The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[Summit]

16 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean accurate reproduction of the recording. If that’s what it meant, then an Edison cylinder player could be considered High-Fidelity!

 

High fidelity is kind of vague but mostly refer to the pre-recorded live sound while accuracy refers to the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound.

 

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary#kIWfHoIKDwKvb8JR.99

[Summit]

9 hours ago, Paul R said:

Oi - not head in the sand, but more caution about what is being missed. 

 

For example, we do not want to accidentally trigger a new ice age with blind climate engineering. We already have 100 years or more of that experience behind us. You can grow food pretty much anywhere it is warm, but not on glaciers. 

 

Also, separating the politics from the science is difficult. But you really don't want a bunch of grubbing politicians deciding climate issues based upon whatever the most benefit to them would be, do you? 

 

It is difficult to answer why simple actions are not being taken. Seriously, paint your roof and driveway white. That will do more to alleviate current global warming trends that people in first world countries taking pains with plastic. 

 

Do realize our entire civilization is based upon high-density energy sources. Three-quarters of the world - or more - would starve without those energy sources. 

 

Cultural sensitive food?  If people are starving, they don't get to be picky about the nutrition available to them. Be that wheat vs rice or pigs vs chicken. Cultural sensitivity is a *luxury* - reserved for times when people are not starving. 

 

 

 

The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the greater the greenhouse effect. There is no doubt about that, none. Should greenhouse gas emissions continue at present rate it will cause severe negative effects on all from economy, ecosystems and biodiversity to human livelihood.

 

It’s true that a higher levels of CO2 can result in increased plant growth, but only up to a point after that there will be no positive effects. The main problem for plants is not the level of CO2 its water and climate.

[Summit]

The economic costs of climate change is massive. Already in sir Nicholas Stern’s report from 2006 the report states that climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, presenting a unique challenge for economics. The cost of not doing nothing (or enough) is much greater than the cost of taking actions and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions.

 

“Sir Nicholas Stern, former Chief economist of the World Bank, was asked by the British government to lead a review on the economics of global climate change. The Stern Review was published in October 2006 and attracted a great deal of attention from various circles, from academic to NGOs and the media in Europe, but also worldwide. This article aims first to highlight the Review’s main points and to single out a selection of the most significant factual data and quantitative evaluations that make up the Review’s rich contribution to the subject, going beyond the well-publicised striking results in which the possible damages of climate change are compared to the impact of the two world wars of the 20th century, but lasting forever. The survey concludes with reflections on criticism of the Stern Review made by several economists, mostly in the US, regarding the integrated assessment modelling exercise included in the Review. The most consequential criticisms are related to the low discount rate used to tackle this very long-term issue and the treatment of adaptation of future generations to a new global climate. Paradoxically, the much-attacked choice of a low discount rate chosen to ensure an equal treatment of the utility of all generations is the best-grounded in the utilitarian philosophy that underpins the type of economics that both the Stern Review and most of its critics share.”

 

https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/240

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-how-much-climate-change-could-cost-the-u-s/?redirect=1

[Summit]

Yes the planet has been warmer in the past, but if the global warming continue it will get so warm that the permafrost melts and leak methane which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. If permafrost starts leaking methane the global warming will not be stoppable and the affects will be devastating for the life as we know it.  

 

@ esldude many reports of the cost of climate change has been published after Nicholas Stern’s report from 2006.  

 

Am an Environmental Economics 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

[Summit]

14 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Heck, we were taught about this in the science texts in the 1960s. I remember 3rd grade class project was a terrarium, and explanations of the greenhouse effect. And as a freshman, listening to this 5 minute radio interview with Issac Asimov made great sense to me. Amazingly, his off the cuff prediction? Spot on. 

 

So why do people today either glom onto the idea as if it is a brand new idea? Or they try to totally deny it?  Beats me.  

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

 

Really, after reading your nonsense posts on Saturday I thought you were a Global Warming denial.

 

The knowledge of the greenhouse effect is old, the knowledge about the human-caused climate effects is not that old and is still evolving.  

[Summit]

7 hours ago, elcorso said:

 

I read the article and it leaves me many doubts ...

 

Increase in temperatures of 0.82 Celcius from 1850 to 2015 ...

 

"It is believed" that it is due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere ... That is, they are not sure ...

 

On the other hand, where on our planet were these measurements taken?

 

Were the measurements taken in 1850 accurate?

 

Being in the milk business for many years I remember an article published about 30 years ago in a prestigious industry magazine, Hoard's Dairyman, where they said that cows were a danger because their high breath in methane could cool the earth. ..!

 

Maybe we need more cows breathing 🤔

 

Roch

 

The measurements wasn’t taken in 1850. The measures from that time is from ice cores.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#how-do-we-measure-or-estimate-co2-emissions

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-highest-point-human-history-180972181/

 

You have got it upside down 🙃, cow’s breathe out and farts methane gas which is a strong greenhouse gas. More methane gas in the atmosphere has a warming effect.

