Hard News: The Language of Climate
266 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
They are, but anyone who loses their SUV will consider it a drop in their quality of life.
Or a dent to their ego. To them it's like asking them to cut their balls off.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
But it is not at all certain that the economic losses to society as a whole would be large or even present at all.
You will need be specific about what you mean because that is extremely counterintuitive. Are you not talking about taking out fossil fuel consumption, which accounts for 70-80% of all energy usage on the planet?
The IPCC report for the UN concluded that:
I've not read it, but I expect that in the detail it addresses at least some of the points you are rasing (how people can transition from a crappy intenal combustion engine to something better without having to go back to nothing, for example).
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
You keep talking about losing things and I keep trying to talk about using something different or better.
Not that I care much about SUV drivers but why can't their bigass'd vehicle be powered by something else. And why can't we send solar powered electric pumps to Cambodia. No loss of the experience, but a huge change in emissions.
-
Philip Mills of Les Mills fame declares himself neutral no longer.
-
henry laurensen, in reply to
we don’t need to stop burning all fossil fuels to get carbon emissions to a point where we don’t damage the climate (too much).
It seems that the immediate goal should be to increase the efficiency of energy usage overall, but in particular the efficiency of fossil fuel usage.
<q> use technology to create other solutions to the problem instead.<q>
<q>The biggest piece of unsupported scaremongering . . . comes . . . from those businesses with vested interests . . . <q>
The middle ground where all (including deniers and vested interests, governments etc.) can agree on the goal would seem to be somewhere about here;; increased efficiency, reduced wastage and squandering , and finding cost -competitive alternative energy sources.
Who would lose?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
You keep talking about losing things and I keep trying to talk about using something different or better.
I think we’re talking at cross purposes. I meant what I was saying over short time period, like 5-10 years. But if you’re talking about this kind of change over the next 50 years, then I can hardly disagree. Many more things are possible over such a period. I’m as optimistic as you on that kind of time frame that solutions of many different kinds will be presenting themselves, and that the gradual iterative build of renewable energy will have reached pretty impressive heights compared to what is in place now, and that efficiency and emission reduction will have improved considerably.
Of course I’m not sure what new challenges might also present. That’s a time frame over which the current geopolitical makeup of the world is questionable.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
The middle ground where all (including deniers and vested interests, governments etc.) can agree on the goal would seem to be somewhere about here;; increased efficiency, reduced wastage and squandering , and finding cost -competitive alternative energy sources.
Who would lose?
No many. Sadly those who would lose (big oil etc) have a lot of power.
-
<q>The biggest piece of unsupported scaremongering . . . comes . . . from those businesses with vested interests . . . <q>
Or politicians who call it "nanny state" because mandating fluorescent bulbs as an energy saving alternative is an attack on every freedom, liberty etc. etc.
There is a lot of low hanging fruit as far as energy conservation is concerned with very little in the way of monetary and lifestyle costs, just the need for rational thinking not omg the greens are going to lead us into the dark ages.
This short sighted political braying is unnecessary and frankly immoral.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I meant what I was saying over short time period, like 5-10 years.
In 2004 I had two massive CRTs on my desk. 3D printers barely existed then, now people are making their own for fun, in five years there will be 3D print shops in shopping malls (a guess but not an extreme one). Change happens really fast sometimes. New York is currently switching its city lighting over to LEDs. When aid agencies think about taking electricity to developing countries they take solar not diesel generators.
There are bits of energy saving technology all over the place that need only a small change in attitude to be implemented. It seems to me that we don't need much effort on the part f government to change quite dramatically in a short period of time, but we do need the government to stop actively obstructing change and actively promoting inefficient technologies.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
In 2004 I had two massive CRTs on my desk.
Sure. What's happened with the serious power usages in your life, though? Transportation and heating, and hot water, presumably? Any comparable inroads?
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Change happens really fast sometimes.
The Maunder Minimum (1645 – 1715) happened well within a lifespan – a period that contained one of the 3 ’Little Ice Ages’ they happened very quickly – 300 – 400 years is a blink really, geologically…
…and should fall well within the ambit of committed future planners.We need to 'Clean' up our act, and as Baden Powell (and The Junior Woodchucks, I’m sure) would say – anything can happen, be prepared for the worst!
-
BenWilson, in reply to
should fall well within the ambit of committed future planners
Heh. I make all my plans at least that long. Otherwise, one might be taken by surprise!
-
Note that the quotes here need to have both opening and closing tags (minus my extra spaces):
< q > words < /q >
-
A well-respected(?) sceptic (Richard G. Brown @ Duke University) made this statement (edited) recently :-
“. . . it is high time that we [broke] the “hegemony” of carbon-based fossil fuel producers [ . . .] because it is dirty, expensive, a waste of precious pre-synthesized organic molecules of enormous value UNBURNED, and not a suitable basis for a steady-state world civilization with a high global standard of living - the only kind of world that might one day transcend war, poverty, and widespread preventable human misery.
It is also good to prevent any single corporate interest group from amassing enough wealth and structural dominance that they become a political factor at the expense of the people they serve, a tail wagging the dog, and this has long since been passed with e.g. oil companies
So I’m all for solar (sustainable forever, basically); thorium (sustainable for at least 1000 years, long enough maybe to solve the fusion problem); fusion ; biodiesel IF it is sustainably profitable without subsidy and ecologically no worse than oil wells; conservation measures based on clever technology that are themselves life improvements (faucets that go on only while you use them, toilets that flush themselves, lights that only go on when there is somebody there to see the light, heat that goes on only when somebody is there that needs to keep warm).
A lot of this stuff has positive ROI just because the resources saved cost more money than the device with any reasonable amortization.”
