Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

[Coal]

Maximus otter.

..Twump (Waaah!) has nothing to do with it...

Nothing to do with the de-regulations he introduces ? Regulations that were put in place to help curtail, the excesses ?

We have regulations to make dog owners remove the shit their pets dump on the ground. If some person in authority decides that this is against the owners interests (messy process) and cancels the regulation, is he/she not responsible for the resultant crap covered landscape ?

Your logic escapes me.

INT21

More to the point, 'leading by example' matters. We are designed to learn from the example of our parents and our peers. Whatever example the 'leaders' set, swathes of people follow their example.

If our 'great and good' don't make any sacrifices in terms of energy use, then almost no-one else will. When heads of state start cutting back publicly, we might see a difference.

If you want to discuss climate change, don't fly somewhere nice, Skype (IPCC, I'm looking at you). As a random example.

Plus, we need to be promoting the idea that there is no 'have cake and eat it' solution. Wind-turbines and solar power won't do it, neither will carbon offsetting or electric cars. The answer is "use a lot less". All of us.
If we can get leadership on that as a strategy we have a chance. Otherwise, we're stuffed.

 

[INT21]

..The answer is "use a lot less". All of us...

Hear, Hear.

Someone buy that fellow a drink.

In the UK some pressure is applied more subtly.

For instance, My little Diesel car (1500cc) costs me £155 per year tax. Because it is deemed to be 'dirty'.
Last time I was at the testing station (last week) I was talking to a chap who had a 999cc petrol engined car and who only pays £20 per year.
Electric cars, I think, are tax free.

The idea is to wear you down and get you to change over.

I'd be interested in how our American and European colleagues pay for road tax etc.

INT21

 

[EnolaGaia]

... I'd be interested in how our American and European colleagues pay for road tax etc. ...

In the USA road or use taxes are defined by the individual states and sometimes augmented by levies at the county and / or municipal level.

At the state level, such road / use tax is typically blended into the annual registration (license) fee everyone must pay.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_tax#United_States

 

[INT21]

Looking at that link, the UK system doesn't seem so bad after all.

INT21

 

[Mythopoeika]

..The answer is "use a lot less". All of us...

Hear, Hear.

Someone buy that fellow a drink.

In the UK some pressure is applied more subtly.

For instance, My little Diesel car (1500cc) costs me £155 per year tax. Because it is deemed to be 'dirty'.
Last time I was at the testing station (last week) I was talking to a chap who had a 999cc petrol engined car and who only pays £20 per year.
Electric cars, I think, are tax free.

The idea is to wear you down and get you to change over.

I'd be interested in how our American and European colleagues pay for road tax etc.

INT21

My 1.3 litre diesel costs me only £30 a year in tax.

 

[INT21]

Am I correct in assuming it is a fairly new one ? With all the emission gubbings fitted.

INT21

 

[Mythopoeika]

Am I correct in assuming it is a fairly new one ? With all the emission gubbings fitted.

INT21

9 years old.
It's specifically designed as a low emissions vehicle (Citroen Nemo). Mind you, I don't know if it is a vehicle that lies during emissions tests.

 

[INT21]

..Mind you, I don't know if it is a vehicle that lies during emissions tests...

I wouldn't ask it if I were you; ignorance is bliss. (and it saves you money).

My Citroen Saxo Desire is an 'X' reg. So 2000. Making it about 18 years old.

INT21

 

[SkepticalX]

I really think the US is at a tipping point in the move away from internal combustion engines. Battery technology has advanced to where the range of fully-electric vehicles makes sense for American driving needs. The price of entry is still quite high and the recharge infrastructure is spotty - but its getting better. The next five years should tell the tale.

That being said, I suspect it will take a couple of decades at least for the majority of IT cars to cycle-out. Even then, Americans love classic cars so I suspect there will continue to be a significant number of them on the road for another century.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I don't believe the transition will be that quick.

Pure electric vehicles remain ill-suited for people whose driving requirements involve more than shopping trips around a single urban / suburban locale. Even though I've cut my total yearly mileage by around 50% over the last decade, I still do a lot of long distance cross-country trips. The notion of a pure electric transition is a non-starter for me.

Hybrids are a more reasonable, and more popular, option at this time. I suspect there will be an intermediate phase during which hybrids, rather than pure electrics, will be the segment pushing the IC vehicles toward extinction on a longer timeline.

I remain skeptical about the hybrid and electric tech base being 'mature', even though it's come a long way.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the alternative fuels promoters (natural gas; hydrogen) are on a longer path to marketability, and I don't believe it's safe to conclude they won't play at least a transitional role before all is said and done.

