Climate impacts 'overwhelming' - UN

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Minx wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats cute. It might work if we had the global power needs of 1907.

Are you sure?

Look it up.

For the record I'm all for renewable energy sources (I'm a hydrogen economy advocate) and cost efficient recycling (or my wife is). But cost/benefit needs to be applied to everything, and nuttiness like banning barbeque pits is just the trappings of hysteria from a new religion.

**whembly**

Mr. Burning wrote:

Scientific Fact.
Trusted third parties.
Top Scientists.

Heres an idea - Tell us climate change is happening - the possible causes - and the end result has the potential to be bad for our current way of life. The debate as to what is causing climate change needs to be held separately as far as possible.

Lets have some honest debate as to possible repercussions of climate change on our way of life and discuss ways which we can adapt.

Word...

No need to predict the apocalypse here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Minx wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats cute. It might work if we had the global power needs of 1907.

Are you sure?

Look it up.

For the record I'm all for renewable energy sources (I'm a hydrogen economy advocate) and cost efficient recycling (or my wife is). But cost/benefit needs to be applied to everything, and nuttiness like banning barbeque pits is just the trappings of hysteria from a new religion.

Wait...wut?

Who's banning BBQ pits?

Them fighting words man!

**Frazzled**

Southern California was at least floating it.

**Minx**

Frazzled wrote:
Look it up. ... But cost/benefit needs to be applied to everything

It's possible; no serious doubt about that. And it's going to be (way) more expensive, e.g. some scenarios for the next 50 years in Japan predict 25-100% increase of costs depending on the transition speed and whether nuclear fission is phased out fast, slow or not at all. Even the CO_2 emissions might increase significantly for a few decades if the transition is done very fast and without nuclear fission.
As for the benefits, (most likely publicly funded) r&d, new jobs building the necessary new power lines and solar-/ wind-farms, and new opportunities to export that technology to developing countries. It's mostly going to be a long term investment for the coming generations though.

**Frazzled**

Wait, so now you're saying Japan can power itself exclusively with solar and wind farms?

Please come back when your serious.

**Co'tor Shas**

Actually that is conceivable. It would take a lot, but it is possible.

**Kilkrazy**

Japan ought to use geothermal.

Apart from setup and maintenance costs, they could probably power the whole country for free.

**nkelsch**

whembly wrote:

Who's banning BBQ pits?

Them fighting words man!

Campfires and other open flames are bad for the environment. During the winder, a large portion of airborn pollution is from woodburning stoves. They are also inefficient for cooking. You can burn like 1/10th the biofuel in something like a rocket stove and cook way more food. one log can fuel a rocket stove for a month opposed to dozens of logs cooking one campfire meal.

If some had it their way, campfires, fireplaces in houses, firepits, BBQ grills, all would be illegal. You can heat and cook with way more efficient technologies which create less airborn particles and are better use of the fuel.

**Frazzled**

nkelsch wrote:
whembly wrote:

Who's banning BBQ pits?

Them fighting words man!

Campfires and other open flames are bad for the environment. During the winder, a large portion of airborn pollution is from woodburning stoves. They are also inefficient for cooking. You can burn like 1/10th the biofuel in something like a rocket stove and cook way more food. one log can fuel a rocket stove for a month opposed to dozens of logs cooking one campfire meal.

If some had it their way, campfires, fireplaces in houses, firepits, BBQ grills, all would be illegal. You can heat and cook with way more efficient technologies which create less airborn particles and are better use of the fuel.

See what I mean?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Japan ought to use geothermal.

Apart from setup and maintenance costs, they could probably power the whole country for free.

Are you mad! That will awaken Godzilla! Did we not learn our lesson with Rodan?

**Peregrine**

Frazzled wrote:
Southern California was at least floating it.

Yeah, but who cares about them. It's not like they have real BBQ anyway. Banning whatever abomination they make there would probably be good for all of us.

**Frazzled**

This is indeed a true statement. When I lived in CA, I drove ten miles through Crip riddled side streets to get decent barbeque from an expat Louisiana couple.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
This is indeed a true statement. When I lived in CA, I drove ten miles through Crip riddled side streets to get decent barbeque from an expat Louisiana couple.

CA does have fething awesome barbacoa (mexican bbq).

**Da Boss**

When people say fracking is a "clean" fuel, do they mean it is low in terms of non-CO2 emissions? Like, it has a low sulphur dioxide output? Because I can't see a way to burn a hydrocarbon without releasing a crap ton of CO2. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

I could see it having a low NO2 output, but NO2 is not the main culprit in global warming.

