Atmospheric CO2 now 410 parts per million. Uh oh.....

Forums › Off topic › Atmospheric CO2 now 410 parts per million. Uh oh.....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12

1692 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969

#2005255 30-Apr-2018 15:22

kryptonjohn:

Linuxluver:

An average car releases 2.2kg of carbon for each litre of petrol burned.

I can't follow that. A litre of fuel weighs about 800g of which I guess about 660g is carbon and most of the rest is hydrogen. Where is the extra ~1.4kg of carbon coming from?

Simplisitically, the C in CO2 comes from the fuel, the O2 comes from the oxygen in the air consumed when the fuel is burned. So 660g of Carbon in the fuel plus 1.54 of Oxygen not in the fuel.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2005257 30-Apr-2018 15:24

kryptonjohn:

MikeB4:

I have just gone through the process of buying a new car. We wanted to down size one of our vehicles as having two SUVs seemed pointless. I considered EV but in the end the new car offerings were over priced for what you get. The used options are poor and again not worth the money requested. I purchased a new compact ICE that has all the latest driver aids and safety equipment and returns very economical fuel usage.

I can't avoid the same conclusion, much as I think an electric car would be cool.

It troubles me that plenty of additional generation for EV will be thermal - gas or worse, coal. In addition, the efficiency of getting that generation from its source to your wheels is pretty bad on account of transmission and conversion losses.

If solar can be made economic and feasible and reliable then it's a no-brainer and no subsidies will be required as everyone will want.

Could not agree more. I think an EV would be cool, but right now its not economic. When a 60KW mid size is close to an ICE of the same specs, yes, well worth a look. I cant get over that solar hasn't been pushed. I'd like to complement my Solar HW with PV, yay, free power sometimes. Export some, top up a battery, fill up the EV, use the EV as a battery, thats the way to maximise solar.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2005259 30-Apr-2018 15:26

BlueShift:

kryptonjohn:

Linuxluver:

An average car releases 2.2kg of carbon for each litre of petrol burned.

I can't follow that. A litre of fuel weighs about 800g of which I guess about 660g is carbon and most of the rest is hydrogen. Where is the extra ~1.4kg of carbon coming from?

Simplisitically, the C in CO2 comes from the fuel, the O2 comes from the oxygen in the air consumed when the fuel is burned. So 660g of Carbon in the fuel plus 1.54 of Oxygen not in the fuel.

Yeah already discussed. It's not 2.2kg of carbon, it's 2.2kg of CO2. Oxygen is heavy at an atomic weight of 16!

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2005262 30-Apr-2018 15:31

tdgeek:

kryptonjohn:

MikeB4:

I have just gone through the process of buying a new car. We wanted to down size one of our vehicles as having two SUVs seemed pointless. I considered EV but in the end the new car offerings were over priced for what you get. The used options are poor and again not worth the money requested. I purchased a new compact ICE that has all the latest driver aids and safety equipment and returns very economical fuel usage.

I can't avoid the same conclusion, much as I think an electric car would be cool.

It troubles me that plenty of additional generation for EV will be thermal - gas or worse, coal. In addition, the efficiency of getting that generation from its source to your wheels is pretty bad on account of transmission and conversion losses.

If solar can be made economic and feasible and reliable then it's a no-brainer and no subsidies will be required as everyone will want.

Could not agree more. I think an EV would be cool, but right now its not economic. When a 60KW mid size is close to an ICE of the same specs, yes, well worth a look. I cant get over that solar hasn't been pushed. I'd like to complement my Solar HW with PV, yay, free power sometimes. Export some, top up a battery, fill up the EV, use the EV as a battery, thats the way to maximise solar.

So does a Tesla PowerWall battery hold more juice than your car, and will it typically accumulate enough during the day to replace overnight what you used up on your commute? And if it's not been sunny can it all be configured to use up the PowerWall first then if that's drained finish off from the mains? That's the sweet spot for me. Never mind pushing back to the grid; once you've stored it I expect it will always be better to use it than sell it back for several good reasons (unless you are away from your house can can't use it).

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2005266 30-Apr-2018 15:35

In fact the whole management of a PowerWall fascinates me having done in the dim distant part, electricity generation modelling work. In order to decide whether to take power overnight from your PW you need to look at the off peak pricing and trade it off against day time use vs charging the car. If you are using power in the daytime it might be best to charge your car overnight off the mains and run down the PW during the daytime peak. This is like deja vu all over again except looking at a battery and off peak rates instead of reservoir capacity, rain fall and demand predictions!

