Weird weather?

[Zoar]

There is a tipping point, where there will be no chance to stop runaway global warming, and that is when the Earth's permafrost starts to rapidly melt with a subsequent release of CO2 and Methane.

It has begun, but is it still early enough to reverse?

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/11/thawing-permafrost-matters/

Valid question. And yes it is a major concern.

Being in denial about it is not addressing it and claiming Nuclear is the ONLY real answer is wild postulating from a clearly ultra dogmatic position.

We do know that decreasing WASTE and ABUSE of resources helps to clean the environment and reduce emissions. COVID helped to prove this when the air quality improved in many places around the world when we decreased the production of pollution.

I see it as we can have economic health and environmental health equally. They can co-exist. I think that is smart thinking. I will not feed the argument that we can ONLY have one or the other.

Decreasing WASTE is a key ingredient. More effort and discussion needs to be on that and NOT all on how we produce energy when so much energy consumption could and should be decreased due to collosal waste.

Also, I have made my own power at my home (and on my food truck) for 16 years with solar power. I intend to get two electric vehicles and also charge them predominantly with my home power generation system. Those who contend that electric cars MUST use grid power / dirty power / nuclear power are not open minded in their thinking nor are they thinking of the possibilities of what we can do in the future where we improve how we do things verses doing them in poorly thought out ways. I know that one of the best things I did was make my own power. It is not that hard nor that expensive. There is a great deal of bad information and naysayers who actually may be wrong about making our own power and solar power and decreasing waste.

 

[boathealer]

There is a tipping point, where there will be no chance to stop runaway global warming, and that is when the Earth's permafrost starts to rapidly melt with a subsequent release of CO2 and Methane.

It has begun, but is it still early enough to reverse?

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/11/thawing-permafrost-matters/

You can't really know that it will even continue. Its all guesses and paid-for research data. Quote directly from your link (my emphasis in red):

"Many Questions Remain

While the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report acknowledged that permafrost is warming, its climate models did not account for these emissions when making climate projections.

That’s because ultimately, how much the planet warms from thawing permafrost will depend on how much carbon is released, how quickly, and whether it is in the form of CO2 or methane. But to get a fuller understanding of this phenomenon and to be able to make more accurate climate projections, scientists need to be able to better assess the vulnerability of permafrost to thawing and its many consequences for the Arctic and the planet.

“Scientific research is so important in understanding,” said Anderson. “We just can’t predict from what’s already known because we’ve never had permafrost thawing previously to this extent. It’s only through more careful scientific research that we can answer these questions.”
​

Again, MY opinion, https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=815102&postcount=28

 

[bayview]

We cant fix schools in our own neighborhoods why does anyone think we can fix climate?

It seems people like to get worked up about big remote and possibly impossible to change things while ignoring what is right in front of them. Poor education not enough jobs etc.

 

[MurrayM]

Greetings,
Mr. AC. NOT going to comment on government(s) but will comment on nuclear power.
Yep, great source of energy BUT!!!! My first and major concern, barring accidents and insurrections is: What the heck do you do with the waste which will be deadly hazardous for thousands or tens of thousands of years?

Taylor Wilson (at 14 years of age he successfully built a nuclear fusion device he started in his garage) has been pondering this issue. Seems plausible?

 

[MurrayM]

...You can't really know that it will even continue. Its all guesses and paid-for research data.

Got any links proving this?

I try to link peer reviewed articles from known/recognized scientific sources.

There is a long history in science, where the accumulation of data over time, and the checking and rechecking of both the data and the information derived from them, produces a self correcting environment.

In other words, you can trust science to be working towards truths.

Can you link to sources which prove science is results predetermined paid-for research, or is this just something you feel?

 

[Zoar]

Why can't we talk about making our schools better AND talk about ways to protect our environment? I don't understand why we cannot do both.

In my community we have made great strides at making our school better AND we have take actions to reduce waste & move to solar power. We did three things at once.

 

[boathealer]

Got any links proving this?

I try to link peer reviewed articles from known/recognized scientific sources.

There is a long history in science, where the accumulation of data over time, and the checking and rechecking of both the data and the information derived from them, produces a self correcting environment.

In other words, you can trust science to be working towards truths.

Can you link to sources which prove science is results predetermined paid-for research, or is this just something you feel?

Um, I just quoted your own link - "We just can’t predict from what’s already known....."

I didn't mean to imply that the report you linked is skewed due to funding - I was stating that, in general, the majority of them typically are --- especially when someone is trying to convince a mass of people of something or a "cause".

If you think that every scientific "report" is trustworthy then I have a bridge for sale that I'd like you to have a look at.....

Its all good.

 

[MurrayM]

Um, I just quoted your own link - "We just can’t predict from what’s already known....."

I didn't mean to imply that the report you linked is skewed due to funding - I was stating that, in general, the majority of them typically are --- especially when someone is trying to convince a mass of people of something or a "cause"...

You didn't read my post #65, and you're dodging my question

 

[boathealer]

You didn't read my post #65, and you're dodging my question

Yeah, my Mom used to tell me that all the time.... Oh, well.

Hope things are going well for you and your Sundowner....

 

[MurrayM]

...Hope things are going well for you and your Sundowner....

Yup

Still no storm anchor, so we are limited to 'weather windows' these days. Had a SE storm last night and the northerly wicked cold outflow winds will be starting soon. Luckily, having a job will soon no longer be an impediment to maximal trawler enjoyment!

N37 is still the #1 dream boat

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. MM. Interesting talk but the guy was all over the map IMO. Some great ideas but no "solutions".

 

[AdamC]

Greetings,
Mr. AC. NOT going to comment on government(s) but will comment on nuclear power.
Yep, great source of energy BUT!!!! My first and major concern, barring accidents and insurrections is: What the heck do you do with the waste which will be deadly hazardous for thousands or tens of thousands of years?

That is a common misconception. There are several different types of nuclear reactions that can be used to produce power. They vary in the number of and type of by-products that are produced. Historically, thermal neutron reactors were used for most power production because of the success this type of reactor had in the nuclear navy. However, these reactors have the problem of inefficient fuel use (uranium), potential for steam explosions and relatively large mass of long half-life by-products. The alternative type (fast neutron) of reactors use thorium rather than uranium as fuel and produce fewer and shorter-lived by-products which are much easier to deal with and decay in hundreds of years rather than thousands. These reactors were demonstrated as feasible in the 60s and 70s but were never widely used in the US because of "inertia" in the industry and some technical difficulties. Fuel re-processing is also a necessary part of the thorium approach but this was banned by president Carter as a "show" of nuclear non-proliferation. Other countries did not follow suit so we only hurt ourselves. Fuel reprocessing alone would enable reduce the volume of our current nuclear waste pile by over 95%. Modern fast breeder designs are on the drawing boards and ready to build.

But don't get me started! We could be fossil-fuel free this way if we were really serious about it.

Read about Thorium fast breeder here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
and molten salt reactors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

 

[sunchaser]

Good thing Manhattan isn't still buried under a two-mile thick glacier.

Ah, the good old days when Chicago was overlain by ice a mile thick, only a few brief tens of thousands of years ago. Why did the glaciers leave that area long before man was there? Yup, global warming which continues to this day.

Currently the earth is in a few million year funk as to being very cold, but change is on the way man or not. Inevitable rising temperatures and CO2 levels will spur the next Jurassic Park era.

Just a mere 250 million years ago earth's temperatures and CO2 levels were very high having just peaked from a long before cooling and then warming cycle. Then until this current era, cooling took place. Climate change is real, whether we're here or not.

What this general subject seems about is first, man caused changes to air and water quality. Many of these are being addressed by the world's governments. Things that man and governments don't want to easily accept as our own are open cooking fires in China and India, over population, de-forestation and man caused California wild fires.

Secondly, follow the money. Tens of $$ billions in grants, companies, university chairs, elections and equipment sales are at the root of this new "climate change religious phenomena" (Thanks Delfin).

RT has hit upon a very valid point. The earth's furnace of never ending climate change is the sun. No money to be made though or political careers to be established by blaming the sun. But lots of progress and money is being made by using the sun. Things like crops, meat, winds, energy via panels and my passive pool warmer all rely upon the sun's nuclear generated power.

The sun will light the way, it is a big nuclear reactor. Oops, nukes are bad except in China of course where they can't build them fast enough.

 

[sunchaser]

Got any links proving this?I try to link peer reviewed articles from known/recognized scientific sources.

All to often posted links are cherry picked to support one's point of view. For many years I worked for a very bright Rhodes Scholar PhD. He beat me up all the time to support my positions and findings with cogent thinking, not an easy task. If I couldn't do it right at first, keep on trying.

 

[boathealer]

Luckily, having a job will soon no longer be an impediment to maximal trawler enjoyment!

Early CONGRATULATIONS on your impending retirement!!!

 

[RBack]

Currently the earth is in a few million year funk as to being very cold, but change is on the way man or not. Inevitable rising temperatures and CO2 levels will spur the next Jurassic Park era.

Just a mere 250 million years ago earth's temperatures and CO2 levels were very high having just peaked from a long before cooling and then warming cycle. Then until this current era, cooling took place. Climate change is real, whether we're here or not.

Secondly, follow the money. Tens of $$ billions in grants, companies, university chairs, elections and equipment sales are at the root of this new "climate change religious phenomena" (Thanks Delfin).

RT has hit upon a very valid point. The earth's furnace of never ending climate change is the sun.

Sorry, but I didn't really get it!
Is it just a random rant or is there actually an attempt to refer to some science?
The "religious phenomena" sentence makes me believe it's the first option, but I can't really be sure. And there's not really any scientific relevance in the sun reference either, so... I don't know.

 

[AusCan]

Many people cannot fathom how we can successfully change without hurting their lifestyle, so they are in denial about the need for change. It's basic human nature.

It can be done, and it doesn't have to hurt. Our state (South Australia) generates up to 100% of its electricity needs by solar. The majority of this is rooftop solar on residential housing. This is the cheapest form of power station. It costs much less than coal, nuclear or natural gas power stations. Unlike 10-15 years ago, it requires no subsidies.

Yes- there is still a need for base load power when the sun doesn't shine and the wind isn't blowing, but the base load power can also be generated by solar. We have the largest solar battery in the world, and are just about to start producing hydrogen from PV electrolysis.

The biggest problem is that some people have difficulty accepting the change. Jobs will be lost in coal mines, but an equal number will be gained elsewhere.
I've spent much of my life working in the oil & gas industry, but now I'm shortlisted for a position as an "Innovation Engineer" running the new hydrogen plant.

Many people in the oil & gas industry deny that burning fossil fuels has a negative effect. I can understand this because their jobs are under threat.

My climate change views come from a different angle. For many years working as a well test supervisor, I flowed wells and burnt the oil and gas in a flare pit. I've seen how one burning well would turn that flare pit into an inferno of molten lava. It is certainly powerful sight. I then imagined if we could pipe ALL the world's oil & gas wells together into one big outlet, we could aim it at mountain ranges and melt them down within a few days. We could melt down continents. Forget the CO2. How can releasing this much energy NOT have some far-reaching effects?

 

[MurrayM]

Greetings,
Mr. MM. Interesting talk but the guy was all over the map IMO. Some great ideas but no "solutions".

Maybe, but this company has a toe in the regulatory door for a molten salt reactor in New Brunswick:

https://www.moltexenergy.com

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. MM. Oh, the technology is out there and some of it works quite well BUT it's too expensive for most businesses or at least it would cut into profits and the shareholders don't like that. As per the norm...follow the $$.



Now, I'm talking first world here so if a better source of energy is too expensive in the first world, there isn't a hope in Hades that any third world country is going to make any changes any time soon.


Mr. AC. Thanks for the reminder about Thorium. I'd completely forgotten about that technology. I shudder to think what will happen when my brain is entirely gone....

 

[MurrayM]

Hi RT,

Nice to know people are out there squirrelling away on alternatives.

Brings to mind a Saudi oil minister quote (something like) "The Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stones."

 

[Hippocampus]

The economic argument doesn’t hold water. Last year we moved into a zero footprint house. We knocked down a house built in 1928 to build it. HVAC is geo. All appropriate facing roof has solar. Grid pays us for the electricity we sell them. Costed 17% more to spec the house with a HERS rating better than 95% of existing housing. Pay off for solar, and geo 4 years. Spent more for soft costs (zoning, and engineering to get by restrictions impose due to being in a public park and grandfathered). Maintenance trivial beyond cutting the grass. . Service cycle multi generational.
People are illogical and emotional. I’m going from rags to power. I have a diesel car. But I built a zero footprint house. However my total energy budget is way greener. If everyone made these small incremental changes it would have a positive impact without decimating the economy or quality of life.
For the big ticket items (farming, transportation, housing etc.) the technology already exists. It nice to see Volvo has started to deliver their cars on sail freighters. Not sail assist but rather true sail using engines only when docking or undocking. That Amazon is shifting to electric trucks. That shipping is decreasing truck dependence and increasing ship and rail miles. There’s even inroads on factory farming and our diet is shifting away from feed lot finished beef. This is being done during an administration not supportive of the MMCC consensus. Why? Because it makes economic as well as environmental sense to shift away from a hydrocarbon dependent society.
A concern not mentioned here is the huge amount of “frozen” lumps of methane scattered on the sea floor along the US eastern continental shelf.
We need mitigation measures as well as slowing and eventually stopping our contribution to the problems. Head in the sand approach just doesn’t cut it.

 

[boathealer]

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-54714692

 

[sunchaser]

Now, I'm talking first world here so if a better source of energy is too expensive in the first world, there isn't a hope in Hades that any third world country is going to make any changes any time soon.

+1

 

[SteveK]

The economic argument doesn’t hold water. Last year we moved into a zero footprint house. We knocked down a house built in 1928 to build it. HVAC is geo. All appropriate facing roof has solar. Grid pays us for the electricity we sell them. Costed 17% more to spec the house with a HERS rating better than 95% of existing housing. Pay off for solar, and geo 4 years. Spent more for soft costs (zoning, and engineering to get by restrictions impose due to being in a public park and grandfathered). Maintenance trivial beyond cutting the grass. . Service cycle multi generational.
People are illogical and emotional. I’m going from rags to power. I have a diesel car. But I built a zero footprint house. However my total energy budget is way greener. If everyone made these small incremental changes it would have a positive impact without decimating the economy or quality of life.
For the big ticket items (farming, transportation, housing etc.) the technology already exists. It nice to see Volvo has started to deliver their cars on sail freighters. Not sail assist but rather true sail using engines only when docking or undocking. That Amazon is shifting to electric trucks. That shipping is decreasing truck dependence and increasing ship and rail miles. There’s even inroads on factory farming and our diet is shifting away from feed lot finished beef. This is being done during an administration not supportive of the MMCC consensus. Why? Because it makes economic as well as environmental sense to shift away from a hydrocarbon dependent society.
A concern not mentioned here is the huge amount of “frozen” lumps of methane scattered on the sea floor along the US eastern continental shelf.
We need mitigation measures as well as slowing and eventually stopping our contribution to the problems. Head in the sand approach just doesn’t cut it.

Kindly estimate the cost difference of the same property built to current methods. Having recently replaced a furnace to a 95% efficient one that alone cost about 20% above standard. The costs here at least are high enough making new unaffordable for the majority, let alone adding these excellent upgrades. Is "Costed 17% more to spec" what it cost above standard construction?

 

[O C Diver]

The economic argument doesn’t hold water. Last year we moved into a zero footprint house. We knocked down a house built in 1928 to build it. HVAC is geo. All appropriate facing roof has solar. Grid pays us for the electricity we sell them. Costed 17% more to spec the house with a HERS rating better than 95% of existing housing. Pay off for solar, and geo 4 years. Spent more for soft costs (zoning, and engineering to get by restrictions impose due to being in a public park and grandfathered). Maintenance trivial beyond cutting the grass. . Service cycle multi generational.
People are illogical and emotional. I’m going from rags to power. I have a diesel car. But I built a zero footprint house. However my total energy budget is way greener. If everyone made these small incremental changes it would have a positive impact without decimating the economy or quality of life.
For the big ticket items (farming, transportation, housing etc.) the technology already exists. It nice to see Volvo has started to deliver their cars on sail freighters. Not sail assist but rather true sail using engines only when docking or undocking. That Amazon is shifting to electric trucks. That shipping is decreasing truck dependence and increasing ship and rail miles. There’s even inroads on factory farming and our diet is shifting away from feed lot finished beef. This is being done during an administration not supportive of the MMCC consensus. Why? Because it makes economic as well as environmental sense to shift away from a hydrocarbon dependent society.
A concern not mentioned here is the huge amount of “frozen” lumps of methane scattered on the sea floor along the US eastern continental shelf.
We need mitigation measures as well as slowing and eventually stopping our contribution to the problems. Head in the sand approach just doesn’t cut it.

I suppose when building million dollar houses that's true. Many parts of America are building under $250K. The cost of adding solar to the roof and geothermal in the ground alone could add more than additional 30% to the cost.

While Geothermal has a very reasonable payback period and is a good longterm investment, for some parts of the country, solar is still mostly feel good. I looked at solar for my Florida house and concluded investing the equivalent amount of money and paying my $100 a month electric bill was a far better investment, and that was with federal tax credits. Maybe 10 years from now when panels are more efficient, economy of scale lowers the price, and economy of scale lowers the installation costs, I'll do it.

Ted

 

[psneeld]

Plus there are places where you can't be off grid.

Sure its a choice in where you live but if thats where you want to be, you are restricted in some green trends.

 

[Hippocampus]

Prior panels on our prior house were polycrystalline. Current house mono crystalline. Prior had SREC 1 payment schedule. Current we are a free standing producer and paid less. Current tax incentives are much less as well. Once you run the numbers owning your panels rather than a leasing agreement makes sense. Both in 2008 and now the math holds and experience confirms panels are revenue positive. Both houses are in New England. Don’t understand why Florida is different.
We wanted as low as possible maintenance house. We also wanted it to be 135mph wind rated. We wanted it to be self sufficient, monitored and fully functional in our prolonged absences while off cruising or traveling. Our kids utilize the house in our absence but didn’t want them to have to do anything beyond leaning the security systems. Current technologies allow the house to take care of itself. Concerns about break in, flood, black outs, fire etc. are all mitigated. It’s our last house so the pay me now or pay me later attitude was operative. We also never want to be in a nursing home nor assisted living facility. It was to meet those requirements that the dollars added up. Bathrooms and kitchens are where you blow the big money. Add in the possibility of wheelchair access and single level living and you see the money drain out. We have 3 bedrooms but all our living is on the ground floor.
Understand single family houses make no sense when considering this issue. Having your ceiling and floor inside the envelope of the structure alleviates many HVAC losses. Heating or cooling an apartment efficiently is easier. City living makes for much more efficient transportation given the absence of car dependency. Know we are blessed to be able to live in a freestanding single family house. Understand we are lucky to be able to stay in the same house for decades. But even due to work or other issues you’re moving every 5 years or so once you amortize cost in and return out as well as annual expense solar and geo do make sense. From earlier in life know all to well it’s expensive to be poor. This is an obstacle as regards housing stock. This is a recreational boating site. With a change in gestalt think this isn’t the obstacle many think for the gentle reader.

 

[O C Diver]

Prior panels on our prior house were polycrystalline. Current house mono crystalline. Prior had SREC 1 payment schedule. Current we are a free standing producer and paid less. Current tax incentives are much less as well. Once you run the numbers owning your panels rather than a leasing agreement makes sense. Both in 2008 and now the math holds and experience confirms panels are revenue positive. Both houses are in New England. Don’t understand why Florida is different.

My second home is in Maryland where state tax credits and utility incentives ($1,000 credit on your electric bill) made Geothermal's short payback period even shorter. Florida doesn't have income tax and thus doesn't offer that credit. FPL (Florida Power and Light) is doing massive investments in Solar, so no incentive to build your own. There working on a plan to allow you to buy into their solar, very convoluted at this point.

For me, the payback needs to be less than 10 years. My electric bill is under $100 per month. Using $100 per month times 120 months, my solar investment would have to be under $12K to meet my investment criteria. They're not even close. In addition the state has restrictions on carry forward credits and being paid for energy by the power company. The last part of the equation is roof life expectancy. The best shingles are 20 years because of the Florida sun.

I reroofed my house18 months ago. After looking at electric solar, I concluded that replacing the solar pool heating panels on the South facing roof at around $3,500 was a far better investment. Very quick payback period and 85 degree water in February is very nice to lounge in during cocktail hour.

Ted

 

[Hippocampus]

Thanks for the explanation OC.

 

[Hippocampus]

The consensus is for MMCC. Post #20 is correct in intent but not specific.

“it will live or die depending on whether the rest of the scientific community agrees or not “.

All theories are held to be true until analysis or experiment demonstrates fault. The usual standard is utilizing the null hypothesis with a Pearson R or equivalent of 5% for biologic sciences. Physics and engineering often want a higher probability standard. . In other words this is more likely to be true than not with a probability of 95% is commonly used Agreement has doesn’t come into play. Once you have a single example where your null hypothesis is not borne out you either have to modify the theory or throw it out and have a paradigm change. People have this concept that science gives you black and white - yes or no. That’s not true. Science gives you probabilities. Accuracy of the probabilities are under constant stress testing. Either by direct experiment or by utilizing the theory to predict future events. So far all stress testing of MMCC theory has borne out. The overwhelming evidence is that it’s correct.there is no evidence it is incorrect. All this crap about ulterior motives is total nonsense as if modeling based on MMCC was incorrect that would be demonstrated and the oil industry would be the first to make you aware. Earlier in this thread you can see even they accept MMCC as the likely reality.
You can see this thread is deteriorating into belief against science. I would again ask the outliers to please read the multiple reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change and the source documents. If you can find error in those reports it would be worthy of discussion.