**Co'tor Shas**

The idea is that it usually fully combusts leaving none of the intermediates of the reaction is my understanding. The problem is that nay 'cleaness' of natural gas is more than compensated by the amount of chemicals that go into the environment and our water supplies, so it isn't any better. It can also cause earthquakes and fires are quite common.

**Da Boss**

Yeah, but if it combusts fully it still leaves CO2 and H2O as the end products, both of which are greenhouse gases. So it's hardly an alternative.

**whembly**

The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.

1: This graph is highly topical. It is right up to date. Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) is one of the two satellite-based datasets (the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). And RSS is one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). As this month, RSS is usually the first to report, and its latest monthly value, for February 2014, became available just hours ago.

2: The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations of the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe enabled the age of the Universe to be determined: it is 13.82 billion years.

3: The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly directly from the RSS website. They are read down from the text file by a computer algorithm and plotted automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum size. The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted beneath the dark blue spline-curve showing the actual data is calculated by the method of least-squares linear regression, which determines the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. Least-squares linear regression is used by the IPCC and by most other agencies for determining global temperature trends. Interestingly, it is recommended by Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in one of the Climategate emails, so no one on the true-believing side will challenge its appropriateness. The reliability of the trend calculation by the algorithm was verified by Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne.

4: The graph is news. Not only is it very recent: it is also something that the mainstream news media very seldom reveal. They tend to keep the now embarrassingly long hiatus in global warming secret.

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, but if it combusts fully it still leaves CO2 and H2O as the end products, both of which are greenhouse gases. So it's hardly an alternative.

Water is a greenhouse gas? Now this is just getting stupid.

**Da Boss**

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, yes.

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, yes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Water precipitates. Clearly we must nuke all the water from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

**Da Boss**

Dude, you're really making your ignorance of this topic abundantly clear here. A quick google would tell you that water vapour is a hugely significant greenhouse gas, along with methane and all the rest.

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:
Dude, you're really making your ignorance of this topic abundantly clear here. A quick google would tell you that water vapour is a hugely significant greenhouse gas, along with methane and all the rest.

Now you're worried about limiting...water?

I feel either a Battle LA or Dune reference coming on.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazz, excess H2O is bad. Just like how we have had CO2 in our air for the duration of history, it's just that we have excess now.

No offense meant, but you are acting kind of obtuse on this.

**Da Boss**

Yeah, I mean, some warming is of course normal- without it, there'd be no life on earth because too much of the heat would be reflected back into space.

One issue with water vapour is, the warmer it gets the more water the air can hold, which acts as a positive feedback loop.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whembly- that satellite does not take into account ocean warming.

In any case, short term noise does not buck the overall trend. And yes, 17 years is short term in this situation.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
For the record I'm all for renewable energy sources (I'm a hydrogen economy advocate) and cost efficient recycling (or my wife is). But cost/benefit needs to be applied to everything, and nuttiness like banning barbeque pits is just the trappings of hysteria from a new religion.

Absolutely everything needs to be seen in terms of cost & benefit (the issue being that we need to start including environmental costs in those calcs).

And while hydrogen is likely to be part of our future energy needs, what's important is not to look at any single tech as the solution. We will need to develop a range of technologies, and deploy each where they are effective.

Solar power, for instance, generates nowhere near enough power to cover our energy use, but collected at the point of use (ie on the roof of the household) its a nice supplement to other energy sources (especially once commercially viable power storage becomes viable).

And one more point on your comment that our power use is nothing like it was in 1907 - that's true... but only for us in the developed world. In much of the developing world today, households use far less power than we used in 1907, but are likely to increase in the next few generations. But as they do expand, given the sheer numbers in India, Africa and China, it would be an ecological disaster it their power consumption was provided by new coal plants. Technologies that are comically limited for our power consumption, like solar leaves, actually make a lot of sense when looking at very modest households that simply want enough power to provide heating and a handful of electronic appliances.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Japan ought to use geothermal.

Apart from setup and maintenance costs, they could probably power the whole country for free.

Iceland is powered on geothermal, and actually exports power to Europe. Mind you, Iceland has more volcanoes that people, so it isn't a solution for everyone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Wait...wut?

Who's banning BBQ pits?

Them fighting words man!

Open fire pits are banned here in Western Australia but only on the hottest days, and only because of the fire hazard. Banning open fires because of the fuel inefficiency and emissions seems a really, really silly focus on a very trivial part of the problem. Not saying it isn't happening somewhere, just that it's silly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Word...

