Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 70

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2258847 15-Jun-2019 18:56

gzt:
"Hydrogen is emissions-free at the point of use,"

Sounds like weasel words to me... yes, it is emissions-free at the point of view, but is it emissions-free to produce?

I can just see oil companies trumpeting fossil fuels as "emissions-free at the point of manufacture".

gzt

17120 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2258856 15-Jun-2019 19:45

frankv:
gzt:"Hydrogen is emissions-free at the point of use,"
Sounds like weasel words to me... yes, it is emissions-free at the point of view, but is it emissions-free to produce?
I can just see oil companies trumpeting fossil fuels as "emissions-free at the point of manufacture".

Generating H2 using hydro or other emissions free sources is emissions free. It is exactly the same situation for electric vehicles.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2258860 15-Jun-2019 20:32

kingdragonfly: The argument you're alluding to is the "iris effect" by MIT scientist Richard Lindzen.

He is often cited by those trying to contradict global warming. Like flat earth, faked moon landings and "evolution doesn't exist", it one of those persistent memes that won't die.

The article you gave is from 2009. Lindzen's water vapor theory was first debunked six months afterwards. It has been repeatedly debunked since.

There's no shortage of materials debunking him, but here's one.

https://skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm

@kingdragonfly: The article I linked to was referring to a “positive feedback loop”, as follows:

"Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on."

However, Lindzen’s “iris effect” hypothesis was discredited because there wasn’t any evidence that the infrafred iris would result in enough negative feedback to significantly slow down global warming.

Consider this quote from Wikipedia which also deals with the "positive feedback loop":

If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and so on until other processes stop the feedback loop. The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air, the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.[45] Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur.[59] Water vapor feedback is considered a faster feedback mechanism.[49]

kingdragonfly

11191 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2258920 15-Jun-2019 21:59

You're correct. There's a number of positive feedback loops that are likely with global warming.

For all our sake's, I hope we never cross the threshold of one.

In a panic to turn back global warming we might panic and starting wild experiments without knowing the consequences of our actions. In the past dumping iron, "iron fertilization", into the ocean was proposed, but deemed too dangerous.

It reminds me of the old cartoons where a bumbling villain lights a match in a munitions shack because it's too dark to see.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2259038 16-Jun-2019 10:10

frednz:

kingdragonfly: The argument you're alluding to is the "iris effect" by MIT scientist Richard Lindzen.

He is often cited by those trying to contradict global warming. Like flat earth, faked moon landings and "evolution doesn't exist", it one of those persistent memes that won't die.

The article you gave is from 2009. Lindzen's water vapor theory was first debunked six months afterwards. It has been repeatedly debunked since.

There's no shortage of materials debunking him, but here's one.

https://skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm

@kingdragonfly: The article I linked to was referring to a “positive feedback loop”, as follows:

"Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on."

However, Lindzen’s “iris effect” hypothesis was discredited because there wasn’t any evidence that the infrafred iris would result in enough negative feedback to significantly slow down global warming.

Consider this quote from Wikipedia which also deals with the "positive feedback loop":

If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and so on until other processes stop the feedback loop. The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air, the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.[45] Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur.[59] Water vapor feedback is considered a faster feedback mechanism.[49]

You are correct and wrong. Water vapour is a feedback loop, but its not a heater. If you feed vapour into the air, if its is saturated it will fall as rain or snow. If that air cools overnight or due to a cold wind, the water will fall as rain or snow. If the temperature TODAY is hot, that vapour will remain as a gas. However, if humans did not add any vapour on this hot day, evaporation will, and far greater than humans could ever do on one hot day.

The bottom line is, water stays up there for a few days max, we can't add enough to heat the Earth. if its cold it will be there for hours or less. So, right now, around the world, there is an average temperature. That temperature decides what vapour can exist as a gas. Thats gas will insulate the Earth, it will also filter some radiation, but it is adding heat. Since the Industrial Revolution, the Earth is hotter as we added CO2. That adds vapour as the temperature is warmer. The sole cause is CO2, not water vapour. Should we burn H2 which will add vapour, we cannot add any vapour to an atmosphere that cannot handle any more. When it cannot handle any more it rains. If we burn H2 into an atmosphere that can handle more, that doesn't matter as A) evaporation is already doing that and B) it will fall within days or ours anyway as that air volume cools.

The reason is water vapour has a life of a few days at maximum so no time to heat. It might be hours. It might be minutes. CO2 lasts between decades and hundreds of years, so its up there long enough to heat as well as feedback

This is why there are a large number of Hydrogen uses in place right now, and a lot of investment in ways to use it as a green energy.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2259040 16-Jun-2019 10:14

kingdragonfly: You're correct. There's a number of positive feedback loops that are likely with global warming.

For all our sake's, I hope we never cross the threshold of one.

In a panic to turn back global warming we might panic and starting wild experiments without knowing the consequences of our actions. In the past dumping iron, "iron fertilization", into the ocean was proposed, but deemed too dangerous.

