Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?

[Irontruth]

I am so stealing Practical Application as a magic sword for a sci-fi fantasy game I'm running in 5e right now.

[CBDunkerson]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

The evidence suggests that the climate is warming, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that humans are accelerating that process (although it would probably be warming, to a lesser degree, without our "help").

Actually, there is fairly strong evidence that humans are responsible for all or nearly all of the observed warming since 1950. Indeed, without human interference we would most likely have seen a tiny amount of cooling over that timeframe;

IPCC AR5 figure 10.5

In that image the black bar is the observed warming, the green the expected warming due to human greenhouse gas emissions, the yellow the expected cooling due to human aerosol emissions (which block incoming sunlight), and the orange the net human impact. Note that the net human impact is greater than the observed warming (though within the error bars).

Another way of looking at it is to break down human vs natural warming from different studies.

Basically, the natural impact is so small that it disappears in the margin of error... but is more likely to have been cooling than warming. Regardless, humans are driving all of the observed/measurable warming... without us there wouldn't be enough of a change to even say for certain whether there WAS a warming or cooling trend.

[Scott Betts]

The more I hear from thaX, the more I start to believe that this isn't about the science, for him. At all. This is about his clearly very right-wing belief system, and trying to reconcile that belief system with what he see around him.

When someone decides that the President returning the name of a mountain back to its original name is something worth being upset over, they expose their personal set of priorities and concerns very quickly.

On a positive note, however, thaX is now responding directly to people instead of hit-and-run posting!

[Krensky]

Considering the head scratchingly weird history of Denali/McKinley's name and how it's basically about Ohio, I'm still not clear how it relates to, well, anything.

[CBDunkerson]

Krensky wrote:

Considering the head scratchingly weird history of Denali/McKinley's name and how it's basically about Ohio, I'm still not clear how it relates to, well, anything.

Let me walk you through the logic chain;

Obama = Liberal
Liberal = Bad
McKinley = Republican
Republican = Good

Therefore... GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE!

[Zombieneighbours]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Considering the head scratchingly weird history of Denali/McKinley's name and how it's basically about Ohio, I'm still not clear how it relates to, well, anything.

Let me walk you through the logic chain;

Obama = Liberal
Liberal = Bad
McKinley = Republican
Republican = Good

Therefore... GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE!

Oh, I understand now :D

[Krensky]

So we're back to him being not even wrong.

[Zombieneighbours]

I haven't come across "not even wrong" before, but that is awesome!

[thejeff]

It's a favorite of mine. Attributed to the physicist Wolfgang Pauli as "That is not only not right, it is not even wrong."

[Kirth Gersen]

CBDunkerson wrote:

ctually, there is fairly strong evidence that humans are responsible for all or nearly all of the observed warming since 1950. Indeed, without human interference we would most likely have seen a tiny amount of cooling over that timeframe

We don't disagree, but you have to remember that I'm a geologist; I'm used to referring to "over the last 11,000 years," as "short-term." So, yes, over the next several millennia, the climate would be warming, even without us. "Since 1950" is so fast that it qualifies, to me, as "near-instantaneous" -- which is why understanding anthropogenic forcing is a real concern.

[Gaberlunzie]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

ctually, there is fairly strong evidence that humans are responsible for all or nearly all of the observed warming since 1950. Indeed, without human interference we would most likely have seen a tiny amount of cooling over that timeframe

We don't disagree, but you have to remember that I'm a geologist; I'm used to referring to "over the last 11,000 years," as "short-term." So, yes, over the next several millennia, the climate would be warming, even without us. "Since 1950" is so fast that it qualifies, to me, as "near-instantaneous" -- which is why understanding anthropogenic forcing is a real concern.

So in Kirthfinder, can I hope for a 65 year duration True Strike? ;)

[Hitdice]

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

ctually, there is fairly strong evidence that humans are responsible for all or nearly all of the observed warming since 1950. Indeed, without human interference we would most likely have seen a tiny amount of cooling over that timeframe

We don't disagree, but you have to remember that I'm a geologist; I'm used to referring to "over the last 11,000 years," as "short-term." So, yes, over the next several millennia, the climate would be warming, even without us. "Since 1950" is so fast that it qualifies, to me, as "near-instantaneous" -- which is why understanding anthropogenic forcing is a real concern.

So in Kirthfinder, can I hope for a 65 year duration True Strike? ;)

Now that you've raised the issue, he'll probably introduce some sort of Geological Time Scale Duration metamagic feat chain. :P

[LazarX]

Scott Betts wrote:

The more I hear from thaX, the more I start to believe that this isn't about the science, for him. At all. This is about his clearly very right-wing belief system, and trying to reconcile that belief system with what he see around him.

No... he's not reconciling his belief system. He's very set in his beliefs. He simply has a perceptual filter that simply refuses to acknowledge anything that contradicts his idealogy.

[Scott Betts]

LazarX wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

The more I hear from thaX, the more I start to believe that this isn't about the science, for him. At all. This is about his clearly very right-wing belief system, and trying to reconcile that belief system with what he see around him.

No... he's not reconciling his belief system. He's very set in his beliefs. He simply has a perceptual filter that simply refuses to acknowledge anything that contradicts his idealogy.

