The largest forcing factor on Earth’s climate, is showing signs of instability. I need smarter people to help me with the math. AMOC

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-worl...ge-study-finds/

Thermohaline circulation is a part of the large-scale ocean circulation that is driven by global density gradients created by surface heat and freshwater fluxes.

As far as I understand, this is more of an effect than a cause of more global warming.

But it will really mess up a lot of season weather -- particularly in Southern/Northern Europe.

We're going to see a lot of crazy things start happening over the next few decades as long-existing equilibriums break down.

Probably so. It's happened before. No reason it isn't going to happen again. There sure isn't anything we can do about it. Might as well try to find ways to change a hurricanes course.

Sure -- if we approach the problem with zero critical reasoning skills then we can ignore it....

Is it critical thinking to interrupt and manipulate a normal, natural cycle? Seems to me that's the hubris of Man thinking He knows best. (not snark, true, general philosophic musing)


Also, I'm kinda looking forward to the freeze tornadoes from the movie '2012'.

Except that it is not a natural cycle...

It isn't?
If it has happened before, it seems it is.
The only "unnatural" thing would be any adjustment in the timeline of the cycle.

Again, not snark, philosophic musing.

It isn't?
If it has happened before, it seems it is.
The only "unnatural" thing would be any adjustment in the timeline of the cycle.

Again, not snark, philosophic musing.
[/quote]

Haha..

"This has happened once before" does not mean "every time this happens is a natural cycle".

Here's a video of a natural Tsunami:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pkivjHnD_s

Tsunami's happen all the time, and thus this one is certainly natural...

If Humans, would have never done underwater nuclear bomb testing in the 1980's would that have helped stabilize things today.
( It was better to blow them up underwater than above.)

Nuclear bombs are relatively small on the energy scales of what we're messing up.

The excess energy that is heating up the Earth is equivalent to 5 Hiroshima bombs **per second**

https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/earth-is...rricane-sandys/

I'm sure the answer is out there, but I currently don't have time to search through everything that came up when I googled it.

But I am curious what effect switching to EVs would have on the environment from a climate change stand. Since the biggest carbon emissions come from fossil fuels for electricity, transportation and heat.

What are the calculations of switching to Solar and EVs as far as helping solve the issue?

29% of fossil fuel emission is in the transportation sector (including cars, trucks, and planes)

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

If I recall, planes are about 2% of the total -- so it is mostly cars and trucks. Trains are negligible.

Of course - to determine the effect of switching to EVs, you have to figure out where the power comes from. You actually do get some benefit to the climate even if the electricity comes from a coal plant (huge plants are more efficient than small car engines).

However, if you really want to get rid of that 29% -- then you need to generate the power from nuclear/hydro/solar/wind, etc.

In principle - EVs can help -- rather than harm -- the solar push. If you use a smart charging system, which for instance charges cars when solar power is plentiful, and doesn't charge the cars at night -- when the amount of power on the grid will be lower -- then you can help offset the variations in solar power.

Think about it all you want. It's not so much a matter of ignoring it as it is accepting it.

As with the hurricane, rather than spend a bunch of time trying to alter the course and send it out to sea, I think it best to spend time on figuring out ways to best survive the storm.

The world seems a bit light on practical thinking.

I love how fast the conservative gaslighting on climate change has switched from:

a.) There is no climate change (1970-2010)
b.) Humans don't cause climate change (2010 - 2015)
c.) Humans are causing so much climate change that we can't possibly stop it -- so might as well keep burning! (2015 - Present)

I'm certainly glad people didn't go that direction when it came to Hitler.



I had no idea that critical thinking means that we should throw our hands up in the air and say there's nothing we can do to help.

I am not saying we are causing it. I don't think that at all, or to be more on point, not changing things very much. I am sure there would be less stress if there were a few billion less people, and that might be where all of this is headed.

Even if we are a big reason, I doubt we can do anything to change it to any degree. I'd say if we did cause climate change, the damage is done and the climate is going to do whatever it is going to do.