It reminds me of the old cartoons where a bumbling villain lights a match in a munitions shack because it's too dark to see.

Its hard to know when the threshold is. I read somewhere that if we stopped adding CO2, it will take 50 years to affect the weather. The world wants to cease CO2 emissions by 2050. The emissions that we have already added, and the next 30 years will be happily insulating us for up to hundreds of years past that. I already feel its too late.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2259054 16-Jun-2019 11:08

It is never too late. The only difference is that when the climate change obstructers finally die off, and the world accepts that the problem is real and can no longer be rationalised away so it can carry on with its SUVs and air-conditioning, things will be so bad that a war footing will be needed to combat them and those who are not starving from mass famine will have to return to living in caves for a few hundred years until a new balance can be achieved. I believe that ignoring climate change will not doom us to extinction, at least not in the short term, it will just make our lives really miserable and impoverished. What could have been prevented for a hundred dollars will have to be fixed for a billion. That is the future we are leaving our children.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2259078 16-Jun-2019 13:50

Rikkitic:

It is never too late. The only difference is that when the climate change obstructers finally die off, and the world accepts that the problem is real and can no longer be rationalised away so it can carry on with its SUVs and air-conditioning, things will be so bad that a war footing will be needed to combat them and those who are not starving from mass famine will have to return to living in caves for a few hundred years until a new balance can be achieved. I believe that ignoring climate change will not doom us to extinction, at least not in the short term, it will just make our lives really miserable and impoverished. What could have been prevented for a hundred dollars will have to be fixed for a billion. That is the future we are leaving our children.

It can get too late. There is a tipping point. Where if we instantly cease all emissions at 5pm tonight, the existing greenhouses gases feed themselves. While that scenario wont mean the GG heat us up more and more, what happens is that there is a runaway effect on melting ice. Ice that melts means less is there to reflect radiation, so sunlight is adding more heat. This extra heat adds to ice melt, which reduces more reflection, adding more heat. Or more correctly, retaining more heat from the sun. The Sun is indirectly heating the planet, as more of its heat is now available to the Earth.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2259118 16-Jun-2019 14:08

kingdragonfly: You're correct. There's a number of positive feedback loops that are likely with global warming.

Thanks "kingdraonfly" for confirming that the article I referred to is not in fact based on one published in 2001 by Lindzen et al. which dealt with the so-called “adaptive infrared iris” and “negative feedback”, which has been subsequently discredited.

The article I linked to was based on one of many which deal with "positive feedback" (as explained in Wikipedia).

I prefer to provide links to the material I’m referring to, so I don’t mind if somebody points out that I've provided an inappropriate link. But, in this case, I consider the link I provided was factual and appropriate.

This means that, if somebody disagrees with something I have quoted, they are disagreeing with the expert source material, and not me personally! And that’s fine, it’s good to discuss the source material and say it’s wrong or inappropriate, provided that full and logical reasons are given for stating this, preferably supported by links to the published moderated research of recognised experts in the field.

kingdragonfly

11191 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2259120 16-Jun-2019 14:18

The Biggest Lie About Climate Change

AsapSCIENCE

In the 1970's, Exxon's internal scientists predicted climate change due to using fossil fuels, in several different studies. What did you think Exxon executives did with this information?

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2259121 16-Jun-2019 14:27

frednz:

kingdragonfly: You're correct. There's a number of positive feedback loops that are likely with global warming.

Thanks "kingdraonfly" for confirming that the article I referred to is not in fact based on one published in 2001 by Lindzen et al. which dealt with the so-called “adaptive infrared iris” and “negative feedback”, which has been subsequently discredited.

The article I linked to was based on one of many which deal with "positive feedback" (as explained in Wikipedia).

I prefer to provide links to the material I’m referring to, so I don’t mind if somebody points out that I've provided an inappropriate link. But, in this case, I consider the link I provided was factual and appropriate.

This means that, if somebody disagrees with something I have quoted, they are disagreeing with the expert source material, and not me personally! And that’s fine, it’s good to discuss the source material and say it’s wrong or inappropriate, provided that full and logical reasons are given for stating this, preferably supported by links to the published moderated research of recognised experts in the field.

Your link, which I agree with states "Climate "forcings" may push a climate system in the direction of warming or cooling,[53] for example, increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases cause warming at the surface. Forcings are external to the climate system and feedbacks are internal processes of the system."

The issue with water vapour is whether its a forcer or feedback. From what Ive read its not a forcer. Its feedback only. CO2 has increased, so the Earth is warmer. We haven't added water vapour, the heat of the Earth has added water vapour, as water vapour aligns with air temperature.

Given that there is a lot of hydrogen development and ideas, and projects, as well as quite a bit of commercial use, water vapour is not part of those discussions or projects for the future. We wont be adding water vapour to the atmosphere that stays there.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2259125 16-Jun-2019 14:47

Rikkitic:

It is never too late. The only difference is that when the climate change obstructers finally die off, and the world accepts that the problem is real and can no longer be rationalised away so it can carry on with its SUVs and air-conditioning, things will be so bad that a war footing will be needed to combat them and those who are not starving from mass famine will have to return to living in caves for a few hundred years until a new balance can be achieved. I believe that ignoring climate change will not doom us to extinction, at least not in the short term, it will just make our lives really miserable and impoverished. What could have been prevented for a hundred dollars will have to be fixed for a billion. That is the future we are leaving our children.