"Reconciling", here, doesn't mean he's changing his beliefs. It refers to his attempts to figure out a way to preserve his belief system without being forced to experience the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance that comes with constantly being exposed to evidence to the contrary. While the internet is great for being exposed to new ideas, it's also great for providing people with ridiculous ideas with a sense of legitimacy - anyone can find at least one source supporting their insane belief, even if that source is utterly disreputable. thaX has access to a whole network of people who, just like him, are feeding off of each other's desire to reinforce their own beliefs, trading a stale mix of cherry-picked data, convenient half-truths, and outright lies between themselves like a set of communal comfort blankets.

[CaptainGemini]

Wrath wrote:

Understand that the sheer quantity of water on our planet has not been "diluted" to change its heat capacitance in any way. Global weather patterns are determined by ocean currents. Local weather patterns are determined by mountain ranges and thermal rising from heat sinks on the ground.

Two words refute that claim about water not being diluted: "salt water."

Which is natural dilution, not mankind caused, and does not back up what I've been saying.

Quote:

Everything I've just said can be found in any weather information site you'd like to look up. It's also in most junior science textbooks that cover the topic and any senior geography or science textbook that covers the topic (at least that's true in Queensland where I teach).

Not quite as true within America. The science textbooks can range massively in what they include, with further ranging caused by district censorship.

That said, what you posted is also contradicted by reality... specifically, the last 65 million+ years of Earth's climate history. That's according to the ice core data. You can find some of that data within the IPCC summaries. It's pretty well known that Earth goes through a range of temperatures, from ice age to very warm, naturally... but the heating also normally takes massively longer than the past few decades have seen. What's also pretty well known is that it doesn't stabilize at a temperate range, even when it has conditions perfect for doing so, but instead continues to change. And that water itself, along with water vapor, has been one of the engines causing change.

So while water on its own may be a stabilizing element, water is not acting on its own within climate and is actually one of several factors that contribute. And, sometimes, the interaction between it and the other factors (again, according to the IPCC papers and ice core data) is what can help drive climatic change instead of causing stabilization.

Quote:

Any how, that's all I can add to the topic I'm afraid. I do my research and readings for work purposes, and can't be bothered to track down references for a game site. No one here has to believe a word I say I guess.

Fair enough. I've not added a lot of links to this as well. And it's an internet argument on a gaming site. Not really taking it that seriously.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

(a) Will warming of the climate, for example, cause disruptions in the Gulf Stream and cool Europe? I have no idea. Maybe. Would that cause global cooling? No, only local cooling for northern Europe. So we need to maybe be careful not to be too quick about extrapolating local conditions to global ones.

Wouldn't global cooling be caused by atmospheric saturation of water vapor combined with a temporary shift towards cooler temperatures?

Also, we need to not dismiss local conditions out of hand. If they didn't affect the global climate, human-caused climate change might not even be a problem. Which is why the IPCC doesn't dismiss them, but instead pays attention to them in its reports. Check the latest one if you want to confirm that.

Quote:

(d) Does acidification of coastal waters have a deleterious effect on coral reefs, potentially affecting their ability to sequester carbon? I don't doubt it. But most of that carbon then enters the atmosphere and acts like other carbon already in the atmosphere. Can that exacerbate item (a)? Quite possibly. Does it have anything at all to do with (b) or (c)? Not so much.

It is affected by (b), and possibly by (c). Scroll down to the pH section of this link and read the paragraph starting with "Pollution" to see how. What it very much does is increase the amount of CO2 not being sequestered, and thus remaining in atmosphere to continue to affect heating. And since localized CO2 output can affect the entire planet, it is both foolish and unscientific to dismiss localized changes out of hand.

Which is very similar to what was in my high school chemistry textbooks. Specifically, the section that was written by a hydrologist.

Quote:

(e) Do any of the above change the fundamental properties of water? Well, in (c) we see changes in the redox potential and dissolved oxygen content, and in (d) the pH is changing -- but those aren't fundamental chemical properties of water. Granted, if you dissolve enough stuff in water, you can change its boiling/freezing point, so I'm not even saying that those properties can't be affected. But to the best of my knowledge and experience, the only way to make water lose its heat capacity is to get rid of it entirely. So, yeah, if the oceans somehow boiled off into space and were replaced by chemicals with a lower heat capacity, the oceans would not moderate climate anymore.

Changing the capacity of water to absorb CO2 also changes its capacity to help moderate climate by changing its capacity to sequester a greenhouse gas. Without being able to sequester that greenhouse gas, more of it remains within the atmosphere to help accelerate planetary heating. Which means water will reach heat saturation much faster as well, further limiting its capacity to moderate climate.

That's how you lower water's capacity to moderate climate. You don't play around with how it absorbs heat, but with the other climate moderation mechanisms it has.

Quote:

See, it's easy to read some articles and say "pollution bad!" and not really understand how (luckily, no one here is doing that). What some people are doing, though, is carefully reading and digesting popular science articles, but then getting hazy on some of the distinctions and differences. And that's totally understandable, if not ideal. But where we start to lose it is when people say stuff like, "Well, I'm not going to link any papers, because I don't have to back my claims, and I'm going to ignore any you link, because they're probably obsolete or wrong, and I'm not going to listen to what you have to say, because as a layperson I know better than a scientist -- if you even are one, nanny-nanny-boo-boo." At that point, we've left behind any sort of pretext towards objective discussion.

I dismissed your original links because they were unrelated to the question I actually asked. I dismissed your scientific credentials because, as I said, this is the internet and all you could be doing is lying and relying on Google search. I don't know you, after all. So why would I take your word out of hand on claiming expertise? That is why I don't make any claims about what career I have. What proof would you have? You'd have a claim by someone you don't know.

