Can I buy land on Mars? I hear it's cheap and doesn't need to worry about global warming...
Headed to a relevant talk soon.
One of the barriers to reducing the cost of wind-generated energy is the current method of manufacturing steel wind turbine towers. Such towers are currently manufactured at centralized plants and then transported in sections to the installation site. The necessity of transporting these sections limits the base diameter of the tower, which limits the maximum height of the tower, which then limits the economic return of wind-generated energy. A new manufacturing technology, based on an adaptation of spiral welding methods for steel pipelines, may enable on-site and automated fabrication of taller, more economical tubular steel towers. Optimally proportioned towers made with this technology will have diameters and diameter-to-thickness ratios that are large and uncommon to all other structural applications of tubular steel. The flexural strength of tubular cross-sections with high diameter-to-thickness ratios is often controlled by local buckling and is highly sensitive to geometric and material imperfections. Because of this sensitivity, bending tests of tubes with these proportions are especially important to design, however, there is a sparsity of relevant experiments in the open literature. This presentation will provide experimental and analytical results from a research project designed to understand the flexural strength of wind turbine towers manufactured with this new technology.
It was a reasonably interesting talk. The summary thing mentioned that the strength of these larger towers was highly sensitive to welding imperfections, and that definitely seems to be the case, with, IIRC, ten of ten buckling failures initiating along the weld line. Most of the meat of the talk was about modeling said imperfections to get a handle on as-built strength. On the plus side, the experimental data presented was encouraging for the overall constructability of taller towers if you can get good quality control. Renewable technology marches on, which is encouraging.
On the other hand, I'm fairly pessimistic about the ability of the incoming administration to derail progress. If it was a split government, I'd think that things would cancel out and market progress would favor renewable energy, but with one-party control of all branches of the federal government and most of the states, and with climate skepticism/denial serving as an ideological litmus test for that party, well, there is a lot of damage that can be done. I think the Paris agreement, even such as it is, is fragile enough that a shock such as the US is likely to deliver could disrupt it. For example, it's not that long ago that India was taking down environmentalist NGOs as enemies of the state. It took a lot of diplomatic effort to bring them around to even the limited consensus that Paris represents.
|
My claim was "significant destruction" and here you are using the same word (bolded above by moi) in the same general context. Do you have a different definition of that word than I do?
So... you think that my statement that Greenland and West Antarctica will contribute significantly to sea level rise over the lifespans of people alive today supports your statement that Antarctic ice will be significantly destroyed by 2030?
I'm not even going to bother explaining why that is wrong. It should be several kinds of obvious.
The year 2030 is likely to see us well on our way to a 1 meter global sea level rise from Greenland and Antarctic ice melting. Also likely to see ice free summers in the Arctic ocean such that trans-Arctic shipping is a thing.
True!
Still not the same thing as Antarctic ice being significantly destroyed by 2030.
Noam Agrees With Me :)
You don't need to watch the whole video just check it out from 4:24 to 4:44.
No. He doesn't.
We all agree that Antarctica is melting more quickly than expected even 20 years ago. Only you have suggested that Antarctic ice will be significantly destroyed in 14 years.
Solar is top source of new capacity on US energy grid in 2016
California is a good place to do business in this arena
Boston plans for rising waters during floods
Miami has already faced the reality of this and are trying things like pumps.
This isn't so much on the topic directly, but indirectly as it deals with trying to find energy solutions. Of course, this particular project has been going on for some time...but...
|
|
Solar is top source of new capacity on US energy grid in 2016
Complete breakdown;
9.5 GW solar (not counting ~2 GW distributed rooftop solar)
8.0 GW natural gas
6.8 GW wind
1.1 GW nuclear (first new nuclear plant in decades)
0.3 GW hydro
0.2 GW other
No new coal. No new petroleum (Hawaii used to run on these). No fusion at all.
As I've been saying, the so called 'golden age of natural gas' is already over. We're now installing more than twice as much wind and solar power as we are natural gas... and that disparity will just continue to grow each year.
For most of the world coal, nuclear (fission), and petroleum are in decline as sources of electrical power generation... more capacity goes offline than is added each year. The locations where this is NOT the case are dwindling fast, and IMO there are unlikely to be any such within ten years as these power sources drop to 0% new installation world wide. They just no longer make economic sense.
