Thread for discussing climate change

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Gunnar
God
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Gunnar »

VFX Artist Reveals how Many Solar Panels are Needed to Power the ENTIRE World
Among the many interesting facts revealed in this video is that it would require 8 million acres of photovoltaic panels to provide the entire electrical needs of the United States. But this is insignificant compared to the combined total of the 26 million acres devoted to oil and gas production, 10 million acres currently devoted to coal production and the 22 million acres of land used for ethanol production, which adds up to 58 million acres. One very practical way to generate solar electricity is to cover parking lots with raised solar panels for cars to park under. Not only would this provide shade for the cars under them, keeping them from getting too hot inside them, but the sale of the electricity they produced would offset the cost of erecting them. In Los Angeles County alone there are 200 square miles of land set aside exclusively for parking cars. Were they covered by solar panels, they could provide the entire electrical needs of Los Angeles county! A significant portion of the California State Fairgrounds parking lots is thus covered by such shade providing solar panels, making it much more comfortable to get back in one's car when leaving the state fair or whatever other public event was transpiring there.

Breakthrough Solar Panels Store Energy Just Like Plants!
Yes, we have solar panels, but they don't work in the same way plants do. But what if the future Of solar was panels that didn’t create electricity that needed to be used that instant, but instead created fuel that could be used any time? Come join us as we discuss why this technology is so game-changing!
Even if the concerns over anthropogenic global warming were entirely bogus and unfounded (which is certainly not the case, according to 99.9% of the world's scientists), why would anyone object to adopting these innovations, especially when they are already more cost effective than relying on fossil fuel energy, and steadily becoming even more competitive?
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Chap »

Gunnar wrote:
Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:59 am
One very practical way to generate solar electricity is to cover parking lots with raised solar panels for cars to park under. Not only would this provide shade for the cars under them, keeping them from getting too hot inside them, but the sale of the electricity they produced would offset the cost of erecting them. In Los Angeles County alone there are 200 square miles of land set aside exclusively for parking cars. Were they covered by solar panels, they could provide the entire electrical needs of Los Angeles county! A significant portion of the California State Fairgrounds parking lots is thus covered by such shade providing solar panels, making it much more comfortable to get back in one's car when leaving the state fair or whatever other public event was transpiring there.
Yup! From time to time I visit a supermarket in a fairly sunny country, and about a year ago they installed a large area of shaded parking (which in itself is pleasant for those who drive to this supermarket - it is in a rural area where public transport and walking are not practical options).

But the great thing is that the solar radiation that no longer heats up the dark tarmac of the parking and the cars parked on it is used to generate large amounts of free electrical energy from solar cells on the shade structures. There are two big displays on this installation, one showing the current rate of power generation in kilowatts, and the other showing the total energy generated over the previous seven days in kilowatt-hours. I am not the only shopper who looks up at that display and nods with satisfaction at the figures.

Way to go!
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Gunnar
God
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Gunnar »

The parking lot at the local health facility in my town, a few blocks from where I live, is also extensively shaded by solar panels, and most, if not all, of their electrical power comes from those solar panels.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
User avatar
Manetho
Valiant B
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:28 am

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Manetho »

From this interview, the history of climate change science:
Nathaniel Rich wrote:The industry's been following this issue for a long time. There are studies from Exxon or even Humble Oil, the predecessor to Exxon, going back into the mid-1950s, and even then, those studies were not about whether this was happening. The question was how much of the added CO2 in the atmosphere was because of Exxon, basically, because of the fossil fuel industry. And they continued to monitor this over the decades, there were occasional CO2 working groups, study groups, this was going on also at the American Petroleum Institute, the big trade group for the oil and gas industry, and at some of the other companies. And those efforts continued through the '80s, but during that decade it was never a high priority. And I spoke with a lot of people who worked in the industry during that time and people at the highest levels of API, and they really weren't concerned about it, in part because there were no serious efforts in DC to pass laws or policies to reduce emissions.

And it wasn't really until James Hansen spoke before Congress in '88 and generated huge national headlines that they started to worry. And the story of how they began to mobilize this multi-decadal effort to sow propaganda, disinformation, to buy off politicians and scientists and ultimately to convert an entire political party to denialism — the seeds of that you see emerging in the weeks and months after the Hansen hearing. Before that, it was really on the back burner.

