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 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

16933 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3357

Trusted

# 2259616 17-Jun-2019 16:12

Aredwood: LPG mainly reduces carbon emissions from car engines due to the displacement effect. As the gaseous LPG takes up room in the combustion chambers that would otherwise have air in it. The engine is effectively a smaller capacity now. And as a result, it also has a lower power output. Although since LPG has a higher octane rating, the engine could sometimes be retuned to get the power back.

Because of the above, cars with larger engines were the most popular for converting to LPG. Almost every taxi driver used to own an LPG Holden Commodore or Ford Falcon. But they had a 3.8L V6 and a 4L straight 6 engine respectively. So still plenty of horsepower for the job. But taxi drivers mostly use hybrid cars now. Especially after Toyota started making a hybrid version of the Camry. Which shows that LPG is still more fuel hungry compared to hybrids.

LPG would be far better suited to long distance trucking, rail transportation (where electric rail doesn't stack up) and shipping. As it is a relatively simple modification to add LPG supplementation onto diesel engines, to reduce diesel usage. And if the LPG tank runs out, the engine keeps going on diesel. Same thing can also be done with Natural gas. And some US rail companies are doing exactly that. To save money on diesel.

Good ideas.

frankv

2877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1414

Lifetime subscriber

# 2259620 17-Jun-2019 16:20

One person supports this post

tdgeek:

Its a diversion, its above water vapour which exists in clouds and not in clouds. Should really be in the Hydrogen thread

It's not really about hydrogen power, so much as the argument that water vapour causes higher temperatures, and higher temperatures mean more water vapour, so a positive feedback actor.

And it's not just hydrogen powered vehicles... all FF-powered vehicles emit CO2 and also water vapour.

But I suspect that the total amount of water vapour produced by vehicles is a drop (heh!) in the ocean (heh!) compared to the amount that evaporates from the surface of the oceans. But the amount of that is controlled by water and air temperature.

tdgeek

16933 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3357

Trusted

# 2259627 17-Jun-2019 16:39

frankv:

tdgeek:

Its a diversion, its above water vapour which exists in clouds and not in clouds. Should really be in the Hydrogen thread

It's not really about hydrogen power, so much as the argument that water vapour causes higher temperatures, and higher temperatures mean more water vapour, so a positive feedback actor.

And it's not just hydrogen powered vehicles... all FF-powered vehicles emit CO2 and also water vapour.

But I suspect that the total amount of water vapour produced by vehicles is a drop (heh!) in the ocean (heh!) compared to the amount that evaporates from the surface of the oceans. But the amount of that is controlled by water and air temperature.

I agree about the feedback loop. BUT, water vapour is not a forcer. If you add heat by another means, water vapour will continue to insulate and if the Earth is now warmer due to heating by another means, there will be more water vapour and more insulation. But its not a heater. CO2 is the heater as that is also a Greenhouse has, but its says up there, for decades or a hundred years. Some stays longer. If CO2 that has been added by humans was eliminated now, the temp will reduce, and water vapour will reduce. That what Yale University said.

For humans that add vapour, you can look at it two ways. If all we did was add vapour and not add CO2 we would add vapour to the atmosphere, but that will self correct based on todays temp at your general location. Night time, its cooler, water is lost. It doesn't spend enough time up there to matter. The other factor is %. CO2 is very low. Yet it is a problem, 400 parts per million. Doesnt sound much. If water vapour is 95% of all greenhouses gases, its probably not possible to add any meaningful % to that, as its so huge. Hydrogen projects and commercial use is well in play. But there is never any mention of water vapour contributing to CC. Water Vapour rises and falls in volume all around the globe, depending on temp anywhere around the globe. Its an automatic insulator.

kingdragonfly

2479 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1513

# 2259642 17-Jun-2019 17:14

How Greta Thunberg created global student strike movement

60 Minutes Australia

"Greta Thunberg was a lone teenager in Sweden quietly determined to make a point about climate change. Now, 1.4 million students around the world have joined her in the fight to get world leaders to pay attention to their message."

kingdragonfly

2479 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1513

# 2259688 17-Jun-2019 19:44

Summary: Bitcoin leaves a carbon footprint as large as Las Vegas

http://ceepr.mit.edu/news/138
The Carbon Footprint of Bitcoin

MIT
by Christian Stoll, Lena Klaaßen, Ulrich Gallersdörfer
...
During 2018, the computing power required to solve a Bitcoin puzzle increased more than threefold, and heightened electricity consumption accordingly...To take the right measures, policy makers need to understand the carbon footprint of cryptocurrencies.

We present a techno-economic model for determining electricity consumption in order to provide an accurate estimate of the carbon footprint of Bitcoin.
...
We show that, as of November 2018, the annual electricity consumption of Bitcoin ranges between 35.0 TWh and 72.7 TWh, with a realistic magnitude of 48.2 TWh. We further calculate that the resulting annual carbon emissions range between 21.5 and 53.6 MtCO2; a ratio which sits between the levels produced by Bolivia and Portugal...

frankv

2877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1414

Lifetime subscriber

# 2259903 18-Jun-2019 07:30

One person supports this post

tdgeek:

I agree about the feedback loop. BUT, water vapour is not a forcer. If you add heat by another means, water vapour will continue to insulate and if the Earth is now warmer due to heating by another means, there will be more water vapour and more insulation. But its not a heater. CO2 is the heater as that is also a Greenhouse has, but its says up there, for decades or a hundred years. Some stays longer. If CO2 that has been added by humans was eliminated now, the temp will reduce, and water vapour will reduce. That what Yale University said.

