New report on climate change released today

[Shadowy Man]

And not only that I remember clearly when the consensus was global cooling, we're doomed.

From what I have read on the subject, the global cooling “consensus” was more of a media phenomenon than an academic one.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So, there are people in the world who think Brook Benton was giving an actual weather report.

 

[Worldtraveller]

And not only that I remember clearly when the consensus was global cooling, we're doomed.

From what I have read on the subject, the global cooling “consensus” was more of a media phenomenon than an academic one.

It was. And while there have always been sensationalized headlines, apparently, that's all George reads. Also, if science corrects itself, it's "wrong". He doesn't really understand...well, much of anything, apparently.

 

[repoman]

When cold winter storms are seen, it is weather.
When warm summers are seen, it is weather, too.

The climate cycles. We don't know why.

Science never provides truth; it provides what is not yet proven false.
Science advances by the disagreement of new scientists who think the current consensus is wrong.

Do not trust experts. Remember the Gell-Mann effect.

Come on man, the greenhouse effect is extremely simple. We have satellites now that can see the energy balance shift by letting less heat get back out.

Where that heat goes is another matter...

Come back here August 15th and complain about how global warming is bullshit.

The thing is I don't believe the experts. I listen to them. I like Ben Davidson at Suspicious Observers about global warming. I like the Russian contribution to the IPCC models. I am uncertain whether Mann's prediction of water-vapor / CO2 positive feedback has been debunked.
I could be wrong. But I don't see an emergency. 30 years or so ago: if not done in the next 10 years we're doomed. 10 years later: if not done in the next 10 years, we're doomed.
And not only that I remember clearly when the consensus was global cooling, we're doomed.

I think of it moreso as global CO2 thermostat reset, with two potentially large positive feedbacks.

The first is a lowering of the arctic albedo which will push the energy balance to more warming. The second is runaway tundra melting and outgassing, which will have more of a long term effect with much larger amounts of CO2 needed to be turned into limestone again before a return to preindustrial conditions.

There are two parts to the crazy shills I have seen dismissing global warming:

A) Global Warming is not really happening

B) There are a lot of benefits to it, greatly outweighing the bad parts.

For B, having all the port city submerged and millions of tons of that waste flooding the ocean is terrifying and can in no way be offset by positive effects.

 

[ZiprHead]

Porsche Says Its Synthetic Fuel Could Make Gas-Powered Engines as Clean as EVs
The marque believes its eFuel would allow combustion engines to be as clean as electric drivetrains.

The marque’s vice president Motorsport and GT cars, Dr. Frank Walliser, told British car magazine Evo that the company is hard at work on a synthetic fuel technology that could save traditional, gas-powered mills. The fuel won’t just reduce emissions, either; it has the potential to make combustion engines just as clean as their battery-powered counterparts, the executive said.

Walliser claims the company’s synthetic fuel, which will be called eFuel, can be used in any combustion engine and is scheduled to start undergoing testing next year. The fuel is less complex than traditional gas—eight to 10 components compared to 30 to 40—allowing it to burn cleaner, with fewer particulates and NOx. Because of this, the total carbon footprint of the vehicle will be equal to that of an EV.

“Synthetic fuel is cleaner and there is no bi-product, and when we start full production we expect a CO2 reduction of 85 percent,” Walliser told the publication. “From a ‘well to wheel’ perspective—and you have to consider the well to wheel impact of all vehicles—this will be the same level of CO2 produced in the manufacture and use of an electric vehicle.”

Porsche isn’t the only premium automaker exploring the potential of synthetic fuel. Last spring, McLaren Automotive COO Jens Ludmann said the British marque viewed the nascent technology as a valid alternative to electric drivetrains. The executive also said the marque intended to eventually build a prototype that would run on synthetic fuel.

 

[Swammerdami]

When cold winter storms are seen, it is weather.
When warm summers are seen, it is weather, too.

The climate cycles. We don't know why.

Science never provides truth; it provides what is not yet proven false.
Science advances by the disagreement of new scientists who think the current consensus is wrong.

Do not trust experts. Remember the Gell-Mann effect.

Follow your own advice! Google is your friend. It will teach you that YOU are misremembering the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. Hint: The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is NOT about experts not understanding their area of expertise.

But speaking of Effects, Google Dunning-Kruger while you're at it. THAT effect might apply to people who, faced with science uncomfortable to them, invoke the Gell-Man effect fallaciously.

 

[bigfield]

The climate cycles. We don't know why.

"See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that."

 

[barbos]

I thought we knew why climate cycles. What happened? Why we no longer know?

 

[Swammerdami]

And not only that I remember clearly when the consensus was global cooling, we're doomed.

From what I have read on the subject, the global cooling “consensus” was more of a media phenomenon than an academic one.

