Message boards :
Politics :
The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 22 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction I'm going to assume that your numbers are correct, I haven't seen anyone here take the time to check them and I can't be bothered myself. In the end it's neither here nor there. Imagine a pencil carefully balanced on it's tip, I've borrowed this picture from a site that was actually discussing quantum mechanics, but it's the best illustration I could find at short notice. This pencil is in what we call and unstable equilibrium. It theoretically will stay balanced until something disturbs that equilibrium. When the pencil is disturbed even slightly from it's equilibrium, a tiny nudge, the results will be catastrophic (for the pencils equilibrium). It will not move to another angle and stay there, instead it will topple over until it finds a new equilibrium. Most likely lying on it's side. The climate is also a non-linear system, although much more complicated than our pencil. However, because it is non-linear, a very small change can have a dramatic and sudden result. A "few" tons of extra carbon may be all it would take to push our climate out of it's equilibrium. This is what the scientists have been trying to tell you. There will come a point when the climate will beyond the point of return, just like the pencil. After that point there will be nothing we can do to put it back. It will continue to "topple over" until it finds a new equilibrium. Yes, climates have changed in the past, on this scale the results have lead to mass extinctions, famine etc. It would be marvellous for those in the north to grow different crops. It seems to have escaped people's notice that there is more to the planet than just the northern hemisphere. Islands that people live on are already disappearing under the water and people are already dying from famines and floods. Reality Internet Personality |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Just like the "birthers" this argument will never end. Smoking is bad for you is not "settled science" either I suppose? By 'birthers', I presume you mean the people that claim that Obama is not legitimately the president by reason of his birth. Well, again, many flames with little effect. Obama may be a natural born citizen of the US, then again he may not. At any rate, that is a matter for the courts of law, not the court of public opinion. And to the best of my knowledge, the courts of law have all ruled that he is. Good enough for me. I have a serious dislike for his politics. Just like I have had a serious dislike for the politics of every US President starting with 2nd-term Reagan. But, Obama is legitimately the President, as was Bush the Younger, and all back before him to Washington. That said, I can see one good coming out of the 'birther' stuff. In my opinion, everyone needs to submit as part of the public record, proof of being a natural born citizen when they file to become a candidate, before any election. That way, you won't have any crap like this again. A long-form birth certificate would fit the bill perfectly. It establishes both age (another constitutional requirement) and citizenship. I have mine, and would be happy to submit it, should I ever run for that office. I am not a fan of the modern 'short-form' certificate of live birth. They leave too much information out. Besides, there is plenty to attack in Obama's actions *since* becoming president. 'Birthers', just like 'Goreists', just get in the way of anything meaningful being done about the problem. Smoking bad for you? It certainly is. And yes, the science is settled on it. Decades ago. Yes, we certainly do need to move on past fossil fuels into the various alternatives. As soon as possible. And yes, there is money to be made. Lots of it. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Good discussion of equilibrium, Es99. However, I am not sure just how applicable it is to our climate. You are correct about climate being non-linear. A mass oscillating on a system of springs might be a more apt analogy. One where not only the mass but also the spring constants are continuously varying in ways we don't fully understand. Hooke's law that one! Ugg. The position of the mass at any one instant of time is the current climate. Now then, the CO2 emissions may or may not be changing the natural variation in mass and spring constants. Are they having an effect? We don't know enough to say for certain. If they are having an effect, is it a bad one? Again, we don't know. Now, for what it is worth, most climate scientists have an opinion that yes it is, and yes, it is likely to be bad. But we still don't know for certain. And we can't know it for certain yet. Not until our understanding of the systems involved grows by a few orders of magnitude. Also, for what it is worth, I developed a similar opinion decades ago. But, I am not 'full of it' to the point of presenting my opinion on this as scientific fact. As far as 'knowing', my answer is, and must remain for the foreseeable future a firm "I don't know." That said, there are plenty of other reasons why burning OGC for fuel (thus emitting all the extra CO2) is a bad thing. Reasons which don't involve the CO2. Reasons which are based in both settled science and economics. Why do we have to further waste our time on this great-grandmother of religious flame-wars, when what we need to do is already clear for reasons that have nothing to do with said flame-war? |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21253 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