Neither gas is a heater. They are both insulators. That's precisely what a *greenhouse* gas is. One of the mechanisms by which water vapour insulates is that it forms clouds, which prevent radiation from the Earth's surface. Hence cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. So, for example, winter frosts are typically preceded by clear nights (and followed by clear days)... cloud (i.e. water vapour in the atmosphere) is a primary factor (along with the temperature of the air mass) that causes/prevents frost.

For humans that add vapour, you can look at it two ways. If all we did was add vapour and not add CO2 we would add vapour to the atmosphere, but that will self correct based on todays temp at your general location. Night time, its cooler, water is lost.

Water is only lost from the atmosphere by precipitation. It doesn't rain every night, so water isn't lost every night. It only rains in the layer of the atmosphere up to the lower limit of saturation. If there's a layer at the surface that isn't saturated, water isn't lost.

And, the whole point is that this is a positive feedback loop. It *doesn't* self-correct. Positive feedback loops do *not* self-correct. They continue until some *other* factor limits the effect.

tdgeek

16933 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3357

Trusted

# 2259916 18-Jun-2019 08:06

One person supports this post

frankv:

Neither gas is a heater. They are both insulators. That's precisely what a *greenhouse* gas is. One of the mechanisms by which water vapour insulates is that it forms clouds, which prevent radiation from the Earth's surface. Hence cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. So, for example, winter frosts are typically preceded by clear nights (and followed by clear days)... cloud (i.e. water vapour in the atmosphere) is a primary factor (along with the temperature of the air mass) that causes/prevents frost.

Water is only lost from the atmosphere by precipitation. It doesn't rain every night, so water isn't lost every night. It only rains in the layer of the atmosphere up to the lower limit of saturation. If there's a layer at the surface that isn't saturated, water isn't lost.

And, the whole point is that this is a positive feedback loop. It *doesn't* self-correct. Positive feedback loops do *not* self-correct. They continue until some *other* factor limits the effect.

If you add CO2 that stays up there for a great deal of time The Earth heats up, so its a heater, commonly called a Forcer. It heats up by retaining heat due to its insulatiing effect. We have global warming due to CO2, a greenhouse gas. If the Industrial Revolution did not add CO2 but it added water vapour we would not have global warming. As the amount of water vapour that exists in the air is based on temperature. It stays up there for days, or hours or minutes, it cannot thus provide any warming due to hear retention. It would continue to do what its been doing for millenia.

It does self correct, at least Yale University and others say it does. Water vapour provides positive feedback, but its not the cause, CO2 began that cause, water is just following it. If you removed the extra CO2 we added, you are removing insulation, taking one blanket off, it will get cooler, then the feedback with water vapour will reverse, and hold less moisture. You would go back to the standard environment we had, the relatively stable radiation, orbit, tilt, water content in Earth. There will be a point, the tipping point, where its runaway effect. Plus we cannot remove all the extra CO2 in a short period , so the potential to wind this back is a moot point.

Water is only lost from the atmosphere by precipitation. It doesn't rain every night, so water isn't lost every night.

It does. At your house, or mine, no, it doesnt. Its governed by temperature. At a spedific location there is more water above me than above you, or the other way around. Globally, if we say the Earth has an average temp of x degrees, then the water content is stable, over the entire globe and over the course of time where that average temp exists.

frednz

1160 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 244

# 2259977 18-Jun-2019 08:57

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113274464/auckland-council-mulls-declaring-climate-change-emergency

Extracts from above:

In a statement after the vote, the council said climate change "does not satisfy the definition of an 'emergency' under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, and that a declaration of a 'climate emergency' has no other inherent statutory or legal implications".

"However, such a declaration may further highlight Auckland Council's belief in the importance and urgency of addressing climate change."

The environmental group Forest and Bird Auckland had urged councillors to make the emergency declaration on Tuesday.

"In Auckland, we are already seeing increasingly severe droughts and extreme storms, which are caused by climate change," said its regional manager Nick Beveridge.

I wonder whether this declaration will achieve much? Other cities have done this too (Canterbury, Nelson and the Kapiti Coast), so would it be worthwhile if these declarations spread throughout the whole of NZ?

tdgeek

16933 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3357

Trusted

# 2259987 18-Jun-2019 09:05

frednz:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113274464/auckland-council-mulls-declaring-climate-change-emergency

Extracts from above:

In a statement after the vote, the council said climate change "does not satisfy the definition of an 'emergency' under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, and that a declaration of a 'climate emergency' has no other inherent statutory or legal implications".

"However, such a declaration may further highlight Auckland Council's belief in the importance and urgency of addressing climate change."

The environmental group Forest and Bird Auckland had urged councillors to make the emergency declaration on Tuesday.

