Some truth to people who think we can be 100% renewable

[timo2]

But I'll also say that one singular catastrophic event such as a supervolcano eruption could eclipse the anthropogenic impact. But that doesn't mean we should just stand here.

Even just the little volcanoes will mess with the global warming models. The particulates introduced into the atmosphere by enough little eruptions will reflect more sunlight away from earth (as in the global dimming theory) and mitigate the global warming rate of increase for some unknown period.

 

[Masquernom]

I was convinced that CO2 was leading to global warming. No doubt in my mind. Then I read through this long blog;

https://www.peakprosperity.com/2019-year-in-review-part-1/#climate

I think after looking over the data included there, I've changed my perspective.

1) I do believe the climate is warming.
2) Human generated CO2 is probably contributing to that. Might be a small amount, may be a bigger amount. I don't know.
3) Stopping the burning of coal is a good thing in my opinion.
4) Reducing auto exhaust is a good thing. Making autos more efficient is a good thing.
5) As a chemist once said, if you knew all the useful things you can do with oil, you wouldn't burn it.
6) Climate change may have become too politicized to get an honest answer to the main questions.

 

[NW-Bound]

I was convinced that CO2 was leading to global warming. No doubt in my mind. Then I read through this long blog;

https://www.peakprosperity.com/2019-year-in-review-part-1/#climate

I think after looking over the data included there, I've changed my perspective.

1) I do believe the climate is warming.
2) Human generated CO2 is probably contributing to that. Might be a small amount, may be a bigger amount. I don't know.
3) Stopping the burning of coal is a good thing in my opinion.
4) Reducing auto exhaust is a good thing. Making autos more efficient is a good thing.
5) As a chemist once said, if you knew all the useful things you can do with oil, you wouldn't burn it.
6) Climate change may have become too politicized to get an honest answer to the main questions.

Wow!

I have not read your link, but I already agree with ALL of your points, particularly 5). And I am not a chemist.

 

[GrayHare]

IMO it's tough to get worried about CO2 concerns when fertilizing the oceans will sequester as much carbon from of the atmosphere as we want. Yes, it's more work than not doing anything, but such fertilization is not particularly difficult or expensive.

 

[Gumby]

We've had a long running natural experiment in ocean fertilization here in Long Island Sound due to nitrogen and phosphorus rich agricultural runoff from Connecticut and Long Island. It creates algae blooms, uses up all the oxygen in the water and kills the fish.

 

[CardsFan]

IMO it's tough to get worried about CO2 concerns when fertilizing the oceans will sequester as much carbon from of the atmosphere as we want. Yes, it's more work than not doing anything, but such fertilization is not particularly difficult or expensive.

Okay. I think I (inadvertently) started us down this rabbit hole. I begged off earlier, but this idea interested me. I was not familiar with it.

So a quick search on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization

I find this remarkable quote, against the proposed idea:

According to Lisa Speer of the Natural Resources Defense Council, "There is a limited amount of money, of time, that we have to deal with this problem....The worst possible thing we could do for climate change technologies would be to invest in something that doesn't work and that has big impacts that we don't anticipate."

It's not like eliminating fossil fuels in 12 years would have any side effects.

Sounds open minded to me

 

[GrayHare]

We've had a long running natural experiment in ocean fertilization here in Long Island Sound due to nitrogen and phosphorus rich agricultural runoff from Connecticut and Long Island. It creates algae blooms, uses up all the oxygen in the water and kills the fish.

Certainly, all the more reason to undertake it in an orderly fashion, not accidentally. Ocean fertilization is what the planet does naturally via erosion, and washing of minerals into coastal areas. This could be amplified via fertilization of areas of the oceans too far from coastlines for the natural process.

Airplanes are another big contributor to warming. They spew particulates that increase high clouds. While planes were grounded for several days following 9/11, average air temperatures in the US dropped by a couple degrees. Limiting planes to lower altitudes would reduce warming, though reduce flight speeds. This is probably the easiest option.