... Smoking bad for you? It certainly is. And yes, the science is settled on it. Decades ago. That's a very good example of how the science "wasn't settled", and for a long time, and still isn't if you believe the tobacco industry Marketing. For long time they were trotting out 90 year olds and 100 year olds who had supposedly gained their happy long lives due to the 'beneficial' effects of smoking... No mention made of the many others dead from emphysema and worse along the way... The science for greenhouse gasses and climate change is over 200 years old. The 'arguments' now are more about what the daily weather might be like for a particular area for new climate scenarios. Yes, we certainly do need to move on past fossil fuels into the various alternatives. As soon as possible. And yes, there is money to be made. Lots of it. However, distracting though it might be, the direct connection with CO2 (and methane) production must be 'nailed' so that the industry and practices directly responsible can be 'nailed'. On a sinking ship, you should plug the biggest leaks first to gain the best chance of survival. I wonder if that is why Big Oil and the energy companies are making such a big distracting fuss? It's all our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21253 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Good discussion of equilibrium, Es99. However, I am not sure just how applicable it is to our climate. You are correct about climate being non-linear. Nope. Wrong analogy. There's both positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks that kick into action at various thresholds. Hence the descriptions of "non-linear" response and of "tipping" points beyond which you get rapid irreversible changes. One example is ice on water heated by the sun. Whilst there is complete snow covered ice cover, most of the suns energy is reflected away and the ice cover is maintained. However, as soon as you get a chink in the ice exposing dark water, the water absorbs most of the sun's heat. That then heats the surrounding ice to then melt to then expose yet more dark water. You get rapid positive feedback to quickly melt all the ice cover. There's various other flavours to that scenario if you then add in industrial soot deposits, cloud cover, weather, wave action, and others. HOWEVER, the dominant effect is that snow covered ice absorbs very little solar radiation as heat, whereas the ocean absorbs almost all the incident solar energy to then be warmed... A better analogy is that of a rugged plain with hollows and peaks and small plateaus at various levels. The hollows and plateaus represent stable climate patterns. Now take a slightly bouncy small ball and jiggle the system violently to see where the ball jiggles to. Tilt the entire plain depending on the level of greenhouse gasses. There's a website that takes you through the feedback mechanisms as identified a few years ago now. More recent research adds a little more detail but the main features remain the same. It's still our only planet. Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21253 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
... There's a website that takes you through the feedback mechanisms as identified a few years ago now. More recent research adds a little more detail but the main features remain the same. Looks like that page is no longer there. The reports and diagrams are still available as pdf. The presentation is now on YouTube also. See: Planet Earth - We Have A Problem - 1- David Wasdell at Taellberg Forum 2008 - part1 There's seven parts. The lead up covers most of what the deniers deny. The feedback mechanisms are shown in: Planet Earth - We Have A Problem - 3 - David Wasdell at Taellberg Forum 2008 - part3 The pdf of similar material can be found on: Feedback Dynamics and the Acceleration of Climate Change (This was at the time of the Bali climate talks.) Note the feedback diagrams and the effects of "tipping points". It's still our only planet. Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
I do not have time to go through all of this, but you are using about 20 year old techniques, and trying to store all the power locally. Large panels themselves run about 1.50 per watt. Batteries are eliminated by grid connection. Other renewable forms of energy are incorporated. Wind is (I get so tired of saying this and having it dismissed) The cheapest form of power to add to the grid. This is just installing the additional MW of capacity, and the fueling is Zero. None, nada, zilch. Null. Home solar is a great supplement. The math gets a touch trickier but it can pay off in 7-15 years depending on situation. Something to ponder until I or someone else a bit less tired can respond further, a 100 mile square area (not 100 square miles, but 100 miles square) of conventional photo voltaic (at about 5 year ago efficiency, it was about 22% then) would provide enough electricity to satisfy 100% of the USA's needs. Okay. I will deal with the fallout when I get home. Janice |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
... Smoking bad for you? It certainly is. And yes, the science is settled on it. Decades ago. No the science was settled. Decades ago. The tobacco industry, however, was not given a sufficient alternative so that they would perceive that change was in their own economic best interests. This is an example of what Soft^Spirit meant by inertia in a previous post of theirs in thread.
The beginnings of the science of GHG/CC, maybe. But it is still not understood well enough to be called 'settled'.