"In Auckland, we are already seeing increasingly severe droughts and extreme storms, which are caused by climate change," said its regional manager Nick Beveridge.

I wonder whether this declaration will achieve much? Other cities have done this too (Canterbury, Nelson and the Kapiti Coast), so would it be worthwhile if these declarations spread throughout the whole of NZ?

I think it will. CC needs to be front and centre, not a percieved whiney article once a week. It also needs education. I'd like it to be common knowledge of what caused this, and what is being done in NZ and globally. Otherwise it remains as a topic that most of us heard of but few know much about it

frankv

2877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1414

Lifetime subscriber

# 2259988 18-Jun-2019 09:05

One person supports this post

tdgeek:

frankv:

Neither gas is a heater. They are both insulators. That's precisely what a *greenhouse* gas is. One of the mechanisms by which water vapour insulates is that it forms clouds, which prevent radiation from the Earth's surface. Hence cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. So, for example, winter frosts are typically preceded by clear nights (and followed by clear days)... cloud (i.e. water vapour in the atmosphere) is a primary factor (along with the temperature of the air mass) that causes/prevents frost.

Water is only lost from the atmosphere by precipitation. It doesn't rain every night, so water isn't lost every night. It only rains in the layer of the atmosphere up to the lower limit of saturation. If there's a layer at the surface that isn't saturated, water isn't lost.

And, the whole point is that this is a positive feedback loop. It *doesn't* self-correct. Positive feedback loops do *not* self-correct. They continue until some *other* factor limits the effect.

If you add CO2 that stays up there for a great deal of time The Earth heats up, so its a heater, commonly called a Forcer. It heats up by retaining heat due to its insulatiing effect. We have global warming due to CO2, a greenhouse gas.

Exactly the same applies to water vapour except that a particular part of it it doesn't stay.

If the Industrial Revolution did not add CO2 but it added water vapour we would not have global warming. As the amount of water vapour that exists in the air is based on temperature. It stays up there for days, or hours or minutes, it cannot thus provide any warming due to hear retention. It would continue to do what its been doing for millenia.

Do you have any citations for only CO2 being added during the Industrial Revolution? I'd expect that *both* CO2 and water would be released, so we have to conclude that global warming is due to the release of both of these gases. How much is due to CO2 and how much to water vapour, I'm not sure.

Any particle of water only stays in the atmosphere for days or hours or minutes, but the average water content of the atmosphere is increasing. So the incidence of cloudy days and nights is increasing, and this causes the atmosphere to warm up. Yes, this was due to the atmosphere becoming warmer initially. But it's a positive feedback, so, unless there is some more effective cooling process, it will continue to increase.

NB that a similar positive feedback mechanism applies to CO2 as well. CO2 solubility in seawater is temperature-dependent. Increase the water temperature and CO2 is released. So at least some of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been released from sea water (or not absorbed by sea water) due to increased temperature.

It does self correct, at least Yale University and others say it does. Water vapour provides positive feedback, but its not the cause, CO2 began that cause, water is just following it. If you removed the extra CO2 we added, you are removing insulation, taking one blanket off, it will get cooler, then the feedback with water vapour will reverse, and hold less moisture. You would go back to the standard environment we had, the relatively stable radiation, orbit, tilt, water content in Earth. There will be a point, the tipping point, where its runaway effect. Plus we cannot remove all the extra CO2 in a short period , so the potential to wind this back is a moot point.

By their very nature positive feedback mechanism do not self-correct. That is the very definition of a positive-feedback mechanism. Only negative feedback mechanisms self-correct. Please cite where Yale says that a positive feedback mechanism self-corrects.

It may be that increasing CO2 has triggered the increase in heating and therefore the water vapour. However, at a certain point, removing the CO2 will not reverse the effect of the increased water vapour. That point is thought to be somewhere around 3 degrees warmer than at present.

Its governed by temperature. At a specific location there is more water above me than above you, or the other way around. Globally, if we say the Earth has an average temp of x degrees, then the water content is stable, over the entire globe and over the course of time where that average temp exists.

Right. But the average temperature of the entire globe has increased. That in turn means that there is more water vapour in the atmosphere. Which in turn will increase the insulation effect of water vapour, and cause the temperature to increase.

tdgeek

16933 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3357

Trusted

# 2260003 18-Jun-2019 09:22

frankv:

It may be that increasing CO2 has triggered the increase in heating and therefore the water vapour. However, at a certain point, removing the CO2 will not reverse the effect of the increased water vapour. That point is thought to be somewhere around 3 degrees warmer than at present.

Right. But the average temperature of the entire globe has increased. That in turn means that there is more water vapour in the atmosphere. Which in turn will increase the insulation effect of water vapour, and cause the temperature to increase.

I wont be at this all day with you, so just a couple of points

If you remove a blanket you cool down the Earth. If we could remove the extra CO2 we have added then yes we will cool. less insulation, heat esca[es. And water will reduce, helping cooling, and we would go back to the equilibrium we had in the year 1700 AD

Yes, at a point, this becomes self feeding, where any amount of reduction in human emissions wont matter any more