Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Pepe's Climate Thread

Page 8 of 11 [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

29 Sep 2019, 5:02 pm

Antrax wrote:
magz wrote:
When it comes to CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal):

The very reason humans have burned enormous quantities of fossil fuels that resulted in current CO2 concentrations was to obtain energy. To make this CO2 coal again, you would need to put at least the same amount of energy into the process - probably much more as efficiency wouldn't be perfect - while still producing all the energy the humanity needs. Not very realistic.

I'm a big fan of temperate zone forests. They are wonderful solar-powered carbon sinks. And a lot of them could grow in the developed countries that can afford losing some of their arable lands. This is something that can be done now, not in some unspecified technological future.


Magz, while you're correct about remaking fossil fuels, that is not necessary. In all futures we need a carbon neutral energy source (currently doesn't exist).
Nuclear energy is carbon neutral. All the renewable and sustainable energy sources are carbon neutral.
Antrax wrote:
With a different energy source the challenge becomes merely to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, not to chemically reduce it back to hydrocarbons. Still challenging, but not thermodynamically impossible.
It's still about not-yet-existing technologies. Reforestation, development of more sustainable farming and energy-efficient technologies are available here and now.

Humans and the rest of the nature are pretty adaptive so most likely even with very serious global warming enough will survive to keep the Earth habitable but it's wiser to avoid making things worse whenever we can afford it.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

29 Sep 2019, 5:09 pm

magz wrote:
Antrax wrote:
magz wrote:
When it comes to CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal):

The very reason humans have burned enormous quantities of fossil fuels that resulted in current CO2 concentrations was to obtain energy. To make this CO2 coal again, you would need to put at least the same amount of energy into the process - probably much more as efficiency wouldn't be perfect - while still producing all the energy the humanity needs. Not very realistic.

I'm a big fan of temperate zone forests. They are wonderful solar-powered carbon sinks. And a lot of them could grow in the developed countries that can afford losing some of their arable lands. This is something that can be done now, not in some unspecified technological future.


Magz, while you're correct about remaking fossil fuels, that is not necessary. In all futures we need a carbon neutral energy source (currently doesn't exist).
Nuclear energy is carbon neutral. All the renewable and sustainable energy sources are carbon neutral.


They're not. Every current energy source depends on a manufacturing process that uses carbon. Can't make solar panels, wind turbines, etc. without burning oil and gas. Until we have sustainable manufacturing processes, we will fail to have sustainable energy as well.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

29 Sep 2019, 7:12 pm

I'd be interested to know why one of the moderators changed this thread's title/subject.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

29 Sep 2019, 8:02 pm

You made too many of these threads for us to count.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

29 Sep 2019, 9:27 pm

cberg wrote:
You made too many of these threads for us to count.


The problem is that in doing so, creating a generic title with my handle, it can be misleading.
A lot of what I post is informational and not expressly my particular view.

I am not partisan in nature, and as such don't slavishly follow the party line, hence it *may* be misleading.
I'd rather the emphasis not be on me.

To be clear:
-I am not a man-made-climate-change denier.
-I am not a man-made-climate-change catastrophist.
-I am an amorous skunk.
Is that understood? :mrgreen:

While I have read the rationale behind the grouping of threads elsewhere, and understand why this one was labelled using my name, I want it understood that not everything I have posted via youtube podcasts or articles under this new banner is something that I am personally advocating.
I would have rather it wasn't titled with the inclusion of my handle.
Not a big deal. Meh.

Perhaps this might seem micro-technical, but after all, I am on the spectrum.
"Detail" is my business. :wink:



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

29 Sep 2019, 9:38 pm

Pepe wrote:
I'd be interested to know why one of the moderators changed this thread's title/subject.

Because that particular moderator doesn't like you, and he likes to exercise power over people he doesn't like.


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

30 Sep 2019, 2:23 am

Antrax wrote:
magz wrote:
Antrax wrote:
magz wrote:
When it comes to CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal):

The very reason humans have burned enormous quantities of fossil fuels that resulted in current CO2 concentrations was to obtain energy. To make this CO2 coal again, you would need to put at least the same amount of energy into the process - probably much more as efficiency wouldn't be perfect - while still producing all the energy the humanity needs. Not very realistic.

I'm a big fan of temperate zone forests. They are wonderful solar-powered carbon sinks. And a lot of them could grow in the developed countries that can afford losing some of their arable lands. This is something that can be done now, not in some unspecified technological future.


Magz, while you're correct about remaking fossil fuels, that is not necessary. In all futures we need a carbon neutral energy source (currently doesn't exist).
Nuclear energy is carbon neutral. All the renewable and sustainable energy sources are carbon neutral.


They're not. Every current energy source depends on a manufacturing process that uses carbon. Can't make solar panels, wind turbines, etc. without burning oil and gas. Until we have sustainable manufacturing processes, we will fail to have sustainable energy as well.

Including nuclear? It's not sustainable but it does not require burning fossil fuels.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

30 Sep 2019, 2:50 pm

magz wrote:
Antrax wrote:
magz wrote:
Antrax wrote:
magz wrote:
When it comes to CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal):

The very reason humans have burned enormous quantities of fossil fuels that resulted in current CO2 concentrations was to obtain energy. To make this CO2 coal again, you would need to put at least the same amount of energy into the process - probably much more as efficiency wouldn't be perfect - while still producing all the energy the humanity needs. Not very realistic.