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#2005286 30-Apr-2018 15:44

tdgeek:
In other words you dont believe in human caused climate change?

I always find the language used in this debate interesting. "Believe in" as in believe in God, fairies, leprechauns, Santa, Easter Bunny? All of which require faith or blind belief.

I'm guessing what you were really asking was, do you disagree with (or have doubts about) the theory of anthropologic global warming?

Can we count on a new topic every time the ppm goes up 10?

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

KrazyKid

1247 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 616

#2005290 30-Apr-2018 15:51

kryptonjohn:

It troubles me that plenty of additional generation for EV will be thermal - gas or worse, coal. In addition, the efficiency of getting that generation from its source to your wheels is pretty bad on account of transmission and conversion losses.

If solar can be made economic and feasible and reliable then it's a no-brainer and no subsidies will be required as everyone will want.

Not so sure that extra generation will be gas or coal. NZ currently has plenty of spare capacity. And for the current election term (and maybe next few especially if Bridges is really going green) - plenty of political will to increase green electricity generation as needed.

Yes I agree that solar is currently marginal economically and environmentally in many places (ie my house in Dunedin).

But in the end it does boil down to what are you willing/able to afford to give up to help keep humans on this planet.
Sure the planet will be around for millions of years, but personally I'd like your grandkids to able to enjoy it and not struggle from massive economic shocks that will follow significant sea level and weather changes.

I accept that others disagree that this may occur, but I personally think we are in trouble and want to change what I can.
I can't change all the effects of CO2 production but I can do a little bit.

If you can't afford an electric car at the moment I understand that, and electric cars won't suit all use cases.
And the definitely won't fix the problems by themselves.

But for around town and especially as a second car they make economic and environmental sense.
I'm willing to spend some of my weekly spending money towards the extra loan costs an electric car.
I've wasted money on worse gadgets before.

And no I'm not driving a Tesla :( - just a Nissan leaf.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#2005291 30-Apr-2018 15:51

Fred99:
Another problem is that the litre of fossil fuel contains (stored/chemical) about the same energy as about 50 kg of charged lithium ion battery, so even though most of that energy is wasted as heat, liquid fuels have a huge practical advantage for transport when the energy source needs to be carried.

A petrol tank does not fill up on the way downhill like a battery. Energy density is not the full story.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#2005294 30-Apr-2018 15:55

Fred99:

There is a lot going on in electric aviation. This from last year:

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/electric-aircraft/index.html

Yes, a long way to go which indicates most savings will have to be elsewhere for now.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2005295 30-Apr-2018 15:56

Dingbatt:
tdgeek:

In other words you dont believe in human caused climate change?

I always find the language used in this debate interesting. "Believe in" as in believe in God, fairies, leprechauns, Santa, Easter Bunny. All of which require faith or blind belief.

I'm guessing what you were really asking was, do you disagree with (or have doubts about) the theory of anthropologic global warming?

Can we count on a new topic every time the ppm goes up 10?

As perfectly evidenced by some folks name-calling skeptics "deniers". It has strong religious overtones and I'm almost surprised the term 'heretic' hasn't come into common use.

I'm a bit of a skeptic. I do think it is true that the temperatures have been rising faster then prior to the industrial revolution. However there are many questions, inconsistencies and flaws in the models that current thinking is based on and it drives me nuts when I hear "the science is settled" nonsense. That's an idiotic statement and no true scientist would ever say or believe it in such an unpredictable, unrepeatable, chaotic and multi-multi unknown problem such as climate science is settled.

There's another thing that gets repeated along the lines of "x% of scientists believe AGW is real". Well that is true but in the detail of that statement out of IPCC is that they don't say how much of the warming is contributed by human activity.

You can think something is probably or partially true and still be skeptical about certainty so I'm still skeptical.

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#2005301 30-Apr-2018 16:07

tdgeek:

In other words you dont believe in human caused climate change? There is no dispute how the Earth has been in the past. The 15000 years you refer to is actually closer to 200. While there are many examples of past natural climate change, there is a clear spike from the Industrial revolution. Should the Earth evolve over a million years and get much warmer or much cooler we will adapt. If it happens by another 2 or 3 degrees over the next 50+ years we will be toast. Its not just us, its the global water cycle system that will deliver the killer blow. Being warmer, wetter, wilder weather, moving inland are just annoyances. We can shift our agriculture North or South, 500 to 1000km, but the sea water is the final blow. Over a million years, I imagine nature will evolve, and the ice caps wont disappear overnight as they are now.