As someone on the far side of the proverbial "threescore and ten" I remember the concern about cooling: It was about "Nuclear Winter" — a full-scale nuclear war would have cooling effects similar to a super-volcano.

This leads to the question: Why not detonate several H-bombs to counter the warming effects of CO₂?
In fact, there are simple cost-effective ways to inject coolants into the stratosphere. Sulfate aerosols — associated both with volcanic plumes and with acid rain — are most mentioned as a coolant, but researchers are looking at the more benign calcium carbonate.

I predict that such coolants will be deployed when global warming becomes too obvious even for the deniers. It will not be a panacea; in particular, it will not reverse ocean acidification, which is another tragic consequence of excessive CO₂.

 

[Swammerdami]

The climate cycles. We don't know why.

"See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that."

One of the strongest climate variations occurs like clockwork on a 24-hour cycle. Have Republicans figured that one out yet?

All kidding aside, while I agree that George S's comment is foolish, it is true that the ancients knew even less about climate than Republicans. Galileo's theory of tides was actually much more incorrect than the theories of some ancient Greek and medieval Arab scholars. The first correct explanation of the tides was developed by (guess who?)

Show

Sir Isaac Newton.

 

[lpetrich]

Will synthetic fuel save the performance car? The manufacturers weigh in | evo

Porsche claims a car running on eFuel will have the same CO2 footprint as an EV, and BMW, Audi, Aston Martin and McLaren all agree

Porsche’s Vice President Motorsport and GT cars, Dr Frank Walliser, believes internal combustion engines using synthetic fuel, or eFuel, will make internal combustion cars as clean as an electric alternative. Speaking at the launch of the new 911 GT3, Dr Walliser explained that Porsche’s development of synthetic fuels is on course to start trials in 2022 and that this fuel could be used in all of Porsche’s current internal combustion engines without any requirements to modify them, including the all-new 992-generation GT3.

Yes, synfuels, produced by power-to-gas and power-to-liquids processes.

There is a lot of interest in producing hydrogen by electrolysis, both as a synfuel and for energy storage. Hydrogen can also be a feedstock for other synfuels. Electrolysis:

2H2O + electricity -> 2H2 + O2

One can extract nitrogen from the air and make ammonia from it and hydrogen. That's the Haber-Bosch process, and that's what's used to make nitrogen fertilizer. The hydrogen in this process is currently made from natural gas, but if it is made by electrolysis, then the process will be free of fossil-fuel feedstocks.

That natural-gas process for hydrogen is steam reforming:
CH4 + H2O -> CO + 3H2

Haber-Bosch:
3H2 + N2 -> 2NH3

Once one gets ammonia, one can combine it with oxygen with the help of a catalyst to make nitric acid, HNO3. It is a feedstock for nitrates, anything with the NO3- ion.

For hydrocarbons, one does the Fischer-Tropsch process:

(x)*CO2 + (y/2 + 2x)*H2 -> (2x)*H2O + CxHy

Y is usually close to 2x, so one can simplify the equation:

CO2 + 3H2 -> 2H2O + (CH2)

Oxyhydrocarbons are made in the same way:

Methanol:
CO2 + 4H2 -> H2O + CH3OH

Dimethyl ether (DME) I've seen mentioned as a possible synfuel:
2CO2 + 6H2 -> 3H2O + CH3-O-CH3

 

[bilby]

I thought we knew why climate cycles. What happened? Why we no longer know?

Many people struggle with the distinction between "I don't know" and "We don't know".

 

[bilby]

And not only that I remember clearly when the consensus was global cooling, we're doomed.

From what I have read on the subject, the global cooling “consensus” was more of a media phenomenon than an academic one.

As someone on the far side of the proverbial "threescore and ten" I remember the concern about cooling: It was about "Nuclear Winter" — a full-scale nuclear war would have cooling effects similar to a super-volcano.

This leads to the question: Why not detonate several H-bombs to counter the warming effects of CO₂?

We tried that 520 times, mostly in the 1950s. It turns out that you need to nuke something highly combustible, like a city or a forest, rather that a desert, or you don't get much of an effect.

It also turns out that people don't like it much if you nuke their cities or even their forests.

In fact, there are simple cost-effective ways to inject coolants into the stratosphere. Sulfate aerosols — associated both with volcanic plumes and with acid rain — are most mentioned as a coolant, but researchers are looking at the more benign calcium carbonate.

I predict that such coolants will be deployed when global warming becomes too obvious even for the deniers. It will not be a panacea; in particular, it will not reverse ocean acidification, which is another tragic consequence of excessive CO₂.

It's possible that this might be tried, but I rather doubt it. The side effects could be pretty nasty, and simply replacing fossil fuels with nuclear fission can achieve much the same result - particularly if you use some of that fission power to actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (and perhaps turn some of it into synthetic hydrocarbons for plastics and carbon neutral fuels).

Venus has a high carbon dioxide atmosphere, full of sulphuric acid; Perhaps they tried your solution a few eons ago.

 

[RVonse]

Will synthetic fuel save the performance car? The manufacturers weigh in | evo

Porsche claims a car running on eFuel will have the same CO2 footprint as an EV, and BMW, Audi, Aston Martin and McLaren all agree

Porsche’s Vice President Motorsport and GT cars, Dr Frank Walliser, believes internal combustion engines using synthetic fuel, or eFuel, will make internal combustion cars as clean as an electric alternative. Speaking at the launch of the new 911 GT3, Dr Walliser explained that Porsche’s development of synthetic fuels is on course to start trials in 2022 and that this fuel could be used in all of Porsche’s current internal combustion engines without any requirements to modify them, including the all-new 992-generation GT3.

Yes, synfuels, produced by power-to-gas and power-to-liquids processes.

There is a lot of interest in producing hydrogen by electrolysis, both as a synfuel and for energy storage. Hydrogen can also be a feedstock for other synfuels. Electrolysis:

2H2O + electricity -> 2H2 + O2

One can extract nitrogen from the air and make ammonia from it and hydrogen. That's the Haber-Bosch process, and that's what's used to make nitrogen fertilizer. The hydrogen in this process is currently made from natural gas, but if it is made by electrolysis, then the process will be free of fossil-fuel feedstocks.

That natural-gas process for hydrogen is steam reforming:
CH4 + H2O -> CO + 3H2

Haber-Bosch:
3H2 + N2 -> 2NH3

Once one gets ammonia, one can combine it with oxygen with the help of a catalyst to make nitric acid, HNO3. It is a feedstock for nitrates, anything with the NO3- ion.

For hydrocarbons, one does the Fischer-Tropsch process:

(x)*CO2 + (y/2 + 2x)*H2 -> (2x)*H2O + CxHy

Y is usually close to 2x, so one can simplify the equation:

CO2 + 3H2 -> 2H2O + (CH2)

Oxyhydrocarbons are made in the same way:

Methanol:
CO2 + 4H2 -> H2O + CH3OH

Dimethyl ether (DME) I've seen mentioned as a possible synfuel:
2CO2 + 6H2 -> 3H2O + CH3-O-CH3

All that has been known since WW2. In fact, the Germans made synthetic gasoline for their WW2 tanks because of not having any oil wells. History has proven none of this is economically practical or would be sold today.

A major breakthrough with practical synthetic fuel will be made just about the same time as the first practical fusion reactors.....and that won't be in our lifetimes...or our grandchildren's lifetimes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When cold winter storms are seen, it is weather.
When warm summers are seen, it is weather, too.

The climate cycles. We don't know why.

Science never provides truth; it provides what is not yet proven false.
Science advances by the disagreement of new scientists who think the current consensus is wrong.

Do not trust experts. Remember the Gell-Mann effect.

Thanks Bill O'Reilly.

 

[Swammerdami]

... But speaking of Effects, Google Dunning-Kruger while you're at it. THAT effect might apply to people who, faced with science uncomfortable to them, invoke the Gell-Man effect fallaciously.

I apologize to everyone, especially the Mods. It's no excuse, but I am easily riled, and whip out the Reply button without first counting to ten. A guy who knows me says I remind him of Trump, who also likes to interrupt, get angry and rant. That guy and I agree on very little politically, but I had to agree with him on that!)

I will work on increasing the size of my Ignore List. I hope other TFTers will help me by enclosing the Ignored-Republican quote in a Hide Box. Make exception for brief quotes useful for pedagogic or comedic purpose.

In the event that one of the Republicans makes a post which is thoughtful and useful, please quote it into a thread titled "Thoughtful posts by Republicans" or some such. (If anyone thinks this is a good suggestion, I urge them to start such a thread.) Thanks in advance.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^* - Somebody hijacked one of my threads, so I'm going to hijack this one to define Republican, etc.:

conservative - this almost-useless word is treated by most Americans as, more or less, a synonym of Republican
right-winger - an extreme conservative; in the case of U.S. almost always irrational.
Tea-Partier - a faction of the old GOP, driven primarily by racism, ignorance and gullibility
Trumpist, type 1 - almost co-contiguous with the Tea Party
. . [Trumpist, types 2,3 - left for future expansion]
Trumpist, type 4 - GOPsters able to grasp how horrid and evil Trump is, yet bound to him, usually by the GOPster's own corruption.
Republican - synonym of Trumpist, any type.

Just as the D-R Party had at the end of "Good Feeling" a schism between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, so there is a pending schism between Trump and a tiny group of whom Romney and Kasich may be most visible.

If Romney joined the Democratic Party tomorrow I would elevate him to the heights of American heroism. But he won't. And so I will treat Romney, whom I once respected, as just an other greedy asshole who relishes his sins.

