A different way to think about climate change

[Nobodybusiness]

I spend a lot of time in the physics community, mostly astronomy and astrophysics. I talk to professional astronomers, amateurs, physicists, etc.. Some really smart people.

There's an idea in astronomy in the hunt for signs of alien life.. its referred to as "The Great Filter"

From Drake's equation to the Fermi paradox, the people who study this stuff are beginning to think they might have an idea of what's going on.

For those who aren't familiar, in simple terms, the Drake equation attempts to ascertain the likelihood of aliens based on a range of variables like the number of stars, chances of a habitable planet, etc. The numbers that the Drake equation returns are astounding.. so much so, Fermi looked at the results and asked "If there are so many aliens out there, where the hell is everyone?"

Enter "The Great Filter".. A concept that an evolving intelligent species will run up against an obstacle which is likely to prevent their survival or further evolution.

Current thinking is that it is global warming that does it.

By the time a species recognizes the danger, its too late to change their society to fix it.

More from war than Climate change.
We occupy 2% of the earth’s surface.
We are fleas.
We change very little.
Krakatoa change more than we did in the entire industrial Revolution.

 

[MurphyGuy]

More from war than Climate change.
We occupy 2% of the earth’s surface.
We are fleas.
We change very little.
Krakatoa change more than we did in the entire industrial Revolution.

That Krakatoa comment is actually fairly accurate. Too bad we can't go back 140 years and take the knowledge we have today with us.

Annual CO2 emissions from all the volcanoes on Earth = About 200 Million Tons
Annual CO2 emissions from human activities = 24 Billion Tons.

Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?

Does one major volcanic eruption generate more climate-altering gas than that produced by humans in their entire history?

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Batvette]

Its an opinion article, not peer reviewed research.. still interesting. I had to look up NF3 and wiki says about the same things in general, but their numbers vary wildly and are much lower in the estimations of what makes it into the atmosphere.

The numbers don't add up to anything even remotely considered significant. Translate even the article's (exaggerated?) numbers into tons of CO2 equivalent and it still works out to something ridiculously small for the returns we get and the amount we already generate.

Its a good article, maybe it will bring light to the issue and force the manufacturers to be more careful with the emissions. A peer reviewed analysis will be needed before an opinion is formed. It would be foolish to form an opinion based on an opinion article.




While methane is technically a greenhouse gas, something like 20 times more powerful than CO2, it is also broken down in the atmosphere relatively quickly. This is why we look for methane on exoplanets.. While there are natural sources, life is the main producer of it, and without life continuously replenishing the supply in the atmosphere, the methane disappears pretty quickly.

Sorry, I screwed up the rest of your quoted reply and can't figure out how to get it back. Concerning the ship breaking, while I am not familiar with your story, I am well aware that politics and the bad policies the politicians come up with, can screw up good science policy. This is nothing new and I'm sure you could probably come up with lots of these stories.

The NF3 is not a problem.. it COULD become a problem, but it is not a current problem.. and its being brought to light so that we can correct the potential issue. Now, if they do nothing about it in the future and ignore it for the next decade, then it becomes an issue.

My solar panels have a 30 year warranty, not 25... that is a significant difference and will change the math significantly. Furthermore, that 30 year figure is just the warranty.. the panels will most likely be generating power for far longer than that.

The article is from yale university and contains data from a peer reviewed research paper from the scripps institute of oceanography.

 

[MurphyGuy]

The article is from yale university and contains data from a peer reviewed research paper from the scripps institute of oceanography.

I'm not calling it fake news, I'm saying that the interpretation of the data obtained by the research needs a closer more comprehensive look.

I have no concerns about the factual information contained in the article.. but if you run the numbers, convert to CO2, it is currently a very small amount of CO2 in the bigger picture.

The real questions are: 1) Can it be prevented 2) If not, are there alternatives ?

Like I said, its a good article.. I certainly had no idea what NF3 was or that it could become a big problem...

 

[BMcL]

One little "fun fact" they forget to tell you :

If we went back to the stone age and promised not to burn any wood for heat or cooking, we could only
eliminate 4% of the CO2 that's emitted.
Because 4% is all we contribute to the total CO2 ! Quite pointless to worry about IMHO.
But if it makes you think your life has purpose, go for it and be happy !

Below is a document from the International Panel on Climate Change :

 

[MurphyGuy]

One little "fun fact" they forget to tell you :

If we went back to the stone age and promised not to burn any wood for heat or cooking, we could only
eliminate 4% of the CO2 that's emitted.
Because 4% is all we contribute to the total CO2 ! Quite pointless to worry about IMHO.
But if it makes you think your life has purpose, go for it and be happy !

Below is a document from the International Panel on Climate Change :

View attachment 79005

Its almost comical how you won't believe the covid science, the global warming science, and probably a dozen other things..

But you get on a computer, created by science, to connect to a network, created by science, to log onto a website, also created by science, to then proclaim you don't believe the science.

F'ing stupid doesn't even describe it.. and I find it hard to believe that you could possibly be that utterly stupid...

The only possibilities are 1) Utterly stupid 2) Russian Troll

When seeing the stupid garbage people post in forums like this, I think there are just some people in our society that should have been swallowed.

 

[BMcL]

Its almost comical how you won't believe the covid science, the global warming science, and probably a dozen other things..

But you get on a computer, created by science, to connect to a network, created by science, to log onto a website, also created by science, to then proclaim you don't believe the science.

F'ing stupid doesn't even describe it.. and I find it hard to believe that you could possibly be that utterly stupid...

The only possibilities are 1) Utterly stupid 2) Russian Troll

When seeing the stupid garbage people post in forums like this, I think there are just some people in our society that should have been swallowed.

Our resident expert speaks !
Let me clue you in. You are NOT in a "super-majority" when you emotionally cling to your climate religion.

Most scientists think the world is in a natural warming period, and they admit they aren't sure if mankind is a major factor or not.

The ruling class wants you to think you have the ability to save the planet (you don't)
so you will willingly pay high taxes to control the weather (LOL).

But I'll play along. Please tell us, the one who mocks God, what you would do to save the planet ?
What will turn this imagined disaster around ?

Mankind only contributes 4% of the total CO2 every year :

 

[BaronVerde]

a lot of nonsense

There is no doubt about human influence on climate. No "scientist" thinks the world is in a natural warming period, such a thing is not taking place. The emission of human caused CO2 with the onset of industrialisation and atmopsheric CO2 rise resulting in a sharp bend in the temperature curve are in perfect alignment. We are not in 1990s any more, back then things were somewhat unclear, and some voices were not convinced. But since the mid 2000s that has changed.

Again, this is not about natural variations, of which a lot exist and which are quite well understood, this is about a sharp rise due to human activity, there is no natural process that explains the curve. I can give you a primer because I have studied geoscience, but since all data is published and freely available to everyone (in contrary to a "ruling class that wants us to think", what a piffle), I spare me the time. Also, it'll take some knowledge in geoscience, as well as math, physics and chemistry to deeply understand what's going on. For that we have pop-science and national/international organisations to condense publications for a broad public understanding.

This is sound science, peer reviewed and published.

 

[svetz]

...Mankind only contributes 4% of the total CO2 every year...

Considering how often this has been debunked as harmless I'm surprised you're still beating that poor dead horse.

 

[BaronVerde]

The article is from yale university and contains data from a peer reviewed research paper from the scripps institute of oceanography.

The article is from Yale Environment 360 whitch is an independent journamlism organisation. And it points to a source that has possibly not been taken into account. It is, as @MurphyGuy said, not a peer reviewed article, so it is strictly spoken not quotable with scientific rigour. It points to a source that might not have been taken into account appropriately yet and does not cast doubt on what's been published so far, if that was the intention.

Got to reiterate that almost no serious scientist doubts human induced climate change. Maybe one can find somebody somewhere claiming they is right and all the world is wrong and we shall all soon see, these guys exist in any discipline. To avoid, stick to the sources and peer reviewed work is what I always say. If it is too complicated (which is no shame at all), go to pop science outlets or the journal's editorials and front pages.

There is of course, because this is part of the scientific method, constant discussion and shifting of modelling and interpretation as new and more data comes in. This is a global discourse. Laymen/women/other are not fit enpugh to to use these discussions, that focus on certain well defined aspects, as a means to ridicule the whole picture. The most usual one of these is confusing weather and climate, going down to such simple assertions as "it is cold here rigth now, so there can't be global warming". Which, of course, is a humorous remark at best.

But were in the right space here (solar power) to contribute a little bit to a transition for the better, using our built-in play instinct

 

[Batvette]

The article is from Yale Environment 360 whitch is an independent journamlism organisation. And it points to a source that has possibly not been taken into account. It is, as @MurphyGuy said, not a peer reviewed article, so it is strictly spoken not quotable with scientific rigour. It points to a source that might not have been taken into account appropriately yet and does not cast doubt on what's been published so far, if that was the intention.

Got to reiterate that almost no serious scientist doubts human induced climate change. Maybe one can find somebody somewhere claiming they is right and all the world is wrong and we shall all soon see, these guys exist in any discipline. To avoid, stick to the sources and peer reviewed work is what I always say. If it is too complicated (which is no shame at all), go to pop science outlets or the journal's editorials and front pages.

There is of course, because this is part of the scientific method, constant discussion and shifting of modelling and interpretation as new and more data comes in. This is a global discourse. Laymen/women/other are not fit enpugh to to use these discussions, that focus on certain well defined aspects, as a means to ridicule the whole picture. The most usual one of these is confusing weather and climate, going down to such simple assertions as "it is cold here rigth now, so there can't be global warming". Which, of course, is a humorous remark at best.

But were in the right space here (solar power) to contribute a little bit to a transition for the better, using our built-in play instinct

That would be an objective observation if alarmists werent constantly pointing at a week of hot summer days, or a particularly bad hurricane, or wildfire, and blaming climate change for it.
I make no claims of any degrees in scientific fields, but it doesnt take a degree to observe that most of the alleged mitigation efforts so far have had little to do with reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, and are more focused on global socialism agenda. Why else would IPCC literature be beating the drum about carbon equity, and climate justice?
The idea that we should all bow to those guided by logic and scientific objectivity, doesnt match the reality that most involved with activism and legislature, are ideologues with multiple agendas.
Perhaps you can explain to us how we would mitigate a problem caused by human industrialization... With programs that industrialize more humans?
Look at what was funded by the Paris Accords.

 

[Batvette]

The article is from Yale Environment 360 whitch is an independent journamlism organisation. And it points to a source that has possibly not been taken into account. It is, as @MurphyGuy said, not a peer reviewed article, so it is strictly spoken not quotable with scientific rigour. It points to a source that might not have been taken into account appropriately yet and does not cast doubt on what's been published so far, if that was the intention.

Got to reiterate that almost no serious scientist doubts human induced climate change. Maybe one can find somebody somewhere claiming they is right and all the world is wrong and we shall all soon see, these guys exist in any discipline. To avoid, stick to the sources and peer reviewed work is what I always say. If it is too complicated (which is no shame at all), go to pop science outlets or the journal's editorials and front pages.

There is of course, because this is part of the scientific method, constant discussion and shifting of modelling and interpretation as new and more data comes in. This is a global discourse. Laymen/women/other are not fit enpugh to to use these discussions, that focus on certain well defined aspects, as a means to ridicule the whole picture. The most usual one of these is confusing weather and climate, going down to such simple assertions as "it is cold here rigth now, so there can't be global warming". Which, of course, is a humorous remark at best.

But were in the right space here (solar power) to contribute a little bit to a transition for the better, using our built-in play instinct

Bizarre that you would expend effort to attack the source rather than confront the issue. Are you asserting that NF3 is not a dangerous greenhouse gas, that isnt released into the atmosphere when solar panels are made?

 

[svetz]

...Are you asserting that NF3 is not a dangerous greenhouse gas, that isnt released into the atmosphere when solar panels are made?...

Are you asserting solar is bad because of it? If so, that's another beating of a dead horse and addressed here.

 

[Batvette]

Are you asserting solar is bad because of it? If so, that's another beating of a dead horse and addressed here.

Sheer speculation and assumptions hardly make it a dead horse.

 

[BaronVerde]

Perhaps you can explain to us how we would mitigate a problem caused by human industrialization...

I would just contribute my share as a humble citizen.

This touches more of politics and social science than natural science. Geoscience can deliver the data and explanations of effects and observations and how they intermingle, can model and explain nature. Policymakers make something out of it, or not. For that, the IPCC was founded.

The consequences of climate change have been laid out in the IPCC's shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP). These are based on published work up to 2020, and probably go too short from a mere geoscience point of view, in how much area goes out of human habiitability and which yet unaccounted for effects (not because they are not known but because they are difficult to quantify with scientific rigour, like methane release, glacier retreat, changes in circulation patterns, ...) contribute as positive or negative feedbacks.

If you have specific questions about well defined effects or observations from natural phenomena, I can try and point you in a direction of where to look. But mind you, earth dynamics are a broad field.

gb

 

[svetz]

Sheer speculation and assumptions hardly make it a dead horse.

Peer-reviewed links in the referenced post aren't speculation and there are over 400 papers looking at the full GHG lifecycle from solar.
Others will hopefully see it for what it is, some truth mixed with falsehoods and propagated to sow confusion.

 

[Batvette]

Peer-reviewed links in the referenced post aren't speculation and there are over 400 papers looking at the full GHG lifecycle from solar.
Others will hopefully see it for what it is, some truth mixed with falsehoods and propagated to sow confusion.

"But lumping all solar panel manufacture in with thin-film manufacture is disingenuous. Thin film is mostly for flexible panels and as there are far more LED screens it's doubtful the majority of the GHG comes from the solar industry.

I saw nothing regarding the usage of NF3 on normal rigid solar panels and as it is an added (and expensive) cost without knowing more I wouldn't assume that NF3 is released from the production of all solar panels. "

Sounds like speculation and assumption.

So youre saying its a FACT that NF3 is NOT USED in rigid solar panel production, AND you have absolute data on what is released in flexible panel production?

 

[Batvette]

I would just contribute my share as a humble citizen.

This touches more of politics and social science than natural science. Geoscience can deliver the data and explanations of effects and observations and how they intermingle, can model and explain nature. Policymakers make something out of it, or not. For that, the IPCC was founded.

The consequences of climate change have been laid out in the IPCC's shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP). These are based on published work up to 2020, and probably go too short from a mere geoscience point of view, in how much area goes out of human habiitability and which yet unaccounted for effects (not because they are not known but because they are difficult to quantify with scientific rigour, like methane release, glacier retreat, changes in circulation patterns, ...) contribute as positive or negative feedbacks.

If you have specific questions about well defined effects or observations from natural phenomena, I can try and point you in a direction of where to look. But mind you, earth dynamics are a broad field.

gb

You could have saved yourself a lot of obfuscation efforts and just admitted youd rather not answer the question.
Ive been around some very intelligent experts in a few fields, including meeting with one of the worlds leading cosmologists.
One thing they have in common, is the ability to explain things in a mannner that laymen can grasp.
So if youre trying to appear qualified at something here, not seeing it.
The emporer has no clothes and alarmists never want to recognize this.
The "mitigation" efforts so far are oriented around penalizing industrialized countries but allowing 3rd world countries to pollute with impunity. Alarmists dont have a problem with China having more GGE emissions than the US because their per capita emissions havent caught up with ours.

How is this solving climate change?

 

[Shale MacGregor]

Just like the gretta left crazies there are right crazies that deny climate change but you seem to think that just because the right is not moving on any of the ideas the left is coming up with it means that the right is denying climate change.

Amen to crazies all around.

I think the problem with the left crazies vs the right crazies are how they impact those who do not have the time, inclination, or ability to research and understand science.

If we set as a given that climate change is happening and that at the very least human-kind is contributing towards it (to what degree and to what end is part of the discussion), then the question becomes who is doing more damage.

Left crazies convince a portion of the left that climate change is real, right crazies convince a portion of the right that climate change isn't real. Where are we left?

Due to the difficulty/expense of carbon sequestration (human driven) and the allure of cheap power and better quality of life, it is a tough argument to sell, not just across generations but across countries as well. Most of the world powers have already bootstrapped themselves using fossil fuels, but now that they see a danger they want to essentially oppress the growth of those other countries.

In general, burning up a bunch of taxpayers money to encourage green projects has definitely gotten peoples attention. The question remains where is the balance and at what point do these technologies have to stand on their own before getting off the subsidized teat, and primary question is which of these are worth subsidizing.

 

[svetz]

Sounds like speculation and assumption.

So youre saying its a FACT that NF3 is NOT USED in rigid solar panel production, AND you have absolute data on what is released in flexible panel production?

As that post says, over 400 papers examining the GHGs from panel manufacture concluded they are far better than alternatives. That is more than speculation and assumption. It's fact that NF3 is not mandatory in panel manufacture. Yes, it is true NF3 was used in some thin-film production, but that was minor compared to LCD display production.

It is great people took action and it is now recognized for the harm it causes. But it is disingenuous to claim all solar panels are bad because of NF3, or that they continue to be bad. Not saying China doesn't need monitoring, their CFC history proves they do. But they are being monitored and any products made with them should be banned. The good news from the post is it looks like, from the concentration plateau, the release has stopped or at least significantly slowed. The bad news is the half-life is ~650 years so what's there is there and will be there for a long long time, you're absolutely right that NF3s are bad.

What's actually speculation and assumption is that all solar panels are bad because of NF3. Where's your recent proof, that contrary to the agreements countries have signed to eliminate NF3, that all solar panels are still being created with them? Without that proof, why is saying all panels are bad because of NF3 anything more than the hysterical propagation of false news aimed to make people hesitate to get PV panels?