I'm a big fan of temperate zone forests. They are wonderful solar-powered carbon sinks. And a lot of them could grow in the developed countries that can afford losing some of their arable lands. This is something that can be done now, not in some unspecified technological future.


Magz, while you're correct about remaking fossil fuels, that is not necessary. In all futures we need a carbon neutral energy source (currently doesn't exist).
Nuclear energy is carbon neutral. All the renewable and sustainable energy sources are carbon neutral.


They're not. Every current energy source depends on a manufacturing process that uses carbon. Can't make solar panels, wind turbines, etc. without burning oil and gas. Until we have sustainable manufacturing processes, we will fail to have sustainable energy as well.

Including nuclear? It's not sustainable but it does not require burning fossil fuels.


Using a nucelar power plant doesn't require burning fossil fuels. Using a solar panel doesn't require burning fossil fuels. Using a wind turbine doesn't require burning fossil fuels.

Building a nuclear plant requires fossil fuels. Making a solar panel requires fossil fuels. Building a wind turbine requires fossil fuels. That is the crux of the problem. Switching to these sources can reduce emissions by a %, but it can't eliminate them. Electric cars used to require 10 years of use to make back their initial carbon debt from increased manufacturing emissions of the high-quality batteries. That's probably gone down in recent years, but its a consideration that many gloss over.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

30 Sep 2019, 3:08 pm

Antrax wrote:
Using a nucelar power plant doesn't require burning fossil fuels. Using a solar panel doesn't require burning fossil fuels. Using a wind turbine doesn't require burning fossil fuels.

Building a nuclear plant requires fossil fuels. Making a solar panel requires fossil fuels. Building a wind turbine requires fossil fuels. That is the crux of the problem. Switching to these sources can reduce emissions by a %, but it can't eliminate them. Electric cars used to require 10 years of use to make back their initial carbon debt from increased manufacturing emissions of the high-quality batteries. That's probably gone down in recent years, but its a consideration that many gloss over.

The only reason they require fossil fuels is that currently majority of energy is from fossil fuels. It doesn't fundamentally need to be. Electricity from nuclear plant is as good as from coal plant or hydro plant.

There is a problem with transport but current development of superconductors and batteries enables us to reduce use of fossil fuels even there.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

30 Sep 2019, 3:39 pm

magz wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Using a nucelar power plant doesn't require burning fossil fuels. Using a solar panel doesn't require burning fossil fuels. Using a wind turbine doesn't require burning fossil fuels.

Building a nuclear plant requires fossil fuels. Making a solar panel requires fossil fuels. Building a wind turbine requires fossil fuels. That is the crux of the problem. Switching to these sources can reduce emissions by a %, but it can't eliminate them. Electric cars used to require 10 years of use to make back their initial carbon debt from increased manufacturing emissions of the high-quality batteries. That's probably gone down in recent years, but its a consideration that many gloss over.

The only reason they require fossil fuels is that currently majority of energy is from fossil fuels. It doesn't fundamentally need to be. Electricity from nuclear plant is as good as from coal plant or hydro plant.

There is a problem with transport but current development of superconductors and batteries enables us to reduce use of fossil fuels even there.


Electricity and fossil fuels can't be used for same things interchangeably. Melting iron ore with burning natural gas versus melting iron ore with electrification is significantly different in energy usage.

The reason ethanol was a sham in the mid-2000s was it took more than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

01 Oct 2019, 12:49 pm

Pepe wrote:
While I have read the rationale behind the grouping of threads elsewhere, and understand why this one was labelled using my name, I want it understood that not everything I have posted via youtube podcasts or articles under this new banner is something that I am personally advocating.
I would have rather it wasn't titled with the inclusion of my handle.

That's fine. I did send you a private message about the matter, but I wasn't sure what to title this thread so tried to go with the most neutral thing possible. Obviously nothing can ever be truly neutral.

Here are some alternative thread titles. Would you prefer:

1) "Climate Alarmism"
2) "Climate Alarmism has gone too far"
3) "Media reporting on climate change"
4) Some other suggestion?



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

01 Oct 2019, 1:18 pm

Climate change/global warming hoax debunked.

https://youtu.be/JEvnpmdm5fA


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

01 Oct 2019, 5:13 pm

YouTube is not a scientific journal. Nice try though.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

01 Oct 2019, 10:10 pm

cberg wrote:
YouTube is not a scientific journal. Nice try though.


Who said it was?
Does it have to be?

BTW
Thank you for the: "nice try" comment.
I'm not sure what I did to deserve it but it is nice to receive positive replies from time to time. :wink:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

01 Oct 2019, 10:17 pm

Darmok wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I'd be interested to know why one of the moderators changed this thread's title/subject.

Because that particular moderator doesn't like you, and he likes to exercise power over people he doesn't like.


I was told he doesn't like conservatives, but it could be both. <shrug>

However, a recent post of his was astoundingly civil.
Just saying. :wink:

P.S. to cberg:
I know you weren't posting to me. :mrgreen:



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

02 Oct 2019, 1:05 am

Pepe wrote:
cberg wrote:
YouTube is not a scientific journal. Nice try though.


Who said it was?
Does it have to be?

BTW
Thank you for the: "nice try" comment.
I'm not sure what I did to deserve it but it is nice to receive positive replies from time to time. :wink:


It's cause he can't deal with the message. A scientist can make a video on YouTube, doesn't mean it is then illegitimate. The argument is childish nonsense.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"