Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Previous · 1 . . . 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 . . . 29 · Next
Author Message
Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12376
Credit: 6,676,427
RAC: 8,690
United States
Message 1320334 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 5:20:37 UTC

http://www.livescience.com/25793-changing-environment-human-evolution.html

Erratic Environment May Be Key to Human Evolution

At Olduvai Gorge, where excavations helped to confirm Africa was the cradle of humanity, scientists now find the landscape once fluctuated rapidly, likely guiding early human evolution.These findings suggest that key mental developments within the human lineage may have been linked with a highly variable environment, researchers added.

To learn more about the roots of humanity, scientists analyzed samples of leaf waxes preserved in lake sediments at Olduvai Gorge, identifying which plants dominated the local environment around 2 million years ago. This was about when Homo erectus, a direct ancestor of modern humans who used relatively advanced stone tools, appeared.

Scientists had long thought Africa went through a period of gradually increasing dryness — called the Great Drying — over 3 million years, or perhaps one big change in climate that favored the expansion of grasslands across the continent, influencing human evolution. However, the new research instead revealed "strong evidence for dramatic ecosystem changes across the African savanna, in which open grassland landscapes transitioned to closed forests over just hundreds to several thousands of years," researcher Clayton Magill, a biogeochemist at Pennsylvania State University, told LiveScience.

"I was surprised by the magnitude of changes and the rapid pace of the changes we found," Freeman told LiveScience. "There was a complete restructuring of the ecosystem from grassland to forest and back again, at least based on how we interpret the data. I've worked on carbon isotopes my whole career, and I've never seen anything like this before."

The team also found links between changes at Olduvai Gorge and sea-surface temperatures in the tropics.

"Early humans went from having trees available to having only grasses available in just 10 to 100 generations, and their diets would have had to change in response," Magill said in a statement. "Changes in food availability, food type, or the way you get food can trigger evolutionary mechanisms to deal with those changes. The result can be increased brain size and cognition, changes in locomotion and even social changes — how you interact with others in a group."

This variability in the environment coincided with a key period in human evolution, "when the genus Homo was first established and when there was first evidence of tool use," Magill said.

Is it counterproductive to humans on a long term basis to attempt to stop global warming?



@Martin, no where does this post take a position for or against the reality or falisity of global warming or its possible causes. If you attack it on that basis you are a fool. A valid question to ask is are the models being used today able to predict the rapid climate changes observed there in the past. The answer is important if you realize that to stop warming we must deny industrialization to over 75% of the worlds population of humans, something not to be taken lightly. China's explosive CO2 growth showing that it is impossible to industrialize and control with technology we have today, so denial becomes the only option.

____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1320342 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 5:52:54 UTC - in response to Message 1320334.

Is it counterproductive to humans on a long term basis to attempt to stop global warming?



We (beyond any REASONABLE doubt) started it, it makes perfect sense to try to stop it. It is not counterproductive, it is just inconvenient.

As far as other developing nations increasing their carbon footprints that is all the more reason where we should develop ourselves and them BEYOND it.

Once upon a time the United States was a world leader that try to stand for what was right.
____________

Janice

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8617
Credit: 23,647,504
RAC: 18,890
United Kingdom
Message 1320351 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 6:55:36 UTC - in response to Message 1320334.

Is it counterproductive to humans on a long term basis to attempt to stop global warming?


Depends, if the global warming is bad enough and wipes the human race out, I guess that would be pretty bad, so possibly if we want to survive then we need to stop it.

If global warming is not so bad but causes an evolutionary change for the better then it might be regarded as a good thing. But what reputation would we homosapiens have with the new variety.

Take your pick, but it could mean which ever way it goes we homosapiens might not be around in X,000 years.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12376
Credit: 6,676,427
RAC: 8,690
United States
Message 1320355 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 7:26:02 UTC - in response to Message 1320342.

Once upon a time the United States was a world leader that try to stand for what was right.

And all it got us was the most despised label and for damn good reason! That you suggest a return to that hegemony ...


