Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
XJ40 said:
I've not looked at specifics of the situation, but no doubt your right and they'll be problems. What's the alternative though? As I said above, there's only a finite amount of oil in the ground, it's a unavoidable fact. What happens when we hit peak oil and output starts to trail off? Better to have developed some solutions before that point, even if they are inferior. This climate change issue seems to be forcing the agenda early, perhaps no bad thing..
You are absolutely correct. In fact this problem has been identified since the 1960's, when we only had 10 years of oil left. The situation wasn't much better in the '70s when we only had enough oil to last 20 years.The situation was still very alarming in the 1990. We barely had 30 years before supplies ran out.
Now we only have 40 years before the oil runs out, and it looks like we will run out of gas in as little as 350 years.
If you enjoy worrying about the future, then you should buy yourself a copy of "The population bomb". 300 million people are going to die of starvation by 1978. Isn't that terrifying?
robinessex said:
Durbster, I'll make it easier then. The climate of the planet has been going all over the place for 4.5 billion years without man being present. How ? Why?
Erm, I'm not think anybody has suggested the climate doesn't have natural variations. 
I'm not really sure what you are getting at: climate changes naturally therefore it's impossible for us to influence it?
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Durbster, I'll make it easier then. The climate of the planet has been going all over the place for 4.5 billion years without man being present. How ? Why?
Erm, I'm not think anybody has suggested the climate doesn't have natural variations. I'm not really sure what you are getting at: climate changes naturally therefore it's impossible for us to influence it?
Local climate is affected by LULC/UHIE but this is not a global tax gas effect, it's the reason why temperatures in urban areas are often higher than in rural areas.
What is it that makes you believe in an invisible signal?
Is it because people like the Royal Society, who tell you to take nobody's word for it, have told you to take their word for it?
durbster said:
robinessex said:
No you didn't, you pointed out a stupid experiment which was quickly shot down in flames. Now answer it, specificaly. With common sense and logic like I did.
It's an experiment that proves the greenhouse effect. Why do you think it was shot down in flames?Grant funded scientists tell us that there are positive feedbacks which will increase the temperature rise, but they cannot tell us what these feedbacks are.
Can you explain these feedbacks to us?
If you can then you will be up for a Nobel Prize.
If you cannot, then you are gullible.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Durbster, I'll make it easier then. The climate of the planet has been going all over the place for 4.5 billion years without man being present. How ? Why?
Erm, I'm not think anybody has suggested the climate doesn't have natural variations. I'm not really sure what you are getting at: climate changes naturally therefore it's impossible for us to influence it?
robinessex said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Durbster, I'll make it easier then. The climate of the planet has been going all over the place for 4.5 billion years without man being present. How ? Why?
Erm, I'm not think anybody has suggested the climate doesn't have natural variations. I'm not really sure what you are getting at: climate changes naturally therefore it's impossible for us to influence it?
As there's been little to no warming for quite a while, the whole thing is moot anyway - the only warming is hidden away in made up computer code!
Talking of the power of the climate, I thought this an interesting summary :-
A hurricane releases energy through the formation of clouds and rain (it takes energy to evaporate all that water). If we crunch the numbers for an average hurricane (1.5 cm/day of rain, circle radius of 665 km), we get a gigantic amount of energy: 6.0 x 10^14 Watts or 5.2 x 10^19 Joules/day!
This is equivalent to about 200 times the total electrical generating capacity on the planet! NASA says that "during its life cycle a hurricane can expend as much energy as 10,000 nuclear bombs!" And we're just talking about average hurricanes here, not Katrina.
Volcanoes also release mind-boggling quantities of energy, though usually not quite on the scale of hurricanes (thankfully for those who live near!). But if we look at a well-known major volcanic eruption, the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, we find that: "In all, Mount St. Helens released 24 megatons of thermal energy, 7 of which was a direct result of the blast. This is equivalent to 1,600 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima" (U.S. Geological Survey).
