The Reef Ain't Dead

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Seeing as the picture was taken by a friend from her house, she lives on the outskirts of Horta I doubt very much that Reef is correct..

I can't vouch for that stunning picture, one way or the other, but I do "suspect' that Reef, and others, are correct.
However, Mt. Pico was (unusually) snow covered in 2018.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Read history much? Countless "conceivable" natural and man-made phenomena and events not only "could" cause the disasters and conflicts you list, but repeatedly did. It's the story of humankind and will continue...

Most of us can differentiate between the things that are currently out of our control, and the things we are doing to ourselves. Also, I'm fairly sure that if hurricanes were preventable, we should and would probably try to prevent them.

Meanwhile, the single-largest reduction in CO2 and harmful atmospheric pollutants over the past decade has been produced from . . . wait for it . . . fossil fuels in the form of natural gas, and not so-called "renewables".

yes, thank you. I seem to recall you mentioning this before. Have a cookie.

So, that's it? The US has now done its part and it's up to the rest of the world to step up?

As helpful as that recent reduction has been, it remains to be seen whether fracking is a viable long-term solution. For various reasons (including um, earthquakes and poisoning of groundwater) it might just be a one-time "gain", and not something that can be relied upon indefinitely. And not least, fracking might also be an economic shell-game or bubble that will burst, as well as a technical one-shot.

So... do you have something else in the wings for an encore? We're not done.

... fossil fuels will eventually be replaced for the same reason the internal combustion engine replaced the horse, namely as a result of technological innovation and simple economics.

... and this is where the light of your hypocrisy shines out the brightest.

You've claimed previously that we are beset by all sorts of other problems that are neglected because of all the attention lavished on climate change. Yet here you've made it clear that you won't lift a finger or a vote towards changing/fixing anything; change must be served up on a silver platter so that it costs YOU less to do the right thing. Riiight.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Seeing as the picture was taken by a friend from her house, she lives on the outskirts of Horta I doubt very much that Reef is correct..

When did Russia annex the Azores?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You've claimed previously that we are beset by all sorts of other problems that are neglected because of all the attention lavished on climate change. Yet here you've made it clear that you won't lift a finger or a vote towards changing/fixing anything; change must be served up on a silver platter so that it costs YOU less to do the right thing. Riiight.

Is this what my post made clear?

Fracking/natural gas may not be a long-term solution but renewables are not a solution at all. At least not on the large scale that's needed.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is this what my post made clear?

Fracking/natural gas may not be a long-term solution but renewables are not a solution at all. At least not on the large scale that's needed.

Renewables are part of the "technical innovation" you prophesy. They're already good, and still getting better. Not the whole solution, obviously, but pretty useful. Wait for energy storage to catch up, and for conservation and efficiencies to shave demand.

And of course, nuclear power, fusion, geothermal, wave energy...

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

....Meanwhile, the single-largest reduction in CO2 and harmful atmospheric pollutants over the past decade has been produced from . . . wait for it . . . fossil fuels in the form of natural gas, and not so-called "renewables"....

The US has made a good start, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking we are anywhere close to where we need to be. Our per capita use is still very high, and our cumulative historic use is even higher.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_per_capita

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Current Climate Change Compared to Earlier Changes

The Earth has experienced many large climate changes in the past. However, current changes in climate are unusual for, at least, two reasons: Cause & Rate.
First, many lines of evidence demonstrate that these changes are primarily the result of human activities;
Second, these changes are occurring (and are projected to continue to occur) faster than many past changes in the Earth’s climate.
The largest temperature changes, of the past million years, are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C, between ice ages, and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). The data indicate that the global warming, at the end of an ice age, was a gradual process, taking about 5,000 years.

It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid, and very unusual, in the context of past changes.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate. Current global temperatures are warmer than they have ever been during at least the past five centuries, probably even for more than a millennium. If warming continues unabated, the resulting climate change, within this century, would be extremely unusua,l in geological terms. Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin, whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.

When comparing the current climate change, to earlier, natural ones, three distinctions must be made.
First, it must be clear which variable is being compared: is it greenhouse gas concentration, or temperature (or some other climate parameter), and is it their absolute value, or their rate of change?
Second, local changes must not be confused with global changes. Local climate changes are often much larger than global ones, since local factors (e.g., changes in oceanic or atmospheric circulation) can shift the delivery of heat or moisture from one place to another and local feedbacks operate (e.g., sea ice feedback). Large changes in global mean temperature, in contrast, require some global forcing (such as a change in green-house gas concentration or solar activity).
Third, it is necessary to distinguish between time scales. Climate changes over millions of years can be much larger and have different causes (e.g., continental drift) compared to climate changes on a centennial time scale.

The main reason for the current concern, about climate change, is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (and some other greenhouse gases), which is very unusual for the Quaternary (about the last two million years). The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials.

Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now ±415 ppm, higher than it has been in at least 800,000 years.

For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration, at the end of the past ice ages, generally took over 5,000 years.

Higher values than at present have only occurred many millions of years ago.

