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

[PeterSt]

Scotty ...

[Ralf11]

a 30 mph limit is unlikely & if any limit were to be adopted it should the speed of max. fuel efficiency

 

EV range is an issue today but fast (very fast) recharging is coming soon...

 

Back to Methane:

 

largest sources are wetlands & rice paddies

 

next, ruminants & termites (which are linked to tropical deforestation)

 

coal mining, gas production, landfills are in the 3rd tier

 

what is worrisome is that CH4 levels are rising faster than expected - while the source is unclear it may be from loss of permafrost in tundra regions, and there are some large bubble like objects in Siberia suggesting that warming is starting to liberate large amounts of CH4 (which will cause even more warming)

 

 

for a brief response to some of the crazier posts above - Gloggle Arrhenius to see when the "global warming thing" started

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

when the "global warming thing" started

 

After the last Ice Age.

[Ralf11]

scientific understanding of the effect dates to the 1800s

 

it was noted in greenhouses before that but not known as to the mechanism

 

 

[esldude]

6 hours ago, semente said:

An electric train would probably be a good alternative.

I agree with Paul.  Too sparsely populated in much of the USA for trains to replace regular transportation for daily needs.  Australia would be even more so except for isolated locations.  

[esldude]

41 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

scientific understanding of the effect dates to the 1800s

 

it was noted in greenhouses before that but not known as to the mechanism

 

 

Yes, Fourier showed that the greenhouse effect kept the earth warmer than if there was no atmosphere via CO2 and other gases. 

 

Which brings to mind a certain hard core anti-global warming friend.  He told me it was all invented to get money and grants that no one heard of the greenhouse effect before the 1990's.   Now I remember when I first heard the term.  I was in grade school and it was in the mid 60's.  In science we learned about the greenhouse effect and that without it the earth would be cold.  It stuck in memory because relatives had greenhouses, and kept something growing in them even in winter.  I remember the illustration showing light goes through the glass, strikes physical objects and is turned into infrared or heat waves.  The glass can contain infrared, and so can carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

When I relayed this to my friend, he said that might be my memory, but it was corrupted by all this climate change baloney I believed in.  When I showed him the info on Fourier he still wouldn't believe it.  The fellow is normally level headed and rational, but remains like a religious zealot denying the changing climate.  

[Ralf11]

I taught it to general ecology undergrads. in the 1980s...

 

The "invented to get money and grants" screed is something put out by the PR firm for the fossil fuels industry -- and guess what?  

 

It is the same PR firm that the big tobacco co.s used in their pro-cancer smoking campaign...

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

a 30 mph limit is unlikely & if any limit were to be adopted it should the speed of max. fuel efficiency

 

EV range is an issue today but fast (very fast) recharging is coming soon...

 

Well the speed for max efficiency is about 45 mph.  But that is with vehicles designed to drive up hills without flagging at 80 mph.  If you don't build for that you could lower the speed of max efficiency and increase the efficiency.  There is little to be gained going slower than 30 mph.  And without putting a sharp pencil to it, there may be little dropping below 45 or 40 mph. 

 

This still would help EV's and their range is going to benefit greatly from lower speed which means even with fast charging the charging takes less time.  

 

I'd done some calculations a decade or so ago about what range and weight of batteries is most efficient.  It was obvious with lithium good ranges were possible, and Tesla built cars that were largely in agreement with my calculations.  Lowering the speed, and reducing the aero drag portion of energy use shifts to smaller battery packs being optimum.  Which would lower the cost of the cars, speed recharging, and still provide useful range. 

[elcorso]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

After the last Ice Age.

 

Of course !  I copy this from Google. Don't know if Democrat Google or the Republican one:

 

 

On the Pura Vida Country Google (Where I live) they add:  

 

"Freezing is necessary to cleanse the planet of ungrateful scientists ..."

 

Roch

 

 

 

 

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

I agree with Paul.  Too sparsely populated in much of the USA for trains to replace regular transportation for daily needs.  Australia would be even more so except for isolated locations.  

Early last month Sydney unveiled a new driverless multi $ Billion  train route between Tallawong in far western Sydney and Chatswood on Sydney's lower North Shore which markedly reduced travel times for many, and took many cars and buses off the road.

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Yes, Fourier showed that the greenhouse effect kept the earth warmer than if there was no atmosphere via CO2 and other gases. 

 

Which brings to mind a certain hard core anti-global warming friend.  He told me it was all invented to get money and grants that no one heard of the greenhouse effect before the 1990's.   Now I remember when I first heard the term.  I was in grade school and it was in the mid 60's.  In science we learned about the greenhouse effect and that without it the earth would be cold.  It stuck in memory because relatives had greenhouses, and kept something growing in them even in winter.  I remember the illustration showing light goes through the glass, strikes physical objects and is turned into infrared or heat waves.  The glass can contain infrared, and so can carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

When I relayed this to my friend, he said that might be my memory, but it was corrupted by all this climate change baloney I believed in.  When I showed him the info on Fourier he still wouldn't believe it.  The fellow is normally level headed and rational, but remains like a religious zealot denying the changing climate.  

