-
@booboo said in Climate Change Thread #3:
I interesting listen. It reinforces a lot of what the other video says though. There clearly is not a consensus on the level of mans effect on climate change.
-
comments are always amusing
I know this is a couple of years old....
-
@taniwharugby While on the Antarctic - there is some good news (and we may need a bit less sunblock in NZ).
It shows that human activity does have an impact on things and that we can change our ways to help the planet (and ourselves).
-
Yeah I remember ozone layer and CFCs being the thing when I was a kid. Scientists said "Hey this shit is bad" and people said "alright we'll stop it" and now we have an outcome.
Big difference between then and now - that was a few chemicals we had to find alternatives for, that we'd not really been using for a long period of time.
Climate change is an energy system we have to remake, that we've been using for centuries.
-
@NTA Strangely the increased number / violence of storms around the world will be generating more ozone, I would assume anyway. I'm no expert. So you lose one, you win one, maybe?
Could always tell when flying around thunderstorms that there was lightning about ( the distinct smell of ozone).
-
Sorry to dredge this one up again but I've recently become friends with an actual climate scientist which has proven surprisingly fascinating. We've only had a couple discussions over beers (well mostly me on the beers). He's from China which is fascinating on its own. Having now started giving a tiny bit more credence to the possibility that climate change may not be manmade or more likely that programs like the Paris accord might just be a gargantuan waste of money that could be put to better environmental solutions, I naturally had to ask him his thoughts. Obviously since 97% of scientists apparently agree I expected to be rightfully put in my place...except I wasn't.
I will get more specifics later on but the gist of the chats we have had is that 'yes' climate is warming. But according to all analysis he cannot say with any confidence that this is caused by man. He says with the one set of results he can proove both the manmade climate change theory as well as disprove it depending on how they want to present it. The complexities are so vast you cannot get close to getting a truthful answer and if anything the more they have discovered the more they have found they can't explain. He also says trying to monetise CO2 emmisions is just stupid. This guy is on a whole level of intelligence above mine so I need a lot of dumbing down to try and follow him properly and no beer does not aid that process.
-
@Rembrandt said in Climate Change Thread #3:
Sorry to dredge this one up again but I've recently become friends with an actual climate scientist which has proven surprisingly fascinating. We've only had a couple discussions over beers (well mostly me on the beers). He's from China which is fascinating on its own. Having now started giving a tiny bit more credence to the possibility that climate change may not be manmade or more likely that programs like the Paris accord might just be a gargantuan waste of money that could be put to better environmental solutions, I naturally had to ask him his thoughts. Obviously since 97% of scientists apparently agree I expected to be rightfully put in my place...except I wasn't.
I will get more specifics later on but the gist of the chats we have had is that 'yes' climate is warming. But according to all analysis he cannot say with any confidence that this is caused by man. He says with the one set of results he can proove both the manmade climate change theory as well as disprove it depending on how they want to present it. The complexities are so vast you cannot get close to getting a truthful answer and if anything the more they have discovered the more they have found they can't explain. He also says trying to monetise CO2 emmisions is just stupid. This guy is on a whole level of intelligence above mine so I need a lot of dumbing down to try and follow him properly and no beer does not aid that process.
That has been my experience talking to scientists about it. One simply said "we just don't fucking know".
This is why it's infuriating when people try to equate global warming skepticism with being an antivaccer. It's complete bullshit. As is the disgusting use of the word "denier" to link skeptics to holocaust deniers.
-
Thought that rather than start a new topic I'd modify this one. This post is kind of related anyway but I'm sure we're all tree hugging greenies deep down and need a place to discuss ways to save our planet ...
Saw this column in stuff which expressed some of my gut feelings about how banning of plastic shopping bags is counter productive. But the dude provides some additional numbers to back it up.
-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Thought that rather than start a new topic I'd modify this one. This post is kind of related anyway but I'm sure we're all tree hugging greenies deep down and need a place to discuss ways to save our planet ...
Saw this column in stuff which expressed some of my gut feelings about how banning of plastic shopping bags is counter productive. But the dude provides some additional numbers to back it up.
Great post.