If true, then it certainly sounds like a "crisis" we should all be "alarmed" about. The only proven, realistic, timely, and far-reaching remedy for which is introducing American fracking to the rest of the world. Not what many want to hear, but the world doesn't have the real estate for solar, wind purportedly takes 10 years to start producing net gains, nuclear will take too long and there doesn't seem to be the needed (post-Fukishima) consensus in any event. There's a strong case for natural gas as a worldwide (transitional) source of energy, but only if looked at objectively. Completely unrealistic I know.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You might want to verify your friend's claim. She might be a climate change denier or a QAnon believer. <laugh> Photos identical to yours are found on many web sites, most of which identify it as a Russian mountain. Here are a few. Or you can just look at photos of the two mountains and judge for yourself.

https://golondonadventures.co.uk/mee...st-wilderness/

https://www.pinterest.es/pin/436075176390356740/

https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/co...in_russia_pic/

https://wallpaperaccess.com/russian-landscape

St. Basil's Cathedral, Moscow, Russia - Interesting Places to Visit - Fire Elf - Best Vacation and Honeymoon Destinations

Looks like I might have been subject to a wind up.. along with quite a few others..
Will get in touch later and see what she says..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The US has made a good start, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking we are anywhere close to where we need to be. Our per capita use is still very high, and our cumulative historic use is even higher.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_per_capita

"Per capita" and "cumulative historic" are moralistic arguments. Hardly relevant in the midst of our "existential crisis."

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

If true, then it certainly sounds like a "crisis" we should all be "alarmed" about. The only proven, realistic, timely, and far-reaching remedy for which is introducing American fracking to the rest of the world. Not what many want to hear, but the world doesn't have the real estate for solar, wind purportedly takes 10 years to start producing net gains, nuclear will take too long and there doesn't seem to be the needed (post-Fukishima) consensus in any event. There's a strong case for natural gas as a worldwide (transitional) source of energy, but only if looked at objectively. Completely unrealistic I know.

The many deserts around the world could easily support huge solar and wind farms that could produce enough energy for the world.

More than just clean energy: wind and solar in the Sahara could increase rainfall in the Sahel

...The idea of covering the entire Sahara Desert with a combination of solar and wind farms is not new, but it’s attractive: theoretically, you could supply enough green energy to easily meet current global electricity demand...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The only proven, realistic, timely, and far-reaching remedy for which is introducing American fracking to the rest of the world.

Or, we could continue with a multipronged approach that combines stepping stones like fracking* with continued research and development of alternates, and... wait for it... moderating excessive demand where we can.

*I don't think the last chapter of the fracking story has been written yet. As per my link, its economic viability is not yet clear. I think most countries would be wise to sit back and observe for a couple of years to see how that plays out. How much stock in fracking companies do you own, anyway?

"Per capita" and "cumulative historic" are moralistic arguments. Hardly relevant in the midst of our "existential crisis."

Pragmatic, not moral. It's identifying where the most cuts could be made with the least actual harm. A CRV is almost as nice as an Escalade, isn't it?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Renewables are part of the "technical innovation" you prophesy. They're already good, and still getting better. Not the whole solution, obviously, but pretty useful. Wait for energy storage to catch up, and for conservation and efficiencies to shave demand.

And of course, nuclear power, fusion, geothermal, wave energy...

I'm onboard with all of it, provided it's realistic and actually makes a contribution. The unproductive, feel-good BS surrounding it is what undercuts its credibility with the public, and only provides fodder for the right-wing, oil co. generated, conspiratorial "misinformation" you often decry.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

"Per capita" and "cumulative historic" are moralistic arguments. Hardly relevant in the midst of our "existential crisis."

Morals are very much a part of the human psychic, and therefore an essential part of the decision process.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Meanwhile, the single-largest reduction in CO2 and harmful atmospheric pollutants over the past decade has been produced from . . . wait for it . . . fossil fuels in the form of natural gas, and not so-called "renewables".

Thanks for this, exile. Your observation may be correct (please provide a citation or source for this) but for the sake of argument and to be generous, I will assume it is true for now.
Coal generates 0.36-0.38 kgCO2/KWHr
Natural gas generates 0.2
(my source was https://www.volker-quaschning.de/dat...ez/index_e.php )
So, that is a big difference and the shift from coal to natural gas has contributed to a decline in CO2/KWH. However, if you look at CO2 from electricity generation overall, we have made little overall progress on reducing output in the last 30 years (though some progress has been made since the peak in 2004-2007 year range). Source:
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emis....php/index.php
(see figure 4).
In 2019 the US generated ~1 billion metric tons of CO2 from coal. Converting all of that to natural gas would reduce that to about 600 million metric tons. Since the total is currently ~5.1 billion metric tons, that would yield an overall reduction of ~11%. That just ain't going to do it.
Replacing just the current coal with solar/wind would yield a cut of the full 1 billion metric tons, or about 20% (denominator here is for electricity generation). That assumes you stick with current natural gas and petroleum electricity firing.

"in order to keep warming under the 2°C (3.6°F) threshold agreed on by the world’s governments at a 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 will have to be 40 to 70 percent lower than what they were in 2010."
(Source: https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...nge-ipcc-17300

Keep in mind here that reducing CO2 from power plants is a lot easier than, say, reducing it from air transport. Since air transport is so difficult to reduce, we need greater reductions from fixed power sources, such as electrical generation.

So it is true that coal to gas has reduced CO2 per KWHr
But it is false that coal to gas is going to be anywhere close to sufficient to get us to 'net zero'. Much more aggressive changes will be necessary.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Or, we could continue with a multipronged approach that combines stepping stones like fracking* with continued research and development of alternates, and... wait for it... moderating excessive demand where we can.



*I don't think the last chapter of the fracking story has been written yet. As per my link, its economic viability is not yet clear. How much stock in fracking companies do you own, anyway?

None, and don't go down your usual road of personalizing this when the discussion isn't going your way. It's just another form of the cancel culture you're otherwise so accomplished with. And yes, a multipronged approach is necessary of course. But I'm just not aware of any single other method other than fracking that has proven to be as effective. Are you?