Now, if you want to provide your credentials, and proof it's you, just to win some stupid argument on the net and prove your career claim, go ahead. Otherwise, you're going to have to accept that I'm not going to let you rely on them for arguing with me simply because for all I know you're some teenager in their mother's basement.

Oh, and as for your links? Scroll back up to my link about water pH, then look to where I first dismissed them and what I said. Changing of pH is a chemical change.

[Aniuś the Talewise]

And that, my friends, is why you don't dump your wisdom stat.

I've been quietly been watching this thread from the sidelines. The topic of climate change provides a good opportunity to observe the cognition behind conspiracy theories and the ideologies of the right without being personal enough to go into Rage.

[Wrath]

It is interesting that there's not much rage in the thread. You get far more heated debating in the rules forum than one on human impact on planetary temperatures.

Which is interesting, since one could be life threatening and the other is just a game.

[CaptainGemini]

I think most people posting in this thread agree, so there's not even much room for debate to begin with.

[Wrath]

@CaptainGemini - not sure what you mean by the salt water dilution comment sorry.

As for my atmospheric water stuff, I'm talking about local changes as a consequence of humans using hydropower cars. It was mentioned as an alternative and someone said it would mess the atmosphere. I suggested it would in fact repair some damage locally as a consequence of deforestation reducing atmospheric water as a consequence of transpiration decline. You'd have a bigger issue with rusting than you would on global climate if we ran hydrogen engines.

As for global weather, I think I've stated twice now that it is dictated by oceans. It is also related to continental positions. Ice core samples and weather changes can be linked to atmospheric gases and also to tectonic rearrangement of continents. I believe the drying of Ethiopia and as a consequence the reduction of Nile river flooding was caused by a current change as a consequence of slight changes in land form due to shifting. That's only a vague memory though. I think it's what they contributed to the decline iOS the Egyptian empire though. So major localised effects, but globally not much difference.

I also agree that humans must be having an impact. We clear the forests that act as carbon sinks, and we acidify waters that kill off large amounts of planktonic algae. I don't know how big an impact we're having on those two issues though, there still isn't conclusive evidence on those two. However, since they both act to stabilise atmospheric CO2, and we're affecting them, then ergo we are affecting the climate.

I also remember reading that the algae in the oceans is responsible for carbon removal and storage than the water itself. I will read into that some more though before stating that as fact.

I do remember my lecturers at uni telling us that at some point, a few degrees temp change in oceanic temperatures will cause mass release of CO2 from its stasis as dissolved gas in the oceans. That was the fact that had my lecturers really nervous, nothing else.

Edit - I believe I got the salt reference finally. You're saying that Salt reduces heat capacity of water. It's true that heat capacity of salt water is less than pure water, but it's very minor change. It's also true that the sheer volume of salt water means it's heat capacity is still huge, and the small percentage of dissolved pollutants we're currently adding will make almost no difference globally (but may do locally). Interestingly, if the polar caps melt, there's more fresh water to absorb heat. It may dilute the salt concentration fractionally (no idea of numbers), which will actually make ocean water capable of absorbing more heat before warming up. Interesting stuff.

[CaptainGemini]

The water dilution comment was a minor quibble anyway. Not actually important.

I think we might have to reexamine the hydropower cars. Where would we get the hydrogen and oxygen from? The likely source would be the oceans. Given how many gallons of gasoline human automobiles use in a day, I could see that potentially being a negative impact on global climate just due to how much seawater we're converting into energy. Plus, you need energy to break the bond, so that's a higher load on the energy generation market. I've also seen some people be concerned about how explosive the hydrogen would be. I don't know enough about it to say whether or not I think those concerns are accurate, but I do think that concern is going to be a major issue to any adoption of hydropower cars just by existing.

A lot of the data I've seen on global climate suggests that oceans don't so much dictate it as hold it as a contributing factor. Particularly the IPCC data models. One of several contributing factors. I may be misunderstanding the IPCC summaries, but I don't think I am.

Agreed. I also think that we're doing damage we haven't realized yet to the climate on the global scale. And that the reason we haven't realized it yet is that there's the larger scale damage overshadowing it. I suspect that once we make the changes to the larger scale items, we're going to find a lot of little items that individually don't amount to much, but add up to a serious impact.

I remember that CO2 release as well, but never got a chance to learn more about it. I should look that up.

[Wrath]

CaptainGemini wrote:

The water dilution comment was a minor quibble anyway. Not actually important.

I think we might have to reexamine the hydropower cars. Where would we get the hydrogen and oxygen from? The likely source would be the oceans. Given how many gallons of gasoline human automobiles use in a day, I could see that potentially being a negative impact on global climate just due to how much seawater we're converting into energy. Plus, you need energy to break the bond, so that's a higher load on the energy generation market. I've also seen some people be concerned about how explosive the hydrogen would be. I don't know enough about it to say whether or not I think those concerns are accurate, but I do think that concern is going to be a major issue to any adoption of hydropower cars just by existing.

A lot of the data I've seen on global climate suggests that oceans don't so much dictate it as hold it as a contributing factor. Particularly the IPCC data models. One of several contributing factors. I may be misunderstanding the IPCC summaries, but I don't think I am.