I'm saying it's very alarmist like Chicken Little, particularly in the context that our view is biased and in the view that climate regularly swings from extreme to extreme over a very long time frame and given the length of that time frame and the very short sample of data we have we simply don't have enough evidence to conclusively say one way or the other.

I'm saying we need to remain mindful of both the evidence and the bias because the people we pay to tell us how bad it is, have to tell us its bad to remain employed.

I'm saying other things threaten us far more seriously than climate change and we need to pay those things proportionally more attention.

The hype about climate change is amazing for something that is largely invisible and imperceptible (come on less than 0.1 deg per year!!!??), remarkably similar to religious fervour, and it is hard to rationally justify it because in actuality communicable diseases, antibiotic resistance, polution and such things are far more likely to kill you and me and almost certainly will kill our descendants, where as climate change, IF it is true will just be a big inconvenience to them. If it happens it's going to be a gradual change that can be adjusted to, where as illness such as the next SARS/chicken/pig flu will wipe out your entire family and many others in a few days.

These people getting wound up about a temperature rise of 6 degrees in the Tasman and blaming climate change are classic Chicken-Little-ers. It is the surface temperature that is higher, not the overall ocean temperature and the reason is simply because there has been fewer storms mixing the sun-warmed surface water with the cold water at depth. The satellites giving us this data only detect the temperature to a couple of mm's deep! Thermoclines in the ocean are common and found everywhere. The average temperature of the water column is the same, it is just temporarily less homogenous due to less mixing. The temperature rise is novel but unremarkable to true weather scientists.

Another alarmist scam is the extent and location of sea level rises. Wellington is positioned to be minimally effected by sea level changes. People commonly mistakenly think sea level rise is due to the melted water from the polar ice flooding or filling up the ocean - this is not the case. The gravitational mass of the ice at the polar caps presently draws the ocean to them, and away from the equator, similar to the gravity of the moon and the tides. When the polar caps melt sea water will redistribute away from the poles and toward the equator, so yes, the tropical islands will flood, but Antarctica will get shallower and places 1/2 way between like Wellington will barely notice any change. People get all wound up about the sea advancing inland like its going to be a sudden thing, but they have no idea that the shore line is almost always moving. We will barely notice it. Whatipu in Auckland is a great but ignored example where the sea has retreated 2km, from where it was 100 years ago, but you only see on TV where the sea washes away houses, and once again that mysterious and all powerful climate change is to blame. Where is climate change at Whatipu? Best we move there then eh?

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2005303 30-Apr-2018 16:08

kryptonjohn:

So does a Tesla PowerWall battery hold more juice than your car, and will it typically accumulate enough during the day to replace overnight what you used up on your commute? And if it's not been sunny can it all be configured to use up the PowerWall first then if that's drained finish off from the mains? That's the sweet spot for me. Never mind pushing back to the grid; once you've stored it I expect it will always be better to use it than sell it back for several good reasons (unless you are away from your house can can't use it).

Agree on export, but if like most people, you have panels, and no battery, export happens in Summer. I know a few like this, they LOVE export. My account is in credit, yippee. I keep telling them to time shift to maximise generated usage, they dont listen. /crying

I think a PW is 13KW, a today typical EV is 24KW or so. If you had 5kW PV you could charge that in 3 hours if it wasnt used elsewhere. But you dont need to do that every day, other days do laundry, dishes etc. and hope you still get the popup to 13KWn for the evening. IMO its about timeshiftimg. But 13kW isnt much for the home at night. Summer yes, but I think its about 10k for a 13KW PowerWall and 13KW if you used at night is about $2-60.