Just a question....if we went total caveman, how long would it take to clean things up? How long before the ocean currents stayed normal, assuming we even know what normal is?

I think we give science way more credit than earned. There is way more it doesn't know than does.

Maybe I gave you too much credit with my timeframe of gaslighting -- it appears possible to use all three excuses within the same 4 paragraph post....

Especially when the answer to his question was kind of answered in the air over China right after they shut down production at the start of COVID (and then started it back up again).

Start throwing a bag of trash in your back yard every week and see how long people wait until they start saying your back yard is a dump. It seems people think that same idea doesn't hold true for the rest of our environment.

Those who claim man isn't a huge impact on our environment wish to deny the third law of physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I think it is better to be a bit quantitative:

Since 1850, around 400 trillion kilograms of fossil fuels have been burned. This is an easily verifiable number -- the oil and coal industries will gladly calculate it for you. We just count up all the coal and oil we have extracted and used.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-
climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from about 300 ppm to 400 ppm. Again - this number is easy to calculate, any undergraduate chemistry lab has the capability to measure CO2 concentrations.

The total mass of the atmosphere is 5 x 10^18 kg. Again this is easy to measure because we know the pressure (15 psi) and temperature and composition of the atmosphere -- and as you learned in high school, PV=nRT.

So the addition of 100 parts per million of 5x10^18 kg = 500 trillion kilograms.

It's very clear that the CO2 emitted from oil and natural gas is a significant fraction of the total change in CO2 over the last 170 years. The contribution of humans simply cannot be negligible.



Some notes about obvious simplifications, I made -- which don't matter but will cause people to complain:

1.) When you burn C to produce CO2, the CO2 weighs more than the fuel (because you add the O2 from the atmosphere. The exact ratio depends on the fuel (Coal and natural gas are different). But roughly, this is a factor of 2 or so -- thus 400 trillion tons of fuel produces about 800 trillion tons of CO2.

2.) The 400 ppm number is volumetric (i.e., counting the number of atoms of CO2 vs. atoms of O2 and atoms of N2). CO2 is heavier than either O2 or N2 -- so you should make an adjustment for this mass difference before multiplying 400 ppm * 5e18 kg. This is about a factor of 1.5 or so -- and it goes the other direction, and sort of cancels the factor of 2 or so from above.

3.) We only have really good CO2 measurements (at the same location in Hawaii) since about 1950. So maybe you can go back and calculate the numbers from 1950 until now, instead -- you will get the same result.

Me too. I musta played hooky the day that was taught in whatever grade I was in.

"Exxon Mounts Feeble Walkback After Lobbyist Caught on Camera Telling Truth About Anti-Climate Agenda"

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/po...ctions-1192057/

Watch the video - it's pretty amazing.

Very concerning to watch, and why we need to be planning for what we are going to do when it happens.

It's happened before, it will happen again.

That says a lot.

Be careful with statements like that, it screams irresponsibility.

Western Europe is about to get chilly.

I don't think so. I have no problem with doing what we can. I just don't think we can, but hey, maybe I am wrong, just like you might be wrong.

Maybe we can install 15,000 stadium sized pumps in to the ocean depths connected to long cables attached to floating solar panel platforms and pump the water around the globe to keep things circulating. Probably not, but who's to say?

Just to be clear here.

Do I think humans have a negative impact on nature? Yes.

Do I think humans are the primary reason for global warming? No.

Do I think the planet undergoes changes over thousands of years? Yes?

Do I think we can stop Mother nature? No.

I just wanted to clear that up. Thanks.

It does. It is directed to those who feel we had little to do with it and those who think being reactive rather than proactive is the best and only plan of action moving forward.

If it is already happening, it too late to be proactive in that sense. I am being proactive in saying we need to plan for the coming crisis.

I'd say at best all we can do is possibly slow the process since many feel we aided in getting the wheels turning sooner. Now that it is rolling, I don't think we can stop it.

The problem is us humans think in hundred year terms because that is basically a lifetime. That hundred years in terms of the earth cycle is like a day or two.

If it isn't slowed and quickly, all the planning in the world to "prepare for it" won't help you. As of now, already Miami is considering a 20 feet high sea wall and many are saying even that won't help.

Federal government considering building sea wall to protect downtown Miami from storm surge

https://wsvn.com/news/local/miami-dade/f...om-storm-surge/

At this point the best way to mitigate the damage is to do everything we can to stop adding to the problem.

So - like -- we should build solar/wind/nuclear capacity, replace fossil fuels - develop more electronic vehicles, and impose a carbon tax to offset industry and airfare right?

Or -- do you mean "things that we can do to slow the process -- so long as it has absolutely zero effect on the way that middle-aged American conservatives live their lives."

I am past middle aged unless I live to be maybe 110 years old, so, not to sound selfish, and be totally honest, I suppose there is a part of me that doesn't care.

Part of that is because I don't think we are doing as much to hurt as you think and as I said before, I don't think there is much we can do to change it.

I will be in the market for a new vehicle in the next few months. I had really settled on a Subaru Outback, but now think a RAV Hybrid is how I am going to go.

I could say it is because I want to do my part, and it is certainly a consideration, but again, to be totally honest, it is more about better gas mileage.

If a EV fit my needs, I would buy one of those, but they don't fit my needs. I want to drive 400-450 miles a day and not have to hunt around for places to charge the car, and the car has to be bigger than the bumper car at the carnival.

Luke, don't get me wrong, I am not against electric cars and greener methods.

I am sure some on here are, but how many are now driving electric cars and are off grid with solar or wind power at their home, or at least semi off grid?

Don't get mad at me. I'll go with the program when the program is feasible. You might call it convenient....well that too, and I am not the only one so get off the high horse trying to make it sound like the earths changes are my fault.

I'm curious as to what it takes to mine the metals/ores to make the batteries and how the old batteries are disposed of and where all the electricity will come from to charge these batteries and how semi's will become electric suddenly, and how much it will cost to build the charging stations and how combines and tractors will fit into everything and how the use of plastic will change and much solar power will be needed for everyone to run the a/c's and how we'll heat our homes and businesses and a million other things.

And then, will other countries do the same.

Lithium is strip mined. It isn't a deep bore mining process. I would guess to get all of it, some fracking is probably involved, but I am not sure on that.

As for disposal, it has to go somewhere.

I believe battery recycling is actually fairly effective (you can extract the lithium and then use it to make new batteries).

There will definitely be some local effects due to Lithium strip mining -- and the dumber environmentalist groups will try to prevent every mining effort. However, there is plenty of Lithium in the world, and it is not very deep underground.

Also - while I think battery technology is imperative for things like cars -- I think it is sort of a dumb way forward for large scale energy distribution. Molten salt storage from solar plants and hydro pumping stations seem far more straightforward for evening out energy supply over the course of the day.



Out of the major countries - the US is one of the worst polluters per capita:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?most_recent_value_desc=true

Also, the more that any country invests in the technology - the cheaper the technology becomes and the more ubiquitous it becomes. Solar is already among the cheapest energy sources -- and this is because of the R&D and early purchases that were made when it was less cost effective.

Glad to hear it -- and i never said it was "your fault".

However, too many people -- who will say they want a "green economy" in the abstract -- end up being against every effort to make the economy greener -- because there are (and will be) actual costs for any change significant enough to have an effect. We need real macro-level changes in our energy infrastructure.

Thanks.

My only concern is that I have been around long enough to know that there is a tax on everything that we do. That is why I might be a bit slower in my desire to make head on changes until we have a better idea of what those taxes might become. I am not sure we know that yet....and to be honest, maybe we won't know until we are well in to it.

When we first started pumping oil we were ground drilling with simple pumps that weren't all that deep. At first when we drilled we hit oil and the well was a bust because we wanted water.

Now we are drilling ocean floors. I don't think we imagined that when Quaker State first started pumping oil in Pennsylvania.

A big study came out on this just this week:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22585...ycle-assessment

From construction through the lifetime of the vehicle, electric vehicles release less fossil fuels than diesel engines.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22585...ycle-assessment

They even break it down by country -- because the biggest effect is whether or not you are drawing the power for your vehicle from a coal/natural gas plant. But even if you are - the EVs are still cleaner by about 25%. For the average US consumer, EVs are cleaner by about 60%.

Good read, thanks for posting.

When do you think nuclear fission becomes a viable, mainstream energy source? I’m thinking the over under is 2030, I’ll take the under.

Do you mean fusion? Fission has been a reliable power source for 50 years (and it could have provided for all our energy needs if we didn't freak out about radiation)....

Fusion is a bit harder -- the first "research reactor" with a positive output is expected to come online in 2025... But it is probably a long time until we get to commercial plants - and even longer before it becomes cheaper than solar (which is currently the cheapest power you can get -- and continuing to get cheaper fast).

Fusion, we need to lay the foundation of green energy transfer.

A few disconnected thoughts:

1.) Fusion will someday be a foundation of an energy economy -- it can provide the power of fission without the long term storage issues....

2.) This is probably still several decades off. Fusion power is hard. Continuous fusion power is even harder.

3.) If we want unlimited carbon free power now -- fission is the way to go... It will be a long time before fusion is as efficient or reliable.

4.) Nuclear fission is clean - and the safest power that you can purchase (once you factor in the safety dangers of installation).... Environmentalists made a terrible choice in cutting nuclear power -- given that the result was more coal and oil.

5.) I used to be 100% on team "nuclear fission" - I am less so now. Why? Solar power is getting cheaper and cheaper -- and methods for storing solar power are also scaling up. Given the political hurdle of building new nuclear plants -- solar might be the way to go over the next decade.

6.) There are better ways to save long-term solar power than batteries -- and we should be exploiting them.

e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018...ble-energy.html

Which is, of course, being stopped by some silly environmental group that is worried about fish...

I think fusion and green energy are interchangeable terms. I heard 2030 is a realistic time frame for fusion?

The byproduct of fission was never a long term solution. You are correct with photovoltaics and wind power, expect a boom in that sector shortly.

What do you mean by this? Green Power encompasses fusion -- but solar power, wind power, hydro power, fission, are all green?



That seems wildly optimistic. ITER is the first large-scale research plant that is expected to generate positive power. However, they are hoping that it can provide positive power for like, a few minutes per day -- so they aren't going to use it to actually provide useful power to anybody.

It is supposed to start running in 2025. They broke ground on the facility in 2013. Even if it works, the idea that companies could scale it up - build useful power plants (that provide energy continuously) within 5 years, is a pipe dream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER



I honestly don't know why not. There are very good procedures for storing radioactive byproducts in glass - placing them in stable caves underground, etc. You of course, risk a leak that makes some small region uninhabitable -- but honestly that's a small price to pay compared to global warming. (There are many regions of 100 square miles in this world that nobody lives in).

I think his use of the term realistic is more about knowing it is viable and can move forward on a larger scale.

We know nuclear works, but it takes 10-15 years to build the things. Even if we all out in that direction it would probably take 40-50 years to pretty much eliminate coal fired plants. Maybe longer.

At least to this point, there are only so many engineering and construction companies licensed to build the things. We can't have some half ass start up building the things. You are still looking at companies like GE, Westinghouse, Bechtel.

For a young person, training in the construction trades to get hired by one of those or similar companies might be a good option rather than going in to debt with a standard college degree. A lot of these plants will be going up over the next 50 or so years. That is a career of solid work.

No doubt it isn't for everybody. If you don't like working in extreme weather conditions, having gritty hands for your life, packing your lunch every day, or having to move around to follow the work, it's probably not your best option.

I can definitely see your point. I think the only hope for acceleration from my viewpoint is the exponential advancement of technology, but I agree it’d still be a long shot.

I know I’ve railed on some companies before in the defense sector, but I have to say, when I meet some of their engineering and physicist teams and look at how their minds work, it’s crazy. Definitely some brilliant minds in that sector. I imagine it’s the same with a lot of commercially based technological companies. Way above my competency. Here’s hoping…