[Summit]

On 9/28/2019 at 5:17 AM, John Dyson said:

 

Before reading all of this -- remember that the big thing here is POLITICAL POWER, where the energy issues(CO2, warming, etc) are secondary to the ACTUAL goals.  Of course, the 'peons' in the struggle believe in their goal -- that is GOOD.

 

If you remember -- the big thing in the past was GLOBAL COOLING...  Since the scientifically incompetent environmentalists (and the more competent scientists) have learned more, now the terminology is 'warming' or 'change' to avoid terminology  problems in the future.  Frankly, some of our extremists will try to figure out how to blame the sun for the biggest change in global temperatures, and outlaw the sun!!?!?!

 

Where are the growing CO2  problems coming from?  If the US/EU stopped ALL carbon output, the problem is not solved.

 

China would have to start fixing the problem NOW.  So far, the US is doing something (not so much blathering with silly treaties that aren't followed.)  Step by step from dirty Coal (like China & India) to less dirty natural gas (esp if we sell more of it to help others), then another step later on.  Flash cut isn't going to work.

 

A defective treaty that doesn't *really* cover China and India is simple nonsense.  That is the major motivation for the US not to tie itself down, but still decreasing CO2.

 

It is very reasonable and rational to state -- no matter if humanity stops producing any CO2, the global warming will continue.  There are numerous reasons, and the world will also start cooling soon (it is a cycle also.)  Too many variables, and too few/inaccurate models to understand REALLY what is going on.  Of course, there are those tryign to grab political power (the leaders of the environmentalists.)  Most likely they are just as power mad as the evil corrupt capitalists -- they are just too weak to expose themselves yet.

 

It is insane to assume that windmills can replace a quick start natural gas power plant, and I'd suspect that most people in the US won't tolerate losing most of their freedom.  Think about energy storage -- that is a major technology -- think also about exploding Lithium cells.  Do you know why they can explode? -- LOTS of energy storage.   There is the need for HUGE amounts of research...  Do we want our expensive research towards CO2 and other pollution reduction to be stolen by China?  That stuff is called IP.

 

The US/EU are doing lots of research towards CO2 goals, China is building more and more Coal plants.  Our money and resources MUST go where the good (or attempted good) is being done.

 

John

 

 

Incompetent environmentalists, too many variables, and too few/inaccurate models to understand REALLY what is going on etc etc, you say. To me it’s evident that you don’t know what you are talking about.

[Summit]

Environmental regulations in Egypt is lacking big time. A new bridge in Giza, Egypt, has upset people in the area. The bridge runs so close to the residential buildings that residents will be able to walk from their balconies to the bridge.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/har-ar-bron-som-nastan-snuddar-husen

[Summit]

9 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

This looks really sick.

 

 

Yep it is sick. I work with environmental regulations before roads and other big infrastructure are built in Sweden and can say that the regulations are very different, which am happy for.

 

I have been to Egypt (2006) and the air and cars in Cairo was the worst I have seen ever and I have been to a lot of places.

[Summit]

Despite all the talk about the importance of a green transition in the economy, at least $ 151 billion has been invested in fossil fuels during the corona pandemic. Only $88.63 billion supporting clean energy.

 

https://www.energypolicytracker.org/region/g20/

[Summit]

2 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

 

Greta has what qualifications in the scientific community? Wasn't she the one who had a car full of plastic wrappers from food, while complaining about the plastics within the ecosystem. POT kettle BLACK. Who/what is going to replace the oil used to manufacture our everyday products as well as reduce the population to reduce resource usage. You want to die first?? Your kids? Manufacturers need to get onboard instead of planned obsolescence.

 

You don’t need to be a scientist to understand IPCC’s comprehensive Assessment Reports. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s goal is to guide and explain to politicians and others science and risks related to climate change.

[Summit]

6 hours ago, GregWormald said:

A good read indeed.

 

I do wish, however, that people would stop looking at Norway as an example. Norway is very different from much of the world, getting almost all its own power from hydro-electric sources. It's also one of the largest oil exporters in the world, so overall not as 'green' as it is often made out to be.

 

Yes Norway is best in class if we are talking about their own energy use and also has the largest fleet of electric vehicles per capita. 

 

Norway is big on oil exporters and even bigger on natural gas. This is IMO a bit like a drug dealer that doesn't use its own stuff but have no problem selling it to others.

 

OTOH natural gas is much better than coal, so maybe not as bad in the grand scheme of things after all! ?

[Summit]

21 hours ago, botrytis said:

Right now, electric vehicles, for the US is a non-starter. Need charging stations across the nation. California has them on US Rte 5 up and down the coast. but that is the only state. 

 

Until electric cars have ranges in the 500 miles or so AND can be fully charged in 5 minutes, they will remain a niche market. The other problem with the batteries are too heavy - liquid batteries. When they go solid state and the weight goes down, you may have a chance also.

 

The other way is alternative fuels. Cummings Diesel, in the US, has designed a hydrogen powered engine, that runs a generator that will power train locomotives. This is more viable.

 

I have stayed out of this discussion because I worked in biofuels research for 20 years or more.

 

https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC

 

https://www.plugshare.com/ 

 

https://chargemap.com/map