Another factor is the inertia induced by the used vehicle aftermarket. The current vehicles (of all types) will have to work their way through the secondary market and subsequent service lives before any transition can be completed.

 

[INT21]

EnolaGaia,

..Pure electric vehicles remain ill-suited for people whose driving requirements involve more than shopping trips around a single urban / suburban locale...

And there are also unexpected problems.

A couple of nights ago I was watching a series of videos by (I think EVM ( Electric Vehicle Man) and he was doing a long trip, 300 mile each way, in his Nissan Leaf.
He had it planned out properly and knew where the quick recharge points were along the route.

Anyway, while he was topping up the battery at a service station a chap who also had an need to charge his vehicle came up to him and mentioned that he couldn't use his card to initialise the charge unit. EVM informed him that the card system is no longer viable. And that you need a smart phone to initialise the charger : The guy didn't have one.

So there he was. With a very low battery, away from home and no way of charging it simply because he didn't have a smart phone.

Is this how it is going to be ? If one doesn't keep up with the latest technology then you won't be able to be part of the future society.

How long before people like Apple or Google lock the system into their products ?

Pretty much as Google have done with Google Earth. If you don't have Chrome, you can't download Google Earth.

I'll add a link to EVM when I get one. It is quite interesting.

INT21

 

[INT21]

I notice that on post #2184 above, the link to the EVM video doesn't work if I am using Firefox browser.

It does work if I use Avast browser.

INT21

 

[Mythopoeika]

Oddity - a rectangular iceberg!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45953252

 

[RaM]

They will have to make chargeing lecy vehicles secure enough so that when they start slapping on fuel tax it will be very difficult to avoid paying it.

 

[Coal]

They will have to make chargeing lecy vehicles secure enough so that when they start slapping on fuel tax it will be very difficult to avoid paying it.

What about home generation? Battery stacks, small solar panel installations, small wind-turbines and so on. Those will boom if they can be hooked straight to a car and bypass the mains meter. Not exactly illegal either.

 

[RaM]

It wont be difficult considering the amount of computers cars have these days to get
them to report when they are charged, then there is the much hated road charging
to fall back on if all else failed, cant see them giving up the £28 or so billion it raises
without a fight.


Found the EVM clip interesting I don't care what makes it go as long as it does and I can
afford it.

 

[Coal]

It wont be difficult considering the amount of computers cars have these days to get
them to report when they are charged, then there is the much hated road charging
to fall back on if all else failed, cant see them giving up the £28 or so billion it raises
without a fight.

I worked out a few yeas back that the feed in tariff was such that if I had 'economy seven', I could charge a stack of car batteries on the night rate, then feed the power back into the grid and make money...as long as it looked as if I had solar panels...

 

[RaM]

I worked out a few yeas back that the feed in tariff was such that if I had 'economy seven', I could charge a stack of car batteries on the night rate, then feed the power back into the grid and make money...as long as it looked as if I had solar panels...

That would be interesting if enough people did it.

 

[INT21]

Of course, first you have to buy your batteries.

INT21

 

[ramonmercado]

Good news for Nebraska farmers but the silver lining may have a cloud in the future.

Corn farmers in Eastern Nebraska have long claimed weather patterns are changing, but in an unexpected way.

“It’s something I’ve talked about with my dad and grandad many times,” says fifth-generation corn farmer Brandon Hunnicutt. Along with his father and brother, the 45-year-old lives in the 400-person village of Giltner and grows about 2,000 acres of corn each year. From above, the area looks like a blip of homes surrounded by an expansive grid of circular fields. Though Brandon’s grandfather is retired, he takes an active interest in the business. “Contrary to what you’d think should be happening, both him and my dad swear up and down [that] droughts used to come more often and be a lot worse,” says Hunnicutt. “Considering it’s been 30 years since we had a really bad one, I’ve started kind of taking them at their word.”

This is not the only noticeable development—University of Nebraska climatologists say the growing season has gotten 10-14 days longer since 1980. Hunnicutt now waits until the first weeks of November to pilot his 40-foot-wide, dump-truck-sized combine through the farm’s widely arching, seemingly endless rows of corn—enough to cover 800 city blocks.

Though subtle, the Hunnicutts have noticed these changes and more.
“To be successful in this business, you’ve got to pay close attention to the weather,” explains Brandon. In the past 20 years, on top of the above, he’s noted a gradual decrease in 100-degree days during the summer. “That missing digit isn’t something you overlook,” he asserts with a laugh. “High temperatures create a lot of anxiety. If they go on long enough, they’ll scorch your corn and put a hurtin’ on your bottom line!”

A 2018 report issued by climate researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claims to have solved the mystery and verified farmers’ suspicions: Namely, that large-scale corn production has changed the weather.

https://www.wired.com/story/corn-fi... NL 120518 (1)&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl

 

[ramonmercado]

Some really good news.