Agreed. I also think that we're doing damage we haven't realized yet to the climate on the global scale. And that the reason we haven't realized it yet is that there's the larger scale damage overshadowing it. I suspect that once we make the changes to the larger scale items, we're going to find a lot of little items that individually don't amount to much, but add up to a serious impact.

I remember that CO2 release as well, but never got a chance to learn more about it. I should look that up.

There's actually a catalytic converter design already out there that you can use to hook up to your car and make it run like a hybrid. It makes the car far more efficient since only part of the gas combustion compression cycle is petrol driven, the other is hydrogen gas. The safety isn't a problem as it only runs when the car starts as it needs electricity to separate, then you use the gas as its generated.

I only know this second hand though. It's something that a Canadian guy came up with and was all over the web in Aus for a while about two or three years ago. I had a cousin ask me to look into it and help him try to rig one up for his car. I politely refused to hook one up, but I did do some reading on it.

Apparently there are already a few hydrogen engine designs out there already that are fully capable of running a car as safely as gas cars already do. I think the issue is power though, something about compression rates not being equivalent to what we currently get from petrol.

And I think you're correct on the issue of where the water comes from. We also just don't know long term impact on our buildings and equipment if we begin making a large urban environment far more humid than it currently is.
Still, I'd take increase corrosion over global catastrophe any day.

[CaptainGemini]

The power issue is a well-known problem for all alternatives to fossil fuels. About the only thing that comes close to the same power level is nuclear power, and then that falls short due to the fact a lot of nuclear power designs are basically advanced steam engines.

Petrol pretty much is not a fuel we can replace if we want to avoid losing energy efficiency. We're going to have to accept that we're going to take a hit in that no matter what and just go ahead and bite the bullet.

From what I understand, the explosiveness issue has nothing to do with running the issue. It has to do with what happens when the vehicle crashes and the tank ends up ruptured. With gasoline, you have a danger of explosion, but it's pretty rare. What happens when the tank contains hydrogen instead? And we can't ignore that issue, as auto wrecks are not going away any time soon.

I would take increased corrosion if it didn't come with environmental disasters of its own. With current building materials, we would only be trading one global catastrophe for another. And the sheer resource expenditure of rebuilding every city on the planet might cause a third. I suspect that issue alone makes hydropower simply too impractical.

[Krensky]

Those things are scams. If they worked they would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

As for hydrogen powered cars, most designs don't burn it. They feed it into a fuel cell and use electricity to run the car. If you insist on burning it a direct injection hydrogen engine produces twenty percent more power than an equivalent gasoline engine. Fuel cells are more efficient though.

The issue is infrastructure and cost.

Oh, and octane combustion produces almost as much water as it does carbon dioxide so hydrogen fuel (via combustion or fuel cell) doesn't really change the amount of water going into the air.

As for the tank rupturing, they're much, much, much tougher than your car's gas tank and their likelihood of rupturing or exploding is massively overrated.

[CaptainGemini]

Krensky wrote:

Those things are scams. If they worked they would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

As for hydrogen powered cars, most designs don't burn it. They feed it into a fuel cell and use electricity to run the car. If you insist on burning it a direct injection hydrogen engine produces twenty percent more power than an equivalent gasoline engine. Fuel cells are more efficient though.

The issue is infrastructure and cost.

Oh, and octane combustion produces almost as much water as it does carbon dioxide so hydrogen fuel (via combustion or fuel cell) doesn't really change the amount of water going into the air.

As for the tank rupturing, they're much, much, much tougher than your car's gas tank and their likelihood of rupturing or exploding is massively overrated.

There's also a storage issue. If what I've read is accurate, you can't store the same amount of hydrogen in tanks as you can gasoline. So at the end of the day the gasoline engine is still going to get more power simply because it has more fuel.

Now, you can size up the tank if you want to get the same amount of hydrogen fuel as gasoline... but you're quickly going to have to choose between giving up on that goal or making the vehicle bigger. And as you make the vehicle bigger, the energy usage increases for the vehicle increases, meaning you get less overall power for the size.

That's the issue with why hydrogen doesn't actually give the same or more power than gasoline for groundcraft.

Whether or not the rupture chance is overrated doesn't change the general concept that it's something to worry about. Some of these crashes reduce cars to mangled, shredded wrecks.

[Krensky]

Everything you wrote there is wrong and five minutes of research would show you that.

The main issue with hydrogen beyond what I said is that despite having better range than EVs (the Mirai gets about 300 miles a tank) they have basically the same well to wheel emissions as a petroleum vehicle and are not as energy efficient as a EV.

[CaptainGemini]

Krensky wrote:

Everything you wrote there is wrong and five minutes of research would show you that.

The main issue with hydrogen beyond what I said is that despite having better range than EVs (the Mirai gets about 300 miles a tank) they have basically the same well to wheel emissions as a petroleum vehicle and are not as energy efficient as a EV.

Five minutes of research confirmed what I said about storage being an issue as recently as 15 years ago.

And it seems to be confirmed as still an issue by the U.S. Department of Energy.

And Stanford University.

That's what I got with five minutes of research.

Now, Krensky, do you have anything that says that the U.S. Department of Energy and Stanford University are wrong? If so, I would love to see it.

Also, one minute of research confirmed just how destroyed a car can get from an auto accident. I literally put "car mangled shredded wreck" into Google image search.

[Krensky]

Those articles don't support your claims at all. Plus they actively contradict your exploding wreck claims.