____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1320359 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 7:29:24 UTC - in response to Message 1320355.

Once upon a time the United States was a world leader that try to stand for what was right.

And all it got us was the most despised label and for damn good reason! That you suggest a return to that hegemony ...



There is a difference between standing for what is right and trying to cram it down the throats of others.
____________

Janice

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8369
Credit: 4,102,738
RAC: 1,069
United Kingdom
Message 1320435 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 15:08:02 UTC - in response to Message 1320334.
Last modified: 27 Dec 2012, 15:08:51 UTC

Is it counterproductive to humans on a long term basis to attempt to stop global warming?

Or... Is that an apology/sop to the climate denier's:

Let's continue to pollute our atmosphere because global warming is supposed to be good for us all?


Well, global warming is definitely going to force great change to climate and hence weather. The simplest effect to follow is that you get warmer air holding more moisture. You then get much more rain/snow when that precipitates, as we are already seeing to our cost...

More subtle but more significant, is that entire weather patterns are shifted in various ways. Just one example is the jet stream for the UK:

Extreme weather: 'Turbulent times ahead' for UK


No matter how you look at that, weather extremes are costly. Just as war is costly and disruptive.

The only positive is whether the calamity will drive positive progress? But at what cost?


Regardless, why spoil a few thousands years pleasant party for the sake of a few years of pollution corruption?

All on our only one planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1320557 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 22:21:32 UTC - in response to Message 1320334.

http://www.livescience.com/25793-changing-environment-human-evolution.html

Erratic Environment May Be Key to Human Evolution

At Olduvai Gorge, where excavations helped to confirm Africa was the cradle of humanity, scientists now find the landscape once fluctuated rapidly, likely guiding early human evolution.These findings suggest that key mental developments within the human lineage may have been linked with a highly variable environment, researchers added.

To learn more about the roots of humanity, scientists analyzed samples of leaf waxes preserved in lake sediments at Olduvai Gorge, identifying which plants dominated the local environment around 2 million years ago. This was about when Homo erectus, a direct ancestor of modern humans who used relatively advanced stone tools, appeared.

Scientists had long thought Africa went through a period of gradually increasing dryness — called the Great Drying — over 3 million years, or perhaps one big change in climate that favored the expansion of grasslands across the continent, influencing human evolution. However, the new research instead revealed "strong evidence for dramatic ecosystem changes across the African savanna, in which open grassland landscapes transitioned to closed forests over just hundreds to several thousands of years," researcher Clayton Magill, a biogeochemist at Pennsylvania State University, told LiveScience.

"I was surprised by the magnitude of changes and the rapid pace of the changes we found," Freeman told LiveScience. "There was a complete restructuring of the ecosystem from grassland to forest and back again, at least based on how we interpret the data. I've worked on carbon isotopes my whole career, and I've never seen anything like this before."

The team also found links between changes at Olduvai Gorge and sea-surface temperatures in the tropics.

"Early humans went from having trees available to having only grasses available in just 10 to 100 generations, and their diets would have had to change in response," Magill said in a statement. "Changes in food availability, food type, or the way you get food can trigger evolutionary mechanisms to deal with those changes. The result can be increased brain size and cognition, changes in locomotion and even social changes — how you interact with others in a group."

This variability in the environment coincided with a key period in human evolution, "when the genus Homo was first established and when there was first evidence of tool use," Magill said.

Is it counterproductive to humans on a long term basis to attempt to stop global warming?

That is only one study, not nearly enough to ignore the results of thousands of studies of anthropogenic climate change, nor to reinterpret all those findings as just another beneficial trigger of evolutionary advance. There is never any guarantee that when the environment changes, we will adapt successfully.
... to stop warming we must deny industrialization to over 75% of the worlds population of humans, something not to be taken lightly.

Ridiculously unintelligent, shallow reasoning.
China's explosive CO2 growth showing that it is impossible to industrialize and control with technology we have today, so denial becomes the only option.