 

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 

 

 

 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Or they try to totally deny it?  

 In the case of Politicians, it is more likely due to their vested interest financial backers who have too much to lose financially if we get really serious about combatting Climate Change. They don't care as long as their profits keep increasing every financial year.

 

 

Michael Douglas in " Wallstreet 1987"

[Ralf11]

[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.  

[elcorso]

14 hours ago, sandyk said:

 In the case of Politicians, it is more likely due to their vested interest financial backers who have too much to lose financially if we get really serious about combatting Climate Change. They don't care as long as their profits keep increasing every financial year.

 

 

Michael Douglas in " Wallstreet 1987"

 

Hi Alex,

 

A very hot topic ! Politicians try to govern many times seeing only the short term and even their possible re-elections.

 

I see everything very complicated. Try to provide the growing population of the planet with abundant and cheap food at once: The excuse of GMO foods and the use of glyphosphate.

 

By the way, glyphosphate is produced and sold, even cheaper, by other agricultural industries that is not Monsanto, disguising its name.

 

Provide humanity only with organic food? A dream impossible to realize. I tried it once. They end up being very lazy and therefore very expensive to produce.

 

Wrap our purchases in paper to avoid plastic? I would have to see if the deforestation that this produces counteracts plastic contamination.

 

Electric cars? The problem that the disposal of the batteries they use is already mentioned. I see, like @PeterSt  a better future in the energy coming from hydrogen. In this small country there is already someone working on that, a former NASA astronaut, who is one of our citizen. There is no good financing and of course the powerful fossil fuel industry does the impossible so that it does not prosper.

 

Recently in my country they tried to reintroduce bioethanol, but they could not do it because, public opinion based on the damage it produces in old engines and because the production of it generates a huge amount of pollutants in its industrial process.

 

The insecticides used every day are more dangerous and even do not smell. There is one in particular (from Nicotinioide family) that is killing the population of bees and thus the necessary pollination.

 

Something humanity achieved when it was alarmed by the ozone hole. They replaced the propellants in the aerosol cans, changed the type of gas in the refrigeration equipment, etc.

 

With respect to the global warming, there must be an attitude of the whole humanity and each one of us, with still more aggressive campaigns that have to come from the school.

 

Now, how much corresponds to the pollution that we generate and how much is derived from the "glacial periods"? They talk that only 5% is our fault, and if this is true we should try to prevent it, such as by changing the techniques of agricultural production, but not living as in the middle ages.

 

Best,

 

Roch

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Summit said:

 

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.  

 

Yeah? I just gave you an example of people talking about human caused warming effects from 1977. More than 40 years ago. And the topic was not new then. Still think you have a lock on the truth? 

 

Nonsense is the crap you just pulled. Assuming because someone questions the popular consensus - not the science - that they have no idea what they are talking about. 

 

All I have advocated is far more study before making irreversible changes. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows what the consequences of some of the “recommended” actions would be. The law of unintended consequences does apply here. 

 

I will again direct you to the environmental movement of the 60s and 70s. Study please the success and failures, as well as the economic costs paid and social changes that were forced.  “Silent Spring” changed the way a generation thought.  But it took a lot more to clean up rivers and smog. It was not cheap in any sense if the word. 

 

And a great deal of what was accomplished is being nullified by greedy politicians and people who did not go through living with toxic rivers. 

 

And that was just in the US. You are naive indeed to think you can get the whole world to agree with and work on climate change problems without economic and other direct benefits to the people. You have to give people better options than to simply “suffer for the good of the world.“

 

You can not even get past the Republican opposition here. 

 

 

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, Paul R said:

All I have advocated is far more study before making irreversible changes.

What irreversible changes are you talking about? We can always resume burning coal later.

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

What irreversible changes are you talking about? We can always resume burning coal later.

 

Where's your model for what will happen if the 1st world nations stop burning coal? You are saying all the climate, weather, social, economic, and other changes will be reversible? Or that they simply won’t matter to the top 5% or so of society and therefor are not important? 

 

And, if you decide you need to start burning coal again, will the infrastructure to do so still be in place? Mines, trains, coal fired power plants? Do you not think we had best replace those coal plants with something else before we stop using them? And deal with the economic/social disruption of stopping coal usage before we shut down an entire industry? 

 

And that is just coal, of which I barely brought up just the tip of the iceberg.

 

How about other hydrocarbon fuels? Deforestation reversal? How much irrigation will be necessary to grow foodstuffs? Where will that water come from and what will it cost? What are the effects (economic, social, legislative, etc.) of the rationing that has been suggested? 

 

I do not see good solidly researched answers to those and literally dozens of other topics. We have to be as sure as we can we take the right actions. 

