Greenhouse gas discussion (tread carefully, be respectful)

Off-Topic (In the weeds/General Discussion)
1

The regulation thing, time is not kind to knee jerking me thinks. I am predicting that these things will change over time. Firstly for all the wrong reasons, secondly because they will be found to be not practical. And that is besides the point that the CO2 thing, in the future, may be proven to be a nothing burger.

Don’t now go and get all foamy at the mouth yet, give it some time. There are way to many questions and way to much money involved for the CO2 issue to be clear cut. And that is without all the censoring going on, let lone the fraud and firing of scientists… Many many articles in peer reviewed publications had to be withdrawn in the past, guess why? Because of fraud and manipulation. Just have a look at the whole low fat debacle, again don’t shoot me, we all supposed to be adults.

Normally regulations interfere in what people are doing, mostly but not always, because money is involved. The regulators think we as citizens are stupid and the elite class just think for everybody because they clever. But money are changing hands, none the less, and politicians are at the receiving end.

So then why is it a good thing to regulate ICE cars, and not trucks, trains, ships and airplanes and all industrial ICE? What about Gas turbines in utility plants and peaker plants? Or even just why regulate ICE? The disruption will take care of whatever needs to happen anyhoo…

Don’t, please don’t take this as anti Solar or EV. I am mostly currently self sufficient re Energy, on solar so tick. If there were an affordable new EV that is crash worthy, I would buy that right now.

Groetnis

1 Like
2

I work in the insurance industry AND DEAR GOD, THANK YOU FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND REGULATORS. Thousands and thousands of people have been screwed over by common practises which are no longer allowed. Sure, new loopholes are found, but in aggregate this works. Personally I would like to see people go to jail, but if it isn’t technically illegal, how do you do that? So plug the hole and move on.

Because you have to start somewhere. I can promise you the rest is coming, but probably on a 50y horizon.

(I don’t quite understand why you don’t believe that CO2 is an issue, but we can circle back to that later.)

Passenger vehicles have a disproportionate impact on emissions vs productivity gained. I.e. we spend a lot getting very little. A plane also spends a lot of CO2, but the reward is much higher than getting a bunch of wage slaves into their cubicles 5 days a week – and the alternative isn’t very clear. Same with trucking: the economic positive is very high, even if the cost is as well. So there’s your tradeoff.

We also learn from the poking the thing that is less likely to dump the economy into shambles. Imagine they wanted to do freight-liners first, but it doesn’t really work…

1 Like
3

Nope, we won’t be anything on that. I am not here to get into that, not now and not ever on any platform. Every person is entitled to their opinion, no matter what the real Science indicates and I am not here to persuade anybody of any viewpoint. The smart thing about the Laws of physics and Science is that it remains true, no matter the individuals opinion.

Groetnis

4

CO2 is just, as a debate, a sure way of getting a lock on the topic, or getting the ban hammer.

Groetnis

5

I’m sorry, but this jumped into my face … smacked me sideways. :rofl:
Make a statement, a few times, then refuse to debate it.

But I get why though. I do, it always goes sideways.

I know it becomes emotional, but only for some.
That the sciences are split, at least was split, less and less now though.
That some have lied for and against it all.
Those agendas are pushed.
That it has happened before. No one knows why really, maybe volcanoes, maybe a meteorite …
That storms are getting worse, droughts too, heatwaves and cold spells.
That it is cyclical.

I’ve been watching the debates for nearly 10 years now, the scientists reporting for and against, lately I’ve read about the market perceptions paid to be changed by big oil since way back, reports given to Pressi’s decades back, I’ve seen documentaries of the poles melting faster based on actual onsite research and measurements over decades, the immense deforestations and the effect, that a really big volcano erupting can cause more havoc than humans ever could.

The bottom line:
To be absolutely against it is wrong.
Absolutely for it is wrong.
Why, because we have no cooking clue about the full impact of it all … yet.
Maybe 100 years from now, we will have irrefutable facts.

