[onoway]

While people argue about if or how much of a problem we are/will be facing, other people are getting on with finding solutions for problems already here for many and lurking aound the corner for more, including many in North America. This is a "high tech" version of air sinks. I had to wonder just how abusive people had been to the environment at some point to have no ground water when the air there holds such a high percentage..nevertheless an ingenious solution which has been scaled up from simpler systems.

[Daniel1960]

 Gerben42, on 2013-April-05, 16:13, said:

Why is this all so controversial? Does it really matter if the man-made part is 10% or 90%? Burning fossil fuel is poison for the environment, so we should make it unattractive. We only have one Earth, and even if we are not messing up the climate, we are messing up nature and the environment. We are overfishing, poisoning the plants and animals that end up on our plate and those that don't.

Gerben,
It matters as to what action is needed and how soon. If mankind was responsibel for 10% of the warming, that would ewuate to ~0.08C over 130 years, and future warming would be almost indistinguishable from natural. On the other hand, if it winds up being 90%, then we are in for real hot times.

Overfishing and overhunting are different issues, which need much more attention - not to mention the human land grab that is forcing other species to the brink of extinction.

The only poison released during burning comes from the mercury and uranium compounds in coal. Therefore, replacing coal should be our prime attack. Unless we can somehow clean all the exhaust emitted during burning. Then there are the issues associated with strip mining. These are tangible issues, which have ramifications. If carbon dioxide can be shown to be another bad actor in the future, then we should address that too.

[mike777]

Breakthrough in hydrogen fuel production could ‘revolutionize alternative energy market’

April 9, 2013
.



Sources of hydrogen: plants (credit: Wikimedia Commons)

A team of Virginia Tech researchers has discovered a way to extract large quantities of hydrogen from any plant, a breakthrough that has the potential to bring a low-cost, environmentally friendly fuel source to the world, the researchers say.

“Our new process could help end our dependence on fossil fuels,” said Y.H. Percival Zhang, an associate professor of biological systems engineering in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College of Engineering.

“Hydrogen is one of the most important biofuels of the future.”

Zhang and his team have succeeded in using xylose (“wood sugar”), the most abundant simple plant sugar, to produce a large quantity of hydrogen that previously was attainable only in theory. The method can be performed using any source of biomass.

This new environmentally friendly method of producing hydrogen utilizes renewable natural resources, releases almost no greenhouse gasses, and does not require costly or heavy metals. Previous methods to produce hydrogen are expensive and create greenhouse gases.

The U.S. Department of Energy says that hydrogen fuel has the potential to dramatically reduce reliance on fossil fuels and automobile manufacturers are aggressively trying to develop vehicles that run on hydrogen fuel cells. Unlike gas-powered engines that spew out pollutants, the only byproduct of hydrogen fuel is water. Zhang’s discovery opens the door to an inexpensive, renewable source of hydrogen.

http://www.kurzweila...tm_medium=email

[billw55]

Of course for hydrogen to be worthwhile, the fuel obtained has to return substantially more energy than is required to extract it, which is not easy with hydrogen. Also there are the obvious safety concerns with storage and transport. Overall I am skeptical but if these things can be overcome, it could be a good idea.

[blackshoe]

I suspect there will be nay-sayers. I suspect they will bring up the Hindenburg.

[onoway]

 blackshoe, on 2013-April-10, 10:52, said:

I suspect there will be nay-sayers. I suspect they will bring up the Hindenburg.

Car explosions/burning in the movies will be SO much easier to manage. Come to think of it, propane is maybe already pretty easy..such vehicles aren't allowed in underground parking lots (here, anyway) for fear of same.

[Gerben42]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-April-06, 14:32, said:

Gerben,
It matters as to what action is needed and how soon. If mankind was responsibel for 10% of the warming, that would ewuate to ~0.08C over 130 years, and future warming would be almost indistinguishable from natural. On the other hand, if it winds up being 90%, then we are in for real hot times.

Overfishing and overhunting are different issues, which need much more attention - not to mention the human land grab that is forcing other species to the brink of extinction.

The only poison released during burning comes from the mercury and uranium compounds in coal. Therefore, replacing coal should be our prime attack. Unless we can somehow clean all the exhaust emitted during burning. Then there are the issues associated with strip mining. These are tangible issues, which have ramifications. If carbon dioxide can be shown to be another bad actor in the future, then we should address that too.

Fact: CO2 levels are shooting through the roof due to human interaction (highest value since 20 million years). This is going fast, and it changes the ocean pH. Even if CO2 wouldn't hurt the climate, it hurts the food chain.

And then there is the question if 2°C warming is a good or a bad thing. In fact, the Earth doesn't care. Really. It would accept 10°C warming without a problem. It's what's ON the planet that cares. Climate change shifts what grows where. 2°C warming puts a desert where is now the biggest corn fields, changes precipitation patterns, raises the sea level. On a global level this is negligible, but billions of people will be influenced by this.