I particularly liked the sarcastic line about how it's not important to make a difference, just appear to be making a difference.
That could be said to be the motto of the entire political and activist class.
-
@booboo Not often you read something you agree with 100%, but that is it for me.
What people don't understand is plastic bags are (almost) free because the feedstock they're made from is what's left over after we make transport fuels. One barrel of oil is split up into the things with the highest demand: petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, and the sludge left over is made into plastic bags, or put on roads. The greenie argument that we're turning oil into plastic bags then throwing them away isn't the environmental disaster its made out to be.
-
@tewaio yeah, I discovered this a few years back too - although the colossal piles of plastic floating around the ocean is certainly a byproducts of it.
Same argument goes for shipping and the heavy fuel oil they burn. I've never touched it, but apparently it's almost like tar.
-
it's just those irresponsible cnuts who litter...those bags have so many uses3
-
@majorrage Yep, that's why shipping stuff is cheap, plastic bags are cheap, candles are cheap, and (per sq metre) road surfacing is cheap. It's all making use of the abundant byproducts of refining.
I saw an ad on Facebook the other day that asked "why don't we use recycled plastic rather than digging up oil to surface our roads?". It's quite amazing to get that many wrong statements in one sentence.
-
@taniwharugby said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
it's just those irresponsible cnuts who litter...those bags have so many uses3
They do and I originally missed them when Canberra banned them, but you don't see as many lying around as litter. @MajorRage 's point is also valid; the sea is littered with plastic because people are lazy.
-
I got sent this article by a greenie family member recently. It's pretty doom and gloom so no doubt plenty of points worth debating in there, but the thing that stood out to me was him saying there is absolutely no way renewable energy can replicate what the fossil fuels do, despite so many left wing leaders claiming it to be the solution to our woes if we just invested more.
Interested to get other more knowledgeable Ferners thoughts on this.
-
@No-Quarter Quarter said:
I got sent this article by a greenie family member recently. It's pretty doom and gloom so no doubt plenty of points worth debating in there, but the thing that stood out to me was him saying there is absolutely no way renewable energy can replicate what the fossil fuels do, despite so many left wing leaders claiming it to be the solution to our woes if we just invested more.
Interested to get other more knowledgeable Ferners thoughts on this.
This has been known for ages. Just ask anyone who actually works in energy. It's a ridiculously expensive joke.
-
@No-Quarter first thing to point out that its a very old article (2014) in the scheme of the energy markets, so it stops at certain assumptions made at the end of 2013 - particularly with regard to the rate at which energy consumption is increasing.
All the assumptions are also very Yank-centric, which is not a bad metric to use as they're the big economy. However, it fails to understand the scale of China's efforts to address efficiency in energy generation - particularly as it relates to public health.
China spent more on energy efficiency than everyone in the world spent on renewables in 2015, which makes economic sense over everything else. Don't use it, you save money all the way up the chain.
While wind and solar are the big targets, the mention of biofuels shows the article's age more than anything. It is barely a blip on the radar of vehicle manufacturers who are now looking to battery technologies and electrification of fleet to help with emissions standards.
Biofuels were always a pipe dream - consume too much productive land in terms of bang for buck, diverting valuable food production areas into a pointless exercise IMHO.
The article doesn't even reference the big player in renewables - hydro. This is a massive oversight as it is far and away the biggest piece in the puzzle, delivering as it does the storage component for excess wind and solar, as well as high-availability demand response when the other resources on the grid are low.
Add in the emergence of grid-scale battery storage - also barely conceivable in 2014 - and the change in grid demand patterns, and you're looking at a very different grid in 2025 than you did in 2013-2014.
And that is the key point: renewables won't replicate what fossil fuels do, because what fossil fuels provide is increasingly irrelevant. The role of "baseload" is diminishing.
Yes there will always be a need for a certain level of power to flow around any grid, and that can be filled by fairly static sources like Coal and Oil do today (still well over 30% of world energy usage each).
But the way in which we consume power is changing, and the cost of relying on older technologies - and the environmental issues they're creating - is rising.