 

Put a few billion into research over the next five years

[Ralf11]

Thx for that non-answer - none of those are irreversible 

 

you do not see good solidly researched answers because you are too lazy to look for them

[semente]

What are the building regulations requirements in the US in terms of energy efficiency?

What about rules for sustainable sourcing of timber?

Are solar panels or wind generators a requirement?

Are these regulations local (Statewide) or global (Nationwide)?

Can someone please post a link?

[Ralf11]

most things vary by state, with Calif. requiring PV panels on all new houses

- there have been tax breaks for PV installs, heat pumps, and insulation

 

some cities have adopted LEED stds.

 

no requirements per se for sustainable timber harvest, tho states such as Wash. and Oregon have very minimal stds. requiring timber co.s to do things like replainting (which they would do anyway) on private lands

- federal lands have a bit higher stds. in the PNW, mainly due to lawsuits

 

for forestlands, the big issue in Oregon was to prevent development as Californians & others flood into the state - it dates from 1971; today, the big issue all over the western US is to thin forests to reduce wildfire risk, including mega-fires -- these thinning operations usually cost $$ as the trees are often too small to sell as lumber

 

Wash. has a statewide version of NEPA (a federal law) requiring planning, alternatives & public input; Oregon has land use planning but no state NEPA

 

I'm not aware of a single link, or single compendium on all this

 

to understand the driving impetus for all of this, go upthread and read Sandy's comments about political pressure from large corporations...

 

[semente]

25 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

most things vary by state, with Calif. requiring PV panels on all new houses

- there have been tax breaks for PV installs, heat pumps, and insulation

 

some cities have adopted LEED stds.

 

no requirements per se for sustainable timber harvest, tho states such as Wash. and Oregon have very minimal stds. requiring timber co.s to do things like replainting (which they would do anyway) on private lands

- federal lands have a bit higher stds. in the PNW, mainly due to lawsuits

 

for forestlands, the big issue in Oregon was to prevent development as Californians & others flood into the state - it dates from 1971; today, the big issue all over the western US is to thin forests to reduce wildfire risk, including mega-fires -- these thinning operations usually cost $$ as the trees are often too small to sell as lumber

 

Wash. has a statewide version of NEPA (a federal law) requiring planning, alternatives & public input; Oregon has land use planning but no state NEPA

 

I'm not aware of a single link, or single compendium on all this

 

to understand the driving impetus for all of this, go upthread and read Sandy's comments about political pressure from large corporations...

 

 

Thanks.

I've just read a horrifying story on The Guardian about chlorinated chicken, that's enough for one day.

[Ralf11]

just remember: chicken is the tofu of meat

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Thx for that non-answer - none of those are irreversible 

 

you do not see good solidly researched answers because you are too lazy to look for them

 

Reasoning people are really just supposed to accept your word on this?  Resorting to calling people who do not bow down to your mighty intellect lazy?

 

I would love to see the research on economic impact and planning to “start burning coal again.” If it truly exists. Which I would bet it does not. 

 

How about a real plan to switch from fossil fuel to something else? Hydrogen? Dealing with not just first world countries but also developing countries? And without wrecking the economy worse than in 1929? 

 

Let’s hear some of those answers, with details. Betting you are too lazy or consider yourself too important. Usually that means the person is just a blowhard, with no real understanding.

 

Or one of those academics everyone is waiting for to retire, before real progress in a subject can be made. 

 

You have no idea how much I would love to be proved wrong. By anyone, even including a self important puffed up braggart.

 

If you have the answers, put em out.  Unless you are afraid. 

 

 

[esldude]

4 hours ago, semente said:

What are the building regulations requirements in the US in terms of energy efficiency?

What about rules for sustainable sourcing of timber?

Are solar panels or wind generators a requirement?

Are these regulations local (Statewide) or global (Nationwide)?

Can someone please post a link?

State by state. 

 

In my state the regional utility, which owned the state legislature and members of the Public Service Commission (which oversees utilities) got a law passed a few years ago on solar power.  I have to pay my electric company a monthly fee if I have solar power (even if not connected to their grid).  If I connect to the grid and put a surplus of electricity into it, I'll only be paid 20% of what they charge me for electricity.  It was basically designed so the cost of doing this pretty much wipes out any savings I might gain from PV cells.  So any extra cost I have in getting PV cells means it will effectively never get to pay for itself. 

 

This electrical utility has started building some solar farms in the last two years.  PSC president purchased 800 acres of land in the middle of nowhere for cheap.  Then the electrical utility signed a 10 year lease agreement to develop a solar generation facility.  The lease will pay the PSC president about 3 times what he paid for the land.  Now to my great surprise, this did get publicized and they managed to kill that deal.  So the solar farm will be put elsewhere. 

 

Building regs in my state are fairly minimal on energy efficiency.  They do grow lots of timber.  Grow, cut, and re-grow about every 20 years. The land is owned by companies for this purpose.