• David Vaughan at the Mote Laboratory is growing coral 40 times faster than in the wild.
• It typically takes coral 25 to 75 years to reach sexual maturity. With a new coral fragmentation method, it takes just 3.
• Scientists and conservationists plan to plant 100,000 pieces of coral around the Florida Reef Tract by 2019 and millions more around the world in the years to come.

The news has not been encouraging as of late if you are one to pay attention to either climate change or The Great Barrier Reef: coral reefs are an incubator of the ocean's ecosystem. They account for less than 1% of the ocean and yet manage to provide food and shelter to over one quarter of all marine species in the ocean, as well as support fish that ultimately feed over one billion people. This is why it was distressing to note — in addition to the world losing Ruth Gates, a scientist renowned for her advocacy for saving coral reefs — that two thirds of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia — the largest living structure in the world — had in effect been killed off as of last year (a process called 'bleaching') by the rise in temperature brought about by global warming and climate change.

https://bigthink.com/surprising-sci...-revitalize-oceans?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

 

[Naughty_Felid]

I don't believe the transition will be that quick.

Pure electric vehicles remain ill-suited for people whose driving requirements involve more than shopping trips around a single urban / suburban locale. Even though I've cut my total yearly mileage by around 50% over the last decade, I still do a lot of long distance cross-country trips. The notion of a pure electric transition is a non-starter for me.

Hybrids are a more reasonable, and more popular, option at this time. I suspect there will be an intermediate phase during which hybrids, rather than pure electrics, will be the segment pushing the IC vehicles toward extinction on a longer timeline.

I remain skeptical about the hybrid and electric tech base being 'mature', even though it's come a long way.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the alternative fuels promoters (natural gas; hydrogen) are on a longer path to marketability, and I don't believe it's safe to conclude they won't play at least a transitional role before all is said and done.

Another factor is the inertia induced by the used vehicle aftermarket. The current vehicles (of all types) will have to work their way through the secondary market and subsequent service lives before any transition can be completed.

I agree we've not found the holy grail of batteries yet. Batteries that are safe, light and are able power vehicles anywhere near the performance of petrol/diesel engines.

 

[ramonmercado]

Good news but you won't be able to do it at home to keep the fire burning.

Scientists can now turn CO2 in the air into solid coal
The cost-effective method could revolutionize how we remove carbon from the atmosphere, particularly in regard to climate change.

• A team of scientists used liquid metal and a liquid electrolyte to convert gaseous CO2 into a solid, coal-like substance.
• Compared to current methods, the new approach could prove to be a more efficient and scalable way to remove carbon from the atmosphere and safely store it.
• The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the global community must remove 100 billion to 1 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by mid-century in order to avoid catastrophic global warming.

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/carbon-dioxide-into-coal

 

[hunck]

Good news but you won't be able to do it at home to keep the fire burning.

Scientists can now turn CO2 in the air into solid coal
The cost-effective method could revolutionize how we remove carbon from the atmosphere, particularly in regard to climate change.

• A team of scientists used liquid metal and a liquid electrolyte to convert gaseous CO2 into a solid, coal-like substance.
• Compared to current methods, the new approach could prove to be a more efficient and scalable way to remove carbon from the atmosphere and safely store it.
• The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the global community must remove 100 billion to 1 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by mid-century in order to avoid catastrophic global warming.

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/carbon-dioxide-into-coal

On the face of it this looks interesting. I note that

"A side benefit of the process is that the carbon can hold electrical charge, becoming a supercapacitor, so it could potentially be used as a component in future vehicles," Dorna Esrafilzadeh, a Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellow in RMIT's School of Engineering, told The Independent. "The process also produces synthetic fuel as a by-product, which could also have industrial applications."

 

[AlchoPwn]

Good news but you won't be able to do it at home to keep the fire burning.
Scientists can now turn CO2 in the air into solid coal
The cost-effective method could revolutionize how we remove carbon from the atmosphere, particularly in regard to climate change.

The real question is how much energy does it take per ton of new coal? If we wind up burining more coal than we remove through the process, we aren't really ahead. I would carefully pick through the new coal supply chain to get my answers before saying this was as wonderful as it potentially could be.

 

[INT21]

Yeah...you'll note that a lot of the UK nuclear power stations are slap bang on the seashore...'just in case' they need a lot of water in a hurry, a cynic might think.

Quite so. One would have expected them to pick some place with a bit of elevation..

But I suppose that when they were planning the sites the threat of sea level rise wasn't part of the consideration.

 

[Mungoman]

I am in a quandary.