I mean why should I care, I live in a place that will be very pleasant even if the global temperature goes up two or four degrees. Greenland is celebrating the warming. But the majority of people doesn't. And since the planet IS warming (regardless of why), better prepare.

[FM75]

I continually find it hard to believe that the human induced GCC supporters fail to recognize that if they are correct, that the singular most important cause of the problem - far and away - is the size of the human population! (alas - no, not the growth)

Governmental policies to restrict energy usage address the second order factor, instead of the first.

Can religion/philosophy catch up with a couple of millennia of scientific progress?

To paraphrase the Bill Clinton slogan...

It's the population, stupid!

[PassedOut]

Report: Global Warming Didn't Cause Big US Drought

Quote

Scientists say the main cause of the drought in the nation's midsection was the lack of moisture that usually pushes up from the Gulf of Mexico.

More trouble from south of the border...

[onoway]

 PassedOut, on 2013-April-11, 15:47, said:

Report: Global Warming Didn't Cause Big US Drought


More trouble from south of the border...

It's the wall...you dont want the people you don't get the rain

[Al_U_Card]

 Gerben42, on 2013-April-10, 16:28, said:

Fact: CO2 levels are shooting through the roof due to human interaction (highest value since 20 million years). This is going fast, and it changes the ocean pH. Even if CO2 wouldn't hurt the climate, it hurts the food chain.

And then there is the question if 2°C warming is a good or a bad thing. In fact, the Earth doesn't care. Really. It would accept 10°C warming without a problem. It's what's ON the planet that cares. Climate change shifts what grows where. 2°C warming puts a desert where is now the biggest corn fields, changes precipitation patterns, raises the sea level. On a global level this is negligible, but billions of people will be influenced by this.

I mean why should I care, I live in a place that will be very pleasant even if the global temperature goes up two or four degrees. Greenland is celebrating the warming. But the majority of people doesn't. And since the planet IS warming (regardless of why), better prepare.

I am not sure that the recent "greening" of the biosphere could be considered to be hurting the food-chain. As for the effect of pH change on the ocean, that is also within natural variation so, maybe not so much. Cooling, OTOH is associated with drought and crop yield losses due to shorter growing seasons. Global influence as opposed to global catastrophe is quite a difference, especially when the money to be spent on adaptation is not to be wasted on pointless mitigation. (Especially when associated with banker-backed financial finagles like carbon credits and exchanges that are rife with all manner of fraud and chicanery.)

[billw55]

Quote

Scientists say the main cause of the drought in the nation's midsection was the lack of moisture that usually pushes up from the Gulf of Mexico.

So, they have discovered that main cause of drought was lack of moisture. Fascinating.

[Daniel1960]

 Gerben42, on 2013-April-10, 16:28, said:

Fact: CO2 levels are shooting through the roof due to human interaction (highest value since 20 million years). This is going fast, and it changes the ocean pH. Even if CO2 wouldn't hurt the climate, it hurts the food chain.

And then there is the question if 2°C warming is a good or a bad thing. In fact, the Earth doesn't care. Really. It would accept 10°C warming without a problem. It's what's ON the planet that cares. Climate change shifts what grows where. 2°C warming puts a desert where is now the biggest corn fields, changes precipitation patterns, raises the sea level. On a global level this is negligible, but billions of people will be influenced by this.

I mean why should I care, I live in a place that will be very pleasant even if the global temperature goes up two or four degrees. Greenland is celebrating the warming. But the majority of people doesn't. And since the planet IS warming (regardless of why), better prepare.

Yes, our planet will shrug off any temperature change. Life on the planet will change to accommodate, although I am not sure that the changes you listed will occur. Warming typically increases precipitation, enhances plant growth, and raises sea level due to glacial melting. Deserts would be likely to continue to shrink, as they have since the planet emerged from the most recent ice age. Any major climate shift will affect life - some may be for the better, others for the worse.

The ocean is a rather large buffer, and it would take much more CO2 to cause a noticeable pH change.

[Al_U_Card]

 billw55, on 2013-April-12, 07:11, said:

So, they have discovered that main cause of drought was lack of moisture. Fascinating.

That's "Climate science" ™ for you...

[onoway]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-April-12, 07:38, said:

Deserts would be likely to continue to shrink, as they have since the planet emerged from the most recent ice age.

http://en.wikipedia....Desertification One note out of the article:

The Sahara is currently expanding south at a rate of up to 48 kilometers per year

and another:
Desertification has played a significant role in human history, contributing to the collapse of several large empires, such as Carthage, Greece, and the Roman Empire, as well as causing displacement of local populations. end quote

How much present day desertification has to do with climate change and how much to simply abusing the earth is debatable but unpredictable shifting weather patterns make food production much more difficult, especially if the land is aleady under stress.

[blackshoe]

 billw55, on 2013-April-12, 07:11, said:

So, they have discovered that main cause of drought was lack of moisture. Fascinating.

The Gulf of Mexico is still there, and still wet. So why did the moisture not come north like it used to? Clearly something changed, even if only temporarily.

[Al_U_Card]

 blackshoe, on 2013-April-13, 07:11, said:

The Gulf of Mexico is still there, and still wet. So why did the moisture not come north like it used to? Clearly something changed, even if only temporarily.

Natural variation dependent on oceanic cycles (AMO, PDO etc.) much as in the 50s and the 30s. The dustbowl was exacerbated by agricultural practices but the drought was totally natural, as are all climate phenomena. Weather, OTOH, is local and highly dependent on those location circumstances.

[Al_U_Card]

Things that make you go "hmmnn"

Environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. wrote a superlative blog post yesterday. This is how it ends:
Misleading public claims. An over-hyped press release. A paper which neglects to include materially relevant and contradictory information central to its core argument. All in all, just a normal day in climate science!
Those of us who take the trouble to delve into the bewildering world of climate change soon discover a wheelbarrow full of questionable practices and sloppy research. That doesn’t invalidate the entire field, but it does give one tremendous pause.
If I thought the fate of the planet hinged on the work I was doing, I’d be bending over backward to meet the highest standards possible. I’d triple-check my math. I’d use widely recognized procedures – rather than making up new ones. I’d dot every ‘I’ and cross every ‘T’.
But as Pielke says, quite the opposite seems to be the norm in climate science. His post is about a practice called science-by-press-release. Last October, the reinsurance company Munich Re issued a press release that said its researchers had found evidence of a “climate-change footprint” in the financial losses associated with natural disasters.
Media outlets such as USA Today wrote up the story. Joe Romm, over at his ClimateProgress blog declared it a “seminal” piece of research and fell for its conclusions hook, line, and sinker. So did Theo Spencer, a senior staffer with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
You’d think that people claiming to have found evidence no one else has yet managed to locate would back up their claim with hard data. You’d think they’d submit the paper to an academic journal, navigate the peer-review process, and then announce their findings. But this was just another case of “trust us.”
According to Pielke, the study wasn’t readily available for outsiders to examine at the time the press release appeared. To this day, only the 12-page executive summary can be accessed on Munich Re’s website. The final page of that summary advises that the full 274-page document “was produced exclusively for clients of Munich Re” and therefore can’t be viewed by the general public.
A news story three months later reported that Munich Re’s researchers had, in fact, “submitted a paper” to a journal. That paper has now been published and Munich Re has issued a second press release.
In Pielke’s words:
As one looks a little bit closer at the public representations made by Munich Re about the paper and the paper itself, one quickly finds - as is all too common in climate science – that the strong public claims simply cannot be supported by the actual research, and the paper suffers from an obvious fatal error.
…The paper says nothing conclusive about attribution. It is not an “initial climate change footprint.”…In fact, the paper says much the opposite: attribution of losses to climate change was not achieved in the paper. [bolded added, link in original]
Pielke says the published paper fails in three significant ways. But the public is unlikely to hear about that. As he observed in a piece he wrote for the Denver Post last October, we are instead being fed a steady diet of climate misinformation.
Corporations such as Munich Re, activists such as Romm and Spencer, and sensation-seeking journalists are all to blame (see this Huffington Post piece and this Bloomberg Businessweek cover story).
The fact that Munich Re’s research hadn’t yet been published and wasn’t available for examination didn’t prevent the media from trumpeting its results.
Yet when a fully peer-reviewed study by Pielke and colleagues was published demonstrating that the financial damage associated with US tornadoes has actually declined since 1950, the media wasn’t interested. In Pielke’s words, there was “a complete blackout of coverage.”
Here’s a bit more from Pielke’s October op-ed:
Along with colleagues around the world, I’ve been studying climate change and disasters for almost 20 years…What we found may surprise you: Over the past six decades, tornado damage has declined after accounting for development that has put more property into harm’s way.
Researchers have similar conclusions for other phenomena around the world, ranging from typhoons in China, bushfires in Australia, and windstorms in Europe. After adjusting for patterns of development, over the long-term there is no climate change signal — no “footprint” — of increasing damage from extreme events either globally or in particular regions.

[Al_U_Card]

Models vs. Reality

[Daniel1960]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-April-17, 16:17, said:

Models vs. Reality

The problem is that most of the models were "verified" using the data from 1979-1998. The resulting predictions are now 0.5C too high, indicating that modelled predictions out to 2100 coudl be several degrees too high. Hopefully, rational thinking will prevail, and a more accurate scenario will be presented. This will probably play out in the science, but I am not too sure about the political arena.