But Mount St. Helens wasn't even at the top of the scale of Volcanic Explosivity Index. It was a class 5, and the scale goes up all the way to 8, which are called "mega-colossal" eruptions. These class 8 super-volcanos erupt extremely rarely (otherwise we wouldn't be here), but when they do, more than 1,000 cubic kilometers of rock and ash are ejected, the climate of the whole planet is affected for extended periods of time, and mass-extinctions can be expected. Now that is powerful! To get anywhere close to that kind of energy release, the U.S. and Russia would have to use their entire nuclear arsenals simultaneously, and even that might not be enough to compare depending on how long the volcanic eruption lasts.
Last, but not least, are earthquakes. The surface of the Earth is constantly affected by tectonic forces, and in certain places, the pressure accumulates enough to make the crust bend slightly. But because rock is very rigid, this stress eventually makes it snap back into a new position, releasing massive amounts of energy. These sudden movements, called seismic waves, vary widely in severity. From wobbling the water in your glass to the complete destruction of whole cities, depending on their intensity.
On Earth, it is estimated that there's an earthquake every 30 seconds. But the vast majority of those are too weak to be perceptible without very sensitive equipment. Large earthquakes, 6 and up on the Richter scale, happen over 100 times a year, though not always in densely inhabited regions.
A magnitude 4.0 earthquake is only equivalent to about 6 tons of TNT explosives, but because the Richter scale is a base-10 logarithmic scale, the amount of energy released increases quickly: A magnitude 5.0 earthquake is about 200 tons of TNT, magnitude 6.0 is 6,270 tons, 7.0 is 199,000 tons, 8.0 is 6,270,000 tons, and 9.0 is 99,000,000 tons of TNT. As you can imagine, 99 million tons of TNT is enough to destroy just about anything, and is the equivalent of about 25,000 nuclear bombs.
A hurricane releases energy through the formation of clouds and rain (it takes energy to evaporate all that water). If we crunch the numbers for an average hurricane (1.5 cm/day of rain, circle radius of 665 km), we get a gigantic amount of energy: 6.0 x 10^14 Watts or 5.2 x 10^19 Joules/day!
This is equivalent to about 200 times the total electrical generating capacity on the planet! NASA says that "during its life cycle a hurricane can expend as much energy as 10,000 nuclear bombs!" And we're just talking about average hurricanes here, not Katrina.
Volcanoes also release mind-boggling quantities of energy, though usually not quite on the scale of hurricanes (thankfully for those who live near!). But if we look at a well-known major volcanic eruption, the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, we find that: "In all, Mount St. Helens released 24 megatons of thermal energy, 7 of which was a direct result of the blast. This is equivalent to 1,600 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima" (U.S. Geological Survey).
But Mount St. Helens wasn't even at the top of the scale of Volcanic Explosivity Index. It was a class 5, and the scale goes up all the way to 8, which are called "mega-colossal" eruptions. These class 8 super-volcanos erupt extremely rarely (otherwise we wouldn't be here), but when they do, more than 1,000 cubic kilometers of rock and ash are ejected, the climate of the whole planet is affected for extended periods of time, and mass-extinctions can be expected. Now that is powerful! To get anywhere close to that kind of energy release, the U.S. and Russia would have to use their entire nuclear arsenals simultaneously, and even that might not be enough to compare depending on how long the volcanic eruption lasts.
Last, but not least, are earthquakes. The surface of the Earth is constantly affected by tectonic forces, and in certain places, the pressure accumulates enough to make the crust bend slightly. But because rock is very rigid, this stress eventually makes it snap back into a new position, releasing massive amounts of energy. These sudden movements, called seismic waves, vary widely in severity. From wobbling the water in your glass to the complete destruction of whole cities, depending on their intensity.
On Earth, it is estimated that there's an earthquake every 30 seconds. But the vast majority of those are too weak to be perceptible without very sensitive equipment. Large earthquakes, 6 and up on the Richter scale, happen over 100 times a year, though not always in densely inhabited regions.