Im not sure how flexible prioritising charging is. But as PV is so dang backward (generate lots when you dont need it and less when you do need it) I'd also want to control i as much as possible. The cream on the cake is if the EV can double as a house battery and blend that in as well. Then an EV has more value as its a house power bill avoider, and the house PV is a EV charge bill avoider. 1+1=2.5 so to speak.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2005306 30-Apr-2018 16:11

I'm far more concerned about the possibility of MRSA type bacteria along with new viruses that could either decimate us, or wipe out a critical link in our ecosystem (effectively the same thing) in an evolutionary instant. Not so worried about them turning us into zombies though. I'm a zombie denier.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2005310 30-Apr-2018 16:18

tripper1000:

tdgeek:

In other words you dont believe in human caused climate change? There is no dispute how the Earth has been in the past. The 15000 years you refer to is actually closer to 200. While there are many examples of past natural climate change, there is a clear spike from the Industrial revolution. Should the Earth evolve over a million years and get much warmer or much cooler we will adapt. If it happens by another 2 or 3 degrees over the next 50+ years we will be toast. Its not just us, its the global water cycle system that will deliver the killer blow. Being warmer, wetter, wilder weather, moving inland are just annoyances. We can shift our agriculture North or South, 500 to 1000km, but the sea water is the final blow. Over a million years, I imagine nature will evolve, and the ice caps wont disappear overnight as they are now.

I'm saying it's very alarmist like Chicken Little, particularly in the context that our view is biased and in the view that climate regularly swings from extreme to extreme over a very long time frame and given the length of that time frame and the very short sample of data we have we simply don't have enough evidence to conclusively say one way or the other.

I'm saying we need to remain mindful of both the evidence and the bias because the people we pay to tell us how bad it is, have to tell us its bad to remain employed.

I'm saying other things threaten us far more seriously than climate change and we need to pay those things proportionally more attention.

The hype about climate change is amazing for something that is largely invisible and imperceptible (come on less than 0.1 deg per year!!!??), remarkably similar to religious fervour, and it is hard to rationally justify it because in actuality communicable diseases, antibiotic resistance, polution and such things are far more likely to kill you and me and almost certainly will kill our descendants, where as climate change, IF it is true will just be a big inconvenience to them. If it happens it's going to be a gradual change that can be adjusted to, where as illness such as the next SARS/chicken/pig flu will wipe out your entire family and many others in a few days.

These people getting wound up about a temperature rise of 6 degrees in the Tasman and blaming climate change are classic Chicken-Little-ers. It is the surface temperature that is higher, not the overall ocean temperature and the reason is simply because there has been fewer storms mixing the sun-warmed surface water with the cold water at depth. The satellites giving us this data only detect the temperature to a couple of mm's deep! Thermoclines in the ocean are common and found everywhere. The average temperature of the water column is the same, it is just temporarily less homogenous due to less mixing. The temperature rise is novel but unremarkable to true weather scientists.

Another alarmist scam is the extent and location of sea level rises. Wellington is positioned to be minimally effected by sea level changes. People commonly mistakenly think sea level rise is due to the melted water from the polar ice flooding or filling up the ocean - this is not the case. The gravitational mass of the ice at the polar caps presently draws the ocean to them, and away from the equator, similar to the gravity of the moon and the tides. When the polar caps melt sea water will redistribute away from the poles and toward the equator, so yes, the tropical islands will flood, but Antarctica will get shallower and places 1/2 way between like Wellington will barely notice any change. People get all wound up about the sea advancing inland like its going to be a sudden thing, but they have no idea that the shore line is almost always moving. We will barely notice it. Whatipu in Auckland is a great but ignored example where the sea has retreated 2km, from where it was 100 years ago, but you only see on TV where the sea washes away houses, and once again that mysterious and all powerful climate change is to blame. Where is climate change at Whatipu? Best we move there then eh?

We can agree to disagree, but thanks for the time to make a long post. Appreciated. All I can is that I have watched a lot of docos for and against and read a lot of in depth articles, which weren't opinion pieces. There is a lot of science involved, not theories. The spike when the Industrial Revolution start is clear, and its exponential from then due to the greater population and industry volume.

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#2005320 30-Apr-2018 16:39

Did those doco's a quant you with previous extreme climatic changes before inciting panic about the next?

For the sake of healthy debate, I propose that we are still warming up from the last ice age.

Sound silly? Well Consider this:

The last ice age started 2.7 million years.

The last ice age finished only 12,000 years ago.

Given we spent 99.55% of the last 2.7 million years pretty much frozen, I vote we've got to get to at least 1 per cent (or 26,000 years) before we finish thawing and we get back to what is "normal" for the earth, acknowledging that the temperature wouldn't be "normal" for humans. Maybe we are accelerating the thawing process - how quickly can you unthaw a planet that has been frozen for 2.7 million years?

Does that make me a sceptic, denier, heretic, agnostic or rationalist?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12