Not to mention one is fifteen years old and the other is twenty. The recent one mentions that hydrogen has a lower energy density, but that the production models available have ranges comparable to gas cars.

I suppose I should have said ten minutes so you could actually read the articles.

As for the wrecks, if those cars didn't burst into flames from the gasoline leaking it's not a concern because the chances of them exploding from hydrogen is much smaller as those articles you dug up from the nineties state.

[Scythia]

Wrath wrote:

It is interesting that there's not much rage in the thread. You get far more heated debating in the rules forum than one on human impact on planetary temperatures.

Which is interesting, since one could be life threatening and the other is just a game.

I suspect that's a matter of scale and personal control.

People feel like game issues are something they can do something about, something it's in their power to affect. Thus they have passionate views and take matters personally.

Climate change seems like a colossal thing, unfathomable in scope and far beyond any one person's ability to alter. This lends more to an academic/theoretical approach, and a sense of being more an observer than a participant.

[CaptainGemini]

Krensky wrote:

Those articles don't support your claims at all. Plus they actively contradict your exploding wreck claims.

Um, what?

Show me where I made an exploding wreck claim related to hydrogen.

Quote:

Not to mention one is fifteen years old and the other is twenty. The recent one mentions that hydrogen has a lower energy density, but that the production models available have ranges comparable to gas cars.

You might want to reread the one that is "twenty years old." Why would a page not updated since 1995 have an entire section devoted to a survey published in 1999, Department of Energy information from 2002, and a note from March of 2007 on what Scientific American had to say? Are you accusing Stanford University of hiding a time machine?

Yes. I have to ask that. Because at this point, I honestly have no idea what kind of crazy accusations you're leveling.

Also, it would help if you were being honest about what the Department of Energy link says. Because this is what they actually stated, in full:

US Department of Energy wrote:

Onboard Fuel Storage. Hydrogen contains much less energy than gasoline or diesel on a per-volume basis, making it difficult to store enough hydrogen onboard an FCV to go as far as a comparable gasoline vehicle between fillups. Some FCVs have recently demonstrated ranges comparable to conventional vehicles—about 300 to 400 miles between fillups—but this must be achievable across different vehicle makes and models and without compromising customer expectations of space, performance, safety, or cost.

Some. Not all. Not most. Some. And given the wording just prior to it, it's far from the majority. They're saying that most production models don't match the power of gasoline and that it's an ongoing problem.

Quote:

I suppose I should have said ten minutes so you could actually read the articles.

I did read them. You should have as well.

That's why you have no idea that the Stanford article has been updated a number of times since it was first put up in 1995. Because you didn't read them.

Quote:

As for the wrecks, if those cars didn't burst into flames from the gasoline leaking it's not a concern because the chances of them exploding from hydrogen is much smaller as those articles you dug up from the nineties state.

You do know that most cars which leak gasoline don't burst into flames, right? And that gasoline typically isn't why they burst into flames, right? Most car fires are electrical fires.

Plus, gasoline isn't actually that flammable; the actual liquid tends to be relatively hard to ignite. Its primary danger is once it starts to evaporate. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to fill up your car at a gas station without a danger of it randomly exploding. After all, this is real life, not a Michael Bay film or Star Trek; people generally don't use an energy source that might randomly kill them.

Interestingly, you're saying that articles which say there's really not that much of a danger... are exaggerating the danger. And without providing a source for your claim.

Here's what the Stanford link said:

Quote:

Safety problems. Liquid hydrogen is cold enough to freeze air, and accidents have occured from pressure build-up following plugged valves. Some say these problems can't be overcome, but I side with those who think they can be overcome. In a collision the hydrogen tank may rupture, as can a gasoline tank. Limited accident experience suggests that the danger is somewhat less with hydrogen than with gasoline, because the hydrogen dissipates rapidly. The release of hydrogen into a confined space like a garage risks an explosion.

Here's what the military link said:

Quote:

The safety of any energy source is always a concern. AAN platforms must be engineered properly to minimize risks to their crews. Although hydrogen has different characteristics from petroleum-based fuels, it is as safe as gasoline, diesel, or kerosene.

Hydrogen's explosive range is a 13- to 79-percent concentration in air. It is colorless and odorless and burns with a nearly invisible flame. Hydrogen's wide explosive range, coupled with its very low ignition energy, give it a potential disadvantage since an accumulation of hydrogen in a poorly ventilated vehicle interior may explode easily.

The minimum ignition energy required to ignite a hydrogen mixture is 0.02 millijoules, which is equal to the energy of a static electric discharge from the arcing of a spark. However, the vapors of petroleum-based fuels ignite just as easily.

The diffusion coefficient for hydrogen is 0.61 cubic centimeters per second (cm3/sec), which means that hydrogen mixes with air faster than does gasoline vapor. Hydrogen's low vapor density and high diffusion coefficient cause it to rise quickly, so that in the open, hydrogen mixes with air and disperses rapidly with no pooling on the ground—unlike petroleum-based fuels.

Since there is a possibility that hydrogen might leak into the crew compartment, hydrogen detectors must be used aboard platforms to detect explosive concentrations of hydrogen. A ventilation system could be used to exhaust the explosive mixture to the atmosphere. Also, since hydrogen's ignition energy is extremely low, a sparkless environment must be provided. The sparkless environment should include an extremely well-insulated electrical system and some form of grounding for the crew so they do not build up a static charge during platform operation.