Ironically, the Clean Air act has been another contributor. By scrubbing sulfur particles from power plant exhaust into the lower atmosphere, it has reduced the amount of cooling that such particulates provide. I'd rather keep the clean air than return to smog.

And then there's the sun. It goes through cycles, and as temperatures have been warming on Earth during recent decades, they have also been warming on Mars. This one is tough to address directly. Adjustable solar shades launched into space are not practical, at least not yet.

Of these options, flight altitudes are the easiest to adjust, but will reduce travel, while not reducing CO2. Ocean fertilization is the easiest way to reduce CO2. I'd say start by seeking to reduce the rate of annual atmospheric CO2 increase. If that goes well, additional fertilization will prevent the CO2 level from going higher. Then we can decide if we want to keep going and lower CO2 to the level it was in some prior year.

 

[samclem]

Of these options, flight altitudes are the easiest to adjust, but will reduce travel, while not reducing CO2.

It will actually increase CO2 by quite a bit (due to higher aerodynamic drag n the thicker air down low). Turbofan aircraft are more efficient at the higher altitudes, if they would burn less fuel at lower altitudes, that's where the airlines would fly them. In addition, flying at lower altitudes means flying in (generally) worse weather.

Post 9/11, aircraft were largely grounded for just 3 days. That's a tiny snippet of data to use in making assessments about such large meteorological issues. In any case, there's considerable debate about whether the presence of aircraft exhaust (including contrails) causes a net increase or decrease in temperatures directly due to absorption or reflection of radiation. Any effect seems to be small, and reflection of light (contrails in daytime) and reduced heat loss at night (contrails, soot) is likely much smaller than effects due to aviation-related greenhouse gases (CO2 and water vapor in aircraft exhaust). Flying lower, in thicker air, will increase the amount of these gases due to increased fuel burn. More here: CSM .

 

[Masquernom]

It will actually increase CO2 by quite a bit (due to higher aerodynamic drag n the thicker air down low). Turbofan aircraft are more efficient at the higher altitudes, if they would burn less fuel at lower altitudes, that's where the airlines would fly them. In addition, flying at lower altitudes means flying in (generally) worse weather.

Post 9/11, aircraft were largely grounded for just 3 days. That's a tiny snippet of data to use in making assessments about such large meteorological issues. In any case, there's considerable debate about whether the presence of aircraft exhaust (including contrails) causes a net increase or decrease in temperatures directly due to absorption or reflection of radiation. Any effect seems to be small, and reflection of light (contrails in daytime) and reduced heat loss at night (contrails, soot) is likely much smaller than effects due to aviation-related greenhouse gases (CO2 and water vapor in aircraft exhaust). Flying lower, in thicker air, will increase the amount of these gases due to increased fuel burn. More here: CSM .

By contributing to cloud cover during the day, they reflect solar energy that would otherwise have reached the earth’s surface. At night, they trap warmth that would otherwise have escaped.
The effect during the three days that flights were grounded was strongest in populated regions where air traffic was normally densest. The increase in range came to about two degrees Celsius.
Other studies have tended to back up the research. In 2011, British scientists wrote that an air raid in May 1944 involving over 1,400 aircraft measurably lowered daytime temperatures in England. In that case, the situation was the reverse of 9/11 – large-scale air travel was unknown, and dense concentrations of large planes were rare.
In 2004, NASA scientist Patrick Minnis wrote that “increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975.”
Minnis also argued that a steady increase in cloud cover over the United States, about one per cent a decade, was due to increasing air travel. He also found that increases in cloud cover were more pronounced in populated areas, and stronger in winter, when contrails are bigger.

 

[Winemaker]

I’m not sure what the Volstock core shows, but the Russian Vostok core really gives a lot of strong evidence pointing to global warming. You would need to average temperatures to compare CO2 to global temperature not just the local ice core region.

We are in a warming cycle, as shown by the core 5 times over the last 400k years. However is all previous cycles, the cycle was brief and temperatures dropped.

Can anyone provide an explanation as to why this cycle temperatures has stabilized and continued to increase slightly? Since solar/tilt/etc were considered, the only difference is CO2...

Yes, Vostok ice cores. I misspelled the word, however, after going back and reading the report, it stated that the CO2 levels were in phase with global warming but could lag up to 1000 years.
I don't deny that there is global warming, however there is so many other things going on. The rapid movement of the magnetic North Pole toward Russia, the sunspot cycles, numerous volcanic eruptions spewing SO2 into the air, arable land getting turned into concrete heat sinks, plastic, plastic everywhere, and airborne carbon black/rubber from tires. We will eventually figure it all out, but not in our lifetimes.

 

[ERD50]

Okay, first list some credentialed, serious info from the “other” side. Then, if it’s convincing enough, it will render this thread moot, because why go to all the trouble and expense...

I guess that was directed at me?

Well, start a new thread and I'll join in. I'd like to respect that this one was about getting to 100% renewable energy, not the "why" and "should we" regarding climate change.

But first of all, your response is rather silly. If there is credible debate on a subject, that doesn't mean we would or would not take some action, we would be debating it. But one group might still be taking action, based on their beliefs, and if they can get support, or self-fund it, or whatever (talking generalities/logic here).

But for perspective, when I talk about "the debate is over", I refer to the comments, in their entirety, from that highly accredited scientist (sarcasm) Al Gore. His full statement, was:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110shrg55923/html/CHRG-110shrg55923.htm

... the debate on global warming is over. The editor in chief of Science magazine said it is extremely rare to have a consensus as strong as the one supporting the consensus view on man made global warming.

It is real. We are causing it mainly, the vast majority of it. The consequences are bad and will be catastrophic unless we act. We can act. We can solve it. There is still time. And we have everything we need to get started.

Those points are in agreement. One of the leading scientific experts said the consensus supporting this view on global warming is as strong as anything in science, with the possible exception of gravity.

I am not a global warming denier, but I do think that much of the talk around global warming is debate-able. Do we have as much agreement across credentialed scientists that the "vast majority" (90% ?) of global warming is man made, as we have that gravity exists? Do we have that level of agreement across credentialed scientists that the results will be catastrophic unless we act? And that we can act, we can solve it and that there is still time ( in 2007). And we have everything we need to get started (in a meaningful way - not just window dressing)?

-ERD50

 

[HFWR]

I guess that was directed at me?



Well, start a new thread and I'll join in. I'd like to respect that this one was about getting to 100% renewable energy, not the "why" and "should we" regarding climate change.



But first of all, your response is rather silly. If there is credible debate on a subject, that doesn't mean we would or would not take some action, we would be debating it. But one group might still be taking action, based on their beliefs, and if they can get support, or self-fund it, or whatever (talking generalities/logic here).



But for perspective, when I talk about "the debate is over", I refer to the comments, in their entirety, from that highly accredited scientist (sarcasm) Al Gore. His full statement, was:



https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110shrg55923/html/CHRG-110shrg55923.htm







I am not a global warming denier, but I do think that much of the talk around global warming is debate-able. Do we have as much agreement across credentialed scientists that the "vast majority" (90% ?) of global warming is man made, as we have that gravity exists? Do we have that level of agreement across credentialed scientists that the results will be catastrophic unless we act? And that we can act, we can solve it and that there is still time ( in 2007). And we have everything we need to get started (in a meaningful way - not just window dressing)?



-ERD50

Only directed toward posters who seem to be arguing against AGW, which is counter to the “consensus”. Usually, those making the extraordinary claim are expected to provide the evidence for that claim. Most of the evidence I seen presented is some guy’s blog, not a research lab, or journaled paper. Hopefully that clarifies what I meant.

As for Al Gore, and other non-scientists who might be making questionable claims not backed by evidence, I can only say that not liking Al Gore is not reason enough to reject the evidence.