This is interesting. You pull out an example of people addicted to a dangerous item, then move to a discussion of the 'CO2 thing'. Just like tobacco, energy from fossil fuels is a drug, in a sense. The supply of drugs, both legal (tobacco), and illegal (heroin, cocaine, etc.) exists because of the demand for it. Yes, some people get rich from it, but the responsibility for the existence of the drug trade rests with the consumer of the drug. In the fossil-fuel energy racket, those responsible are the demanders / consumers of the energy. Not the 'oil companies'. It is us... All of us... The oil companies exist to service a demand in the market. Yes, some get rich off of it, but the demand is the culprit. Our economies are addicted to cheap energy, and oil/gas/coal is one of the cheapest sources. Now, one difference between the drug racket and the energy racket is that the energy racket has alternatives, they just aren't cheap enough, yet. They currently 'push' oil/gas/coal (OGC). But, if things change, and the OGC companies realize that they could make more money devoting the OGC to other uses, that is half the battle. The other half would be coming up with a cheap alternative, but given sufficient economic incentive, it shouldn't be much of a problem at all. And none of this requires any appeal to the CO2 thing boogie-man. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Tesla Roadster. 245 miles per charge. And it is a sports car. Getting close to your 300 to 400 mile range. A full charge takes somewhat less than an hour. The Tesla Model S (a family sedan) has a 300 mile range (maximum), with a 45 minute empty to full charge cycle. Now. these two models are somewhat pricy. However, given economies of scale, the price should drop... a LOT. What is this you said about impossible? |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
I do not have time to go through all of this, but you are using about 20 year old techniques, and trying to store all the power locally. Large panels themselves run about 1.50 per watt. Batteries are eliminated by grid connection. Well, to extend on your remarks... The answer to fossil fuel replacement is not just one alternative technology. Individually, they all have problems. Together, they are capable today of replacing fossil fuel use. Today. The process has already begun. We just need a few appropriate incentives and regulatory reforms to accelerate the process to completion. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal, nuclear... The list goes on. |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
one side note.. I will deal with more later, but you seem to equate the political parties agreeing as being when science is "settled". Fortunately for the scientific community this is not the case, or we would still be studying how the sun revolves around the earth. Janice |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
one side note.. I will deal with more later, but you seem to equate the political parties agreeing as being when science is "settled". Fortunately for the scientific community this is not the case, or we would still be studying how the sun revolves around the earth. I believe you neglected to state who this was directed at, Soft^Spirit. https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
sorry Kong.. that one is all yours. The scientists by an overwhelming margin agree the CO2 levels are a problem, man-made, and the major cause of global warming. The only people who are not in agreement are a couple of scientists employed in the fossil fuel industry, and of course politicians and pundits. Janice |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
sorry Kong.. that one is all yours. The scientists by an overwhelming margin agree the CO2 levels are a problem, man-made, and the major cause of global warming. The only people who are not in agreement are a couple of scientists employed in the fossil fuel industry, and of course politicians and pundits. Your statement betrays a profound lack of understanding of the subject. Ok, let me try this again. Pay attention this time. 1. Look at the scientific method. Once you have that under your belt, you can proceed to the next step. Not before. 2. Experimentation is vital. We can't however conduct a series of controlled experiments on the climate as a whole. We only have one of them, and cannot select with certainty the parameters to alter in successive trials. They are changing naturally. We can't hold some steady while varying others. Won't work. We are then left with 3. 3. A divide and conquer approach, where we study the system, construct a model that works when we have it all under our belts, and play with that. In this case, the system is too complex, and too many assumptions made to simplify it. There has yet to be a model that could successfully model the past, much less the future. This reminds me of the joke I heard during my time in the physics dept. at university. When asked to model the path taken by a cow in ballistic flight, the physicist begins with 'first, we assume a spherical cow'. The physicist in the joke made a simplification that greatly reduced the complexity of the air resistance terms in the equation of motion he was constructing, and in so doing likely invalidated it. There has yet to be a model of the climate that works. We don't understand many of the underlying factors well enough. Also, we don't understand well enough the way all the underlying factors interact with each other and the environment to produce climate. 4. We cannot conduct trials of controlled experiments on the system as a whole. We cannot yet construct a correct model of the system to enable experimentation on that. Maybe at some point in the distant future, we can, but not today or anytime soon. The science cannot yet be 'settled' in this case. 5. What are we left with? The only thing we have left are the opinions of the involved scientists. You mention some scientists having certain opinions because of who pays them (the fossil fuel companies). I think it is a bit more widespread than that. Scientists, being human, of course have biases. And a bias towards who is providing their funding is a big one. This is what makes repeatable experiment such a key component of the scientific method. It is one way to help screen out bias. We cannot yet conduct reliable, repeatable experiment on this. Therefore, it is all opinion. 6. These climate scientists and their opinions. They may be right. They may not be right. Nobody can say for sure. We don't *know* it. We just think that it is the case. 7. I have seen and had access to much of the data available at the time. I have done some analysis on it. I think they are right too. However, my thoughts on the subject are just opinion, just like theirs. 8. If we hope to successfully influence 'public opinion', we must appeal to settled science. We cannot appeal to opinion, and hope to succeed. This is why I say that this whole CO2 thing mess is a pile of organic fertilizer. Seriously, there are other reasons to stop burning OGC as fuel. Valid ones. Edit: you mentioned politicians. Scientists and politicians are different. Vastly different. Perhaps we would be a lot better off if politicians mostly were scientists instead of being mostly lawyers. That is to say professional seekers of truth instead of professional liars. |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
You assume I own my home Guy. I do own property, just not a house at the moment. but http://www.affordable-solar.com/asgpower-5040w-kyocera-solar-home.htm is one sample grid connect kit, including inverter. Oh yes and prices are volatile. When tax rebates are approved (by state or country) prices go up. That old supply and demand thing. Janice |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
The 100K Tesla is more along the lines of a ferrari for comparison. There is a sedan that should be out soon, less than half the cost. If you want low cost, the Chevy volt (about 60 mile range on battery, plug in-able to charge off peak) that does have an internal combustion engine, which many people would only need to run on long trips. Janice |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.