Climate change and human responsibility

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by zamler

Hydrogen makes up 0.00005% of the atmosphere which makes harvesting it from the air not feasible. To refine from water takes more energy than you get back which makes it an energy storage medium not a fuel. Compare that to oil, coal, natural gas etc. which is the result of millions of years of (mostly) solar energy being concentrated into a small space. And you get much more energy back versus what is needed to bring the energy to market.

To put fossil fuel into perspective a Tesla battery weighs 1000+ pounds and contains as much energy as less than 2 gallons of petrol.

I understand what you’re saying but take issue with saying that Hydrogen is not a fuel. To me a fuel is some material that can be used to provide energy for some equipment or process. Hydrogen is exactly that. I think what you mean is that it isn’t a net energy source given the energy required to isolate it.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Dont look at Facebook comments...literally the worst possible medium to garner public opinion.

Especially because 30% are likely people just trolling.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Dont look at Facebook comments...literally the worst possible medium to garner public opinion.

Unfortunately, that is where many people get most of their information. Any news story to do with the climate attracts hoards of hoax posters.

35% of respondents to our poll don't believe that #1 is the correct statement.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

You’re not wrong and nuclear I think should be vastly more of our energy mix. But also people don’t realize what energy use also entails beyond power.

It means fertilizer. Roads. Plastics of all types. Fuel for jets cars, anything. It means textiles, manufacturing, metallics, construction materials... everything. it literally means everything in our current society’s fabric.

And nuclear doesn’t solve all of these other problems. It solves power. We can’t and don’t have nuclear reactor capability for planes or cars. We need technology to come a long long long way.

Atomic energy would allow us to synthesis fuels and run DAC to counter the emissions. We really need a clean near limitless energy source to make all the other pieces work. Fusion would be ideal, but we can't wait for it.

[stampsx2]

Yes facebook is brutal for accurate information, it’s brimming with climate alarmists. Yes we should help keep climate change under control but climate alarmists will make it sound like life on earth will end in the next 20 years.

The glaciers are melting but according to national geographic we can expect 1-2 feet of sea level rise in the next 100 years.

Every year oceans rise by 3.2 millimeters.

Matter of fact, if all the glaciers in the world melted, sea levels will rise by 60 meters. At current climate temperatures, it would take 5000 years to melt all the glaciers on the planet. By that time, we will probably be looking at colonizing a different solar system.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...horeline-maps/

[troutman]

http://www.impactlab.org/news-insigh...nge-mortality/

• Even after accounting for adaptation, an additional 1.5 million people die per year from climate change by 2100 if past emissions trends continue. For comparison, road injuries killed roughly 1.4 million people worldwide in 2016, and diabetes, ranked as the seventh leading cause of death worldwide, killed 1.6 million people in 2016. These projections include net gains in many regions of the world where lives will be saved from fewer cold days.
• Extreme heat is measurably deadlier for the poorest third of the world, and the decline in cold-related deaths does not offset the harm caused by temperature rise. Higher incomes make societies more resilient to extreme heat, allowing people to make a range of protective investments, including in air conditioning and better building insulation. But for the most vulnerable developing countries, even optimistic economic growth projections do not provide complete protection. The findings show warming caused by an additional ton of CO2 harms 72 percent of the global population, while the rest benefit on net, primarily due to a decrease in cold days.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ng-and-health/

Researchers believe that global warming is already responsible for some 150,000 deaths each year around the world, and fear that the number may well double by 2030 even if we start getting serious about emissions reductions today.

A team of health and climate scientists from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the University of Wisconsin at Madison published these findings last year in the prestigious, peer-reviewed science journal Nature. Besides killing people, global warming also contributes to some five million human illnesses every year, the researchers found. Some of the ways global warming negatively affects human health—especially in developing nations—include: speeding the spread of infectious diseases such as malaria and dengue fever; creating conditions that lead to potentially fatal malnutrition and diarrhea; and increasing the frequency and severity of heat waves, floods and other weather-related disasters.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by troutman

If you look at Facebook comments, it seems about 30% say hoax.

Did you hear the Sam Harris podcast with that lady who researched the anti-vaxxer movement, then Russian bots?

She made some fascinating points about how they make it seem as if far more people hold a position that is in reality.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by troutman

If you look at Facebook comments, it seems about 30% say hoax.

You must have smarter friends than I do. I’m seeing 50 per cent in one thread, however I’m sure that’s not representative of my friends.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Yes facebook is brutal for accurate information, it’s brimming with climate alarmists. Yes we should help keep climate change under control but climate alarmists will make it sound like life on earth will end in the next 20 years.

The glaciers are melting but according to national geographic we can expect 1-2 feet of sea level rise in the next 100 years.

Every year oceans rise by 3.2 millimeters.

Matter of fact, if all the glaciers in the world melted, sea levels will rise by 60 meters. At current climate temperatures, it would take 5000 years to melt all the glaciers on the planet. By that time, we will probably be looking at colonizing a different solar system.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...horeline-maps/

Remember when Gore said the arctic would be ice free in 5-7 years, back in 2008? Some of the predictions are absolute garbage and do not help. I remember one about how climate change is causing more earthquakes or some nonsense.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by troutman

Unfortunately, that is where many people get most of their information. Any news story to do with the climate attracts hoards of hoax posters.