So the link from 15 years ago is saying that it's only a danger if it leaks into the crew compartment and otherwise is as safe as gasoline (which generally isn't much of a danger at all), that it's actually safer if it breaks forth from a puncture, and the other one is saying that it's generally safer than gasoline if the tanks are ruptured.

Overall, I got my answer on what happens if the tanks rupture. So, that's one less question I asked that I need answered.

[thaX]

thejeff wrote:

thaX wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

thaX wrote:

I see things like this in the news and wonder how anyone believes anything he or his ilk say.

Yes, if you base your world view on propaganda then everything you say is completely logical. It's just that you are logically responding to a fantasy world.

I am glad we agree on something, though what that fantasy is may be different according to our point of view.

Is there some sort of change in the global environment? Why, yes, all the time!

Did man make it worse or can they make it better? Inconclusive and likely did not and can not.

I ask again: Do you disagree with the scientific understanding of greenhouse gasses and how they affect temperature?

Do you disagree with measurements showing the rise in carbon (one of those greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere, roughly tracking the increase in human emissions?

My overall stance on that subject isn't about how various variables effect the overall environment, but whether or not we, as man, are actually effecting a part of this change with our own activities.

We do cause various local changes that make the air smell funny and all that, but how it effects our overall global temperature is somewhat suspect.

"greenhouse" gasses have been around well before the industrial revolution, yet the overall want for woe seems to give credence to theories that would not even be considered a century ago.

Emissions have been curtailed in the last two decades, the removal of Leaded Gasoline being a major part of that, and yet the "problem" is still here. The cars we have on the road now, even those that are 10 years old, are emitting a quarter of what cars in 1970s were putting out. Hybrids do even less.

I do think we need to look at where we can plant some trees (which take in CO2 and turn it into O2) and have more park areas in places that have become more urban parking lots than anything else. Living in Indiana (and Indianapolis), the overall area has trees all over the place, and it seems to help overall.

One of the things that got me wrinkling my nose is the "study" that said a cow farts needed curtailed in much the same way as we are trying with Cars. I am guessing that beef is evil just like Oil.

[Zombieneighbours]

Funnily enough anthropogenic global climate change was suggested as a result of burning fossil fuels more than a hundred years ago. See Svante Arrhenius.

While emmissions per car is lower, the number of cars is larger. Meanwhile, amounts of fossil fuels burned to produce electricity also rise.

"Living in Indiana (and Indianapolis), the overall area has trees all over the place, and it seems to help overall." This makes absolutely no sense.

Farts contain Methane; Methane is an even more significant greenhouse gas than CO2.

Not to mention that there are many other good reasons for us to move towards lower levels of meat consumption.

[thaX]

How long have cows been around? Suddenly, they are among one of the many causes of Global Warming? Really?

The number of cars does not overwhelm the lower emissions that they produce overall. The point is that the want for everyone to be in tiny crackerjack cars is not going to help in the least. Electric cars, no matter how good a battery gets, is not going to come close to replacing the reliable transportation that a regular car provides.

Being vegetarians or a vegan is not a normal human condition, we need meat to survive. Tofu and fake fish is not a proper replacement for the carbs we need to survive.

We, as Americans, need to have a more balanced diet, something our Doctors tell us all the time. This means limits on everything, not just one thing here and there. Bread is the biggest culbrat to our determent, as it is used for everything and put on the side.

A hundred years ago? You mean in 1917? or in the 1800's that I was talking around about?

Still am amazed that cow farts of DOOM! is still given credence.

[thejeff]

Cows have been around for a long time. We've bred an awful lot more of them recently. (I don't have any actual data on whether cow farts are a significant contribution, but it's not impossible just because of how long there have been cows.)

So more generally, your argument is that while greenhouse gasses do cause warming, the human contribution to greenhouse gasses is not significant?

Details about cars and cows aside, do you understand the human race is using an ever increasing amount of oil (and coal and even faster increasing amount of natural gas)? And that burning these things releases carbon into the atmosphere? The rate is still going up, not shrinking.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

IIRC, it's not the farts we need to worry about, it's actually the belches. Cows release most of their methane by bringing cud back up into their mouths from their stomachs.

Also, since when is meat a source of carbs?

[Irontruth]

thaX wrote:

we need meat to survive

No we don't, pure and simple.

[Quark Blast]

Srsly people! All the sarcasm/"hate" about my reasonable doubts for climate modeling. :(

Models can only be as good as the data put into them, and that's assuming the model is otherwise sound. I doubt both the chosen data and the models. You doubt my doubts (for vague and uncertain reasons). Fine.

I will provide one link, yes, the Wiki page on the Ice Age. Pay attention to the section titled "Glacials and interglacials". Bigger changes have happened, even as recently as 8,200 years ago.

And/or here's a few words for you to Google,

• geologic temperature record
• 20,000 years of climate variation
• temperature curve last 15,000 years

Even easier in fact, do a Google-Image search on those three and you'll see from the graphs of known climate change how our current "unprecedented trend" doesn't even show up at that scale. Which is to say, there have been other, presumably natural, changes in climate that far out-scale our current situation.

And since my main positive point went unnoticed I'll repeat it here:

As a species, at the global scale, we would be far better off improving the efficiency of our habits. Most notably,

• Oil and other energy expenditures
• water use
• eating choices

If we did that, and shared our new advances, human impact on global climate would be as small as it can be without our extinction.

[Irontruth]

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing for or against.