-
bmk, in reply to
Sure. What's happened with the serious power usages in your life, though? Transportation and heating
There were huge fuel efficiency gains in cars for awhile; though they seem to have stalled lately. I recall when 10-12L per 100km was common for a mid-sized car whereas now the same car would likely be 6-8L per 100km. Unfortunately people have often simply used the inefficiencies to buy bigger cars.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Unfortunately people have often simply used the inefficiencies to buy bigger cars.
Good charts of what's happened here. Seems that the weight has stopped increasing since about 2005, after quite a long downturn after the 70s oil shocks. But average efficiency has made quite a gain since the weight stopped going up. And horsepower has been on a steady rise. These are US figures. If horsepower were to stabilize or even go down, there's a lot more room to get efficiency, and of course dropping the average weight .
I expect reality lags behind these figures quite a lot, though, since they are about new cars only, which are obviously a small fraction of the total fleet. I guess if we knew average age and variance of all cars we could probably work it out pretty accurately. But that does mean that we're probably hitting the sweet spot of the retirement of the less efficient fleet now. In other words, we're actually at the bottom of that upturn, but we do know the upturn is coming.
-
henry laurensen, in reply to
There were huge fuel efficiency gains in cars for a while; though they seem to have stalled lately.
The latest plug-in hybrid SUV claims 1.9L/100Km= 124miles/U.S. gallon = 149 miles/ Imp. gallon.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Sure. What's happened with the serious power usages in your life, though? Transportation and heating, and hot water, presumably? Any comparable inroads?
Current automotive technology based on the internal combustion engine has severely lagged that of semiconductors and electricity generation. As it stands, the likes of the Tesla Model S, Chevy Volt, and Nissan Leaf remain a curiosity for the time being, though they are worthy efforts. On that note, who here has seen "Revenge of the Electric Car"?
And what became of Jack Nicholson's hydrogen car remains a mystery.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
comes in 5 easy pieces...
And what became of Jack Nicholson’s hydrogen car remains a mystery.
Something to do with the amount of platinum needed for the hydrogen fuel cells, or some such.. source
-
BenWilson, in reply to
The future is plugged in. I still can't really understand why we weren't here 10 years ago, though. Pure plug-ins, rather than hybrids, are considerably simpler to make - we could have had the Nissan Leaf back then. The batteries wouldn't have been as good, but that could also have been a modular part, so that upon upgrading the end-of-life battery, you get a car that's actually better than it was new. The efficiency is pretty compelling.
-
Ever seen a Nissan Leaf? One would think that they would be good around Auckland , but $60,000 new for a small car?
Autotrader has 3 second -hand ones listed at $30, 000, $40,000 and $50,000.
With NZ headed towards 80% renewable electriciity it should have been a no-brainer , if the price was right.Maybe it's those distant weekends away that kill the idea ; the idea of a "work-car" is not new. It 's just that the "work-car" is usually the old inefficient low cost dunger.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
With NZ headed towards 80% renewable electriciity it should have been a no-brainer , if the price was right.
Yup. And the price is incomprehensible. I presume it's predicated purely around the current novelty of the vehicle, rather than any justifiable link to its development cost. But that makes it waffle in a silly middle ground. It's neither cheap, for people conscious of budget, nor is it a performance vehicle for anyone who just likes cool cars. The Tesla makes more sense to me.
Maybe it’s those distant weekends away that kill the idea ; the idea of a “work-car” is not new. It ’s just that the “work-car” is usually the old inefficient low cost dunger.
Which is precisely the opposite of how it could be for anyone capable of thinking it through. The work car car should be the electric, cheap and reliable and short range, and small, easily parked. The play car would be petrol powered. It's for the trips around the country, or the hauling of loads, trailers, boats, etc, and the occasional rescue of the electric car if it got accidentally taken beyond its limits. It's inefficiency is counterbalanced by the infrequency of its use, and the sheer utility for a much wider range of purposes. Most of the time it's parked at home next to the other infrequently used luxuries.
-
Getting back to the middle ground thing , Bart said this back up the page:-
So yeah, the planet will cope and most folks are pretty certain there will be life on the planet (unless we go to full Venus-like hothouse) but there is not certainty that the life that exists will be able to support our civilisation.
Assuming that there will be human life on the planet, it is a question of how many humans can be supported at what level of comfort. In other words it’s the same old sustainability of civilisation problem that we’ve been not talking much about for about 50 years. Certainly doing almost nothing about it.
There is more than one reason why it’s not sustainable ; climate being one. Energy being another.
This study adds population, water and agriculture:-And they are all intertwined to a greater or lesser extent.
Probably most people who have thought about it agree with this. We just don't know which one will get us first. -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
they are all intertwined to a greater or lesser extent.
coupled with this new finding - things start to stack up...
Earth's poles are separated by four oceans, six continents and more than 12,000 nautical miles.
Turns out, that's not so far apart.
New data from NASA's AIM spacecraft have revealed "teleconnections" in Earth's atmosphere that stretch all the way from the North Pole to the South Pole and back again, linking weather and climate more closely than simple geography would suggest.
For example, says Cora Randall, AIM science team member and Chair of the Dept. of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado, "we have found that the winter air temperature in Indianapolis, Indiana, is well correlated with the frequency of noctilucent clouds over Antarctica."
Noctilucent clouds, or "NLCs," are Earth's highest clouds. They form at the edge of space 83 km above our planet's polar regions in a layer of the atmosphere called the mesosphere. Seeded by "meteor smoke," NLCs are made of tiny ice crystals that glow electric blue when sunlight lances through their cloud-tops. -
Sacha, in reply to
Most of the time it's parked at home next to the other infrequently used luxuries.
Or in share schemes like http://www.cityhop.co.nz/
Post your response…
This topic is closed.