No need to predict the apocalypse here.

While there's been too much nonsense about environmental apocalypse from my side, there's far more hysteria about economic apocalypse coming from your side of the fence.

Soon as everyone can settle down and start talking about a steady, long term solution to a long term environmental issue then that'd be awesome.

**Peregrine**

sebster wrote:
Solar power, for instance, generates nowhere near enough power to cover our energy use, but collected at the point of use (ie on the roof of the household) its a nice supplement to other energy sources (especially once commercially viable power storage becomes viable).

Well, somewhat true. It's pretty limited in a lot of places, and needs some other energy source to handle peak loads and periods of bad weather, but solar thermal plans can provide power on the scale of coal/nuclear/etc in the right locations. Like geothermal/hydroelectric/wind it makes a lot of sense to use it where the conditions are right, and then use nuclear to fill in the gaps.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.

If we pick out the hottest year on record, and look only at surface temperature, and ignore that most cyclical patterns are on a downswing compared to 1997, then it hasn't gotten any hotter!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
Well, somewhat true. It's pretty limited in a lot of places, and needs some other energy source to handle peak loads and periods of bad weather, but solar thermal plans can provide power on the scale of coal/nuclear/etc in the right locations. Like geothermal/hydroelectric/wind it makes a lot of sense to use it where the conditions are right, and then use nuclear to fill in the gaps.

Solar in large scale plants only makes sense if we assume that current price decreases will carry on for an extended period. Which might be true and is what some people are saying, but there is likely a floor to the price of photovoltaic cells that will make limit their viability economically.

And note I'm not saying we should just accept they can't be a larger part of the final solution - I'm just saying we can't bank on that. We're really in a stage where it makes sense to explore all kinds of technology to see what ends up delivering, and adapting all practical technologies where they make the most sense.

**BarBoBot**

ROFL when the previous graph showed an upward trend in temp because it conviently didnt go back to 1998 all the man made warming pushers toted it as an absolute sign of global warming.

Now that a graph showing that it has in fact NOT gotten warmer since 1998 is put forth its scoffed at as not accurate!

When they started this man made global warming BS they said we would be almost to the point of not return by now!

Hilarious that when facts don't fit their agenda they are ignored and mocked.

This is why the whole "man made global warming" movement is failing to convince the masses... Because the science is CLEARLY not settled.

**Peregrine**

sebster wrote:
Solar in large scale plants only makes sense if we assume that current price decreases will carry on for an extended period. Which might be true and is what some people are saying, but there is likely a floor to the price of photovoltaic cells that will make limit their viability economically.

I'm talking about solar thermal (use a giant field of mirrors to focus sunlight onto a tank of water and generate steam), not photovoltaics. The big limiting factor with solar thermal isn't the cost or technology, it's the very limited number of sites that get enough consistent sunlight to make it a viable option.

**sebster**

Peregrine wrote:
I'm talking about solar thermal (use a giant field of mirrors to focus sunlight onto a tank of water and generate steam), not photovoltaics.

That's a thing? Pretty cool if it works.

The big limiting factor with solar thermal isn't the cost or technology, it's the very limited number of sites that get enough consistent sunlight to make it a viable option.

In terms of the capital costs per watt solar is still very expensive, it only gets around that cost by being viable at small scale, allowing you to install panels at the point of consumption (ie on rooftops). And sure, limited spaces and suitable times are a limiting factor as well, but not so much when seen as a supplemental energy source.

**Peregrine**

sebster wrote:
That's a thing? Pretty cool if it works.

Yep. And not just a theoretical thing, there are already large-scale solar thermal plants in operation, producing the same level of power as coal/nuclear/etc plants.

In terms of the capital costs per watt solar is still very expensive, it only gets around that cost by being viable at small scale, allowing you to install panels at the point of consumption (ie on rooftops). And sure, limited spaces and suitable times are a limiting factor as well, but not so much when seen as a supplemental energy source.

Again, those only apply to photovoltaics, which I'm not talking about. In fact photovoltaics are pretty much a dead end for power generation (outside of specialized areas where you have to operate off the grid), efficiency is terrible, manufacturing them produces lots of really nasty toxic waste, and the average life of a panel is short enough that it's questionable whether you'll reach the break-even point (without government subsidies) before you have to replace them. Advances in technology could make them a viable option in the future, but right now they're more of a way to make yourself feel like you're doing something than an actual solution.