[thejeff]

Agreed. I have no idea what your point is.

That there have been other larger changes in climate is completely irrelevant to the current situation. Nor is it anything any respectable climate scientist would deny.

[Quark Blast]

First Point:

If we don't have an explanation for the much larger changes in Earth's climate over the past few tens of thousands of years (and we don't), then speculating on present/near-term future change based on very limited models of human activity (models that do not even begin to give us the kind of basis we need to make sweeping changes in our laws and international relations to prevent what "will happen" with global climate going forward) is a total waste of time.

Second Point:

Instead, we need to focus on improved efficiency in all major aspects of human endeavor. This will have direct measurable and certain economic benefits and, as a bonus, will do more for human impact on global climate than anything we are likely to argue over at international climate symposiums, these boards, or anywhere else.

Duh.

[Gaberlunzie]

That's a good point. I mean, I have no idea how my great-great-grandma died, so clearly if I jump into an alligator pit there's no reason to think I'm gonna get hurt.

[feytharn]

thaX wrote:

Being vegetarians or a vegan is not a normal human condition, we need meat to survive. Tofu and fake fish is not a proper replacement for the carbs we need to survive.

Carbs is short for carbohydrates - you find that neither in meat nor in fish/tofu, but in sugar, grain and some vegetables.

[Gaberlunzie]

feytharn wrote:

thaX wrote:

Being vegetarians or a vegan is not a normal human condition, we need meat to survive. Tofu and fake fish is not a proper replacement for the carbs we need to survive.

Carbs is short for carbohydrates - you find that neither in meat nor in fish/tofu, but in sugar, grain and some vegetables.

It's funny how often those most insistent "we need meat to survive" doesn't even know the most basic facts of nutrition. It could be noted I guess that there's some carbs in eggs. And with some I mean a fraction of a percent, lol.

It's also interesting how the same people that claim vegetarianism "is not a normal human condition" also advocate riding around in cars and using computers, which I think is pretty definately quite farther from being "normal" to the human species.

[CBDunkerson]

thaX wrote:

How long have cows been around? Suddenly, they are among one of the many causes of Global Warming? Really?

Yes, methane release from cows is a minor contributor to global warming. It would be a larger problem, due to the higher 'warming per molecule' of methane, but methane interacts with oxygen and breaks down in the atmosphere fairly quickly (CH4 + 2 O2 -> 2 H2O + CO2).

That being said, human methane production from rice paddies is roughly double that from cows.

Quote:

Electric cars, no matter how good a battery gets, is not going to come close to replacing the reliable transportation that a regular car provides.

In what way are electric vehicles less 'reliable' than gasoline vehicles? The wheels still turn... the car still moves. Where exactly is the problem? If anything, electric motors are far more reliable... you're replacing a complicated system using air, water, and fuel to produce a series of contained explosions in multiple cylinders to spin a drive shaft with just using electricity to produce the same effect. Which is why electric motors require less maintenance and break down less often.

Quote:

A hundred years ago? You mean in 1917? or in the 1800's that I was talking around about?

1896. That's when Arrhenius published the paper, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground". It was the first to predict that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might be driven up by human industry and that this would cause global warming.

Of course, the simple fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused the planet to be warmer had been established science for decades by then... proven by John Tyndall in the 1860s. Arrhenius's addition was primarily the idea that humans could increase atmospheric CO2 levels and predicting (accurately) the patterns in which greenhouse warming would manifest (e.g. more warming at night and towards the poles). He also worked out that greenhouse gases would cause warming on a logarithmic scale.

Over the past 800,000 years, as determined by measuring air bubbles trapped in ice cores, atmospheric CO2 levels never went below ~180 ppm (in the coldest glaciations) or above ~300 ppm (in the warmest interglacial periods). In the current interglacial period, atmospheric CO2 levels varied between ~270 ppm and ~280 ppm from ~9,000 BC to ~1850. We are now at just over 400 ppm and increasing more than 2 ppm per year... up from 1 ppm per year in the 1960s.

Thus, in the past century and a half we have pushed atmospheric CO2 levels up more than 100 ppm above the level which had held stable for the prior ~11,000 years... which is also more than 100 ppm higher than the level at any time in the past 800,000 years. So how can you question that, "we, as man, are actually effecting a part of this change" in the face of measured reality?

[feytharn]

Gaberlunzie wrote:

It's funny how often those most insistent "we need meat to survive" doesn't even know the most basic facts of nutrition. It could be noted I guess that there's some carbs in eggs. And with some I mean a fraction of a percent, lol.

In my experience that goes for most people, regardless of their actual diet. It just gets worse when they start arguing against other peoples diets.

[CBDunkerson]

Quark Blast wrote:

If we don't have an explanation for the much larger changes in Earth's climate over the past few tens of thousands of years (and we don't)

You are mistaken three times over;

1: There have been no 'much larger' changes over the past tens of thousands of years. The atmospheric CO2 increase over the past 200 years has been larger than any swing over the past 100,000 years.
2: We have a very detailed understanding of the causes of all climate changes over the past tens of thousands of years.
3: There are NO past climate changes for which we "don't have an explanation". There are a few in the distant past where we don't have enough data to determine which of a few possible explanations is correct, but there are none which can't be explained by well understood climate influences.

Quote:

...then speculating on present/near-term future change based on very limited models of human activity (models that do not even begin to give us the kind of basis we need to make sweeping changes in our laws and international relations to prevent what "will happen" with global climate going forward) is a total waste of time.