There very likely (i.e. barring major technological breakthroughs) won't be enough natural gas, hydro, and/or 'other' power to make up the slack... let alone cover growing populations and increasing standards of living. That leaves wind and solar... which fortunately CAN cover the demand and will also be the least expensive sources over the medium term.
CB,
I'm glad you're hopeful about that. I dunno because I live in a state has pretty much defined itself by coal and by extension, natural gas. But if it comes a day when solar and wind power provide 200% more energy and also efficiency than both those combined...I'll be happy. The rest of my state? Maybe not so much.
|
|
I'm glad you're hopeful about that. I dunno because I live in a state has pretty much defined itself by coal and by extension, natural gas. But if it comes a day when solar and wind power provide 200% more energy and also efficiency than both those combined...I'll be happy. The rest of my state? Maybe not so much.
Yeah, I'm afraid the coal states have bought in to a lie.
Coal jobs and usage have both been in decline for decades now. Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources, and Patriot Coal all filed for bankruptcy last year after having borrowed massively to ramp up production in hopes of selling coal to China... just as China began cutting its coal use.
That has nothing to do with global warming, the supposed 'war on coal', the EPA, individual politicians, et cetera... and everything to do with the fact that coal can no longer compete economically. Wind and solar now cost HALF as much as coal does for most of the planet.
Coal states should have been lobbying hard to become centers of wind and solar manufacturing. Instead, they've bought in to a seemingly endless series of myths about how coal would be soaring except for 'insert villain of the week here' and thus continued to chase after a dying industry rather than listening to (or voting for) anyone that could actually help them. The result has been a slowly withering fossil fuel economy... which is now headed to complete collapse.
Natural gas is going to be the same story... just playing out later and over ~40 years instead of ~150. States with a strong natural gas economy still have about a decade to save themselves. After that they'll be in the same (sinking) boat as coal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh! Ooh! You're forgetting about rule 0. If you think coal is underpowered compared to solar and wind, then the GM should just change it so that coal is better! This isn't an MMO!
I'm glad you're hopeful about that. I dunno because I live in a state has pretty much defined itself by coal and by extension, natural gas. But if it comes a day when solar and wind power provide 200% more energy and also efficiency than both those combined...I'll be happy. The rest of my state? Maybe not so much.Yeah, I'm afraid the coal states have bought in to a lie.
Coal jobs and usage have both been in decline for decades now. Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources, and Patriot Coal all filed for bankruptcy last year after having borrowed massively to ramp up production in hopes of selling coal to China... just as China began cutting its coal use.
That has nothing to do with global warming, the supposed 'war on coal', the EPA, individual politicians, et cetera... and everything to do with the fact that coal can no longer compete economically. Wind and solar now cost HALF as much as coal does for most of the planet.
Coal states should have been lobbying hard to become centers of wind and solar manufacturing. Instead, they've bought in to a seemingly endless series of myths about how coal would be soaring except for 'insert villain of the week here' and thus continued to chase after a dying industry rather than listening to (or voting for) anyone that could actually help them. The result has been a slowly withering fossil fuel economy... which is now headed to complete collapse.
Natural gas is going to be the same story... just playing out later and over ~40 years instead of ~150. States with a strong natural gas economy still have about a decade to save themselves. After that they'll be in the same (sinking) boat as coal.
Natural Gas is at least used for more non-electricity related purposes like heating, so at least the decline in electricity production wont kill quite as hard. I see regulations on fracking hurting it a lot in the future, now that the EPA has confirmed that it contaminates drinking water.
Natural Gas is at least used for more non-electricity related purposes like heating, so at least the decline in electricity production wont kill quite as hard. I see regulations on fracking hurting it a lot in the future, now that the EPA has confirmed that it contaminates drinking water.Ha ha ha ha. What regulations? What EPA, for that matter.
I didn't say it wouldn't get worse before it gets better.
I'm glad you're hopeful about that. I dunno because I live in a state has pretty much defined itself by coal and by extension, natural gas. But if it comes a day when solar and wind power provide 200% more energy and also efficiency than both those combined...I'll be happy. The rest of my state? Maybe not so much.Yeah, I'm afraid the coal states have bought in to a lie.
Coal jobs and usage have both been in decline for decades now. Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources, and Patriot Coal all filed for bankruptcy last year after having borrowed massively to ramp up production in hopes of selling coal to China... just as China began cutting its coal use.
That has nothing to do with global warming, the supposed 'war on coal', the EPA, individual politicians, et cetera... and everything to do with the fact that coal can no longer compete economically. Wind and solar now cost HALF as much as coal does for most of the planet.
Coal states should have been lobbying hard to become centers of wind and solar manufacturing. Instead, they've bought in to a seemingly endless series of myths about how coal would be soaring except for 'insert villain of the week here' and thus continued to chase after a dying industry rather than listening to (or voting for) anyone that could actually help them. The result has been a slowly withering fossil fuel economy... which is now headed to complete collapse.
Natural gas is going to be the same story... just playing out later and over ~40 years instead of ~150. States with a strong natural gas economy still have about a decade to save themselves. After that they'll be in the same (sinking) boat as coal.
They should be lobbying for it...but they don't. They don't see what you and I see, that the coal industry just don't have the 'energy" market it used to. Any more than the steel industry is going to come back. It's a changing market forces that are as much about environment as it is economics. (Moreso the latter I fear.) But yeah keep blaming everything else except the realities already there. Maybe when 2025 rolls around they'll see it. But I doubt it...
End of the day, finding energy sources won't be the problem since nuclear power does provide a perfectly viable and relatively enviro-friendly back up option....
Water shortage will be the big killer...
We may however be reaching a tipping point with Greenland. a fair amount of Greenland's ice is becoming "black ice", dirty ice which is far more receptive to solar heating. We'll probably see signficant loss in the Greenland ice cover which will be enough to push sea level up a couple of feet. Enough to seriously impact coastal cities.Absolutely.
Greenland and West Antarctica are both melting way ahead of what estimates showed just twenty years ago. Sea level rise estimates are consequently being revised upwards and this is all a very serious problem.
Just not, "no summer ice in the Arctic by 2030" and "Antarctic ice ... significantly destroyed by 2030".
Greenland and West Antarctica will be covered in ice past the lifespan of most, or more likely all, people alive today... yet still contribute to sea level rise over that same time period.
My claim was "significant destruction" and here you are using the same word (bolded above by moi) in the same general context. Do you have a different definition of that word than I do?
The year 2030 is likely to see us well on our way to a 1 meter global sea level rise from Greenland and Antarctic ice melting. Also likely to see ice free summers in the Arctic ocean such that trans-Arctic shipping is a thing.
Those ice shelves are holding back the land based glaciers and ice fields. They act as a plug. Remove the plug and by 2030 things become "significant".
Do you have anything new to add to your essentially "We're terminally screwed, so we shouldn't even bother." position, or have you modified your stance since then?
End of the day, finding energy sources won't be the problem since nuclear power does provide a perfectly viable and relatively enviro-friendly back up option....
There's still that small problem with managing nuclear waste which will be toxic for millennia, we have to provide a storage solution that will last longer than any human civilisation has to date.
Eh, nuclear waste is something I'm willing to leave to future generations as long as we do it in a safe and secure manner. We can't solve all mankinds problems at once.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, nuclear waste is something I'm willing to leave to future generations as long as we do it in a safe and secure manner. We can't solve all mankinds problems at once.
That's right up there with "Nuclear waste? Not a problem as long as you don't store it in MY state."
Eh, nuclear waste is something I'm willing to leave to future generations as long as we do it in a safe and secure manner. We can't solve all mankinds problems at once.That's right up there with "Nuclear waste? Not a problem as long as you don't store it in MY state."
No, that assumes the storage is neither safe nor secure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spraying fire hoses of water into your house can cause serious damage, but we do it anyways to prevent bigger problems.
I'm not saying that we should go whole hog and create as much nuclear waste as possible. I'm saying that just because the problem it causes seems insurmountable now, doesn't mean it will be forever.
For example, if a space elevator is built that would reduce the cost of moving material from $25,000/pound to possibly as low as $100/pound. At $500 a pound, might be worth it to send nuclear waste into space to take a long, slow trek to the Sun. At that point, you just need to be able to send it off faster than it accumulates and eventually the problem is solved.
In addition, there might become new uses for nuclear waste. Necessity being the mother of invention and all that. If there's a large quantity of material that people will pay you to take off their hands, eventually someone will come up with a way to make additional money off it. Maybe not in 10 years, but in 200 years? It would be pretty ridiculous to say that in 200 years someone can't come up with uses for the stuff looking at how much other scientific and technological progress we continue to make.
I'm willing to have nuclear waste in my state. I don't want in the BWCA, but room can be found somewhere for it. It's not an ideal solution, but if it helps I don't see the problem of the waste as being insurmountable. It's a temporary problem that will eventually be solved. It is a problem, but it's a less bad one.
No, that assumes the storage is neither safe nor secure.Eh, nuclear waste is something I'm willing to leave to future generations as long as we do it in a safe and secure manner. We can't solve all mankinds problems at once.That's right up there with "Nuclear waste? Not a problem as long as you don't store it in MY state."
That is the present state of affairs. Nuclear waste has been piling up in "temporary storage" ever since the first plant was switched on. We still don't have a long term solution in place. And any answer that relies on magic engineering projects that we don't have the tech to build in the forseeable future isn't a good answer.
That is the present state of affairs. Nuclear waste has been piling up in "temporary storage" ever since the first plant was switched on. We still don't have a long term solution in place.No, that assumes the storage is neither safe nor secure.Eh, nuclear waste is something I'm willing to leave to future generations as long as we do it in a safe and secure manner. We can't solve all mankinds problems at once.That's right up there with "Nuclear waste? Not a problem as long as you don't store it in MY state."
I don't disagree with that, but Irontruth's statement could just as easily be characterized as endorsing secure long term storage as your NIMBY take on it. Given that storing it on Pluto or shooting it into the sun aren't a workable solutions at this point, I don't know what you'd expect aside from long term storage.
I don't disagree with that, but Irontruth's statement could just as easily be characterized as endorsing secure long term storage as your NIMBY take on it. Given that storing it on Pluto or shooting it into the sun aren't a workable solutions at this point, I don't know what you'd expect aside from long term storage.That is the present state of affairs. Nuclear waste has been piling up in "temporary storage" ever since the first plant was switched on. We still don't have a long term solution in place.No, that assumes the storage is neither safe nor secure.Eh, nuclear waste is something I'm willing to leave to future generations as long as we do it in a safe and secure manner. We can't solve all mankinds problems at once.That's right up there with "Nuclear waste? Not a problem as long as you don't store it in MY state."
We're talking about long term storage that has to last on the order of tens of thousands of years. It has to be storage that does not rely on human maintenance. We're not anywhere close to even beginning to answer that problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I buy land on Mars? I hear it's cheap and doesn't need to worry about global warming...
There's no reason to buy. Once you get there just claim what you'd like and I doubt you'll get any hassle about it.
|
|
End of the day, finding energy sources won't be the problem since nuclear power does provide a perfectly viable and relatively enviro-friendly back up option....
Nuclear is not cost effective and relies on a fuel source which (with current technology) wouldn't last 50 years if we used it to replace fossil fuels. And yeah... there are those little meltdown, hazardous waste, and weapon of mass destruction issues that go along with it.
Water shortage will be the big killer...
70% of the planet is covered in water. Given sufficient electricity for desalination and pumping, water shortage will be a non-issue.
Setting aside vast regional variations to focus on overall global trends; natural gas, onshore wind, and utility solar PV are now roughly equal in price. Coal costs roughly twice as much (on par with residential rooftop solar). Nuclear roughly three times as much. Everything else costs more and/or has limited scope of deployment. Natural gas, coal, and nuclear are all slowly increasing in cost due to decreasing fuel supplies and increasingly being held accountable for their environmental and health costs. Wind is slowly, and solar rapidly, decreasing in cost since their supply never decreases and the technology to harness them keeps getting more efficient.
Ten years ago I was saying that it was obvious that solar WILL BE the major energy source going forward. How that can still be in question now that it actually IS the largest source of new electricity generation is a mystery to me. Maybe when it is the cheapest source nearly everywhere (~5 years) we can stop talking about dead end technologies.
70% of the planet is covered in water. Given sufficient electricity for desalination and pumping, water shortage will be a non-issue.
Desalination has major environmental issues.
|
|
70% of the planet is covered in water. Given sufficient electricity for desalination and pumping, water shortage will be a non-issue.Desalination has major environmental issues.
True, but not going to keep people from doing it if they need water.
Indeed, even if perfectly environmentally friendly methods of mass desalination are developed... they won't be used in many places unless economic benefits of doing so significantly outweigh any increase in cost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
End of the day, finding energy sources won't be the problem since nuclear power does provide a perfectly viable and relatively enviro-friendly back up option....Nuclear is not cost effective and relies on a fuel source which (with current technology) wouldn't last 50 years if we used it to replace fossil fuels. And yeah... there are those little meltdown, hazardous waste, and weapon of mass destruction issues that go along with it.
Water shortage will be the big killer...70% of the planet is covered in water. Given sufficient electricity for desalination and pumping, water shortage will be a non-issue.
Setting aside vast regional variations to focus on overall global trends; natural gas, onshore wind, and utility solar PV are now roughly equal in price. Coal costs roughly twice as much (on par with residential rooftop solar). Nuclear roughly three times as much. Everything else costs more and/or has limited scope of deployment. Natural gas, coal, and nuclear are all slowly increasing in cost due to decreasing fuel supplies and increasingly being held accountable for their environmental and health costs. Wind is slowly, and solar rapidly, decreasing in cost since their supply never decreases and the technology to harness them keeps getting more efficient.
Ten years ago I was saying that it was obvious that solar WILL BE the major energy source going forward. How that can still be in question now that it actually IS the largest source of new electricity generation is a mystery to me. Maybe when it is the cheapest source nearly everywhere (~5 years) we can stop talking about dead end technologies.
Bah, just ask the GM to house-rule coal to be cheaper. Environmental science isn't an MMO!
We're talking about long term storage that has to last on the order of tens of thousands of years. It has to be storage that does not rely on human maintenance. We're not anywhere close to even beginning to answer that problem.I don't disagree with that, but Irontruth's statement could just as easily be characterized as endorsing secure long term storage as your NIMBY take on it. Given that storing it on Pluto or shooting it into the sun aren't a workable solutions at this point, I don't know what you'd expect aside from long term storage.That is the present state of affairs. Nuclear waste has been piling up in "temporary storage" ever since the first plant was switched on. We still don't have a long term solution in place.No, that assumes the storage is neither safe nor secure.Eh, nuclear waste is something I'm willing to leave to future generations as long as we do it in a safe and secure manner. We can't solve all mankinds problems at once.That's right up there with "Nuclear waste? Not a problem as long as you don't store it in MY state."
I know what we're talking about, but I'm honestly not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing. Do you have a better choice than storage of nuclear waste?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're talking about long term storage that has to last on the order of tens of thousands of years. It has to be storage that does not rely on human maintenance. We're not anywhere close to even beginning to answer that problem.I don't disagree with that, but Irontruth's statement could just as easily be characterized as endorsing secure long term storage as your NIMBY take on it. Given that storing it on Pluto or shooting it into the sun aren't a workable solutions at this point, I don't know what you'd expect aside from long term storage.That is the present state of affairs. Nuclear waste has been piling up in "temporary storage" ever since the first plant was switched on. We still don't have a long term solution in place.No, that assumes the storage is neither safe nor secure.Eh, nuclear waste is something I'm willing to leave to future generations as long as we do it in a safe and secure manner. We can't solve all mankinds problems at once.That's right up there with "Nuclear waste? Not a problem as long as you don't store it in MY state."
You're wrong on the time scale and you're misunderstanding mine.
We don't need a solution for 10,000 years, we need a safe and secure one for maybe 500 years... and I think that's pretty generous actually. Better solutions will come along, and on the off-chance they don't, if we were able to store it for 500 years safely, we can kick the can down the road another 500 years.
An example of this happening in the past. In 1810 it cost $5 to ship 100 pounds of goods from Louisville to New Orleans by flat boat. By 1850 it cost $0.25 per 100 pounds to ship by steamboat. Those numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, but they'd be $146 and $7.35 respectively. Currently it costs about $0.03 per ton/mile, or about $1.10 per 100 pounds for 750 miles. In 200 years transportation costs have fallen by 99.3%.
If I were to be alive long enough to make the bet, I'd put a huge wager down that space freight sees a similar reduction in the next 200 years. I would put an additional massive bet on 90% of that reduction happening in the next 50 years.
Can I buy land on Mars? I hear it's cheap and doesn't need to worry about global warming...There's no reason to buy. Once you get there just claim what you'd like and I doubt you'll get any hassle about it.
Just make sure you bring a flag.
Scythia,
I plan on having my flag be sable background with a horned demon skull with a gules wand surrounded in flames.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just make sure you bring a flag.Can I buy land on Mars? I hear it's cheap and doesn't need to worry about global warming...There's no reason to buy. Once you get there just claim what you'd like and I doubt you'll get any hassle about it.
I just flagged your post as "just wanted to try the flagging system." There, now you have a flag for when you get to Mars.
Saw some relevant news, regarding Las Vegas Municipal buildings and renewable energy.Then there's this better article, Sorry, Las Vegas Isn't Close To Running Entirely On Renewable Energy
The Internet is sooooo depressing.
Notice that even in my link I specified municipal buildings. Also, the article clarifies that the casinos aren't included. However, many appear to be looking into renewable energy, particularly because it is becoming cheaper to do so.
|
|
We all agree that Antarctica is melting more quickly than expected even 20 years ago. Only you have suggested that Antarctic ice will be significantly destroyed in 14 years.But the problem with the way you put it is that you ignore (misunderstand?) that the rate of melt has been increasing non-linearly. It's been increasing at an increasing rate.
Additionally, you seem to be ignoring the fact that those ice shelves that "we all agree" are soon to be gone
You complain about 'dishonest communication' on this issue, but seem to be the only one here actually guilty of it.
I clearly did not say that the ice shelves are "soon to be gone". Nor am I "ignoring" any of the various aspects of ice melt dynamics.
I simply pointed out that your claim that Antarctic ice will be "significantly destroyed" by 2030 is complete and utter nonsense. Since then you have thrown out one red herring after another that I am supposedly ignoring rather than admitting that no, 6,400,000 cubic miles of ice is NOT going to melt in fourteen years.
Notice that even in my link I specified municipal buildings. Also, the article clarifies that the casinos aren't included. However, many appear to be looking into renewable energy, particularly because it is becoming cheaper to do so.
Scythia and the linked article represented the situation accurately. Las Vegas is the largest city in the U.S. to take it's government buildings 100% renewable so far. That's a significant issue worthy of reporting, and they were careful to explain that the government has no control over how non-government buildings, not to mention buildings outside the city limits, get their power.
I did notice but I expect the "City of Las Vegas" is consuming <<5% of the power in that town (incorporated and unincorporated combined). Like the linked TED Talk in my prior post, I find it sad that people won't talk honestly about facts.
It IS sad.
You should stop doing that.
|
|
51% of GHG Emissions are attributable to livestock!
No.
Note that your source isn't a scientific paper, but rather an advocacy article.
Likely the most egregious error is factoring in "Overlooked respiration by livestock" as 13.7% of all GHG emissions. As has been explained previously in this thread, breathing (by animals or humans) is not factored in to GHG emissions because it is inherently in equilibrium. That is, if a cow exhales an atom of carbon into the atmosphere it HAD to have gotten that carbon atom from something it ate (e.g. grass)... which in turn had to have taken that atom OUT of the natural atmospheric carbon cycle (e.g. the grass used atmospheric CO2 for photosynthesis).
Basically, respiration does not change atmospheric CO2 levels. That article including it as such a major factor indicates either that they have no idea what they are talking about... or were hoping that their readers didn't.
As to the current refugee crisis vs climate refugees... the civil war in Syria was triggered by massive drought. In short... those arguably are climate refugees.
51% of GHG Emissions are attributable to livestock!
No.
Note that your source isn't a scientific paper, but rather an advocacy article.
Likely the most egregious error is factoring in "Overlooked respiration by livestock" as 13.7% of all GHG emissions. As has been explained previously in this thread, breathing (by animals or humans) is not factored in to GHG emissions because it is inherently in equilibrium. That is, if a cow exhales an atom of carbon into the atmosphere it HAD to have gotten that carbon atom from something it ate (e.g. grass)... which in turn had to have taken that atom OUT of the natural atmospheric carbon cycle (e.g. the grass used atmospheric CO2 for photosynthesis).
Basically, respiration does not change atmospheric CO2 levels. That article including it as such a major factor indicates either that they have no idea what they are talking about... or were hoping that their readers didn't.
As to the current refugee crisis vs climate refugees... the civil war in Syria was triggered by massive drought. In short... those arguably are climate refugees.
The issue with livestock is not the carbon generation by their emissions, but of the incredible inefficiency that goes into making a pound of beef. An amazing proportion of our agricultural production, goes simply into making feed stock for beef, which basically gives it a hell of a carbon footprint. Other forms of protein, such as poultry are of an order of magnitude less in such demands.
Right now all I know is this: It's December 27th and it's almost 70 degrees outside tonight. Explain that one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now all I know is this: It's December 27th and it's almost 70 degrees outside tonight. Explain that one.
The polar vortex has collapsed again, thus allowing the jet stream to swing much further north and south... currently pulling warm air from the tropics up over the Eastern US (where you presumably are located) and consequently pushing cold air from the Arctic down in to Siberia. Note that it could just as easily have been the other way around... warm Siberia and freezing US.
If this keeps up you will probably see climate deniers giving explanations like the above (when they don't just hand wave it away as 'natural variability'). What they'll leave out is that it is global warming which is weakening the polar vortex and therefore allowing this wacky weather to occur.
Of course... it is also possible that you are in the southern hemisphere. In which case, 70 degrees on December 27th would be fairly normal. :]
Right now all I know is this: It's December 27th and it's almost 70 degrees outside tonight. Explain that one.
It's countered by it being -6C (21F for those who use F) where I'm at right now?
;P
PS: It's not unexpected or unusual. We've had it snowing since November and it's never left the ground. I hate driving in it, but at least we had a white Christmas...if one really likes that type of stuff. It's supposed to be down to around -10 eventually, and in a week's time be down to -14. Wonderful time of the year. Wonder why I had to follow my spouse to an area so cold...I hate driving in snow.
We all agree that Antarctica is melting more quickly than expected even 20 years ago. Only you have suggested that Antarctic ice will be significantly destroyed in 14 years.But the problem with the way you put it is that you ignore (misunderstand?) that the rate of melt has been increasing non-linearly. It's been increasing at an increasing rate.
Additionally, you seem to be ignoring the fact that those ice shelves that "we all agree" are soon to be gone, hold back a far greater amount of land-based glacial and ice field material. AGW doesn't have to melt the ice directly via a warmer atmosphere to cause significant destruction over the next couple of decades. The mechanism is not theoretical, it's been shown to be underway for the West Antarctic Ice. Elsewhere too certainly, if anyone were to take the time to study those areas as well as we have the West Antarctic Ice.
I'm thinking you (among others) haven't actually read/watched the links I provided.
On the other hand, I'm fairly pessimistic about the ability of the incoming administration to derail progress."Trump's Secretary of Energy is Rick Perry - a green energy advocate presently and for three terms while he was governor of Texas.
Don't believe me? Check out this link here, Special Interests Worried Rick Perry's DOE Might Focus On Creating Sustainable U.S. Energy Policy
During Governor Perry's tenure as governor, Texas's wind energy production soared from almost nothing when he entered office to more than 35 million MW-hrs in 2014, his last full year in office. If Texas was a country, its wind energy production would rank 5th in the world.Do you have anything new to add to your essentially "We're terminally screwed, so we shouldn't even bother." position, or have you...
Anyone who thinks Rick Perry will be friendly to renewables hasn't looked at his stated energy policies.