After Hansen's hearing, there are these high-level conversations at the American Petroleum Institute and at Exxon about, essentially, what do we do about this? It seems clear that regulation is coming, George Bush is talking about it, and so on. And they reach the same conclusions, Exxon and API. They say, we need to be an active participant in any kind of policy discussion; we need to burnish our credentials as scientific experts on the subject, so we have credibility in it; we need to make sure that the policy doesn't extend beyond what science says; emphasize uncertainty in the science where it exists—that would become crucial later on—and perhaps most important, don't accept any policy that would hurt the bottom line. That's the beginning of it.
And here's the damning bit:
Nathaniel Rich wrote:And then, as almost an afterthought at the time, API through its press office, which is coordinating the press for this industry group, Global Climate Coalition, starts to reach out to a couple of scientists who are friendly with the industry who have expressed some doubt about either the ozone or CO2, and they start encouraging them to speak to the press. Sometimes that encouragement takes the form of payouts — the head of the API program told me they gave $2,000 to a scientist whenever he wrote an op-ed for a national publication.

And that is almost an afterthought at the time, it's pretty low on the totem pole of what they're doing. They're also meeting with congressmen and so on. But it pays enormous dividends, because all of a sudden, national news publications start quoting these scientists — and it's really a handful of people, four or five people — over and over again. And an issue that to this point has been a story about fear of what's going to happen all of a sudden has two sides. And of course that's like catnip for journalists, and all of a sudden you have these pieces that start to appear that say, maybe there's not scientific consensus about this problem.

It starts almost tentatively, it starts with saying, well, it's not as certain as people say it is, as James Hansen says it is, there's problems with the climate models, the computer models, that Hansen uses. And then it goes into, we really don't know what the regional effects will be. And it grows and grows. It's almost like they're encouraged by their success and they become more and more brazen.

And then ultimately you get, after a number of years, into the '90s, you get into this bizarro universe where all of a sudden they're questioning the basic fundamental science itself, and of course that science goes back not just to 1979 but to the late 19th century, about what's the effect of pumping a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere and what warming will that cause.

And so we've entered this weird funhouse realm where now, if you jump ahead to the present day, you have a political party, the only major political party in the world that endorses a position that's essentially to the right, even, of what the industry now says in their public statements. Exxon publicly today doesn't deny climate change, but you have a party that does. And so I think it's something that future historians will spend a lot of time piecing out, is how this little lie grew into a big lie and overwhelmed our politics.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Gadianton »

YouTube came up with a recommendation for a PragerU video on climate change featuring Steve Koonin. Never heard of the guy until today. Impressive credentials save the fact he isn't actually a climate scientist.

Curious what others may know about him.

His video will be super effective, I'm sure; as propaganda, it's first rate. He begins by defining the word "hubris", and calling out the media and "many people" as guilty of Hubris for believing nonsensical things about science.

What made this video so effective? I can't quite put my finger on it. His creds, his confidence, his 'regular-guy' approach decrying elites -- his only direct citation for any alleged fact was from the movie, The Princess Bride. So he's got the whole Cultellus 'guy with a sense of humor against institution of overly-serious woke conscientious thinkers' going on. That's a start.

I want to say what was really effective was how he paints the world of climate information. He doesn't say science is a sham. He claims "journalists" and "the public" misunderstand "the science", and for him, "the science" is "the US Government" and the "UN climate report", which both say our situation is not that bad. At the end of the video, he plugs a book he wrote, but nowhere in the video does he back up any claim with a specific reference. A pretty extraordinary claim: world governments maintain the climate is really okay, but nobody but him has bothered to look to see what the experts really say? Insane, but effective for an audience well primed to believe the liberal media is making it all up. He has this small world of how information works but I can't quite find the words for why it is simultaneously so ludicrous but so effective.

He refutes positions that don't really exist. For instance, "alarmists" say we must "get rid of fossil fuels", but per him, that's not "scientifically possible". What is this supposed to even mean? Obviously, at some point fossil fuels will run out and we'd better be able to find another way. Sure, it would be impossible to do it by next year or the year after.
In fact, the more we learn about the climate system, the more we realize how complex it is. Rather than admit this complexity, the media, the politicians, and a good portion of the climate science community attribute every terrible storm, every major fire to "climate change."
Hold up: who is "we"? It's not him. He does no such research. "We" can't possibly refer to anybody but the "climate science community". And so, he's saying that the climate science community on the one hand, rightfully uncovers the complexity of the climate in a credible way, and on the other "a good portion" of that community completely misrepresents their own discoveries and blames "every terrible storm and major fire" on climate change. It's an insane yet effective statement and I can't quite put my finger on how it is both.

He attacks computer modeling of climate; we can't possibly know anything worth knowing about climate because of all these factors; we have to make assumptions and so on. But then, later in the video, authoritatively states that 60 percent of the Co2 we put in the air today will remain 20 years later (so why do anything). And that little factoid didn't come from a model? (Not to mention, his graphic seriously misrepresents the bond angle of Co2 molecules)
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

I’m just sharing I finally got my solar panels installed. Super happy about it. As an aside, for such a Conservative Trumpy area there’s a surprising amount of people here getting solar for their homes. I think they’re seeing that having solar actually works out with their bottom line, which is kind of neat. I’m acutely aware of the cost to the environment solar panels levies, but after reading, I dunno, twenty articles on the cost/benefit of solar I decided over the long run our array is a net benefit to da erf.