 

[Swammerdami]

... It also turns out that people don't like it much if you nuke their cities or even their forests.

I was going to try to detonate a super-volcano. Far-fetched?

I predict that such coolants will be deployed when global warming becomes too obvious even for the deniers. It will not be a panacea; in particular, it will not reverse ocean acidification, which is another tragic consequence of excessive CO₂.

It's possible that this might be tried, but I rather doubt it. The side effects could be pretty nasty, and simply replacing fossil fuels with nuclear fission can achieve much the same result ...

CO2 levels are already high, and there are positive feedback loops operating. Even the present level of climate change has proved troublesome. Undoing the century trend is already difficult.

 

[George S]

When cold winter storms are seen, it is weather.
When warm summers are seen, it is weather, too.

The climate cycles. We don't know why.

Science never provides truth; it provides what is not yet proven false.
Science advances by the disagreement of new scientists who think the current consensus is wrong.

Do not trust experts. Remember the Gell-Mann effect.

Thanks Bill O'Reilly.

I don't know what you think I said.
Weather is not climate. We do not know how ice ages start and end. Mankind has not been the driver of any of them. The Sun has 11 yr, 200 yr, 1200 yr, 12-13000 yr cycles. Not to mention Milankovitch.

Science works by failed experiment. We always call results consistent with a hypothesis. F=ma is false. But it was the best we had until Einstein.

Science advanced when Einstein proved Newton wrong. Chipping away. Never done.

The Gell-Mann effect I can see sometimes. News describing my specialty -- computer modeling -- is always wrong. I know the art of modeling through working at the (now) Pfizer location Biden went to yesterday. I worked on the computer projections for HIV. They showed a drop to zero around 2020. Not quite exact but made 40 years ago.

I don't believe the newspaper reports of what experts say. In my field they're always wrong. How about in yours?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And not only that I remember clearly when the consensus was global cooling, we're doomed.

From what I have read on the subject, the global cooling “consensus” was more of a media phenomenon than an academic one.

As someone on the far side of the proverbial "threescore and ten" I remember the concern about cooling: It was about "Nuclear Winter" — a full-scale nuclear war would have cooling effects similar to a super-volcano.

This leads to the question: Why not detonate several H-bombs to counter the warming effects of CO₂?
In fact, there are simple cost-effective ways to inject coolants into the stratosphere. Sulfate aerosols — associated both with volcanic plumes and with acid rain — are most mentioned as a coolant, but researchers are looking at the more benign calcium carbonate.

I predict that such coolants will be deployed when global warming becomes too obvious even for the deniers. It will not be a panacea; in particular, it will not reverse ocean acidification, which is another tragic consequence of excessive CO₂.

There have been sane suggestions for geoengineering cooling. However, your approach doesn't work. Plenty of h-bombs have been detonated without causing cooling--the thing is, the h-bomb is basically only the trigger. To get a nuclear winter you have to nuke cities, not open land. The mushroom cloud starts a circulation pattern from ground level to the stratosphere, but to cause a problem there needs to be a burning city underneath producing vast quantities of soot and maintaining the circulation. Also, the soot without the h-bomb doesn't set up a circulation that goes high enough, it quickly rains out (see Kuwaiti oil fires) and doesn't cause a problem.

You can get an impact winter without burning cities but the energy involved is vastly greater.

 

[lpetrich]

(my post on synfuels, snipped for brevity)

All that has been known since WW2. In fact, the Germans made synthetic gasoline for their WW2 tanks because of not having any oil wells. History has proven none of this is economically practical or would be sold today.

Wind energy and solar energy both seemed like that over the early to mid 20th cy., and look at what happened. Both of them are now competitive with fossil fuels.

As to synfuels themselves, there is one with a very long history: charcoal. That is made by heating wood with poor airflow, so that it carbonizes rather than burns. Wood's chemical formula is roughly CH2O, or more precisely, C6(H2O)5, and driving off the H2O leaves C. Doing that makes a hotter-burning fuel, since burning it will not drain energy releasing its H2O.

A similar one is coke (not the drink). It is made by heating coal to drive off its volatiles and leave its carbon behind. Coking is done for the same reason: making a hotter-burning fuel.

Another kind of synfuel is hydrocarbons made by cracking long-chain ones. That is a common practice, done to make heavy hydrocarbons usable as a gasoline feedstock.

A major breakthrough with practical synthetic fuel will be made just about the same time as the first practical fusion reactors.....and that won't be in our lifetimes...or our grandchildren's lifetimes.

RVonse, what gives you the idea of that timescale? Or is it something like such proverbially never-occurring events as the Greek Kalends or pigs flying or Hell freezing over?

As to nuclear fusion, I have a serious suspicion that it will become economically preempted by renewable energy, the same way that wind energy and solar energy were economically preempted by fossil fuels for a long time.