Because notoriously undemocratic human rights abuser, the Chinese government does not bother to industrialize cleanly implies that it cannot be done, only to a fool.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12376
Credit: 6,676,427
RAC: 8,690
United States
Message 1320573 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 23:19:24 UTC - in response to Message 1320557.

Because notoriously undemocratic human rights abuser, the Chinese government does not bother to industrialize cleanly implies that it cannot be done, only to a fool.

So what power is going to force it to be done cleanly? Or, who is the fool.

____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,093,432
RAC: 1,016
United States
Message 1320581 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 23:55:29 UTC

Since the end of the little ice age in about 1850 it is getting warmer this is

not arguable. The question should be can we do any thing about it and should we

do any thing about it.

For my part I think that it is silly to remain dependent on oil, coal, and gas

which will run out sooner more likely then later.

As to can we the answer seems to be yes, the answer to should we is a lot more

complex but also seems to be yes.

So for those of you that say the world is coming to an end, it does not have too.

And to those of you who say man is not the cause, so what climate control

for the hole planet will likely come some day.

as to what can I do today, use less, and bio char is cheap use it on your lawn and garden.






____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1320584 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 0:04:03 UTC - in response to Message 1320573.

Because notoriously undemocratic human rights abuser, the Chinese government does not bother to industrialize cleanly implies that it cannot be done, only to a fool.

So what power is going to force it to be done cleanly? Or, who is the fool.

You are. Many undeveloped nations happen to be in regions that will be most devastated by worsening climate change. They know it is in their interest to develop cleanly.
____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1320585 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 0:04:29 UTC - in response to Message 1318874.

I challenge that assertion.
Voltaic cells... have only just got past the point were they generate more power over their lifetime than it took to produce them...

Do you have a source for that claim?

Beuller?
____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8617
Credit: 23,647,504
RAC: 18,890
United Kingdom
Message 1320654 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 5:27:51 UTC - in response to Message 1320585.
Last modified: 28 Dec 2012, 5:30:11 UTC

Sorry cannot find the link will try later.

But a test in Arizona, with two plane tilting, with sunshine of 4000 hrs/yr and 2500 W/m2 claims payback in ~3 years. They also claimed 30 year lifetime.

Try Southern UK with 1800 hrs/yr of sunshine, fixed on a roof (tilt wrong angle and probably not facing due south) with 800 W/m2 max and realistic 15 year life.

Or you try your own calculation for your location. If fixed to roof don't forget to factor in tilt of roof and direction roof faces.

Edit] On greenness try looking up nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) it is used in manufacture.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12376
Credit: 6,676,427
RAC: 8,690
United States
Message 1320658 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 5:36:34 UTC - in response to Message 1320584.

Because notoriously undemocratic human rights abuser, the Chinese government does not bother to industrialize cleanly implies that it cannot be done, only to a fool.

So what power is going to force it to be done cleanly? Or, who is the fool.

You are. Many undeveloped nations happen to be in regions that will be most devastated by worsening climate change. They know it is in their interest to develop cleanly.

It doesn't matter how many nations get it intellectually. -- This presupposes that the government of the undeveloped nation is in sufficient control to have its mandate followed, which is doubtful in many cases. -- If even one nation doesn't do it, do you think for a moment the others will allow themselves to be disadvantaged by higher costs of doing it right? Or individual businesses of that nation which have to compete globally? Do you think their governments are less corrupt? Heck, look at what happens to food aid to those undeveloped nations. Then look at Kyoto. What is it? It isn't reductions, it is cash transfers from developed nations to undeveloped nations. Undeveloped nations are free to pollute as much as they want! Does that cash reach the people of the undeveloped nation? If it doesn't do you think they will sit undeveloped? Do you think their people are ignorant of the developed world? Do you think they will be happy to be undeveloped?

Now about that cash to transfer. Do you think the Greek People will cough up that money? How about the American people? Oh, they didn't ratify it so no they won't.

Now about the cooperation? How many governments has Italy gone through since WWII? Is the US Congress able to agree on the fiscal cliff? What's the deadline on that one?

You need to see this is a prisoner's dilemma kind of problem, except in this case each prisoner will know the others choice in time to reverse their choice. Also the risk reward ratio is seen considerably distorted from the facts. Defection has a much higher, winning lotto ticket, perceived reward than cooperation, especially because cooperation delays the reward and defection it is immediate. Corruption plays a part as well, as it is easier to do the corruption with an immediate payout. It is a kick the can down the road issue as well.

Sorry to be the wet blanket. But if you actually think it is possible to get this via talking, I just don't ever see it happening. You must think much higher of our fellow man than has been my life experience. To get this done some bastard like Napoleon from Animal Farm is going to have to impose it by force.

____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12376
Credit: 6,676,427
RAC: 8,690
United States
Message 1320666 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 5:57:45 UTC - in response to Message 1320654.

I challenge that assertion.
Voltaic cells... have only just got past the point were they generate more power over their lifetime than it took to produce them...

Do you have a source for that claim?

Beuller?

Sorry cannot find the link will try later.

But a test in Arizona, with two plane tilting, with sunshine of 4000 hrs/yr and 2500 W/m2 claims payback in ~3 years. They also claimed 30 year lifetime.

Apples and Oranges.

One is the $ cost of making them vs. the price of residential electricity on the grid, including government subsidies. The other is the energy/resources/CO2 in making them vs. the energy/resources/CO2 they save.

For those that have a problem with this, here is what is going on. WAG numbers, I admit, but they show the problem. Suppose it takes 1Mwh to melt the silicon and coat it to make the PV cells, the frame they go in, installation, including their disposal at end of life, the whole ball of wax. Now suppose those cells produce 0.5Mwh over their lifetime. How do you square this with them being able to pay for themselves? Government subsidies. Today the government forces the utility to buy the power they generate at the same rate as the utility sells you power. But the utility buys is much cheaper from a hydroelectric dam. So that 0.5Mwh shortage is picked up several times over by a government subsidy.

____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1320681 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 6:56:57 UTC - in response to Message 1320666.

Again.. source for this claim?

The numbers just do not add up, the prices of photo voltaics(let alone reflective metal panels.. much more effective in warmer regions) BEFORE subsidies simply can not equate to more energy used than the product will produce. That is a claim from the 1980's which had some merit. Not in this century.
____________

Janice

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8617
Credit: 23,647,504
RAC: 18,890
United Kingdom
Message 1320701 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 8:18:34 UTC
Last modified: 28 Dec 2012, 8:20:45 UTC

From a recent Blomberg report. http://www.bnef.com/WhitePapers/download/82 (It is an auto d/load PDF. 19 pages of text, letter page, heavy reading)

The Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing, claimed that, “Chinese manufacturers are illegally dumping crystalline silicon solar cells into the U.S. market and are receiving illegal subsidies” and brought a case resulting in US import tariffs being levelled on China modules in 2012

In Germany alone, two major solar companies have announced bankruptcy between December 2011 and end of April 2012 (Q-cells and Solon). US firm First Solar closed its European operations in April 2012, and the media has focused on the high profile US based thin film start-up Solyndra bankruptcy in August 2011.

Current PV module prices are considered by some to be below manufacturing cost, and consequently, as unsustainable, in large part because several leading non-Chinese firms in the industry have recently announced losses cutbacks or massive write-downs or filed for bankruptcy.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8369
Credit: 4,102,738
RAC: 1,069
United Kingdom
Message 1320794 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 13:57:33 UTC - in response to Message 1320658.
Last modified: 28 Dec 2012, 14:43:38 UTC

... Corruption plays a part as well, as it is easier to do the corruption with an immediate payout. It is a kick the can down the road issue as well.

Sorry to be the wet blanket. But if you actually think it is possible to get this via talking, I just don't ever see it happening. You must think much higher of our fellow man than has been my life experience. To get this done some bastard like Napoleon from Animal Farm is going to have to impose it by force.

Unfortunately, that is a big problem for anything meaningful being done soon enough.