If any gentle readers have south facing roofs, I urge you to consider getting an array.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Atlanticmike
God
Posts: 2721
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:16 pm

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Atlanticmike »

Patrick Michaels, climate models vs reality
https://youtu.be/HdNeMf9T_mg
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Chap »

Just when I was beginning to hope that something even a little bit encouraging would come out of the ongoing negotiations at COP-26 in Glasgow, we get this.

It's bad for all of us who have kids or grandkids. If we can keep the overall global rise since before the Industrial Revolution to not much more than 1.5º C, then for people like me who spend a lot of time well above sea level on a temperate island, things in my location may get uncomfortable but not cataclysmic. Of course people elsewhere may have fire, drought and flood experiences that will have economic and political knock-on effects where I am.

But over 2.4º C? If we get there, all bets are off, wherever we live. Sorry kids. We screwed it up for you, big time, and there is no way back from where we are sending you and your kids.

Forget everything else but this the next time you vote. Compared to this, everything else is just a game of shuffleboard as humanity's Titanic cruises steadily towards the iceberg.


Cop26: world on track for disastrous heating of more than 2.4C, says key report

Research from world’s top climate analysis coalition contrasts sharply with last week’s optimism

The world is on track for disastrous levels of global heating far in excess of the limits in the Paris climate agreement, despite a flurry of carbon-cutting pledges from governments at the UN Cop26 summit.

Temperature rises will top 2.4C by the end of this century, based on the short-term goals countries have set out, according to research published in Glasgow on Tuesday.

That would far exceed the 2C upper limit the Paris accord said the world needed to stay “well below”, and the much safer 1.5C limit aimed for at the Cop26 talks.

At that level, widespread extreme weather – sea-level rises, drought, floods, heatwaves and fiercer storms – would cause devastation across the globe.

Under the 2015 Paris climate accord, nations committed to restricting global temperature rises to ‘well below’ 2C

The estimate stands in sharp contrast to optimistic forecasts published last week that suggested heating could be held to 1.9C or 1.8C, thanks to commitments announced at the talks, now in their second week and scheduled to end this weekend.

Those estimates were based on long-term goals set out by countries including India, the world’s third-biggest emitter, which is aiming for net zero emissions by 2070.

By contrast, the sobering assessment of a rise of 2.4C from Climate Action Tracker (CAT), the world’s most respected climate analysis coalition, was based on countries’ short-term goals for the next decade.

Bill Hare, the chief executive of Climate Analytics, one of the organisations behind CAT, told the Guardian: “We are concerned that some countries are trying to portray [Cop26] as if the 1.5C limit is nearly in the bag. But it’s not, it’s very far from it, and they are downplaying the need to get short-term targets for 2030 in line with 1.5C.”

Emissions will be twice as high in 2030 as they need to be to stay within 1.5C, based on promises made in Glasgow, CAT found. Scientists have warned that beyond 1.5C, some of the damage to the Earth’s climate will become irreversible.

The analysts also found a chasm between what countries have said they will do on greenhouse gas emissions and their plans in reality. If current policies and measures are taken into account, rather than just goals, heating would rise to 2.7C, based on the CAT analysis.

The findings should serve as a “reality check” to the talks, said Niklas Höhne, one of the authors. “Countries’ long-term intentions are good, but their short-term implementation is inadequate,” he told the Guardian.

The 197 parties to the 2015 Paris agreement were asked to come to Glasgow with two aims: a long-term goal of reaching global net zero emissions around mid-century; and shorter-term national plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), pegging emissions reductions to 2030. Scientists say greenhouse gas emissions must fall by about 45% this decade for global temperatures to stay within 1.5C of pre-industrial levels.

Countries responsible for about 90% of global emissions have signed up to net zero goals, mostly by around 2050 for developed countries, rising to 2060 for China and 2070 for India, but the NDCs for actions in the next decade do not match up. The climate responds to the cumulative carbon in the atmosphere, so if emissions are high enough in the next two decades the world could surpass the 1.5C limit even if carbon reaches net zero later.

“It’s great that countries have long-term net zero targets, but they need to close the gap with short-term measures,” said Hare.

The first week of the Cop26 talks was dominated by a rush of announcements, including commitments on preserving forests, private sector finance for clean energy, and countries phasing out coal. Some of these quickly started to unravel as countries appeared to renege or clarify some of their commitments.

At the start of the second week of the fortnight-long talks, sharp rifts are appearing between countries that want tougher action, specifically to force countries to revise their NDCs annually if they are not in line with 1.5C, and others wanting to stick to the Paris timetable of five-yearly revisions. There are also disputes about how countries should monitor emissions, and over climate finance for poor countries.