A magnitude 4.0 earthquake is only equivalent to about 6 tons of TNT explosives, but because the Richter scale is a base-10 logarithmic scale, the amount of energy released increases quickly: A magnitude 5.0 earthquake is about 200 tons of TNT, magnitude 6.0 is 6,270 tons, 7.0 is 199,000 tons, 8.0 is 6,270,000 tons, and 9.0 is 99,000,000 tons of TNT. As you can imagine, 99 million tons of TNT is enough to destroy just about anything, and is the equivalent of about 25,000 nuclear bombs.
robinessex said:
No. The climate changes continously, by sometimes large amounts, and good old earth shrugs it's shoulders, and just carries on. So the minute contribution that may be attributable to humana counts for diddly squat as far as planet earth is concerned. Yes, it is impossible for us to imfluence the climate, we're miniscule nothings as far as Earths climate is concerned.
In fairness I did read a fantasy genre novel where humans had discovered that it's the oceans that cause climate change and had added something to them to cause them to become a gel , therefore effectively holding the weather and climate in a stable position. So in the world of fantasy humans can influence the climate.Maybe that's the same world Climate alarmists live?
don4l said:
XJ40 said:
I've not looked at specifics of the situation, but no doubt your right and they'll be problems. What's the alternative though? As I said above, there's only a finite amount of oil in the ground, it's a unavoidable fact. What happens when we hit peak oil and output starts to trail off? Better to have developed some solutions before that point, even if they are inferior. This climate change issue seems to be forcing the agenda early, perhaps no bad thing..
You are absolutely correct. In fact this problem has been identified since the 1960's, when we only had 10 years of oil left. The situation wasn't much better in the '70s when we only had enough oil to last 20 years.The situation was still very alarming in the 1990. We barely had 30 years before supplies ran out.
Now we only have 40 years before the oil runs out, and it looks like we will run out of gas in as little as 350 years.
If you enjoy worrying about the future, then you should buy yourself a copy of "The population bomb". 300 million people are going to die of starvation by 1978. Isn't that terrifying?
There's plenty of criticism of climate science and renewable energy here, rightly or wrongly, but no answers to what we'd do in a post fossil fuel reality, which will come at some point. This is relevant to the politics of the situation. I can completely understand the will to present the science correctly, that's commendable. But what outcome is desired beyond that? It seems to me that looking to curtail fossil fuel useage into the future, and developing more and better renewable energy technology is a positive aim, if not for climate change then for the reasons I've given.
Edited by XJ40 on Wednesday 2nd December 21:01
s and chancers the lot of them...XJ40 said:
don4l said:
XJ40 said:
I've not looked at specifics of the situation, but no doubt your right and they'll be problems. What's the alternative though? As I said above, there's only a finite amount of oil in the ground, it's a unavoidable fact. What happens when we hit peak oil and output starts to trail off? Better to have developed some solutions before that point, even if they are inferior. This climate change issue seems to be forcing the agenda early, perhaps no bad thing..
You are absolutely correct. In fact this problem has been identified since the 1960's, when we only had 10 years of oil left. The situation wasn't much better in the '70s when we only had enough oil to last 20 years.The situation was still very alarming in the 1990. We barely had 30 years before supplies ran out.
Now we only have 40 years before the oil runs out, and it looks like we will run out of gas in as little as 350 years.
If you enjoy worrying about the future, then you should buy yourself a copy of "The population bomb". 300 million people are going to die of starvation by 1978. Isn't that terrifying?
There's plenty of criticism of climate science and renewable energy here, rightly or wrongly, but no answers to what we'd do in a post fossil fuel reality, which will come at some point. This is relevant to the politics of the situation. I can completely understand the will to present the science correctly, that's commendable. But what outcome is desired beyond that? It seems to me that looking to curtail fossil fuel useage into the future, and developing more and better renewable energy technology is a positive aim, if not for climate change then for the reasons I've given.
Edited by XJ40 on Wednesday 2nd December 21:01
Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.
or indeed 
PRTVR said:
So let's see what advancements have been forthcoming from the development of renewable energy, solar panels, not that effective at night, so need normal generators for the times when we use most electricity,
Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.