Unfortunately yet more unfortunate, the time when enough obvious disasters have enraged enough people to force a positive and rapid shift in policies is likely to be rather too late to avoid continued expensive calamities...

Just one comparison: The estimated costs of recent severe weather events likely could fund us all going all green now and all with merely the presently available technology...


[edit]
Unfortunately #3, also note: Extreme weather more persuasive on climate change than scientists

Or is it that not even the fossil fuels lobbyists can't out do the weather?

Various scientists have predicted all this reliably for the last two centuries, and yet we are still blithely racing ever faster into greater recklessness...
[/edit]



All on our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1320805 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 14:39:34 UTC

Solar Panels are now available under $1/watt. Retail. This is before tax incentives.
Any electricity production requires circuitry, control panels, and similar other electronic control/phase matching to connect to the grid, so that portion
is virtually neutral.

Let me list what forms of energy it is still more expensive than:
Wind.
<End of list>
____________

Janice

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1320867 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 17:48:49 UTC - in response to Message 1320666.
Last modified: 28 Dec 2012, 17:50:30 UTC

I challenge that assertion.
Voltaic cells... have only just got past the point were they generate more power over their lifetime than it took to produce them...

Do you have a source for that claim?

Beuller?

Sorry cannot find the link will try later.

But a test in Arizona, with two plane tilting, with sunshine of 4000 hrs/yr and 2500 W/m2 claims payback in ~3 years. They also claimed 30 year lifetime.

Apples and Oranges.

One is the $ cost of making them vs. the price of residential electricity on the grid, including government subsidies. The other is the energy/resources/CO2 in making them vs. the energy/resources/CO2 they save.

For those that have a problem with this, here is what is going on. WAG numbers, I admit,

I do not understand why you would make up WAGs on the Internet. Is your Google broken?

... but they show the problem.

It is a problem which you have made up. It's fictional.

Different reputable studies using different methodologies arrive at different numbers, but they all show that solar PV is cleaner, including the CO2 used to manufacture the panels.

Suppose it takes (irrelevant WAG omitted) to melt the silicon and coat it to make the PV cells, the frame they go in, installation, including their disposal at end of life, the whole ball of wax. Now suppose those cells produce (irrelevant WAG omitted) over their lifetime. How do you square this with them being able to pay for themselves? Government subsidies. Today the government forces the utility to buy the power they generate at the same rate as the utility sells you power. But the utility buys is much cheaper from a hydroelectric dam. So that (irrelevant WAG omitted shortage) surplus is picked up several times over by a government subsidy.

Every form of utility power is subsidized, which makes good economic sense in their early stages since the entire nation uses electricity. The only difference is that nuclear, petroleum and coal are no longer "new technologies." It's time to cut them off and continue subsidizing clean sources of energy.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12376
Credit: 6,676,427
RAC: 8,690
United States
Message 1320881 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 18:13:44 UTC - in response to Message 1320867.

Different reputable studies using different methodologies arrive at different numbers, but they all show that solar PV is cleaner, including the CO2 used to manufacture the panels.

So glad you read and understood your link ...
The wide range of greenhouse gas emissions (30-300 g CO2-eq/kWh) quoted for PV generated electricity in life cycle assessment studies so far is shown to be mainly caused by the different CO2 emission of energy consumed in manufacture of PV modules.

It is shown that the indirect CO2-eq emission makes up more than 90% of the total

Because the actual overall emission from this source is uncertain we will omit it here.

This result implies that up to 90% of the emission figures quoted in previous LCA studies may be attributed to fossil fuel combustion in either the background electricity supply system or in energy conversion systems providing process heat. These indirect greenhouse gas emissions may to a large extent be avoided in the future when the transition towards a low-carbon energy supply system has been realized.

Yes, so if you start with green power they are green, if you start with coal power they are dirty. Are we already on green power? No. Therefore they are dirty. Thank you for providing the proof.

____________

Previous · 1 . . . 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 . . . 29 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Copyright © 2014 University of California