Financial institutions are starting to consider other impacts of fossil fuels when money needs to go down, because profits are slim to start with. Add in the possibility that your local coal fired power company might have to foot the bill for reparations across a range of health sectors, and you make risk assessors very nervous about handing out 50-year loans.
Nuclear is even more expensive than that (double or more), and more heavily subsidised than coal in some nations.
Meanwhile renewables are getting so cheap that their subsidies are having limited time frames put on them. The challenge is to build a grid that will integrate new tech as coal stations start to die, because not a lot of them are going to be built in future.
Anyone who works in energy will tell you that.
EDIT: I should add that we're going to have coal for a while yet, and that time would best be used to figure out the integration piece for newer technologies.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of small-scale nuclear is eventually considered even considering the cost, because if you distribute it right then it provides genuine benefit.
-
NTA said:
@No-Quarter first thing to point out that its a very old article (2014) in the scheme of the energy markets, so it stops at certain assumptions made at the end of 2013 - particularly with regard to the rate at which energy consumption is increasing.
All the assumptions are also very Yank-centric, which is not a bad metric to use as they're the big economy. However, it fails to understand the scale of China's efforts to address efficiency in energy generation - particularly as it relates to public health.
China spent more on energy efficiency than everyone in the world spent on renewables in 2015, which makes economic sense over everything else. Don't use it, you save money all the way up the chain.
While wind and solar are the big targets, the mention of biofuels shows the article's age more than anything. It is barely a blip on the radar of vehicle manufacturers who are now looking to battery technologies and electrification of fleet to help with emissions standards.
Biofuels were always a pipe dream - consume too much productive land in terms of bang for buck, diverting valuable food production areas into a pointless exercise IMHO.
The article doesn't even reference the big player in renewables - hydro. This is a massive oversight as it is far and away the biggest piece in the puzzle, delivering as it does the storage component for excess wind and solar, as well as high-availability demand response when the other resources on the grid are low.
Add in the emergence of grid-scale battery storage - also barely conceivable in 2014 - and the change in grid demand patterns, and you're looking at a very different grid in 2025 than you did in 2013-2014.
And that is the key point: renewables won't replicate what fossil fuels do, because what fossil fuels provide is increasingly irrelevant. The role of "baseload" is diminishing.
Yes there will always be a need for a certain level of power to flow around any grid, and that can be filled by fairly static sources like Coal and Oil do today (still well over 30% of world energy usage each).
But the way in which we consume power is changing, and the cost of relying on older technologies - and the environmental issues they're creating - is rising.
Financial institutions are starting to consider other impacts of fossil fuels when money needs to go down, because profits are slim to start with. Add in the possibility that your local coal fired power company might have to foot the bill for reparations across a range of health sectors, and you make risk assessors very nervous about handing out 50-year loans.
Nuclear is even more expensive than that (double or more), and more heavily subsidised than coal in some nations.
Meanwhile renewables are getting so cheap that their subsidies are having limited time frames put on them. The challenge is to build a grid that will integrate new tech as coal stations start to die, because not a lot of them are going to be built in future.
Anyone who works in energy will tell you that.
EDIT: I should add that we're going to have coal for a while yet, and that time would best be used to figure out the integration piece for newer technologies.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of small-scale nuclear is eventually considered even considering the cost, because if you distribute it right then it provides genuine benefit.
So much pie in the sky there. And where is hydro or nuclear going to be built? Certainly not in western countries. So that basically leaves solar and wind. Good luck with that.
Coal is only "dying" in countries where they are committed to ridiculous renewable targets, thus no longer making it viable to invest in coal plants.
You also write "baseload" as if it is some kind of myth. It isn't.And of course the price of power explodes, as usual impacting the most on those who can least afford. But of course that can't have anything to do with renewable policies can it?
It's great to have renewables as part of the energy mix (like China has done) but there is no way we can have cheap and reliable energy from solar and wind. So before ditching the existing tech it might be good to actually have something viable to replace it with. Vague claims are not good enough.
Btw biofuels is a classic example of this mad green rush to use renewables. It was dodgy as fuck from the getgo, but any dissenting voices were screamed down because it was great for "da urnvironment".
Climate Change