Hare noted there was no contradiction among the varying assessments, published last week by Melbourne University and the International Energy Agency, as they came to similar conclusions based on long-term goals. CAT also found in its “optimistic scenario” that if all targets countries had promised were fully met, temperatures would rise by 1.8C.

The UN environment programme updated its analysis of the “emissions gap” between the cuts needed to stay within 1.5C and those offered by governments. Unep found that with the recently announced pledges by China, Saudi Arabia and others, temperatures were likely to rise by between 1.9C and 2.1C, but like the IEA and Melbourne estimates, that depended on long-term pledges being fully implemented.

Hare said many of the long-term goals countries had set out lacked credibility. He pointed to Brazil, Australia and Russia. “We are concerned that there is not a seriousness of purpose at Cop26. It’s very hypothetical, getting to net zero in 2050,” he said.

Höhne said countries must agree to revise their NDCs every year if they were found insufficient, adding: “If we came back every five years that would be a very bad choice. If countries agree to come back every year, they would have a chance of closing the gap.”

Jennifer Morgan, the executive director of Greenpeace International, said: “This new calculation is like a telescope trained on an asteroid heading for Earth. It’s a devastating report. We have until the weekend to turn this thing around. That means countries agreeing how they’re going come back next year and every year after that until the gap to 1.5C is closed. The ministers shouldn’t leave this city until they’ve nailed that.”

A Cop26 spokesperson said: “We know that the window to keep 1.5C alive is closing but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that it is still achievable. As today’s reports make clear, we’ve seen genuine progress in the first week of Cop26, but we have a lot more to do.”

Labour’s Ed Miliband, the shadow business secretary, said: “The test of Cop26 has always been what concrete commitments it would deliver by 2030, the decisive decade to keep 1.5C alive. This report is an important reality check on the government’s attempt to greenwash Glasgow.”

Green party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said: “Today was the day the sugar coating fell off the Cop26 talks to reveal the bitter pill that world leaders are going to force us to swallow if they don’t take much stronger action. This report shows that action in the next 10 years is vital. Long term targets, promises and non-existent technofixes, with no actual policies to get us there, are worth nothing. It shows that most global leaders have been asleep at the wheel. This is their wake-up call.”
You can see the full research on which this article is based on this website

Climate Action Tracker
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Gunnar
God
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Gunnar »

Chap wrote:
Tue Nov 09, 2021 6:13 pm
Just when I was beginning to hope that something even a little bit encouraging would come out of the ongoing negotiations at COP-26 in Glasgow, we get this.

It's bad for all of us who have kids or grandkids. If we can keep the overall global rise since before the Industrial Revolution to not much more than 1.5º C, then for people like me who spend a lot of time well above sea level on a temperate island, things in my location may get uncomfortable but not cataclysmic. Of course people elsewhere may have fire, drought and flood experiences that will have economic and political knock-on effects where I am.

But over 2.4º C? If we get there, all bets are off, wherever we live. Sorry kids. We screwed it up for you, big time, and there is no way back from where we are sending you and your kids.

Forget everything else but this the next time you vote. Compared to this, everything else is just a game of shuffleboard as humanity's Titanic cruises steadily towards the iceberg.


Cop26: world on track for disastrous heating of more than 2.4C, says key report

Research from world’s top climate analysis coalition contrasts sharply with last week’s optimism



You can see the full research on which this article is based on this website

Climate Action Tracker
viewtopic.php?p=2745484#p2745484

As Katherine Hayhoe said, Quoting John Holdren:
The data tells us the planet is warming; the science is clear that humans are responsible; the impacts we’re seeing today are already serious; and our future is in our hands. As John Holdren once said, “We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required, and the less suffering there will be.”
It looks more and more like conservative climate change deniers are determined to push actions or inaction that will maximize the suffering component of the available choices for future generations. I fervently wish that the report you cited were not true or credible, as do most (if not all) climate scientists themselves, but that won't make it any less true. :cry:

The scariest part of this is that previous models of climate change and the predictions made by them, when checked with current reality, have, so far, almost invariably underestimated the rapidity and magnitude of the changes. If the same proves to be true of that report as well, the world is really in deep kimchee!
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Chap »

Gunnar wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 1:30 am
I fervently wish that the report you cited were not true or credible, as do most (if not all) climate scientists themselves, but that won't make it any less true.
That's precisely the point.

Climate scientists don't smile with quiet satisfaction as they put the finishing touches to a paper setting out the near certainty that without drastic action the world their children and grandchildren will have to live in is going to hell (like hot, with flames, but with floods too) in a handcart. They are seriously worried, more than most other people would be, because they know better than anybody else how highly likely it is that all that stuff really is going to happen.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Post Reply