I don’t think stopping discussion is necessary, but many of the anti group bring up the same arguments that have been used for years. Do we really think that ongoing research doesn’t take into account those things so “obvious” to us?

My personal view, definitely not scientific, is that AGW is more likely than not, but not with 100% certainty, maybe 70%. Though that’s my own SWAG, and due to a “healthy” skepticism I can’t go with 100%, but 0% seems pretty unlikely. I’ve done a fair amount of reading on the topic, and anyone can google “global warming” or some such, a find thousands of papers relating to the topic. If I were going to really make a presentation of the “evidence”, I’d have to redo some research, and make a PP presentation. But wait, I’m retired!

Again, though, if it’s not really a problem, then there’s nothing really to solve...

 

[Music Lover]

Hurricanes and severe tornados are down. According to the 2nd chart, severe tornadoes are on a downward trend:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends

8 of the 10 worst recorded hurricanes in US history happened between 1856 and 1928:

https://owlcation.com/stem/Worst-Hurricanes-United-States-History

 

[dixonge]

Only directed toward posters who seem to be arguing against AGW, which is counter to the “consensus”. Usually, those making the extraordinary claim are expected to provide the evidence for that claim.

"the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics." - Michael Crichton

 

[Music Lover]

Only directed toward posters who seem to be arguing against AGW, which is counter to the “consensus”. Usually, those making the extraordinary claim are expected to provide the evidence for that claim. Most of the evidence I seen presented is some guy’s blog, not a research lab, or journaled paper. Hopefully that clarifies what I meant.

Nope. Those making the extraordinary claim of doom are the ones that have to prove it. It's always been that when a scientist makes a claim they are expected to back it up with data and facts. Computer simulations of future temperatures are not facts, especially when some factors are over weighted and some are overlooked completely.

Science doesn't work on consensus...it works on facts. Consensus is politics.

 

[MichaelB]

Everyine in this thread should stop trying to discredit the mostly unnamed sources with which they disagree. Instead, make a point that represents their own view, provide support, and then wait for a response.

Just a thought

 

[Gumby]

It's always been that when a scientist makes a claim they are expected to back it up with data and facts. ...
Science doesn't work on consensus...it works on facts. Consensus is politics.

And your simply saying "I disagree" does not establish that there is a legitimate question. You could disagree that the earth revolves around the sun. That wouldn't make it true or call it the facts into question. If you have a scientific argument, make it.

 

[HFWR]

Note that I put “consensus” in quotes, to recognize that it isn’t “proof”. But when most scientists in that field agree, I feel it prudent to give them the benefit of the doubt...

 

[Music Lover]

The reality is that no one can predict the future weather. Even if it gets a little warmer maybe it's just warmer with no bad side effects. Severe weather is down as the NOAA and hurricane links I posted show. Actual data trumps consensus.

Plants grow a lot better with more CO2 and a little more warmth extends the growing season in cold parts of the world.

 

[ls99]

If as claimed, that climate is getting hotter, and will continue to do so, perhaps investment in banana plantations on the north slope of Alaska might be a good idea.

 

[Rianne]

Preservation for future generations is my concern. No one can argue the human population is growing by leaps and bounds. And the rest of nature is shrinking.

 

[Music Lover]

If as claimed, that climate is getting hotter, and will continue to do so, perhaps investment in banana plantations on the north slope of Alaska might be a good idea.

On a more realistic note, 120 day growing seasons in northern locations can become 150 day growing seasons. 150 day growing seasons become 200 day growing seasons. Further south less crop loss due to frost. Also, more CO2 greatly increases plant growth:

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide"

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

ALL the benefits of warmer and more CO2 need to be weighed against any potential harmful effects. What if the benefits outweigh the negatives? And why are the benefits of warmer and more CO2 never discussed?

 

[Sunset]

If as claimed, that climate is getting hotter, and will continue to do so, perhaps investment in banana plantations on the north slope of Alaska might be a good idea.