I agree with you. The problem is that, unless Governments take strong action and, for example, ban the import of petrol vehicles, people will continue to buy them because they are usually less expensive to buy than the equivalent electric vehicles and have a far greater range. At the moment, we have no strong financial incentives in NZ for people to buy electric vehicles, so the ratio of petrol vehicles to electric vehicles will probably stay at hundreds to 1 in favour of the petrol vehicles for quite a few more years!

Of course, there are always some good people who will put the needs of the planet ahead of their own, but I fear that the majority of people need Government laws etc to make them do this.

Incidentally, here's a quote from Wikipedia about global warming:

Greenhouse gases trap heat radiating from Earth to space.[59] This heat, in the form of infrared radiation, gets absorbed and emitted by these gases in the planet's atmosphere thus warming the lower atmosphere and the surface. On Earth, an atmosphere containing naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases causes air temperature near the surface to be warmer by about 33 °C (59 °F) than it would be in their absence.[60][d] Without the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's average temperature would be well below the freezing temperature of water.[61] The major greenhouse gases are water vapour, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7%.[62][63][64]

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2259142 16-Jun-2019 16:12

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/392131/greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-scientist-warns-of-dangers-ahead

From the above:

If the world continues to emit greenhouse gasses it will lock in a further 3C of global warming and 10m of sea level rise, according to a professor.

Victoria University professor James Renwick was a keynote speaker at the Just Transition Community Conference in New Plymouth today.

He said the situation was dire.

"There's been a lot of talk about a climate emergency lately and it really is an emergency situation.

The article is well worth reading and it really does paint a very gloomy picture of what's likely to happen to us!

kingdragonfly

11191 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2259155 16-Jun-2019 17:50

It may be a good mental exercise to at look other climate saving alternate technologies for petrol vehicles other than electric vehicles, EV's.

However the close cousin of EV's is batteries. Cheap energy dense batteries mean good cheap EV's.

As with a lot of things, as you manufacture more of something, it gets cheaper, so manufacturing a lot of EV batteries gets cheaper the more you make.

So what has cheap batteries go to do with climate change? Solar and wind power are a great solution for climate change, among others. But fossil fuel power plants are very reliable, no matter the weather or time of day.

Lots of old, but still good, EV batteries make great and cheap powerbanks for renewable energy.

Even with new lithium batteries, Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%.

When compared to hydrogen fuel cell research, you just don't get that double goodness of EV battery research.

As I've said before it's a lot easier to find infrastructure and experts on all things electric than hydrogen.

I'm not saying hydrogen not great for niche market.

The transportation and storage of hydrogen is in its infancy, when compared to good old electricity and lithium batteries. My last thought is some say fuel cell research in 2017 was where solar cell research was in 2002.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but governments are more willing to fund EV battery research than fuel cell research; there's a finite amount of research dollars.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/fuel-cells-in-2017-are-where-solar-was-in-2002#gs.jacwpd

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2259216 16-Jun-2019 18:46

frednz:

I agree with you. The problem is that, unless Governments take strong action and, for example, ban the import of petrol vehicles, people will continue to buy them because they are usually less expensive to buy than the equivalent electric vehicles and have a far greater range. At the moment, we have no strong financial incentives in NZ for people to buy electric vehicles, so the ratio of petrol vehicles to electric vehicles will probably stay at hundreds to 1 in favour of the petrol vehicles for quite a few more years!

Of course, there are always some good people who will put the needs of the planet ahead of their own, but I fear that the majority of people need Government laws etc to make them do this.

Incidentally, here's a quote from Wikipedia about global warming:

Greenhouse gases trap heat radiating from Earth to space.[59] This heat, in the form of infrared radiation, gets absorbed and emitted by these gases in the planet's atmosphere thus warming the lower atmosphere and the surface. On Earth, an atmosphere containing naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases causes air temperature near the surface to be warmer by about 33 °C (59 °F) than it would be in their absence.[60][d] Without the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's average temperature would be well below the freezing temperature of water.[61] The major greenhouse gases are water vapour, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7%.[62][63][64]

I agree that GOVERNMENTS need to manage this.

And I agree that ICE is far more a logical purchase. As there are no strong financial incentives.

I also agree that there are some good people that put the planet needs ahead of their own. In many ways that is unfair.

The numbers you quoted re GG are misleading though. Are you implying that water vapour is the problem ? Water vapour is the largest Greenhouse gas. It is also natural as is CO2. These, and the Sun's radiation give us an equilibrium. Modern days average temp. The Industrial Revolution changed that. The Iapourndustrial Revolution didn't add water vapour.

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 70