The cause of climate change is, reputedly, excessive CO2 - I'm told that it absorbs heat and traps it, not allowing it to radiate out of the atmosphere, which alters all sorts of things.

So I look at the capability of CO2 to absorb heat, and the capability of water vapour to absorb heat and it is indicated that water plays a major part in temperature regulation.

With CO2, there are something like 406 ppm in the atmosphere, which is 0.04%.

With water vapour, there is approximately, at any one time, 4% - which is 40,000ppm.

So...why is CO2 such a bug bear when there is so much more water vapour in the atmosphere.

Sorry, after two multi hour bouts of surgery I have the attention span of a gnat...otherwise i would've looked through previous posts.

 

[Mythopoeika]

I am in a quandary.

The cause of climate change is, reputedly, excessive CO2 - I'm told that it absorbs heat and traps it, not allowing it to radiate out of the atmosphere, which alters all sorts of things.

So I look at the capability of CO2 to absorb heat, and the capability of water vapour to absorb heat and it is indicated that water plays a major part in temperature regulation.

With CO2, there are something like 406 ppm in the atmosphere, which is 0.04%.

With water vapour, there is approximately, at any one time, 4% - which is 40,000ppm.

So...why is CO2 such a bug bear when there is so much more water vapour in the atmosphere.

Sorry, after two multi hour bouts of surgery I have the attention span of a gnat...otherwise i would've looked through previous posts.

There is also the problem of methane...
The significance of CO2 has been massively overstated, probably because there seems to be a correlation between CO2 and temperature rise. However... correlation is not causation.
I've heard that the temperature rise occurs before the rise in CO2.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... So...why is CO2 such a bug bear when there is so much more water vapour in the atmosphere.

The relative heating effect relates not to absorption of heat per se, but rather to absorption and re-radiation of longer wavelength (e.g., toward the infrared) radiation.

Solar radiation entering the atmosphere is reflected off the earth's surface in the form of longer wavelength radiation (compared to what originally entered the atmosphere from the sun). Atmospheric gases are relatively transparent to the incoming solar radiation, but much less transparent to the longer-wavelength reflected radiation.

Elemental molecules comprising the atmosphere (e.g., raw nitrogen, oxygen) don't (or at least don't significantly) absorb and re-radiate these longer wavelengths.

Larger compound molecules in the atmosphere (e.g., H2O, CO2, methane) more readily absorb this longer-wavelength reflected energy and then re-radiate it in all directions (including back downward to the earth's surface).

The classic 'greenhouse effect' is primarily a matter not of trapping or absorbing heat from immediately incoming solar radiation, but rather absorbing and re-radiating downward infrared radiation that's already reflected off the earth's surface.

H2O is itself a 'greenhouse gas', but its ubiquity in the atmosphere makes it a constant presence about which little can be done. In contrast, the CO2 level is increased by actions / reactions generating more CO2 - most importantly from all forms of combustion. Combustion associated with human activity is something humans may, in principle, be able to manage to some extent. This is why CO2 gets all the attention.

 

[PeteByrdie]

The relative heating effect relates not to absorption of heat per se, but rather to absorption and re-radiation of longer wavelength (e.g., toward the infrared) radiation.

Solar radiation entering the atmosphere is reflected off the earth's surface in the form of longer wavelength radiation (compared to what originally entered the atmosphere from the sun). Atmospheric gases are relatively transparent to the incoming solar radiation, but much less transparent to the longer-wavelength reflected radiation.

Elemental molecules comprising the atmosphere (e.g., raw nitrogen, oxygen) don't (or at least don't significantly) absorb and re-radiate these longer wavelengths.

Larger compound molecules in the atmosphere (e.g., H2O, CO2, methane) more readily absorb this longer-wavelength reflected energy and then re-radiate it in all directions (including back downward to the earth's surface).

The classic 'greenhouse effect' is primarily a matter not of trapping or absorbing heat from immediately incoming solar radiation, but rather absorbing and re-radiating downward infrared radiation that's already reflected off the earth's surface.

H2O is itself a 'greenhouse gas', but its ubiquity in the atmosphere makes it a constant presence about which little can be done. In contrast, the CO2 level is increased by actions / reactions generating more CO2 - most importantly from all forms of combustion. Combustion associated with human activity is something humans may, in principle, be able to manage to some extent. This is why CO2 gets all the attention.

Water vapour is a feedback greenhouse problem of course, as more heat means more evaporation. On the other hand, resulting clouds may increase the Earth's albedo, counteracting a little of global warming, but it's unclear to what extent. My first steps into 'climate skepticism' were taken because someone convinced me that the climate would 'self-regulate', with increased water vapour meaning more clouds meaning more sunlight reflected away, blah blah.