But that something is off, things are not right.

I once emailed USGS.gov for fun after a Nat Geo article about why volcanoes and earthquakes are on the increase, a link to the weight on the poles decreasing. A few weeks later, I got a reply. No relation to the melting poles, the billions of tons meting into the ocean, nope, cannot affect the earth’s crust.

A few years later, another Documentary substantiated what the scientists said in the original article, there is a correlation now.

The key for me … who paid for the research to be done.

Anycase, as you said, we are not debating it, nor will it be mentioned again either. :grinning:

6

We’ve debated it before. I fully understand why he is hesitant, I even respect his refusal. This stuff gets emotional, people get angry, we really don’t have to do it. I personally have no problem… and I will gladly debate it. Mostly because I don’t mind being wrong, because in some Pascal’s Wageresque way, the consequences of being wrong (for me) is zero. Being right however…

The only opinion I hold fairly firmly, is that in something as important as this, the correct course of action to take while you are still collecting the facts, while you are unsure, is caution! Not abandon. That is the one place I find myself at severe odds with denialists (here I use the term I commonly see used… no malice intended). If we are in a place where thousands of scientists say different things, as I am told by such people, then given the gravity, the correct action is not to burn even more stuff. At least try to keep it on a level until we know for sure… right?

For the sake of getting this out the door, I’ll post the rest in a another post.

Edit: Also, I do not know if I speak for all the moderators, but I personally will never ban anyone because they disagree on climate matters. Do it respectfully, and there is absolutely no reason to. The only think that will get you smacked around here is when you do stuff that can get the operators in trouble, which mostly means saying anything that can be construed as an attack on race, gender, or religion. Doesn’t have to actually be, if it can be construed, we’ll either ask you to delete it, or do it ourselves, and really even then only repeat offenses will result in harsher action. We’re not a bunch of petty liberals here… :slight_smile:

7

Adulting is sometimes left behind when emotions get involved. The climate change thing is worse than politics and/or religion. Confirmation bias galore….

I am very critical and careful when saying anything on CO2. The only reason that gets in here is that all politicians predicate everything underpinning any lawmaking on climate change being fact, when indeed there are lots of unknowns. A climate model is not remotely the same as climate fact, whatever way they point in. Predictions vs reality really.

So my position is clear, no more on CO2 from me.

Groetnis

8

Something I would like to understand on the topic (because I like understanding things):
We seems to say that CO2 has a greater thermal mass than normal air. And it absorbs infrared heat better than air.
The earth isn’t the source of heat/energy (the sun is heating earth).
My logic tells me it would radiate the heat it absorbs from the sun both to the earth and back to space. In a sense acting as a buffer and resulting in less warm days and less cold nights.
But I can’t see how it raises the average temperature of earth since the energy source is still external to the atmosphere? (If it was an insulator it would result in earth cooling down and we’ll have a huge problem?)

1 Like
9

I would like to say some things about CO2… if I may.

First, I think it is important to acknowledge that CO2 is not in and of itself a bad gas. For all the stink people make about it, it is a part of our atmosphere, and we actually need it to be there. We’re part of an ecosystem, and again, for all the grandstanding some people do, human beings are also part of nature, also part of that ecosystem.

We need to get down off the high horse: Human beings produce carbon dioxide, along with the rest of the animal world. And that is okay, because the other half of the ecosystem, of which 80% is in the ocean too (!), can do something with that carbon dioxide.

Secondly, Carbon dioxide is preferable to Nitrous oxides. That is why VW was not allowed to make a Jetta that is even lighter on fuel, and was essentially forced to build a car that uses MORE fuel and makes more CO2… because the Nox is worse. Similarly, carbon monoxide is much worse than it’s borther. Not all greenhouse gasses are the same, and CO2 is one of the friendlier ones. Something can be done with it.

Third, what are we doing when we burn fossil fuels? Well, think about what fossil fuels actually are. They are the remains of animals and plants that lived a long time ago. The carbon in those organisms was sequestered and literally buried away… until we dug it up and burned it. That is what happens. We’re taking all the plant material that was ever on the earth, and essentially burning it at once.

This is fine as long as the other side of that ecosystem can cope. And to be fair, there is some evidence to suggest that plant life is reacting to the slightly higher concentrations, but then you must remember: Our species is also the one forever cutting down on that plant life.

For that reason, it seems fairly clear to me that if we keep drilling and digging and mining the last reachable bit of old plant/animal material… and burning it… that cannot be a good idea.

Fourth… yes, the earth is huge and the atmosphere is huge and the oceans are huge and the Amazon rain forest is huge (though it was once huger), but we also only need small amounts of rises in CO2 to have dramatic effects. We know this… this is emperically verifiable in a lab. Remember that news story of kids who died in a tavern? That was CO2… 2% concentration is enough to kill someone slowly…

So, my position is that you cannot summarily dismiss the climate-alarmists (again, that is the term I see thrown about, not meant to be derogatory). If you are unsure, the correct approach is caution, not abandon.

To bring this back to the discussion on EVs, for me this goes further than just climate. It’s also cleaner in precisely the area where many of us live, and have to breathe on a daily basis. It is quiet, in the areas where we live. Petrol exhaust fumes are known to be (very mildly) carcinogenic. And also… just imagine a world where our politics are not forever subject to people fighting about oil…

4 Likes
10

Wasn’t it due to carbon monoxide poisoning due to running a generator indoors? I might be wrong, haven’t read up on it in a while.

11

I have been around on forums plenty of years. I have been a moderator on the big DIY UAV forum for a number of years, no longer since a few years ago. I know plenty well how this goes, even on very technical forums. Even with the best meaning debate, participants will take exception, mostly due to said confirmation bias and Cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias

Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort we feel when our minds have two contradictory concepts at the same time, while confirmation bias is the tendency to give more importance to information that confirms our beliefs. In turn, this cognitive process makes alternative information to our way of seeing the world have less weight.

The social psychologist Leon Festinger suggested that individuals have a strong need for their beliefs, attitudes and behavior to be consistent with each other, avoiding contradictions between these elements.

When there is an inconsistency between them, the conflict leads to the lack of harmony of the ideas held by the person, something that often generates discomfort.

This theory has been widely studied in the field of psychology and can be defined as the discomfort, tension or anxiety that individuals experience when their beliefs or attitudes conflict with what they do. This displeasure can lead to an attempt to change behavior or to defend their beliefs or attitudes (even reaching self-deception) to reduce the discomfort they produce.

And this is why I have the view I do. Nothing at all to do with any member on here, nor the Mods.

Groetnis
PS: It’s not that I don’t talk about it, or think about it and it’s effects, but the debate always goes off rail.

2 Likes
12

It was a combination. They found methanol, but not enough to be lethal. They found CO, but again not enough to be lethal. The lethal component was actually the “good” CO2… also created by the running generator. CO2 is heavier and settles at the bottom. A drunk kid, lying down… will suffocate, while the adults may not notice. At least, that is what I gathered from the various news pieces.

13

Exactly what you said here. If the CO2 wasn’t there, all the heat would radiate away. But instead, some is absorbed by the CO2, of which some is then re-radiated towards the Earth instead of away.

The sun pumps a massive amount of energy into the Earth continuously. ALL of that energy must in turn be removed from the Earth on an on-going basis, or there would be a net-positive inflow of energy - which means a continuously increasing temperature.

Decrease the efficiency of that outward radiation, even the smallest amount, and the Earth must heat up.

1 Like
15

But you also decrease inwards radiation equally. It is just a buffer, not a diode (for lack of a better word). Which is why my logic tells me it has to even out day-night temps, but cannot increase average temps. It isn’t a source of energy.

Surely there can’t be unless the CO2 is a source of energy? It is just a “middleman” between the sun’s energy and earth’s surface.

16

Now you see… THIS is the debate I want to see. The technical…

… way of debating it. Which is why I am so glad we stole all the best people from Mordor back in the day…

17

It is a diode (although a very leaky one).

It is nearly transparent to high frequency radiation (eg light), which gets absorbed by (mostly by the ground), and reradiated, mostly as low frequency (infra red) radiation, which is absorbed by CO2.

So CO2 allows the vast majority of inbound solar radiation through, but absorbs a portion of the outbound radiation.

So yes. It is indeed a dioide in terms of overall energy flows.

In fact, that is pretty much the definition of a greenhouse gas - an energy diode, just like the glass in a greenhouse.

2 Likes
19

Okay, so maybe I can explain my understanding a little differently:
What you have done is you’ve put an empty battery (that store and radiate IR heat/energy) in the atmosphere (CO2), it’ll store some of the sun’s energy to fill up its capacity, after which point it can’t absorb any more. At night, the battery will discharge, in the day it will charge. A battery doesn’t produce energy.
So just like your solar panels is the only thing producing energy at your house, the battery is just a buffer.

But, perhaps I should think about it differently: Is the light from the sun transformed from UV to IR after it hits the earth? And then some of the IR light is absorbed by the CO2 and radiated back to earth/space later. If that is how it works, then I can see why it would heat up the earth. Is this the way you understand the sun’s light to work?

*Edit: Okay, I’ve re-read your bit and get it (it is like my last paragraph). Then the few remaining questions are:

  1. Wouldn’t the CO2 in the ground (oil, gas, etc.) every now and then be released back into the atmosphere through catastrophic events, like volcanic eruptions? Aren’t our way of putting it back slowly but surely better?
  2. Even if the catastrophic events is better, what is the optimal amount of CO2 to have in the atmosphere? Do we take it all out? That might not be a good idea. So where do we stop?
1 Like
21

This is not my area of expertise, but my kids are doing work on our solar system and the planets. From what I heave heard, Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite being further from the sun, because of atmospheric conditions… it has a thick CO2 atmosphere.

Of course that is not all it’s got… there are plenty of other issues making it somewhat inhospitable, but it is a data point.

22

Think of a potato in a microwave with some other food. They all receive the same energy, but the potato somehow manages to hold onto it until it is on the roof of your mouth and then lets it all out in one go.

SCIENCE STILL DOES NOT KNOW WHY! Well, that’s clearly not true :slight_smile:

Increased CO2 (in the atmosphere, not the potato) means that the cooldown cycle at night does not happen as fast as it used to. So tomorrow you have a hotter initial temp. Same radiation hits it (season dependent) and the cycle continues. If winter is long enough, it balances out, but if we absorb more than we shed, we’re in trouble, assuming it’s on a human timescale.

At least that’s how I understand it.

Edit: That’s one part of the typical debate: the CO2 is increasing. The 2nd part is usually if we caused it, and the 3rd is if it matters…

23

To answer what I’ve read.

1a) Volcanoes are really bad, the big ones, for a volcanic winter, the earth cools down due to particles in the upper atmosphere blocking the sun’s rays, cooling the earth, and affecting plant and crop growth.
1b) The release of methane, which is worse than CO2, and I’ve read a LOT of methane is contained in permafrost, which is melting due to global temps increasing releasing the frozen methane. Rather burn it for energy, than release it.
EDIT: Methane release also goes hand in hand with oil production, extraction, and pumping.

Just in:
A report has laid bare the depth of the climate crisis. According to estimates, the global average temperature in 2022 will be about 1.15C above the pre-industrial average – meaning every year since 2016 has been one of the warmest on record.

“The messages in this report could barely be bleaker – all over our planet, records are being shattered as different parts of the climate system begin to break down,” Prof Mike Meredith, from the British Antarctic Survey, said. “The loss of ice is especially alarming as the impacts on people, societies and economies are huge. If this doesn’t focus the minds of the global leaders at Cop27, I don’t know what will.”

2 Likes