You are incorrect about the limitations of climate models and seemingly unaware that it wouldn't matter if you were right... because even if we ignored the climate models the findings of paleoclimate research and direct modern observation both reach the same conclusions.

[Lord Snow]

thaX wrote:

thejeff wrote:

thaX wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

thaX wrote:

I see things like this in the news and wonder how anyone believes anything he or his ilk say.

Yes, if you base your world view on propaganda then everything you say is completely logical. It's just that you are logically responding to a fantasy world.

I am glad we agree on something, though what that fantasy is may be different according to our point of view.

Is there some sort of change in the global environment? Why, yes, all the time!

Did man make it worse or can they make it better? Inconclusive and likely did not and can not.

I ask again: Do you disagree with the scientific understanding of greenhouse gasses and how they affect temperature?

Do you disagree with measurements showing the rise in carbon (one of those greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere, roughly tracking the increase in human emissions?

My overall stance on that subject isn't about how various variables effect the overall environment, but whether or not we, as man, are actually effecting a part of this change with our own activities.

We do cause various local changes that make the air smell funny and all that, but how it effects our overall global temperature is somewhat suspect.

"greenhouse" gasses have been around well before the industrial revolution, yet the overall want for woe seems to give credence to theories that would not even be considered a century ago.

Emissions have been curtailed in the last two decades, the removal of Leaded Gasoline being a major part of that, and yet the "problem" is still here. The cars we have on the road now, even those that are 10 years old, are emitting a quarter of what cars in 1970s were putting out. Hybrids do even less.

I do think we need to look at where we can plant some trees (which take in CO2 and turn it into O2) and have more park areas in places that have become more urban parking lots than anything else. Living in Indiana (and Indianapolis), the...

Total emissions = number of cars X emission per car. This is even ignoring other factors which should definitely not be neglected. But even looking at just that very basic truth, you say cars today emit a quarter of what they did in 1970. As an amusing coincidence, according to this article, the number of cars multiplied by four in that time period - and most of those new cars are in developing countries that use cars that aren't nearly as efficient as the ones you mention. So emissions certainly haven't gone down.

[Zombieneighbours]

Thax:

The nutriant group your looking for is proteins food (or rather, the amino acids that the proteins are made up of). Although it is possible you might mean fats.

The fact is that actually we can get every amino from non-animal sources. There are many people who in fact do live entirely healthy lifes without eating meat or fish.

That isn't to say that meat isn't a palitable and highquality source of protein and fat. It is. It enrichs our diet certainly.

But your know what, people in developed nations do not need to eat it two to three meals a day. Which is what I mean by cut down the amount of meat we eat. Their are good public health, animal wealth fare, environmental(without even getting into livestock produced methane) and ecology reason to reduce the amount of meat we use.

[Zombieneighbours]

ThaX you said

'"greenhouse" gasses have been around well before the industrial revolution, yet the overall want for woe seems to give credence to theories that would not even be considered a century ago'

Now your saying

'A hundred years ago? You mean in 1917? or in the 1800's that I was talking around about?'

You sir, are moving the goal posts.

However, you did not move them far enough. As others have pointed out, Svante Arrhenius had had published his findings within the 19th century.

[Sissyl]

Okay, sure. You CAN find all essential amino acids in veggies. You can probably find the fatty acids too. The relevant issue is if you can find all the needed vitamins. Specifically, vitamin B12. I saw a news article somewhere that there were tiny amounts of it in spirulina algae, but other than that, you can't have it from a vegan diet. And, yes, I know you can take supplements for it, but it sort of puts a damper on the claim that "humans can live perfectly well on a vegan diet". At the very least, we did not evolve for or with a vegan diet. And what happens if you don't get enough? Why, your nervous system starts taking damage, from loss of sensibility from your feet inward, to depression and dementia. The idea of a child not having enough during development is not a happy one. Given this, the reason most vegans who do not get supplements for it don't get severe symptoms from a deficiency is that they have a store of it built up during childhoods eating meat and giving up veganism before these run out.

Edit: Fun fact: Once upon a time, when people started to try treating B12 deficiency, the cure was to eat a few pounds of raw cattle liver every day. It is rumoured that despite the horrible symptoms they were having and the efficacy of the cure, some chose not to take this cure.

[Aniuś the Talewise]

Irontruth wrote:

thaX wrote:

we need meat to survive

No we don't, pure and simple.

Yeah, not really. Vegetarians do perfectly well without meat.

That being said, I suspect that a balanced vegan diet is only possible in the modern era with modern innovations like dietary supplements and the fact that much of our food is enhanced with supplements (think iodized salt, juice enhanced with vitamin c in the form of ascorbic acid and so forth), and that if you were to try it in, say, the viking age, you would really only be subjecting yourself to malnutrition. (And we're talking about an era and region where research by Hurstwic reveals that the diet really was balanced, plentiful and people weren't at risk of scurvy) Besides they didn't even do factory farming back then.

Even traditional vegetarian diets like in India aren't vegan.

But then again, I only suspect, I haven't actually researched this.

^ I hope you like eating lots of hemp and flax seeds, because the oil is the biggest source of omega 3, besides fish and eggs.

It would really be more efficient to just eat it from fish, especially since pressing and refining oil from seeds is a more involved process than preparing a fish. Nowadays machinery makes it easier, but that method has only been available within the last century or so.