If the climate gets too hot on this side, then it might be time to migrate to the other side of the earth, since it's flat

 

[timo2]

If as claimed, that climate is getting hotter, and will continue to do so, perhaps investment in banana plantations on the north slope of Alaska might be a good idea.

Your hyperbole is not that far off.

"Over the last decade, southern lobster fisheries along Long Island and Connecticut have already seen their catches drop due to lobsters moving north into Maine, which hauled record catches during the same time period, according to the Portland Press Herald.

Maine lobsters have already moved north about 43 miles per decade between 1968 and 2008, according to a 2013 study."

"Over the last decade, southern lobster fisheries along Long Island and Connecticut have already seen their catches drop due to lobsters moving north into Maine, which hauled record catches during the same time period, according to the Portland Press Herald.

Maine lobsters have already moved north about 43 miles per decade between 1968 and 2008, according to a 2013 study."

https://www.businessinsider.com/lobsters-move-north-as-ocean-warms-2015-6
-----------
"Study Suggests Tree Ranges Are Already Shifting Due to Climate Change.
" Woodall’s analysis
of FIA data has found that some sensitive species are already
showing range shifts northward. Some other species are not so
sensitive, and they have shown little change."
https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/news/review/review-vol11.pdf
------------

Northern Migration of Maple Trees
Research also shows a long-term impact of climate change may be a shift in forest migration across the Northeast with maples and birches moving north and parts of New England developing an oak-pine forest system.
https://www.maplesource.com/blog/ho...mpacting-maple-syrup-production/#.XiXa2WhKhbU

"the region of maximum sap flow is expected to shift northward by 400 km, from near the 43rd parallel to the 48th parallel by 2100. Our findings suggest climate change will have profound effects on syrup yield across most of sugar maple’s range; drastic shifts in the timing of the tapping season accompanied by flat to moderate increases in syrup yield per tap in Canada contrast with declines in syrup yield and higher frequencies of poor syrup production years across most of the U.S. range."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112719303019

 

[Gumby]

Do you have any evidence about these CO2 levels? It seems people arguing the counterpoint are making up lots of “facts” to prove their point.

Here is an article from the Smithsonian discussing CO2 over the last 800,000 years and in all that time it was never above 400... but you want to go back several million years. Where we don’t have actual data on the CO2 (obtained through samples) but instead rely on climate models (models with disclaimers staying they should not be used for this specific case)


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-reach-highest-point-human-history-180972181/



Things were a lot different several million years ago, this article may shed some light.


https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

There are many articles and “views” on the data from an ill suited model used about 2.5million years ago. Personally I’m not super interested in that since we have actual data the model was built on with 800,000 years of actual data and correlation.

I’m used to small data sets to make models but you want to argue 800,000 years of data isn’t enough to understand a correlation?

Just for completeness: Water vapor is the most predominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It constitutes approx 2.5% of the atmosphere (varying with local conditions), so there is 60 times as much of it as CO2. Like CO2, it preferentially allows short-wave energy to pass through, but traps longer wavelength energy. On a "per unit" basis it is a less "effective" greenhouse gas than CO2, but because there's so much more of it, it has a far greater impact on atmospheric temperatures than does CO2.
In most discussions, water vapor gets a lot less attention than CO2 for several reasons (especially its shorter "cycle time," but also due to other factors that aren't appropriate for discussion here). (IMO) it is a more interesting factor in this whole issue/question, as the % of water vapor increases with atmospheric temperature, so there's a potential for a positive feedback effect that could be very important.

Here are some articles that suggest you could get global warming even with low CO2 levels. It just requires a gigantic asteroid to throw up gigatons of water vapor.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...d-impact-may-have-helped-lift-planet-out-deep
https://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/n...le_2469db64-fdaa-56d3-9754-62a7a0574682.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/oldest-...ight-on-ancient-climate-change-185210311.html

To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't happened in the last few hundred years.