35% of respondents to our poll don't believe that #1 is the correct statement.

To me that just shows that on average Facebook users are not that clever. Time magazine posted a study on GPAs a few years ago and found Facebook users were a full point lower than the average student.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

To me that just shows that on average Facebook users are not that clever. Time magazine posted a study on GPAs a few years ago and found Facebook users were a full point lower than the average student.

Cause the non users are at their jobs and working! Not commenting and posting on stuff like this

Oh crap better get back to work !

[photon]

Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies

Yes, generating hydrogen by electrolysis is a net energy loss. Hydrogen makes sense in certain applications where gains in efficiency from using it in a combustion device helps offset some of the loss from generating the hydrogen.

What efficiency from using it in a combustion device? Burning it is really inefficient unless you're just after the heat (i.e. heating a home).

In a car, burning hydrogen is horribly inefficient, you're far better off going wind turbine -> battery -> move car than wind turbine -> generate hydrogen -> burn hydrogen -> move car.

Fuel cells are far better to use with the hydrogen, and that's still not as good as a battery.

Where hydrogen really has an advantage is in energy density. Batteries are big and heavy, takes a lot of batteries to store the same amount of energy as a few kg of hydrogen.

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by troutman

35% of respondents to our poll don't believe that #1 is the correct statement.

I haven’t read all of the posts. Have any of the hoaxers shown up? We should have a flat earther poll and see how it correlates.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by wwkayaker

I haven’t read all of the posts. Have any of the hoaxers shown up? We should have a flat earther poll and see how it correlates.

Are there physicists presenting research papers that call into question the theory that the earth is round? Cause there are plenty that dispute climate change modelling, as well carbon dioxide and it’s greenhouse effect.

I don’t think it’s fair to imply that those who don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change, are flat-earthers, or gravity deniers like was suggested earlier in this thread.

I didn’t vote hoax, btw.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by photon

Where hydrogen really has an advantage is in energy density. Batteries are big and heavy, takes a lot of batteries to store the same amount of energy as a few kg of hydrogen.

But it gets offset by the complexity of the fuel cell system the Toyota Mirai weighs 4100 lbs that's portly for a car about the size of a Prius. It's as slow as a Prius too and not much more efficient.

[photon]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Are there physicists presenting research papers that call into question the theory that the earth is round? Cause there are plenty that dispute climate change modelling, as well carbon dioxide and it’s greenhouse effect.

I don't think you'll find any physicist disagreeing with the greenhouse effect of CO2, let alone publishing papers that say it, that's basic physics.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think you'll find any physicist disagreeing with the greenhouse effect of CO2, let alone publishing papers that say it, that's basic physics.

You’re right, I misspoke. What I should have said was the greenhouse effect of CO2 relative to that of air.

Here is some work done by Dr. Thomas Allmendinger and Dr. Andreas Rüetschi:

“A Novel Investigation about the Thermal Behaviour of Gases under the Influence of IR-Radiation: A Further Argument against the Greenhouse Thesis”

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc....php?aid=87335

The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found. However, a significant difference could be found between the noble gases argon and helium...

It’s interesting work, and I can’t do it justice with a short summary. Ultimately what they found in their study, though, was that the difference in greenhouse effect between pure carbon dioxide and air was negligible.

Edit: a bit more in-depth version of the study in the International Journal of Physical Sciences (https://www.allphyscon.ch/wordpress/...Gases_IJPS.pdf)

[Mathgod]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...use-effect.htm

[GGG]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

You’re right, I misspoke. What I should have said was the greenhouse effect of CO2 relative to that of air.

Here is some work done by Dr. Thomas Allmendinger and Dr. Andreas Rüetschi:

“A Novel Investigation about the Thermal Behaviour of Gases under the Influence of IR-Radiation: A Further Argument against the Greenhouse Thesis”

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc....php?aid=87335






It’s interesting work, and I can’t do it justice with a short summary. Ultimately what they found in their study, though, was that the difference in greenhouse effect between pure carbon dioxide and air was negligible.

Edit: a bit more in-depth version of the study in the International Journal of Physical Sciences (https://www.allphyscon.ch/wordpress/...Gases_IJPS.pdf)

He proposes with limited justification that about 200 years of modeling and measuring the intensity of GHGs is wrong and instead measuring the limiting twmpteratue is the correct way to do it. Then when his measurement of CO2 and air are similar states that the green house affect isn’t impacted by CO2.

There seems to be a significant lack of justification for why his experiment is actually measuring the properties of the Green House potential of various gasses.

[accord1999]

The argument over CO2 is what its effect is on temperature (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity). In 1979, a off-hand guess of 3C +- 1.5C per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was made. Despite significant research on this topic (which might very well be the single most important equation in all of climate science), the most recent IPCC report in 2014 is still basically in that range. There's a significant difference in the impact to civilization of 1.5C increase per doubling versus 4.5C.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity