Hurricane made me wonder

[JohnRoberts]

From the Nature Geoscience Journal in 2013:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

With a partial analysis provided here:

1400 years is a blink in geological terms.

I repeat temperature is not the issue.

What to do is. Politicians and elites are using this  "if A, then B, then C" Logic to argue that if temperatures are higher, we can't question their plans and motives to a massive wealth transfer from the west to poor nations.

There is nothing wrong with helping poor nations but it is dishonest to manipulate the public who barely pay attention to their own lives, or understand STEM issues.

JR

 

[Matador]

And by implication it was warmer than now just over 1400 years ago and, if the cooling trend was still prevalent at that time, it must have been even warmer before that.

Cheers

Ian

So is the assertion that since the Earth was warmer before (presumably before there were enough humans to drastically effect the climate), then man-made climate change can't possibly be true?

This seems to be denying the antecedent.  We could make the exact same argument that Stalin's Great Purge of the 1930's must have been a naturally occurring  phenomenon, because far more people died during the Black Death in the 12th century.

And yes, I would agree, the Earth was definitely warmer 'before that':  we averaged over 200 Celsius 500 million years ago.  I doubt many would argue that a 150 Celsius rise would be tolerable "because it's always been changing, and was worse before".

I repeat temperature is not the issue.

What to do is. Politicians and elites are using this  "if A, then B, then C" Logic to argue that if temperatures are higher, we can't question their plans and motives to a massive wealth transfer from the west to poor nations.

I agree, but as I've said before, we can't seem to even start the conversation about what to do, because there are many arguing that there isn't even a problem in the first place (e.g. a 'Chinese hoax').

 

[ruffrecords]

So is the assertion that since the Earth was warmer before (presumably before there were enough humans to drastically effect the climate), then man-made climate change can't possibly be true?

No. First, the claim that it is now warmer than ever before (whilst humans have been around) is untrue. Second the claim that the higher temperatures we humans have seen before are per se are bad for us also untrue.

A completely separate issue is the claim that humans 'drastically affect the climate'. But none of the above support that claim.

Cheers

Ian


Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

So is the assertion that since the Earth was warmer before (presumably before there were enough humans to drastically effect the climate), then man-made climate change can't possibly be true?

This seems to be denying the antecedent.  We could make the exact same argument that Stalin's Great Purge of the 1930's must have been a naturally occurring  phenomenon, because far more people died during the Black Death in the 12th century.

And yes, I would agree, the Earth was definitely warmer 'before that':  we averaged over 200 Celsius 500 million years ago.  I doubt many would argue that a 150 Celsius rise would be tolerable "because it's always been changing, and was worse before".
I agree, but as I've said before, we can't seem to even start the conversation about what to do, because there are many arguing that there isn't even a problem in the first place (e.g. a 'Chinese hoax').

You are not that new here, so I suspect I've made this comment before but suppose I give you the argument that man has impact on the global temperature.

Let' start the "discussion".  What do we do?  The political elite plan to create a massive slush fund to pay for climate(?) infrastructure in the third world. President Obama already kicked them $1B (one billion dollars of US taxpayer money), and that is just to get it started. All of the poor third world countries agreeing to the Paris accord, was with their fingers crossed behind their back, and with a wink and a nudge, based on the understanding that the west is paying for their new wind farms, dams, and solar projects.  Making energy more expensive will literally kill 3rd world people. 

These hundreds of billions of dollars in climate infrastructure spending will not change the earth's temperature one degree, but it will make many of the elites even wealthier from the table scraps after many billions of new spending occurs.

As I have already shared we could actually actively cool the planet. One obvious way is to introduce reflective particulate matter into the upper atmosphere just like after a volcano. We have seen planet temps drop after massive volcanoes, of course we could do it more efficiently than popping off volcanoes.

Another vector is to mess with is cloud formation. Water vapor (clouds) in the atmosphere increases global warming (heat capture), so add H2O to the CO2 on the list of evil molecules. :  Changing reflectivity (heat absorption)  of the ocean surface could reduce  water evaporation and therefore cloud formation.

As I've warned before, we need to be damn sure of what we are doing before we mess with the planet's thermostat. Don't drink the political kool aid saying that this is simple, or science vs anti-science. Science has very little to do with the political money grab.  Ignore the man behind the curtain.

JR

 

[benb]

. Is solar any good? Weird thing too was that there is a home here with 2 sides of his roof covered in panels that had their windows open during the power outage. I wonder if there has to be some kind of power to run the solar system? I need to ask my neighbor who is completely solar but has been away. I know he actually sells power he doesn't use back to the power company and gets like a $15 check some months so I know he has good supply, even with a pool.

There's a meme (or "fake news") going around that Florida has made it illegal to use solar power when there's a power outage.  The truth is that almost everyone using solar power has it connected to the grid (so they can sell excess back to the power company, and technically this uses the power grid as a huge storage battery - you can buy electricity from this "big battery" at night when the sun isn't shining), and the grid does almost all of the voltage regulation. When the commercial power goes off, the solar power turns itself off. If the solar power system were to put electricity into the grid when there's no power it could hurt or kill people working on the electrical lines. For solar panels to run without being connected to the grid (and give reasonable, regulated voltage even with varying loads), you need a large amount of battery storage that will about double the cost of the system.

 

[ruffrecords]

Let' start the "discussion".  What do we do?  T

JR

Good question. The one thing we should not do it spend it on misguided schemes to reduce the temperature ar get the third world to stop burning fossil fuels. We would be much better spending the money on fusion research. Whatever happens, when it gets cold in the winter, people will need heating. Whatever happens, people will need to get to work. There is no way renewables are going to supply his energy. What we need is clean limitless power. Fusion is the only answer.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

Good question. The one thing we should not do it spend it on misguided schemes to reduce the temperature ar get the third world to stop burning fossil fuels.

yup

We would be much better spending the money on fusion research.

cold fusion has been right around the corner about as long as the magical new battery technology (but you didn't say "cold").

There are nuclear energy power production cycles that are much cleaner and much safer than what we are and have been using.

Whatever happens, when it gets cold in the winter, people will need heating. Whatever happens, people will need to get to work. There is no way renewables are going to supply his energy. What we need is clean limitless power. Fusion is the only answer.

Cheers

Ian

If you think about how much energy the sun delivers to the earth, we should never run out... but we do waste a huge amount.

There is much room for improvement by just wasting less... Cheap energy is the engine to drive economic growth and advance civilization around the world.

Human are smart and we can adapt to climate change... I expect far more than a degree, but plan to be dead before the next ice age.

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

If you think about how much energy the sun delivers to the earth, we should never run out... but we do waste a huge amount.

There is much room for improvement by just wasting less... Cheap energy is the engine to drive economic growth and advance civilization around the world.

I agree, but renewables are not cheap energy. We really need cheap portable energy. The elephant in the room is the exploding population. We really do need to get out among the stars and start colonising and for that we need fusion. Unfortunately too may people are blinkered by short term small problems like the mythical AGW.

Human are smart and we can adapt to climate change... I expect far more than a degree, but plan to be dead before the next ice age.

JR

Me too but I do worry for my children and grandchildren.

Cheers

ian

 

[dmp]

I agree, but renewables are not cheap energy. We really need cheap portable energy. The elephant in the room is the exploding population. We really do need to get out among the stars and start colonising and for that we need fusion. Unfortunately too may people are blinkered by short term small problems like the mythical AGW.
Me too but I do worry for my children and grandchildren.
Cheers
ian

The science of the 'greenhouse' phenomena is real as a fundamental process.  That means increased concentrations of different atmospheric species change the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, leading to a difference in the energy retained - i.e. higher temperatures. CO2, CH4 are known greenhouse gases.

At one time the earth had very high CO2 and much higher surface temperatures. The lower levels of CO2 we have now means there is a significant amount of carbon stored somewhere (... fossil fuels)

Humans have a population size and effect on the earth's surface that is obvious - how can one dismiss any significance on the global energy balance?  Deforestation, fossil fuel conversion, etc... are significant in consideration of the size of the earth.

In my opinion, burning a stored energy content of carbon (fossil fuels) and converting it to CO2 in a blink of the eye compared to geologic time will most likely have a significant effect on the earth's energy balance.  Reversing this carbon conversion is something the earth can do but only in 100s millions of years - not in a timeframe sympathetic to humans.

For the current and preceding 2 or 3 generations of humans to have made the earth potentially uninhabitable for humans in the near future (so that other planets need to be colonized???) is pretty impressively terrible.

Other than political, financial, or an emotional attachment to the status quo, I do not understand anyone being able to disregard the human impact on the earth's energy balance as 'mythical'

Carbon pollution is no different than other kinds of pollution - where vested interests put great effort into slowing or stopping regulations to protect their profit margins.

At best, people who understand science and thermodynamics (greenhouse effect), might argue the effect of humans is not significant yet in comparison to other variations, but evidence indicates that it is.

Solar conversion to electricity has the potential for nearly unlimited cheap energy with the right technology. Unfortunately the opposition to this technology development has been powerful and effective.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The science of the 'greenhouse' phenomena is real as a fundamental process.  That means increased concentrations of different atmospheric species change the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, leading to a difference in the energy retained - i.e. higher temperatures. CO2, CH4 are known greenhouse gases.

At one time the earth had very high CO2 and much higher surface temperatures. The lower levels of CO2 we have now means there is a significant amount of carbon stored somewhere (... fossil fuels)

Humans have a population size and effect on the earth's surface that is obvious - how can one dismiss any significance on the global energy balance?  Deforestation, fossil fuel conversion, etc... are significant in consideration of the size of the earth.

In my opinion, burning a stored energy content of carbon (fossil fuels) and converting it to CO2 in a blink of the eye compared to geologic time will most likely have a significant effect on the earth's energy balance.  Reversing this carbon conversion is something the earth can do but only in 100s millions of years - not in a timeframe sympathetic to humans.

For the current and preceding 2 or 3 generations of humans to have made the earth potentially uninhabitable for humans in the near future (so that other planets need to be colonized???) is pretty impressively terrible.

Other than political, financial, or an emotional attachment to the status quo, I do not understand anyone being able to disregard the human impact on the earth's energy balance as 'mythical'

Carbon pollution is no different than other kinds of pollution - where vested interests put great effort into slowing or stopping regulations to protect their profit margins.

At best, people who understand science and thermodynamics (greenhouse effect), might argue the effect of humans is not significant yet in comparison to other variations, but evidence indicates that it is.

Solar conversion to electricity has the potential for nearly unlimited cheap energy with the right technology. Unfortunately the opposition to this technology development has been powerful and effective.

For the sake of argument let's take that as a given.  The science vs anti-science characterization is a straw man to avoid the real issues (IMO), and insult all who question the advocates as being ignorant..

What do we do?

The political elites want to create an international climate fund spending some $100B a year.  I am not opposed to helping poor nations, we already do, but this seems like a massive bait and switch, "save the planet, give us your money, we are smarter than you". 

They may be smarter than me, they have already raised billions of dollars using this premise.

JR

 

[dmp]

What do we do?

Develop technology for energy conversion and storage that is clean (non-environmentally modifying), safe, and cheap.

Use the power of free market competition, but with government guidance (mandates/incentives/grants), the same way engine exhaust emissions have been cleaned up over the past 2 decades (business-developed technology guided with government mandates /incentives /grants).

 

[JohnRoberts]

Develop technology for energy conversion and storage that is clean (non-environmentally modifying), safe, and cheap.

That sounds worthwhile... still waiting on room temperature superconductors for our power grid. Maybe we need to dust off tesla's wireless power transmission theories?

Use the power of free market competition, but with government guidance (mandates/incentives/grants), the same way engine exhaust emissions have been cleaned up over the past 2 decades (business-developed technology guided with government mandates /incentives /grants).

That is an interesting example.... the massive cheating wrt diesel exhaust emissions doesn't seem to end...  every week another automaker gets implicated. So instead of VW cheating alone it appears several of them used similar strategies to avoid meeting government standards.

I do not mean to diminish your point, air and water are indeed cleaner now than in the past when we had rivers catch on fire. Cleaner is better.

Market forces will help reduce waste since nobody enjoys paying high heating/cooling bills, but there is often a capital investment cost (like for home insulation) , that the people who need it the most can afford it the least. I would rather see the government subsidize home insulation (perhaps using a low interest loan), than helping rich yuppies buy new teslas with big tax breaks. But maybe that's because I can't afford a tesla.  :

JR

 

[Andy Peters]

Fusion is the only answer.

Don't forget that with fusion, there's the small problem of whaddaya do with all of the high-energy neutrons you release ...

(Can be handled on a utility scale, but for something like that fusion reactor that can fit into a truck bed? Nope.)

 

[Matador]

Develop technology for energy conversion and storage that is clean (non-environmentally modifying), safe, and cheap.

Use the power of free market competition, but with government guidance (mandates/incentives/grants), the same way engine exhaust emissions have been cleaned up over the past 2 decades (business-developed technology guided with government mandates /incentives /grants).

Exactly.  An energy 'space race' is needed, with government funding research initiatives, and the private markets doing what they do best: manufacturability and lower costs via scale.

Ian's 'we need to go to other worlds' could be a kicking off point in this direction, as safe energy storage is a prerequisite to visiting other planets.

Remember JFK's 'space race' speech at Rice?

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win!

It's fun to image Trump giving this speech:

We choose to go to the Moon, because it was great, I mean really great.  Going to the Moon was the greatest challenge in the history of mankind, and I came up with it.  Did you know that? The obstructionist Democrats would have said no, but I would have, yes! Many people thought the Moon was a Chinese hoax, and maybe it is, I don't know.  But we need to bring jobs back, good coal jobs, coal we could burn on the space station, did you know? It's like an entire space full of nothing, we would get the pollution for free right out into space! That's how you win! The best people are thinking about this and telling me it's the best idea.

 

[benb]

We HAVE been spending money on fusion, with things like the National Ignition Facility, which may have gotten to "engineering break-even" or whatever - it has cost I dunno how many millions or billions, but it can barely generate same amount of energy it takes from the grid, if that. Other countries/multinational concerns are doing various large fusion projects at similar big-bucks costs attempting to make commercial fusion power a reality, but it seems we energy users are so impatient. They've only been trying this for 50 or 60 years or so ...

There are nuclear energy power production cycles that are much cleaner and much safer than what we are and have been using.

I have a friend who preaches about thorium and the efficiency and safety of a thorium nuclear reactor. I don't doubt it's true, but the US (and probably other worldwide) nuclear power industry and regulatory agencies seem to only know about what has already been built for commercial power, and are probably 50 years behind approving something new. It only took decades to approve and restart making the old tried-and-true style plants, but it looks like those won't even get completed to generate their first watt-second.

Apparently the two Plant Vogle nuclear power plants in Georgia are are walking dead before they're finished. Companies involved have gone bankrupt and it's unsure if others are really going to pay for the completion. It's billions spent already, either way.

"We Have The Technology" but we don't have the will.

 

[DaveP]

Back on topic.....................

IF global warming exists, then the Hurricane issue is a good test for it.

My understanding is that hurricanes need a sea surface temperature of 26C and low wind shear to start-up.  So if the world gets warmer, then the sea will be at that temperature for longer periods during the year, in other words the season will extend both before and after the current season.

If there are increasing hurricanes then a point will be reached when insurance is no longer available and many places will cease to be inhabited because rebuilding will become pointless.  This will not just affect the Caribbean islands, the whole of Florida and the gulf of Mexico coastal cities will become uninsurable  and business investment in these places will collapse.

My advice to young Americans is not to buy a house on the southern coast and preferably get one a hundred feet above sea level.  It would make sense to avoid the tornado corridor too.  I think you have some time yet as I probably won't be around to say "I told you so", but you never know

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

I was considering the thought just because of what PRR said about the AC and the fact that we can't realistically live without it. It's somewhat unnerving and has a bad science fiction feel to it but, with some older people who died here from heat exhaustion because of lack of ac as a result of power loss, it's becoming factual. Maybe I'm over reaching and it could be a simple as acclimating but still.

that nursing home in FL where several seniors died after Irma, had its license revoked

I have a friend who's son is actually in Paris for college and ,when she came back from visiting him, she said the school dorms had no AC and she was dying from the heat there and she's from Florida. But she said the weather cooled off some days and it was nice.

I'm still not sure how I was able to grow up without AC here in Florida. We finally had AC put in when I was 12 or 13...... I can't see living without it for a day now.... My Dad says it's maybe an age thing? I'm not sure but I heard plenty of younger children complaining about heat recently during the power losses.....

My sister just bought a house up in North Carolina. She got a nice 5 acre property with a beautiful stream and a pretty sweet home for silly cheap. The town isn't huge and the way of life is definitely retro but, it's very appealing if you take into account these various factors being brought up..... She's moving there for good in a couple of years.

Very interesting times......

I'm shocked, hurricanes during hurricane season... :  I'm just happy that so far this hurricane season they have missed me....

Probably bad luck to tempt fate by saying that.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yeah, hurricanes are par for the course here. I've seen plenty.

Lots of people had water damage here. The construction, stucco installation to be more exact, had not been up to snuff and, combine that with the painting contractors loading up the "hot" /not cured stucco with as much cheap paint as they could until it alligatored, didn't stand a chance against this wind driven rain. My house revealed this issue, along with mortar joints rubbing themselves out from settling, during Faye. I was lucky enough to file a claim but, there are a lot of people here who are being told that the hurricane didn't cause the flooding through the stucco and that it's a maintenance issue.

So, Dave's point about coverage could have some merit in the long term....

I'm a native Floridian and have never thought about living anywhere else but, this isn't the Florida I remember anyhow and it's freakin hot....lol

I lived in Minnesota for a year working on cell towers and, the Wisconsin/ Minnesota border is a nice area.....But it's freakin cold....

Like I really needed more to think about....

I need a beer..... What time is it????

It's always beer o'clock somewhere in the world, but we have air conditioning so we don't need to drink cold beer first thing in the morning.

JR

 

[PRR]

> My advice to young Americans is not to buy a house on the southern coast

My advice is to buy up the Maine coast. Few hurricanes come close, low earthquake risk. (Also I will sell some day and would like a stronger market.)

> not sure how I was able to grow up without AC here in Florida.

South Jersey is not a ton better (shorter season) and I used to hang upstairs under a poorly insulated roof, prolly 99 degrees. Now I can't stand 80.

> could be a simple as acclimating

My great grandfather spent all his life in the Missouri boot-heel, very hot for a couple months in summer. Never had A/C. Around age 80 he was diagnosed with a heart condition. Around 84 he was not looking too good. His son insisted on getting him A/C. Next summer he passed away. Co-incidence? (Could be- we suspect he wouldn't use the A/C.) That son had an antique Chrysler A/C from the 1960s, but in the 1980 went out on the deck in the morning and passed away, his heart.

You'd think that with average temps near 50, I would not need A/C in Maine. Many folks won't consider it. OTOH the $99 window units sell-out early every summer, and the electric system has had to be beefed for the summer load. Along the coast I "need" A/C as much for the damp as the temp. I got the smallest central A/C they make (1.5 ton) and run it about 16 hours on about a dozen days a year. A couple times I have been tempted to rig the A/C with the heat: coolish and clammy.