I accept the limitation of current wind and solar energy technology. Fossil fuels are currently cheap so these renewables don't look viable comparitively at the moment. It stands to reason that one day fossil fuels will be more scarce and hence costly, more costly than the alternatives.Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.
I can only assume that the refusal to acknowlegde this simple fact means that some here hold that the unscientific view that fossil fuels are infinite and we can burn them forever more.
XJ40 said:
PRTVR said:
So let's see what advancements have been forthcoming from the development of renewable energy, solar panels, not that effective at night, so need normal generators for the times when we use most electricity,
Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.
I accept the limitation of current wind and solar energy technology. Fossil fuels are currently cheap so these renewables don't look viable comparitively at the moment. It stands to reason that one day fossil fuels will be more scarce and hence costly, more costly than the alternatives.Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.
I can only assume that the refusal to acknowlegde this simple fact means that some here hold that the unscientific view that fossil fuels are infinite and we can burn them forever more.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
If you haven't taken a look at these I would respectfully suggest that you do, if you already have taken a look then you will appreciate that the attempted smear/rejection by durbster fails totally as there is a fundamental and irreducible problem facing renewables.
XJ40 said:
PRTVR said:
So let's see what advancements have been forthcoming from the development of renewable energy, solar panels, not that effective at night, so need normal generators for the times when we use most electricity,
Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.
I accept the limitation of current wind and solar energy technology. Fossil fuels are currently cheap so these renewables don't look viable comparitively at the moment. It stands to reason that one day fossil fuels will be more scarce and hence costly, more costly than the alternatives.Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.
I can only assume that the refusal to acknowlegde this simple fact means that some here hold that the unscientific view that fossil fuels are infinite and we can burn them forever more.
XJ40 said:
PRTVR said:
So let's see what advancements have been forthcoming from the development of renewable energy, solar panels, not that effective at night, so need normal generators for the times when we use most electricity,
Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.
I accept the limitation of current wind and solar energy technology. Fossil fuels are currently cheap so these renewables don't look viable comparitively at the moment. It stands to reason that one day fossil fuels will be more scarce and hence costly, more costly than the alternatives.Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.
I can only assume that the refusal to acknowlegde this simple fact means that some here hold that the unscientific view that fossil fuels are infinite and we can burn them forever more.
XJ40 said:
PRTVR said:
So let's see what advancements have been forthcoming from the development of renewable energy, solar panels, not that effective at night, so need normal generators for the times when we use most electricity,
Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.
I accept the limitation of current wind and solar energy technology. Fossil fuels are currently cheap so these renewables don't look viable comparitively at the moment. It stands to reason that one day fossil fuels will be more scarce and hence costly, more costly than the alternatives.Wind turbines, again no power when we have no wind, as happened for 4 days last month, so again we need to pay for normal power stations to be on stand by, there was a reason we stopped using windmills, they are not the future, they are the past, so far the advancements have been rubbish and I see no reason to believe that the future hold much hope, but I hope I am wrong.
I can only assume that the refusal to acknowlegde this simple fact means that some here hold that the unscientific view that fossil fuels are infinite and we can burn them forever more.
XJ40 said:
I accept the limitation of current wind and solar energy technology. Fossil fuels are currently cheap so these renewables don't look viable comparitively at the moment. It stands to reason that one day fossil fuels will be more scarce and hence costly, more costly than the alternatives.
I can only assume that the refusal to acknowlegde this simple fact means that some here hold that the unscientific view that fossil fuels are infinite and we can burn them forever more.
As an engineer I'd like to think that you are aware of the incredible ability humans have to solve problems. Fossil fuels running out isn't presently a problem however I have every confidence that when it is identified as a problem then we will deal with it.I can only assume that the refusal to acknowlegde this simple fact means that some here hold that the unscientific view that fossil fuels are infinite and we can burn them forever more.
Your current approach appears to assume that peak oil will come as a surprise and without renewables we will be plunged back into the dark ages. My view is that when we need to make the change renewables won't be part of that equation as we would have long since found a better solution.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff